Joe Bidens Position on Abortion
If you want this debate but cant accapt it you have not debated between 4 to 10 times. I dont really care if you debated more than 10, I just want you to have debated more than 3. so post in the comment section if you want the debate but dont qualify. I might even give the challenge to you if your under 3 but its clear you finsih your debates.
Resolved: Joe Biden’s position on abortion is illogical or at the very least ugly and barbaric
Definition of Joe Biden’s position: agrees with catholic church on the immorality of abortion, but is for supporting its leagality and not imposing his catholic view of the morality of abortion on others
Abortion: if I have to define this for you, you should not be reading or debating in this debate
Illogical: does not make rational sense
Ugly and barbaric: potentially could make coherent sense but is still and incredibly draconian horrific thing to ever expect to be said with a strait face.
First round consist of one question
Do you hold Joe Biden’s position both on a personal level (agrees with church that abortion is immoral, murder) and on a whole social level (do not believe said personal view should be enforced by the law thus imposed on others)?
If you do not answer YES to that question you forfeit this debate. Accepting this debate means answering YES to that, or at least agreeing to argue as if that was your position for the duration of this debate
Round 2 I shall ask another question for you to answer round 2
Round 3 you shall feel the wrath of my withering arguments, which you may rebut with your own.
Round 4 shall be concluding arguments and final rebuttal.
My answer to the aforementioned question is "Yes". Please feel free to ask more questions.
May both of us enjoy this debate and let's begin.
So sense you answered YES to my question in round 1, that you for this debate are defending the position that agrees with the catholic church on its views about abortion, and that you are defending you should not advocate to make abortion illegal with the law, with that established I have but one more follow up question.
Taking the personal view yourself with the Catholic Church that Abortion is in fact Murder, but you support pro-choice candidates, It logically follows that murder, which you agreed is personally what you understand abortion to be, is an acceptable as a legal act sometimes.
So my follow up question is for you to finish the following sentence in the best detailed way that you possibly can: “The Law should not protect one from being murdered when_______”
This next question is optional for you to bother answering next round but I’d really to know your answer to it also how would you finish this sentence as well? : “Murder is okay when_____”
Issue presented in this discussion: whether a personal view should not be imposed on others given a particular activity, on the basis of the personal view, is immoral.
Before I proceed to answer the proposed questions, I have one questions needed to be clarified:
According to my understanding, there are two distinctive views in Catholic community with respect to abortion. Some Catholics tend to advocate a complete ban on abortion with no exception whatsoever. Others prefer a general ban except in the case of pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest, or medical emergency (preserving the life of the mother). So my question is which view this argument may rely on? Or the question is somewhat irrelevant?
Answers to the questions
The Law should not protect one from being murdered when
1. The proposed law may result in the harm (physiological or psychological) or death of a third party whose connection to the "victims" has been established and who literally supports the lives of victims. [Please see Comment 1 for more information]
2. OR the implementation of the law would defeat the very purpose of the law. [Please see Comment 2 for more information]
3. OR the enactment of the law would run afoul of other laws.
1. Phrase "literally supports the lives of victims" means that "victims" would not be expected to live without the support from "a third party" as defined in condition 1. In case of abortion, it means that fetus would not be able to live outside the mother"s womb, even with artificial aid.
2. For example: in accordance with the conservative principles, low tax rates drive economic growth. So if a law is passed to lower taxes, people would expect to observe a higher growth. In reality, if the economic condition gets worse because of the law, it should be considered that the implementation of the law defeats its own purposes.
Murder is okay when
1. Murder is not morally condemned OR Murder is immoral, but not socially excoriated;
2. OR there is no law that may prohibit the act;
3. OR people must commit murder to avert their own deaths or impairment of major bodily function [Please see Comment 1 for more information].
1. Condition 3 is applicable only in the case of abortion. "People" are specifically referred to mothers who must have abortion to save her own lives or avert their own impairment of major bodily function.
P.S. Those are tough questions.
To quickly answer your clarification questions, No the distinction is not relevant, what I meant by the catholic view for purposes of this debate is that abortion is ultimately murder. I am sorry for not being more clear on that. It did not occur to me there would be so many ways to misread the intent of my resolution when I made it. Before fully addressing the answers given by my opponent to my questions, I would first like to set up my 2 basic cases for supporting each part of the resolution. That the position being discussed is Irrational, and I will make a case that it is at the very least barbaric.
To state that you personally would agree with the churches position on abortion, you and Joe Biden at the very least are stating that you personally agree that abortion is Murder. So to further add that you would while understanding its murder yourself; would support a person’s right to commit murder legally.
This is irrational. While the support of a legal right to abortion might have ground to stand on with the premises that it is not a real murder of an innocent human child, it is just a fish at that stage, when you admit the premises that it is a human child and terminating its life would be an immoral murder of a innocent human life, then it should not follow that terminating its existence is to be a protected legal right for its mother or anyone to choose that for that matter. Even at an extreme view of keeping government limited and promoting civil liberties wherever possible, there’s still a time when it’s finally admitted the government does get involved and that’s when the personal liberties of one is infringing upon another. You are free to go ride horses, but if you start riding someone else’s horses, well now your infringing on there rights to their property if they did not grant you permission, and so you have sacrificed the protection of your own rights as a result and so the law has you locked up.
Similarly, should I choose to murder you because you bought the last copy of the new assassin’s creed game and you are an inconvenience to my week because of it for example, then suddenly I have given up the inalienable rights to my own life and the government can now come in and give me the death penalty for my barbaric slaughter of you in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
You at the most expect protection from the law from ever letting me the ability to so freely strangle you at your car in such a public place. You at the least demand should such a barbaric thing be done to you I suffer consequences for causing your death. And its flat out beyond your imagination to fathom anyone would even think about not only keeping the government out my stopping my choice to kill you for the video game, but to also have said government fund setting up businesses very similar to the one in the game I want to take from your corpse where I pay someone else to go legally kill you.
When you do not acknowledge that abortion is in fact a murder of any kind of course, It does not give me logical room to apply comparing that Wal-Mart Black Friday gone wrong murder scenario to the abortion debate. But when you do acknowledge abortion is murder as you have, then it gives me every room to do so now. If its not ‘infringements on my rights’ to keep me from murdering you, its not “infringements” on any rights to keep a woman from murdering her child.
For some it may not concern them that it is established that an abortion is a murder. They might say “so what? That doesn’t mean it still shouldn’t be my legal right to commit this kind of act of murder, I challenge Thomas Jefferson’s premise as false when he said “we have an inalienable right to life” so its still logical”
Well then I make my case this logic if you can call it logic while arguable is rational if it honestly disregards the primes Jefferson gave about the role of government and the rights it must protect, it is still a barbaric view. It is asking that Government now purposely ignores the rights to ones own life and allow for the free murder of individuals in selective situations. If we did not have the premise it is murder, than being pro-abortion would just be asking the government to ‘give a woman the right to choose’ but with the admission its murder its changes to asking them to ignore the right to life.
Given the above difficulties with being pro-abortion but holding to the premise its murder, I asked you just what defines when the law should not stop murder. You gave 3 conditions for me to contest.
1) “victim depends on third party to live”: By this definition you have been given, I would qualify from birth on to the age of 16, possible farther, as someone who my parents who support me have the right to kill. After all without their financle aid and sheltering and feeding me, I would not be expected to live. Especially when I was a baby only a month old. This could even go for the governments right to kill welfare recipients actually, as we give them welfare because we do not expect them to be able to feed themselves without the aid, or they would not get it. this definition would mean even Casey Anthony committed no wrong when she drowned her baby.
2) “defeats its purpose”: By no stretch of the imagination could criminalizing abortion defeat its purpose to protect life. More babies are murdered by abortion in a day than people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Even considering rare, if even existent, cases where the mother would die without an abortion, it could never add up against the lives that would be saved.
3) “run afoul of other laws”: By this conditions logic, Germany should not have ever made it illegal to murder Jews after WWII was over, considering other pre-existing laws made it legal.
For space purposes I’m just going to leave this debate to continue with the first question I asked, considering your answers to the second are so close to your answers to the first and require basically the same response I have already give , as well as the fact that the law focused Q1 has a little more bearing on this debate.
I thank my opponent for answering my questions with intelligent care and await his response.
From the personal level, Joe Biden"s position on abortion largely reflects his personal commits to the Catholic beliefs. By definition, Joe Biden, at the very least, considers that abortion is murder. On the other hand, however, Joe Biden decisions of not imposing his personal view on others also suggests that he acknowledges the fact public sentiments toward abortion is divided. "Americans are closely divided between those calling themselves "pro-choice" and those who are "pro-life", now 49% and 45%", according to In Gallup"s 2011 update on U.S.abortion attitudes . In a survey asking about whether abortion is morally wrong, over half of Americans, 51% believe abortion is "morally wrong," wile 39% says it is "morally acceptable." By combining the results of both surveys, although it is nowhere to conclude that the animosity toward abortion is abating, it sufficient say that Americans are gradually accepting the notion of abortion. Would you consider it is irrational to reaffirm one"s belief while also respect others" opinions? Perhaps not.
From the political perspective, The reconciliatory tone, adopted by Biden, between his personal belief and social sentiments would undoubtedly appeal to many female voters. Women constitutes of over 52% of the electorates with many single moms strongly support abortion. Therefore, to a certain extent, it would be unwise for politicians to turn back on their demands and voices, especially in a high stake political race. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose self-inflicted mistakes had alienated many female voters, Biden"s remarks on abortion re-enforced his image that he is open-minded and willing to listen to people. Do you believe the general public would view a Presidential nominee in a favorable light when he was silent on the remarks of "slut" and "legitimate rape?" On sensitive issue, speaking in a reconciliatory tone is a shrewd tactic that only skillful politicians would be able to employ, who in turn must possess rationality.
The central argument in Pro"s contention is: it is irrational for a person to believe a particular activity is immoral while he or she continues supporting the activity. In other words, pro"s argument would require an assumption that "only morally approved activity can be lawful." Consider Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law, which defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife . Obama administration, along with various liberal organizations, argues that the law is immoral on the ground that it is discriminately against a vulnerable group. It does not comport with Pro"s definition since DOMA is immoral but still lawful. Therefore, not all laws pass the muster of moral test.
Another explanation of Biden"s remark, although unlikely, but not impossible, is that Biden was lying (in a way, all politicians lie). Pro"s argument requires an assumption that Biden"s statements genuinely reflect what he believed. The assumption, however, may or may not be true given the fact that he made such remark during Presidential Campaign.
According to the definition, "Ugly and barbaric" means "potentially could make coherent sense but is still an incredibly draconian horrific thing to ever expect to be said with a strait face." Biden"s remarks, however, hardly qualify "incredibly draconian." In principle, Biden presented his personal belief of a particular act while also attempted to argue against it by reasoning that his belief may not be acceptable to others. In essence, Biden tends to believe that his Catholic belief on abortion is strictly personal view and may not necessarily be shared by others. It hardly constitutes an "horrific thing", let alone "incredibly draconian."
Q1 "Victim depends on third party to live."
Let me address all three examples in sequence.
The first example that Pro invoked is child rearing. The example presupposes that parents are indispensable to one"s life. Experiences have told us that it is not always the case. It may be true that parents are necessary for the well-beings of their kids, it is not the same as saying that parents must present in order for their kids to survive. Relatives, for examples, would an alternative to the parents; orphanage, for examples, is another option for whose parents are absent. By definition, legal guardians are not parents. Therefore, the first example that Pro proposed does not fall into my definitions.
The second example is about welfare. Welfare recipients rely on government"s program on the ground that it is relatively convenient way for them to get aid. Government"s welfare program is not, however, the only way to get their aids. Catholic Church, for instance, plays an preeminent role in helping people who are at financial disadvantage. Government, therefore, is not essential for the survival for this particular group of people.
The third example concerns about Ms.Casey Anthony. A cursory research reveals that Casey Marie Anthony was accused of murdering her daughter, Calyee Anthony. She was tried the first degree murder but acquitted by jury. "On July 5, 2011, the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter a child, or aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty on four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer."  Therefore, Pro"s assertion with regard to Ms.Casey"s case is not a genuine reflection of the nature of the case.
Defeats its purpose
The abortion that pro has suggested is amount to a complete ban on abortion. As suggest by his assertion "even considering rare, if even existent, cases where the mother would die without an abortion, it would never add up against the lives that would be saved," mothers may not seek abortion even in the case of medical emergency. The purpose of law (ban on abortion with no obvious exceptions), apparently, is for the preservation of human life. In a medical emergency, both unborn child and his or her mother"s lives are in grave danger. Under a complete ban, physicians may not perform or induce an abortion, even if abortion may save at least one human's life. It palpably defeats the purpose of law that sets out to accomplish.
Run afoul of other laws
It should be recognized that the United States protect unborn child from abortion after the second trimester (around 22 to 24 weeks). The condition "run afoul of other laws" is made within the content of current abortion regulations. In its landmark case, Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidate anti-abortion law on the ground that the it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman"s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. By implementing a complete ban on abortion, woman"s Fourteenth Amendment right would be in jeopardy.
In term of Germany discriminated laws against Jewish people, what they need do is to abolish the unsustainable laws. Similarly, Obama administration is seeking to repeal DOMA, not to replace DOMA by an "Anti-DOMA legislation." There is no law, on federal level, is incompatible with DOMA. Modification of existing laws is not the same as "run afoul of existing laws."
Question 2 is an extension of question 1. It is slightly different from the first since it dresses the moral issue of "murder." Some of the conditions are served as the basis of my answers to question 1. The second condition, for example, requires a premise which some immoral acts are legally permissible.
I have not been contending “it is irrational for a person to believe a particular activity is immoral while he or she continues supporting the activity” because this debate has not been about any old thing some people ‘consider immoral’ and then supported it. its about Murder. Its about recognizing it as murder, and then still protecting the freedom to murder. Murder is quite possible been the only thing that everyone regardless of there beliefs on morality has ultimately wanted the government to step in and protect you from being murdered or at least punish others for doing it to you. What good is a government if it cant even protect the simple right to your own life?
“In other words, pro"s argument would require an assumption that "only morally approved activity can be lawful."” It took really twisted logic to think up this. My argument does not require any such assumption. What can be lawful and should be lawful are completely deferent. What a lawmaker does to change the current law or not change it should be consistent with his views. If believes something is murder, than he should promote new legislation that treats that something as such.
Should Biden of been lying, then my resolution is unaffected. Lying only means the position is politically safe or smart in his mind, not that the position itself is rational.
It is draconian when you think it through exactly what it is he’s fully saying. He’s basically saying “I understand and know that this thing is an act of murder. But others do not understand the truth that I myself know, that they are murdering someone when they do this thing. So because they are ignorant I think we should let them murder all they want so long as they don’t think its murder.” I can easily imagine the same statement defending a KKK member after he hung an African American….
Judge “your on trail for the murder of Patrick Jefferson how do you plee?”
KKK guy “not guilty, I only killed that man but it was not murder. His race are near pure ape and thus animals and it was no more a murder than it is to kill a 8 pointer buck”
Judge Biden “very well the court finds you innocent since its clear while you did cause his death, you do not personally look at your actions as murder even though we do, because we should not impose our beliefs about morality on you, you are entitled to your own in this matter”
Would that not be a barbaric thing to allow to go on in our courts? But you see it is allowed, but instead of permitting the free murder of African Americans, we are allowing the murder without consequence of millions of unborn children every day. Even if you think Bidens position on abortion has a logical consistency, its still at the very least as barbaric as letting the KKK of for lynching a black person.
None of your arguments you have provided to defend a 4 year old child as not being truly ‘dependant’ on there parents can be applied to them without at the same time fitting the description of aborted unborn infants. All that separate’s the 2 situations in your mind is our societies current ability to provide step in an provide for the child in substitute. Should 87 years pass and a slew of scientific advances make it possible for the doctors at the hospital to continue the growth of a baby in there own artificial pod once removing the child from the mother then were would you stand? Flashing back to the present though of course we don’t have that means yet. But can it be rationally possible for something to cease being murder just because a means to do something are there yet or not? If its murder then its murder now. If its not murder now when we cant keep the baby alive outside of the womb yet, then it was not murder to kill 2 week old baby back in the day before orphanages were put together.
The point is a born child is not self-sufficient, and yet we protect them from murder. Yet the unborn child has the same lack of self-sufficiency as the born one yet we do not protect their life. This is a double standard.
This was really just another way to phrase the same basic point as the last. So unsurprisingly it gets the same defense. It does not matter if who they must depend can change as long as another party is willing to take them in who has the means to provide for them. The point was on their own they are not self-sufficient. Really you and I could not be considered self-sufficient if we were stranded stark naked on the North Pole. If you take yourself down to the bare bones of the body that you are and how much its grown, your still dependant on the fortune of your environment to survive. The unborn case that environment just happens to be in the mothers womb.
Casey Anthony: this was just a pop culture reference to a infamous case were a lot of people believe a mother killed her own child. I’m not actually out to contest if the courts decision was right concerning her. Just trying to point out there would have been no need for a trail in her case in the first place when the murder of an dependant child is her right to do.
Defeats its purpose:
Normally I would in these debates make they arguments against the assertion there are ever truly cases when the doctor has to perform an abortion to save the mother http://www.whyprolife.com... But for this debate what I have decided to give a try is just going with simple math.
Hypothetically if were to agree with you that there are even cases you can say there has to be an abortion done to save the life of the mother, this is 0.2% of the abortion cases out there being done. The other 99.8% there is no life endangerment of anyone except the fetus’s of course. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... This means out of 1,000 abortions that are done, only 2 of them have been reported to be to save the mothers life. Assuming we trust those 2 cases out of 1,000 are truly a situation where it takes an abortion to save the mom then what would happen in terms of protecting lives if abortion were outlawed and we even assume those 0.2% cases have the mothers die as a direct result? Well out of the 1,000 abortion cases 998 lives that would have died are saved, 2 die anyway with an addition of 2 more (there moms). So does a law defeat its purpose to protect lives when without it 1,000 lives are lost, but with the law 4 are? 998/4 is much better than 2/1000. This shows there is not logical perspective to think outlawing abortion would defeat its purpose to save lives. That’s not just an opinion that’s Math.
Running afoul of other laws:
Your response to my point about the law in Germany while it was controlled by the nazi’s is exactly my point for Roe V Wade. It should be repealed. Just because it was Nazi Germany law that it was not murder to kill Jews does not make that law right and did not mean it should not have been repealed and replaced.
The resolution, presented in the first round, states as: Joe Biden"s position on abortion is illogical or at the very least ugly and barbaric, where Biden"s position is: agrees with catholic church the immorality of abortion, but is for supporting its legality and not imposing his catholic view of the morality of abortion on others.
My argument hinges on one particular proposition: In a social issue debate, what one believes to be true may not necessarily be true for others. Even if by accepting the Catholic beliefs on abortion, I cannot be certain that the non-Catholic population would agree with me on the issue. What separates the Wal-Mart & KKK examples from the abortion is that, as for the former conduct, nearly everyone would agree that the act constitutes a murder (there is a set of established standards to determine what constitutes murder); but the lack of a prevailing opinion among the general public renders the legitimacy of the latter activity more ambiguous. During the interview, Biden merely spoke out his belief while he also sought the opportunity to respect others" opinions. In a social issue debate, the public opinions usually have a great influence on the legitimacy of the activity. Gay marriage, for example, is completely unthinkable several decades ago. Today, there are several states that have already legalized the gay marriage. Therefore there is nothing irrational to say: I may disagree with you, but I do respect your choices and opinions.
"It is irrational for a person to believe a particular activity is immoral while he or she continues supporting the activity."
The herein principle is a paraphrase to the resolution: It is irrational for a person (Biden) to believe a particular activity (abortion/murder) is immoral while he (Biden) continues supporting the activity (abortion/murder). What Biden chooses to believe is not the same as saying that general public must hold the similar belief as he does. Whether I embrace the Catholic view or whether I must analyze the issue from a Catholic view may not be relevant to the public opinions.
"In other words, pro"s argument would require an assumption that only morally approved activity can be lawful."
The assumption can be implied from: "This is irrational, while the support of a legal right...terminating his life would be an immoral murder of a innocent human life, then it should not follow that terminating its existence is to be a protected legal right..."
The above position can be summarized as: since it would be immoral (murder) for someone to carry out a particular activity (murder of an innocent human life), then the aforementioned activity is not legally permissible (should not follow...).
Essentially, what Con was trying to establish is: "since it is immoral, it is illegal." or "since it is legal, it must be moral." It is a precarious principle given the fact that not all laws are moral. If Con decides to single out murder for excoriation without referring to immorality, the argument would then inevitably beg the question: "why murder is illegal? Because it is not legal to murder someone."
"Should Biden of being lying"
On the contrary, it has everything to do with the resolution. If Biden was trying to play the dirty political games, nothing of what he had said can be considered a genuine reflection of his belief. In other words, it is possible that Biden believe legal means should be pursued to end abortion. If it was the case, then the entire remark is merely a lie and it may have nothing to do with rationality. [P.S. Is there an irrational lie?]
What Biden has concluded is that Catholic view on abortion may not be correct even if he chooses to believe it. Con"s argument presupposes the correctness of Catholic belief ("But others do not understand the truth that I myself know") while the belief itself may not necessarily be correct. Unlike the KKK example, there is no general consensus among the general public on abortion. The rationale behind Con"s argument is: what I believe to be true therefore must be true. Belief is a subjective perception and it subjected to one"s philosophy, one"s experiences and one"s attitudes toward life and the moral standards. It would be inappropriate to dictate one"s belief on others.
The reason that fetus would not be able to live outside the mother"s womb, even with artificial aid, is due to the biologic fact that child"s neuron system is not sufficiently developed until approximately 24-28 weeks. Perhaps one day, the medical technology can help unborn child develop his or her neuron system outside mother"s womb, but both conception and abortion will then fade into the obscurity of many archaic traditions.
Moreover, this is not a double standard at all. Born child is not self-sufficient, but he or she can live independently of his or her mother. Unborn child may also be not self-sufficient, but his or her life depends on the well-being of mother. Two objects (unborn child & born child) may have one particular character in common (not self-sufficient), but one cannot conclude that both objects must be subject to the equal treatment (protection).
Casey Anthony & Other Examples
The case, along all the cited examples, does not comply with the definition I put forward. Parents may not knowingly terminate the life of their offspring in light of the fact that children are expected to survive without the care of their parents. Parents, at least in the United States, are not indispensable to the survive of their offspring. In terms of Ms.Casey Anthony. For the readers who are not familiar with the event, the case is misleading. I would not be surprised that many readers would have no idea what O.J Simpson murder case is, although the case had created its own kind of famous.
Defeats its purpose.
Con"s position is untenable on the ground that the argument itself inexorably involves a contradiction. By the same logic, I could equally ask: "What good is a government if it cannot even protect the simple right to mothers" lives? Is it a laudable way to protect a mother"s health by redefining her right to life in terms of some numeric values? I hope not.
As for the 0.2% remark, there are at least two problems with the report:
First, the samples are unrepresentative. The report involves only 24 states (out of 50 + Columbia district). In addition, the selected states overwhelmingly lean toward Republicans (13 out of 24), and only 6 out 24 states lean toward Democrats. It is known that Republicans tend to identify themselves as social conservatives while Democrats are inclined to consider themselves social liberals. Since the report does not fully capture the liberal thoughts(New York and California for examples), it cannot be representative for the entire nation.
Second, the math does not work. It is eminently possible that the relatively low abortion rate done to save the life of the mother is the result of practicing abortion itself. For example, mothers may need to obtain treatment for a medical condition such as breast cancer. Under the condition that the report has been conducted (abortion is legal), mother may seek abortion without being classified as "save the life of the mother." A complete ban or even a moratorium on abortion will inescapably jeopardize women"s health by severely curtailing physicians" ability to treat patents who face serious health conditions. What good is a government if it cannot even protect mothers" lives? These figures are misleading at best and irresponsible at worst.
This debate is about the rationale behind Joe Biden"s remark during 2008 Presidential Campaign. Biden"s position on abortion suggests that he acknowledges the fact that public sentiments toward abortion is divided. Biden is committed to his belief while he also attempts to respect others". Therefore, it is preposterous to suggest that Biden"s remark is irrational or barbaric.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|