The Instigator
Undebatably_Superior
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Corycogley77479
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,465 times Debate No: 5640
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Undebatably_Superior

Pro

This resolution is undeniably correct in saying that "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people."

Before I begin, I offer the following definitions:

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
Morally: from a moral point of view
Permissible: that can be permitted; allowable
Innocent: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless

All defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Contention 1 - Respect for autonomy means we respect consent.
An established moral principle which the law usually sanctions is that "No wrong is done to one who consents." This allows a doctor to put someone through a painful surgery, or a tattooist to give someone a tattoo without it being a criminal act - so long as the other party reasonably agrees. Respecting other people means allowing them to decide for themselves what harms to risk or suffer in return for what they prize. For those who share this ideal of voluntariness, rooted in both Kantian moral philosophy and the English utilitarian tradition of which Mill is representative, a person's consent to be killed for his own good or for the benefit of others will render it morally permissible to kill them.

Contention 2 - The right not to be killed is not absolute.
Even if one does not consent to being killed, there are many ways that taking their life may be morally permissible. Ordinary human beings have a powerful moral claim against their fellows not to be killed and, under certain circumstances, to be saved from death or serious harm. The scope of that right is not, of course, unrestricted. For example, it arguably does not protect innocent people who threaten others or who would be killed by the removal of what threatens others, should those in danger, or third parties who wish to assist them, use necessary lethal force to eliminate the threat. That right not to be killed is also alienable. Unjustified aggression may forfeit its protection. An example: (hate to use the cliche Hitler.. but it gets the point across) One would argue that Hitler had no respect for human life and therefore, nobody should respect his human life. Our judicial system supports this claim by holding a death penalty in certain states or the national law of self defense. However, this resolution is not talking about something that extreme. It talks about killing an innocent. One may be innocent by not actually doing anything wrong or killing a man, but our judicial system also supports the thought that threatening another is almost as bad. So, if a man as good as the pope threatened to kill another, his lack of respect for another's life would show others to lose respect for his.

Contention 3 - Examples don't lie...
In the event of 9/11 happening again, would you honestly refuse to let the government shoot down a plane? Everyone on the plane is already certain to die. You can either kill 60 innocent people and save 2000 and a building and prevent all the repercussions that followed, or you can defend the 60 citizen's lives and watch the event happen as you refuse to do anything.

Thank you for taking the time to read this argument. I will be looking forward to this debate.
Corycogley77479

Con

I will start by presenting my case and then attacking my oppenents case.
-----------------

In affirming the resolution, pro and the judge will rationalize the death of an individual or individuals in the name of the "greater good." With the idea that death protects us and is morally permissible for our survival, government leaders or other leaders will be able to use this resolution as a smoke screen to justify any of their actions that lead to death.

Value: Morality

Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution.

Observation 1: Kill – to deprive of life; to put to death
THUS, THE ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION ENDS THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE AGENT OF ACTION RATIONALIZES THAT IT IS NECESSARY

Observation 2: Morally permissible – allowed due to standards of right behavior
THUS, THE AGENT OF ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION MUST INVOLVE A HIGHER POWER, SUCH AS A GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THE WORD PERMISSIBLE IS DEFINED AS ALLOWED. THE WORD ALLOWED IMPLIES A HIGHER POWER CONDONING IT.

Observation 3: The resolution states "to save the lives" – It does not say what the lives are being saved from.
THEIR LIVES COULD BE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER OF EXTINCTION BUT THEY COULD ALSO NEED SAVING FROM AN "ENERGY CRISIS", "A RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY", OR "AN ECONOMIC CRISIS" THAT A DEATH WOULD BE ABLE TO SAVE. THE AFFIRMATIVE DOES NOT EVEN HAVE TO CLAIM THIS RATIONALIZATION TO BE VOTED DOWN; GOVERNMENTS WILL CHOOSE TO USE THIS RESOLUTION IN THIS WAY BECAUSE HUMANS NEED TO RATIONALIZE THEIR ACTIONS.

Observation 4: I only try to use examples to prove my point, not impose hierarchy

Contention 1: Mass Death

The government can choose any individual that "needs to die." This can be based off race, class, religion, or any factor that makes the individual undesirable to the higher power(s). This mindset quickly spills over to ever area of life: EXAMPLE – the government decides a poor person is a burden to the society so his death will prevent us from starving and being given a disease and having our money stolen by him. There is no escape from the target – a man cannot change his race, can't magically get rich, or change any other factor governments can use to discriminate. The worst part is the majority doesn't have to win – the institution in power will win. Take for example if the higher institution ‘needs' to save 40 people's lives. The higher power kills a "crazy poor man" to save their lives. This, according to the resolution, would be morally permissible. They then repeated this action 4 hundred thousand times – or whatever number they choose. They would be using this resolution to justify their actions: they did nothing wrong. They only "kill[ed] one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people."

AT: My opponent does not uphold morality because taking the lives of individuals and the massive amount of death pro causes is immoral

AT: My opponent does not access my criterion because he is not discussing individual's power over their own lives – and only reinstates a higher institution as being the supreme power

AT: Contention 1
1) C/A observation 2 - resolution
2) He makes no connection between "wrong[s] [being] done to one who consents" and the resolution – this contention is entirely useless
3) The resolution does NOT state that the agent of action will RESPECT people rights to self government/independence; autonomy - "independence" - and being part of a social order (government, society) contradict greatly. As my case explains – allowing a higher power to kill members of society as they see fit destroys huge amounts – if not all – independence within society
4) Now evidence is given that the individuals will consent to their deaths; self sacrifice cannot be assumed
5) It is impossible to know if consent is given by the individual
6) IT is impossible to know the level of what the individual consent to – even if a few individuals consent to their personal sacrifice, they may not consent the outcomes (often unknown) of their actions. Thus, wrong is done upon that individual. (Harvard Law Review. http://www.jstor.org...)
7) Victimless crimes prove the law of society (a higher power) is not based on individual consent – obviously people have given themselves permission to take illegal drugs, walk around naked, and speed in traffic situations
8) Some higher powers do not give certain people the right to give their consent – thus, consent cannot be given with every individual, limiting the topic and making for an unfair debate. (http://www.associatedcontent.com...)
9) Causing some one pain is illegal in very rare instances (only when someone has too much money and sues someone else for annoying them) where as homicide is illegal in most cases (exceptions http://www.nolo.com...), and the exceptions are not based of consent
10) My contention upholds "the greatest good" as the least number of people will have to die – there is no reason to make people feel obligated to sacrifice their lives

AT: Contention 2
1) This contention is only defensive – it only explains exceptions to the first
2) It is precisely this justification of "innocent people who threaten others" that leads to the mass death explain in my contention. The agent of action will abuse this power in an immoral way.
3) The decision maker must look to more options then simple death vs. death
4) The resolution does not talk about guilty parties – simple the choice between an innocent individuals lives (Enemies of the Nazis) and the innocent masses (German citizens – to explain with your example…)
5) TURN: A higher power/leader (pope) cannot even be justified in killing an innocent person without loosing respect. This argument negates his ENTIRE case (the pro side) because it shows it is inherently not allowed/respected/permissible to kill or threaten to kill another individual
a. The resolution does not talk about killing the person threatening/killing individuals: obviously the person committing homicide is not innocent
6) He states no connection between respect and morally permissible
7) Everything – eating for example – threatens our lives but such an action is not seen as just as bad as killing an individual
8) A person that intentionally kills an individual is not innocent

AT: Contention 3
Example[] you offer [is] flawed - 9/11:
1) The terrorist high jacking the airplane are not innocent, under his definition. The resolution is not concerned with killing evil/non-innocent people.
2) Everyone on the plane is not certain to die – the people on the plane could take control of the plane or at least divert its path from running into more harm; the assumption that death is inevitable only leads to more unnecessary death.
3) My observation 3 states that the resolution does not force a death vs. death mindset – reinstating this in an example is only another may pro tries to reinforce the necessity of death in society
4) Repercussions following the decision will happen now matter what: America would still go to war with the country/group responsible.
5) The effects of the action of making death necessary can be worse then the action of stopping the event – C/A my contention
6) The best way to prevent such a scenario is to stop the terrorist/guilty party from forcing such a decision in society – allowing the mindset that we can stop a problem once it arises leads to more deaths then were necessary
7) There are more options between destroying the plane and letting it ram into a building. The act of binary thinking in problems makes us assume that killing individuals in life is inevitable – it is not. There are always multiple ways to solve a problem
8) Inaction is what Pro accepted before such an incident arouse because they did not prevent such a
Debate Round No. 1
Undebatably_Superior

Pro

"In affirming the resolution, pro and the judge will rationalize the death of an individual or individuals in the name of the "greater good." With the idea that death protects us and is morally permissible for our survival, government leaders or other leaders will be able to use this resolution as a smoke screen to justify any of their actions that lead to death."
In some cases it may seem irrational and unfair. However, I am putting forward examples in which it would be undeniably permissible. And if one ends up in a case where it is undeniably permissible, one should be allowed to act without his morality being judged. If you say it is never permissible, then when one ends up in a situation where it would be, the man would be stuck in a tough place and could not act for the sake of his morality.

"THUS, THE AGENT OF ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION MUST INVOLVE A HIGHER POWER, SUCH AS A GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THE WORD PERMISSIBLE IS DEFINED AS ALLOWED. THE WORD ALLOWED IMPLIES A HIGHER POWER CONDONING IT"
Wrong, morals are individually set. It may be an established moral that incest is wrong, but to some there is nothing morally incorrect about it. And I don't know of anyone who asks the government if they may commit the act of incest before actually committing it.

"The resolution states "to save the lives" �€" It does not say what the lives are being saved from."
"to save the lives of more innocent people." It says it's saving the innocent people's lives. Meaning it will keep them from facing death. If it meant that it was saving them from something other than death, the resolution would have been stated differently. Almost anyone would agree that "save the lives" is the same as "prevent the death".

"Contention 1: Mass Death"
Pro stated "THUS, THE ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION ENDS THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE AGENT OF ACTION RATIONALIZES THAT IT IS NECESSARY". In your example, the "target's" death is not necessary. Therefore, Pro's example should be completely dismissed.

"AT: My opponent does not uphold morality because taking the lives of individuals and the massive amount of death pro causes is immoral"
Wrong again. By allowing others to die by allowing the one to live, more death would be caused. The more death caused, the more rights and morals that have been violated. In fact, I uphold morality far more than Pro in this case.

"only reinstates a higher institution as being the supreme power"
I already covered this.

now for "AT: Contention 1"
"2) He makes no connection between "wrong[s] [being] done to one who consents""
It does tie in with my resolution. I assumed you would link my contentions with the resolution, seeing as that's why I said it. I was giving examples of when it would be undeniably morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. If one consents, then there would be no immorality in taking their life.

"3) The resolution does NOT state that the agent of action will RESPECT people rights to self government/independence; "
The resolution also does NOT state that the agent of action WONT RESPECT people rights to self government/independence

"4, 5, and 6."
It's as simple as a man reasonably saying "I wish to die for the betterment of society." He clearly wishes to die, and he obviously consents to the outcome because he stated the word "death".

"7) Victimless crimes prove the law of society (a higher power) is not based on individual consent �€" obviously people have given themselves permission to take illegal drugs, walk around naked, and speed in traffic situations"
The one's committing those crimes are minorities of the population. The majority of a society controls its laws. And the majority is made up of many individuals. If there were more individuals who felt walking around naked was fine, then society would not make it illegal.

"8) Some higher powers do not give certain people the right to give their consent �€" thus, consent cannot be given with every individual, limiting the topic and making for an unfair debate."
Already covered this.

"9) Causing some one pain is illegal in very rare instances (only when someone has too much money and sues someone else for annoying them) where as homicide is illegal in most cases and the exceptions are not based of consent"
Causing anyone pain without their consent is illegal. There's something called "assault" and it's just about the most commonly committed crime.

"10) My contention upholds "the greatest good" as the least number of people will have to die �€" there is no reason to make people feel obligated to sacrifice their lives"
I thought I was the one arguing Pro. I could have sworn that my contention upholds "the greatest good" as the least number of people will have to die... Con is supposed to be arguing that more people should die rather than the least number. But thanks for the support.

"1) This contention is only defensive �€" it only explains exceptions to the first"
Correct, it is explaining another case where killing an innocent would be morally permissible to save the lives of more innocent people.

"2) It is precisely this justification of "innocent people who threaten others" that leads to the mass death explain in my contention. The agent of action will abuse this power in an immoral way."
It cannot be assured that the agent of action will abuse this power in an immoral way. And by doing it "in an immoral way" he would become immoral, so the fact that killing one was morally permissible would not affect the agent's decision because he would obviously have a lack of moral concern.

"3) The decision maker must look to more options then simple death vs. death"
Didn't Con state earlier "THUS, THE ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION ENDS THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE AGENT OF ACTION RATIONALIZES THAT IT IS NECESSARY"? I am specifically interested in the words "IT IS NECESSARY" meaning there are no other options.

"4) The resolution does not talk about guilty parties – simple the choice between an innocent individuals lives and the innocent masses"
I used this just as an example to help others understand my point more clearly. And I would like to point out the resolution does not exactly specify that either.

"5) TURN: A higher power/leader (pope) cannot even be justified in killing an innocent person without loosing respect."
Wrong. Threatening another may leave one morally innocent because they did not act on it. However, by threatening another's life it shows they lost respect for another's "right to live" and therefore, their right to live should be forfeited.

"6) He states no connection between respect and morally permissible"
Once again, I assumed you would connect the two. We have morals because we respect each other's opinions. If people feel something is wrong, we dub it morally wrong. If we did not respect each other's opinions, then there would be no morals.

"7) Everything – eating for example – threatens our lives but such an action is not seen as just as bad as killing an individual"
There's a difference between action and inaction. Not eating threatens our lives. The act of killing threatens our lives.

"8) A person that intentionally kills an individual is not innocent"
Never said they were, just said one who kills forfeits their right to live.

I'm running out of room so I will just put numbers and you will have to check on them yourselves, I apologize.

"1"
Everyone else on the plane, however, is.

"2"
If the passengers are unaware?

"3"
I disagree and feel the resolution is about "lives vs. lives"

"4"
That can't be known for sure. And not all repercussions would happen (we'd still have the world trade center and thousands of more civilians)

"5"
We did not choose to make it necessary, we must do the best choice given the situation.

"6"
We tried, and we failed. Not much we can do.

"7"
Again, you stated in an observation "T
Corycogley77479

Con

The judge(s) of this round has a moral responsibility to vote against the resolution. Accepting death in our society as necessary has the potential to lead to massacres of humans that will be unstoppable because it has become "morally permissible".

General Args:
A) Con should NOT have the burden to prove the resolution wrong in EVERY SINGLE instance – especially if Pro only has to defend one instance. Obviously this would be completely abusive.
B) I have proven time and time again why his examples are not permissible.
C) If the individual's "morality" is not "being judged" in the instances that my opponent has set forth – he is NOT proving that their actions are morally permissible: Simply that we shouldn't judge their actions, which is exactly what we are doing in this debate: judging peoples' actions…
D) It does not matter if the action is "permissible" but whether it is morally permissible. If something is never permissible – then no one would ever end up in a situation were it would be permissible to do such an act…
E) My case explains the harms of accepting death in society: even if his actions are justified that does not mean the rest of society should view it as morally permissible…

Value: Morality. My opponent still has NOT offered a value for you to evaluate the round through. As this debate is to emulate LD debate – a value debate – I would assume we should evaluate the round through who provides the best value and who accesses that value the best.

Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution.

My criterion upholds morality because it allows individuals "[to be] in accord with standards of right or good conduct," because they are not forced to be part of massive genocides or other evil acts that ensure the self preservation of the people with power.

Again – my opponent does not present a Criterion, or way to "be moral". My opponent does not allow people to have power over their own lives because they must be sacrificed for the "greater good" and he is reinstating a higher power over the lives of individuals.

Observation 1: Extended the agent of action in the resolution ends the life of an individual because they believe it is necessary for the protection of others.

Observation 2:
Morals are derived from society as a whole – what each society deems is acceptable or right and what they believe is wrong. A higher power, not exclusively limited to the government, allows those actions that society accepts and punishes the actions that people believe are wrong. For example – I may believe that it is right to use my fingers when eating my food, my mother (the higher power at the table) does not agree. Only a higher power can determine what is allowed and what is not; an individual cannot.
However, evaluating the resolution based on this interpretation is a terrible idea:
1) "permissible" prevents this interpretation.
2) Evaluating the resolution under the value of morality is impossible if the judge must determine if the resolution is moral to an individual.
A) The judge could vote on their own opinions – making debate pointless
B) The affirmative would always win because they have found an individual that believes it is morally permissible
C) Both sides would win the debate because two different individuals could believe that each side is moral; if both sides win there would be no way to vote in the round

Observation 3: Extend the resolution does not specify what the individual's lives are being saved from – my opponent only implies death.

Extend the agent of action will use this as a loop hole. As long as I win there is the possibility for the resolution to be interpreted under my interpretation, a higher power will be able to use this to rationalize their actions, meaning my contention of mass death will happen

His interpretation is abusive because it forces a death vs. more death debate which will end with Pro winning because ‘almost anyone would agree that' less death is better then more death

Contention 1:
My contention is based off of the theory of the resolution being implemented: if the killing in my contention is unnecessary then so is the death Pro advocates. According to his interpretation there is no reason to vote Pro because no death is need!
Extend the agent of action (even if it is not a "higher power" but the person in position to make this decision) targets a person that has to die based on some qualifications
Extend this creates a mindset within our society that death is ok as long as we can justify it
Extend the majority does not have to win – more people can die then are saved because of Pro's rationalization on each individual stance. The word permissible means the resolution can be repeated as many times as "necessary"

AT: C1: RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY
1) My observation 2 states the resolution deals with a higher power – not internal autonomy
2) You didn't like my contention being linked to the resolution. Even if your contention does link – you have to explain/prove a link: you cannot just assume other people to do your work for you
3) Pro has the burden of proof – he can't simply say they will respect people's rights because it does not say they won't. If you look at my contention I explain how individual rights will be violated through use of the resolution. The resolution never states people will be asked about whether or not they want to die: the judge cannot weigh this entire contention without a clear reason why the agent of action will care
5) How can we tell if they give us their consent – or if the agent of action just assumes it?
6) Extend my evidence; people may not agree with the consequences. With death there are no ‘take backs'. Look to my contention…
7) AGREE: what is "permissible" is not based on individual's consent – but on what society as a whole. It is completely irrelevant if the person consents to their death…
8) He concedes his interpretation destroys Con ground
9) Exceptions to legality are not based on consent
10) READ my contention – voting Pro causes more deaths then Con… I've already explain why his framework that I have to defend more death is abusive – I simply have to prove the resolution false/wrong

AT: C2: Right to life
1) He concedes this entire contention is only defensive – meaning he has no offense in this ENTIRE contention
2) C/A my contention
3) "Rationalizes that it is necessary": forces others to believe it is the only option when in fact it is not.
4) The resolution only deals with innocent individuals – not evil doers
5) Respect for human life is link to morality (6) so the leader would be doing an immoral action of threatening an individual's life. This means you must choose the side that has the possibility to have the least death – CON
7) Choking/eating something poisonous threatens our lives – action
8) The resolution is not talking about those that have ‘forfeited their right to live' by not being innocent

AT: C3: ANOTHER 9/11
1) The terrorist are not innocent – the example you give is not about killing an innocent individual but killing a terrorist whose death may accompany more innocent individuals. Adding non-innocent individuals infinitely distorts the resolution
2) The awareness of the passengers is irrelevant – my point: DEATH IS NOT CERTAIN. He concedes this, proving my contention that ‘we rationalize death as the only possibility when it is not.'
3) Cross-apply my O3
4) Repercussions following the decision will happen no matter what – defensive…
5) "We all have choice – my friend Harry taught me that…" There is no way for you to know the "best choice". My contention proves a negative affect to weigh against the harms of the plane running into the building – which is the worst case scenario but definitely not certain to happen
6) The most moral path is to prevent such a scenario from occurring… forcing death is immoral
Debate Round No. 2
Undebatably_Superior

Pro

Undebatably_Superior forfeited this round.
Corycogley77479

Con

The reader of this round has a moral responsibility to vote against the resolution. Accepting death in our society as necessary has the potential to lead to massacres of humans that will be unstoppable because it has become "morally permissible". Any attempt to assume this killing is justified only reinstates in society the idea that killing is ok. No matter what Pro says, they are only justifying their actions in an attempt to save themselves – not better society as a whole. When the agent of action is a higher power (observation 2) then we can assume someone is allowing this killing to take place by justifying their actions. His contention one does this – by saying "it's ok if they give their permission". (look at my previous posts for complete attacks on his contention) His contention 2 – defensive at best – only justifies any exceptions to the first contention. And his final contention – besides being a completely flawed example – is not impacted at all within the round. Thus, we must look at my contention, which he has basically conceded, that explains how justification leads to more deaths because the action can be repeated as many times as necessary to save the SAME people over and over again. We must be able to keep the power over our own lives so we are not all killed – or give away our ability to protect our friends and neighbors.

Value: Morality.

Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution.

Observation 1: Extended the agent of action in the resolution ends the life of an individual because they believe it is necessary for the protection of others.

Observation 2: Extend the word permissible implies a higher power deeming the action is allowed.
Note all of my arguments as to why you should prefer a single morality vs. individual morality which he does not support with any evidence or reasoning

Observation 3: Extend the resolution does not specify what the individual's lives are being saved from – my opponent only implies death. Even if you don't agree, my point is that higher powers CAN interpret the resolution this way – he has not and cannot prove that it this is impossible

Contention 1: Mass Death
Extend the agent of action (even if it is not a "higher power" but the person in position to make this decision) targets a person that has to die based on some qualifications.
Extend this creates a mindset within our society that death is ok as long as we can justify it
Extend the majority does not have to win – more people can die then are saved because of Pro's rationalization on each individual stance. The word permissible means the resolution can be repeated as many times as "necessary".
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Undebatably_Superior 8 years ago
Undebatably_Superior
I realize I addressed my opponent as both Pro and Con. Please look passed that. I was debating many different people at the same time so it became confusing about which side I was arguing. my points are still valid, I just address Con, as Pro in a few places.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
What the hell is LD? Seriously, I feel left out, and ashamed for not knowing and not finding out.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
It was the LD debate topic of the month.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
I propose a new topic

It is morally permissible to debate the same topic over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I'll take con.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
Undebatably_SuperiorCorycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 7 years ago
Corycogley77479
Undebatably_SuperiorCorycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 7 years ago
SportsGuru
Undebatably_SuperiorCorycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Undebatably_Superior 8 years ago
Undebatably_Superior
Undebatably_SuperiorCorycogley77479Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70