The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
liberty
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

LD Debates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
liberty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,075 times Debate No: 5266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

It's an LD debate. Don't know it? Learn it.

Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people.

I affirm.

To clarify debate I offer the following definitions.

Morally permissible: conforming to a standard of right behavior (Merriam Webster)

innocent: harmless in effect or intention

Value: Moral permissibility

Justification: I choose moral permissibility because it is expressly stated in the resolution. The resolution asks for the morally permissible solution to this dilemma. Obviously it must be our value.

Criterion: Kantianism

Justification: Kant says "Inexperienced in the course of the world, incapable of being prepared for all its contingencies, I only ask myself: Canst thou also will that thy maxim should be a universal law? If not, then it must be rejected, and that not because of disadvantage accruing from it to myself or even to others, but because it cannot enter as a principle into a possible universal legislation, and reason extorts from me respect for such legislation...the necessity of acting from pure respect for practical law is what constitutes dignity, to which every other motive must give place, because it is the condition of a will being good in itself, and the worth such a will is above everything." This quote from Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals pretty much summarizes Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy. He argues that we should only follow maxims, or rules, if they can be made a universal law without contradicting our will. He goes on to explain that following this imperative simply because it's the right thing to do constitutes duty, which is synonymous to a good intention. So basically, even if an action has a bad consequence, the good intention, performed out of duty justifies the action.

Contention 1: Our good intention in affirming the resolution justifies the action.
Basically, saving lives is a just and noble action. If we intend to do this, we are doing our duty. If we unfortunately have to kill to perform this action it is permissible, so long as we intend to save lives, rather than killing. The death of the innocent person is simply an unfortunate consequence of our action. We did not intend to kill this person. Kant said "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." The consequences of an action do not and cannot determine morality. The death of the innocent that the affirmative causes is an unintended consequence. The affirmative cannot be judged for this, they can only be judged on their intention. As the intention of saving lives is a noble and moral one, the affirmative is justified.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the affirmative if justified in saving lives. This is undeniable. Unfortunately a bad consequence occurs, but as this was unintended, the affirmative cannot be judged. The affirmative conforms perfectly to the categorical imperative, therefore it is morally permissible. you must vote Aff.
liberty

Con

I accept the definitions provided by my opponent and negate to the resolution.



>The resolution does not ask for an action or inaction that has better intentions, effect or consequences; it asks for a morally permissible action or inaction.

: Moral Permissibility

I value moral permissibility, because it is the only value that is clearly stated in the resolution.

: Deontology (also known as deontological ethics)

The value of Moral Permissibility is upheld by the Criterion of Deontology. Deontology is defined as:

"The approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions." (Wikipedia)

Kant, whom my opponent uses to support his own argument, was a deontologist. Kant and all other deontologists (as explained in my definition) supported that when faced with a moral dilemma, such as the one described in the resolution, we should focus on the rightness or wrongness of the action, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences to determine if an action is morally permissible or not.

Contention 1: Immoral Actions are not Morally Permissible

One of Kant's most famous quotes is: "it is always wrong to lie – even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim". I remind you that the resolution doesn't ask for an action or inaction that has better consequences or intentions. It asks for a morally permissible action or inaction. Killing according to Kant and deontology is NOT morally permissible, under any circumstances. So, in the case of the resolution [a moral dilemma], affirmation is NOT morally permissible.

Therefore, I urge negation.

Now I will refute my opponent's case:

Value: Moral permissibility
I agree with my opponent's choice of Moral Permissibility as an appropriate value.

Value Criterion: Kantianism

My opponent made many mistakes by choosing Kantianism as his Value Criterion and I will not ignore them

First of all, my opponent quotes Kant and in this quote Kant says that if an act cannot be universalised than it should be rejected. Killing can not be universalised because a.) It is generally immoral and b.)No one would want to be killed (Do unto others as you will have them do unto you). My opponent also posses the point of view that "The means justify the ends" but when the mean is a human life, according to Kant, this cannot be universalised and is therefore rejected as immoral. Finally, my opponent ignores that Kant was deontologist, and believed in what I explained in the definition of deontology. So Kant (whom my opponent quotes and indirectly praises for his beliefs) believed that actions such as the one described in the resolution are NOT morally permissible.

Contention 1: Our good intention in affirming the resolution justifies the action.

My opponent in this contention explains that affirming the resolution is done with good intentions and I agree with him. Despite that, as I explained in my Topical observations, the resolution does not ask for an action with good intention, it asks for a morally permissible one and according to our "common friend" Kant killing is not morally permissible, despite the intention and the consequences. So his claim is irrelevant

My opponent continues with a quote from Kant:

"The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found."

> Here, Kant explains one the basic principles of deontology. That morality lies in the action, not its consequences. So, as I already explained, the action of killing is not morally permissible, under any circumstances, despite the fact that it is done with good intentions and consequences.

Finally, I have proven my opponent's value criterion and contention to have serious faults, his contention is irrelevant from the resolution and doesn't uphold his value criterion. In fact, in his contention he states views that are completely opposite to the ones in his value criterion: The Means Justify the Ends [Consequentialism] (explained in my opponent's value criterion) is completely opposite to Kant's beliefs about morality [Deontology] (explained in his contention).

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First my opponent's case, then I'll move on to my own.

His observation that the resolution does not ask for an action or inaction with better intentions, effects or consequences is basically correct, except for a small issue that I'll speak on later this round.

His value is the same as mine, so we can move on.

His criterion also is very similar to mine. I agree with his criterion. Kant did say we should focus on whether the action is moral, not the consequences. What Kant also included in his theory however was that it was a good will, or good intention that justified an action. This contradicts his observation, so you either must drop his observation, or you have to drop his criterion.

Contention 1: Killing is immoral according to Kant, yes. But the key is your intention was not to kill, but to save many innocent lives. The death of the one innocent person was a consequence of your act of saving lives. To illustrate this, imagine you are a doctor, and you are running a hospital. In one room there are five innocent patients, unfortunately in the air duct above that room there was a carbon monoxide leak. You can either let the five die, or save them by redirecting the gas. Kantianism would maintain that you redirect the gas. Unfortunately, as a consequence, the redirected gas kills one patient in another room. You killed one innocent person to save more innocent people, but even Kantianism justifies this action, because the death was a CONSEQUENCE, and consequences do not affect morality. My opponent contradicts himself.

Moving on to my case.

My opponent accepts my value.

My opponent tries to put a turn on my criterion by claiming that Kant would not accept the act of killing an innocent. I agree, but as I showed earlier, Kant would not judge an action because of its consequences. He would judge it on my intention to attempt to save lives, which unfortunately resulted in the death of one person. Kant would accept this. The intention matters. I already read the quote, but I'll read it again "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." He basically says the consequences don't matter, but my intention to do good and follow the Categorical Imperative to save lives was good, so my action is moral, even though it has a bad consequence.

Contention 1: My opponent continues to ignore what I'm saying. Killing is wrong. Yes I agree with that. But the intention was not to kill. The intention was to save lives. The death of that one person was a CONSEQUENCE, and as my opponent and I have both said countless times, the consequence does not determine morality. It is the intention of the person to do the right thing and follow the Categorical Imperative. If I don't intend to kill, but I do, Kant will not judge me. My opponent has me being judged for an action that I did not mean to commit. I meant to save lives. This is admirable. The death of the one person is a consequence. We cannot negate the resolution based on a consequence.

I urge an affirmative ballot.
liberty

Con

I will first refute my own case, and then I'll move on to my opponent's



Consequence: The result of an action.

I will add more later in my Round 2 argument


My opponent accepts my value.



"What Kant also included in his theory however was that it was a good will, or good intention that justified an action. This contradicts his observation, so you either must drop his observation, or you have to drop his criterion."

Intention: A course of action that a person intends to follow.

--> My opponent's observation is false. Kant's theory doesn't contradict my observation. This is because the person has to intend to kill the innocent first. He may intend on saving but he also intends to kill. Killing is unquestionably not morally permissible and since the person in question intends to kill, this makes the action morally impermissible. Therefore my opponent should be the one drop the observation.

--> Also, my opponent only attacked the issues conserning Kant, but he fails to do so in the case of deontology, that is in fact the ACTUAL criterion and not Kantianism.



Contention 1: "Killing is immoral according to Kant, yes. But the key is your intention was not to kill, but to save many innocent lives. "

--> This claim has already been addressed in the defence of my Value Criterion

"The death of the one innocent person was a consequence of your act of saving lives. To illustrate this, imagine you are a doctor, and you are running a hospital. In one room there are five innocent patients, unfortunately in the air duct above that room there was a carbon monoxide leak. You can either let the five die, or save them by redirecting the gas. Kantianism would maintain that you redirect the gas. Unfortunately, as a consequence, the redirected gas kills one patient in another room. You killed one innocent person to save more innocent people, but even Kantianism justifies this action, because the death was a CONSEQUENCE, and consequences do not affect morality. My opponent contradicts himself."

--> To prove my opponent wrong, I will grammatically analyse the resolution:

Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people.

The word "to", is used instead of "in order to"

(E.g. Shoot to kill --> Shoot in order to kill)

Therefore the resolution can also be written, without changing its meaning:

Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person [in order] to save more innocent people.

In order to [do something]: The purpose or INTENTION of an action

(Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

In the affirmative's case:
Kill [In order] to save more people: We can understand that since word "to" ("in order to") is in front of the phrase "save more people", this (according to the definition I provided) immediately gives it the meaning of an INTENTION.

If you complete an action with a certain intention, the intention becomes a CONSEQUENCE.

For example: ‘Shoot to kill a rabbit' (your intention is killing the rabbit) if you shoot (completing the action) the consequence (result of the action as I explained in my definition) is the killing of the rabbit, which is at the same time the intention of your action.

Therefore the intention of saving innocents becomes a consequence once the action (killing an innocent) is carried out.

In conclusion, the case of the affirmative is like this:

Action: killing an innocent,
Intention: To kill an innocent and save many lives
Consequences: Many lives are saved.

Therefore the killing of an innocent is the ACTION, in the case of the affirmative and not the consequence, also, the resolution asks for an action or inaction that is morally permissible (killing or not killing an innocent in order to save the lives of many others) and saving is not the action, killing is and according to deontology it is not morally.

My opponent grammatically misinterprets the resolution and should therefore drop the point.

--> In the example my opponent offers you do not know for sure if you are going to kill a person and is therefore irrelevant. In the case of the affirmative of the resolution you are killing to save, while in my opponent's example you are saving and in the process killing.

Moving on to my opponent's case



My opponent tries to put a turn on my criterion by claiming that Kant would not accept the act of killing an innocent. I agree, but as I showed earlier, Kant would not judge an action because of its consequences. He would judge it on my intention to attempt to save lives, which unfortunately resulted in the death of one person. Kant would accept this. The intention matters. I already read the quote, but I'll read it again "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." He basically says the consequences don't matter, but my intention to do good and follow the Categorical Imperative to save lives was good, so my action is moral, even though it has a bad consequence"

--> My opponent bases his argument on his attack on my Value Criterion I have already responded to my opponent's claim about Kant's theory:

"The person has to intend to kill the innocent first. He may intend on saving but he also intends to kill. Killing is unquestionably not morally permissible and since the person in question intends to kill, this makes the action morally impermissible."

Therefore the intentions are not ‘good', because you fully intend to kill

Therefore my opponent should drop this point

--> My opponent continues to quote Kant, whose philosophy (deontology) contradicts the affirmative. He does so because as I explained above, he misinterprets the resolution. He falsely believes that saving is the action and killing is the consequence, while simple grammar and syntax show the exact opposite. Kant believes that the consequence, the result of an action (killing an innocent) that in the case of the affirmative is saving of many innocent lives, should not be taken into consideration when in a moral dilemma and the intention (course of action intended) that in the case of the affirmative is KILLING in order to save innocents is what that makes an action morally permissible and according to deontology (Kant's philosophy) is equivalent to killing for no reason because it is still killing. In conclusion, my opponent's choice of value criterion is mistaken because it contradicts the affirmative of moral permissibily that my opponent values, but he has the right to drop it.



Contention 1: My opponent has based his contention, on points that have been proven false. He once again ignores the fact that in the case of the affirmative, you fully INTEND (through following a course of action) to kill which is an immoral act in order to save. He also ignores the fact that killing the innocent is the action and the saving of people is the consequence that Kant says should not be taken into consideration when judging an action as moral or immoral.

Therefore I urge negation,

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I defend my case, and then refute my opponent's.

First he attacks my Value Criterion by interpreting the grammar of the resolution. He says "to" can mean "in order to" which means "with the intention of." So basically, under his interpretation, the resolution means that we kill an innocent person with the intention of saving more innocent lives. So my intention was to save lives, and as I have already, the intention to do good justifies an action. This analysis doesn't refute my argument, it only strengthens it. My intention was to save lives. In the process of carrying my intention, I was forced to kill. My intention was not to kill, but to save lives, and my action was saving lives, as well as killing an innocent, it's the distinction between an intended action and an unintended one. I did not intend to kill, I was forced to kill in order to fulfill my intention. Kant, and all other deontologists judge actions on the intention behind the action, not the consequences of the action. As my earlier scenario about the gas leak showed, killing can be unintentional, and can be justified because of the killer's goal to do the right thing by saving lives.

So here's what the moral reasoning is:
Intention: Save lives
Action: Save lives, kill an innocent
Consequence: Death of an innocent, lives saved.

Under deontology the action's intentions are what matter. Kant calls this the maxim. While the maxim "If I kill one, I will save more lives" cannot be made a deontological imperative, but the maxim "If I save lives, I am doing the right thing" can. So if we simply act under the latter maxim, we are achieving the resolution, but we are still acting upon a morally sound maxim. This is what deontology calls for. Only that we act on a moral maxim, and the affirmative does this. The affirmative upholds the criterion of both Negative and my criterion.

He then claims that I fully intend to kill. That is just false. I intend to save lives. I am aware that that means killing, but my intention is not to kill, killing is one of my actions. Note, my maxim does not mention killing, it only mentions saving lives. This is most certainly a good intention.

Kant judges an action on its maxim. There are a number of possible maxims behind the resolution, and my maxim, "If I save lives I am doing the right thing" is a morally sound maxim under deontology.

He attacks my contention, by again saying that I intend to kill. My maxim is my intention for the purposes of deontology, and my maxim does not mention killing. I do not, for the purposes of deontology, intend to kill.

Onto my opponent's case.

We have the same value, and our criterions are basically the same, as Kantianism is deontology. So basically, since the affirmative can fit under both frameworks, the affirmative clearly wins.

You vote affirmative without a doubt, I have fit my case under both frameworks, and defended my case, while I have shown that my opponent is wrong in interpreting my intention.
liberty

Con

I will refute my opponent's case before defending my own



"He claims that I fully intend to kill. That is just false. I intend to save lives. I am aware that that means killing, but my intention is not to kill, killing is one of my actions. Note, my maxim does not mention killing, it only mentions saving lives. This is most certainly a good intention."

--> There are two ways of doing things. You either do something intentionally (on purpose), or unintentionally (by accident). I understand that you ALSO intend to save lives but you intend to do so by killing first. In the affirmative, you do not kill by accident you kill intentionally, so you're intention of killing is not morally permissible, under any circumstances, despite its consequences and other intentions. Therefore, my opponent's claim that killing is just an action is false because it is an action done intentionally, also as I explained through definition of intention (course of action) you have to kill FIRST kill in order to save so this course of action that is based on an immoral action (killing) is wrong and consequently rejected as immoral by Kantianism.

My opponent, after the, claims that my argument does not refute his argument and to the contrary strengthens it, because I say that saving lives is an intention. He hides (because I am sure he noticed it) that in the conclusion of my argument that he attacks with the claim in question, I state that you both intend to save AND kill ("Intention: kill, save lives"), I also explain (in Round 2 and in the previous argument) that you also intend to kill, an action that is not morally permissible according to Kantianism, because the intention of killing is wrong.

Next, he repeats his Round 2 argument: that saving is the action and not the consequence, but he fails to prove this and does not refute my grammar interpretation that proves the exact opposite to his claim. Debate rules dictate that if an argument is not countered it must be extended and since my opponent will not get a second chance to refute it, it is accepted as correct. This, alone along with his lack of proof for his claim is what should cause him to drop it.

"The maxim "If I save lives, I am doing the right thing" can. So if we simply act under the latter maxim, we are achieving the resolution, but we are still acting upon a morally sound maxim. This is what deontology calls for. Only that we act on a moral maxim, and the affirmative does this. The affirmative upholds the criterion of both Negative and my criterion."

My opponent's proposed maxim was a big blunder for 2 reasons:

--> First of all he makes the same mistake in believing that saving is the action, in my argument about the grammatical interpretation of the resolution that was not refuted and therefore is accepted as correct, I prove him wrong (saving is a consequence).

According to Kant:
" Morality and other rational requirements are demands that apply to the maxims that motivate our actions"

Notice that he states that maxims should motivate our ACTIONS and not our intentions. Therefore creating a maxim that motivates an INTENTION (which as I have proved is the case here) is wrong according to Kant (the man who first had the idea of maxims).

--> As my opponent explained in Round 1, Kant said that ‘a maxim has to be universalised in order to be accepted, or else it must be rejected as immoral'. In the case of the affirmative saving the lives of many is done by killing an innocent. As I already explained in Round 1, killing an innocent can not be universalised because "a.) It is generally immoral and b.)No one would want to be killed (Do unto others as you will have them do unto you)." In conclusion, even if saving was the action (I already proved that it is not) my opponent's maxim would still be rejected as morally impermissible.
-->Taking the above into consideration, my opponent must now drop his points based on the maxim he proposes and leave his value criterion undefended that therefore will also dropped and since it is to late to provide a new one at this point of the debate, a negative ballot is mandatory.

"Kant judges an action on its maxim. There are a number of possible maxims behind the resolution, and my maxim, "If I save lives I am doing the right thing" is a morally sound maxim under deontology."

--> My opponent's maxim has above been proven wrong because a.) It motivates an intention rather than action b.) It cannot be universalised, therefore it is rejected based on Kant's words (a maxim must motivate an action only and a maxim must be universalised in order to be accepted)



"He attacks my contention, by again saying that I intend to kill. My maxim is my intention for the purposes of deontology, and my maxim does not mention killing. I do not, for the purposes of deontology, intend to kill."

--> The maxim may not mention the action of killing, because it is an intention, but am intention is achieved through an action and that action is killing that is not morally permissible according to Deontology that claims that an action should be judged without taking it's consequences into consideration and killing is morally impermissible in spite of saving people.

Moving on to my own case

"We have the same value, and our criterions are basically the same, as Kantianism is deontology. So basically, since the affirmative can fit under both frameworks, the affirmative clearly wins."

--> My opponent provides this argument on order to persuade you to vote for him. His argument is false. This is because:

A.) Kantianism, could not be used to defend his own case, because in the affirmative you fully intend to kill an innocent, which is considered an immoral action that is therefore rejected (along with his proposed maxim) by Kantianism and Immanuel Kant's very words as I explained above

B.)Deontology also rejects both the affirmative of the resolution (my opponent's case) and the maxim he provides. This is because as I explained in Round 1

"Deontology supports that we should focus on the rightness or wrongness of the action, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences to determine if an action is morally permissible or not."

I have proven that the action is killing an innocent and the consequence is saving lives and this proof, went by unquestioned and unrefuted and since it is to late to late to refute it (this is the last round) it is therefore accepted as true. This means that Deontology rejects the affirmative.

Judging from the above, my opponent's claim that his case fits both frames is completely false, since the exact opposite is true and his case is therefore Morally Impermissible, (although it may be called Heroic and it may have the best of results, this does not change the fact that it is morally impermissible).

Besides these 2 sentences, my opponent fails to refute many of the arguments I made in the defence of my case that are consequently accepted and extended.

Finally, my opponent failed to refute many of my points in his attack on my own case and the grammatical interpretation in the defence of his own (while I correctly refuted each and every one of his arguments), his Value Criterion must be dropped because he supported it with a maxim that contradicts it (Kant's very words) and is rejected by both Kantianism and Deontology and since he can not provide a new one at this stage, his value is not upheld by a Criterion resulting in him not doing nearly enough to affirm the resolution. While I correctly refuted all of his points and proved that both Kantianism and Deontology reject the affirmative and accept the negative (my own case) and therefore I have done enough to negate.

Consequently a negative ballot is (based on justice) the correct choice.

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sh0tym5 8 years ago
sh0tym5
Someone challenge me. I will be affirmative.
Posted by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
I wouldn't choose kantism as my criterion if i was on the AFF because Immanuel kant would agree with the negative. He would first say that because the killing isn't moral, so we must not act. Second he would go into his whole categorical imperative rant proving that we shouldn't kill. Also he would say that we should not use humans as a means to justify ends.
Just my opinion
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
My vote: Liberty

Reason: He successfully refuted the main component of LR4's case. I.e. intention makes an action moral. Yes you may intend on saving people, but you also intend to kill somebody. From this, liberty made your argument a mute point because the resolution (under your justifications) would be both affirmed and negated. Therefore, you did not uphold your Affirmative Burden entirely, and thus the win goes to Neg.

Comments:

Aff: Kant was not such a good choice on the affirmative.
Neg: You could have argued more then just deontology.
Both: Good rebuttals, good arguments (could have been better), and an overall successful round.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Very good debate by both debaters. I can't wait till the voting period. ^^ I have a feeling who will win though.
Posted by sgtsledge 8 years ago
sgtsledge
Yeah strange approach but... cant wait to see how it plays out
Posted by liberty 8 years ago
liberty
Yes CiRro, I noticed that too, Kentianism is an strange choice for an affirmative considering that it be easier to support the negative with it. Apparently, he mixed things up, he thought that actions were consequences and vice-verso.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
The three comments below 'tis right. Arrghhh!
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
i agree with John
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I don't think you're going to be getting my grammar vote.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Title could do with fewer "!!!!!!"s
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by windyhop 8 years ago
windyhop
LR4N6FTW4EVAlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
LR4N6FTW4EVAlibertyTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
LR4N6FTW4EVAlibertyTied
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