The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Losing
44 Points

Military Conscription is Unjust.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 15 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,414 times Debate No: 9642
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (15)

 

Danielle

Pro

I. INTRODUCTION

I noticed that debate challenges have been pretty scarce lately, so I decided to post one of my own. This will be a three-round debate, during which I will spend the first round making any necessary clarifications, and using Rounds 2 and 3 to make and conclude my arguments. I acknowledge that as Pro (and more importantly, as the instigator) I have the burden of proof. Thus I ask that my future opponent utilize R1 to either accept or refute my clarifications; I will make my opening arguments in R1. Thank you to whomever accepts this debate, and good luck!

II. CLARIFICATIONS

Military Conscription: A general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority. It is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just males) to serve in the armed forces. It is known by various names — for example, the most recent conscription program in the United States was known colloquially as 'the draft' [Wikipedia].

Unjust: Lacking in justice or fairness [Dictionary]

I also encourage that this debate focus primarily on the United States; that is to say that the resolution actually reads: (Legalized) Military conscription is/would be unjust in the United States. If my opponent disagrees with these parameters, I ask that it be addressed along with reasoning detailing the opposition.
sherlockmethod

Con

I hope I read correctly, as Lwerd is a phenomenal debater, but she said she would make her argument in RD 1; I think she meant RD 2. If I read correctly, I am to accept the clarifications only in this round so I will do so. I have been absent for several weeks due to personal issues so a debate with you, ma'am, is a welcome return as I have RFD'd a few of your past debates and expect to learn much from you.

I will accept the Con position to the full resolution, "(Legalized) Military conscription is/would be unjust in the United States." I accept your definition of military conscription in this frame work and will focus on the United States. I ask that your use of "some established authority" be the United States, as I do not wish to address conscription within private militias. From reading your revised resolution, I do not think you wish to do so either. I look forward to a great debate and welcome your RD 2 presentation.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con, for accepting :)

III. CONTENTIONS

1. Rights of the Individual

--> Democracies in particular value the individual liberties occupied by its citizens. These rights are not given provided the state, but are rather natural born rights - rights that the government is meant to uphold and maintain. To force a citizen to act against their conscience/will in this example in particular completely violates the very rights that the government is supposed to protect.

--> On that note, this practice is completely hypocritical and contradictory to American values. For instance, those forced into military service would essentially be fighting for freedoms that don't really exist, or that they believe in/deserve.

--> This kind of government control/forcing would turn a nation into a totalitarian state; a fate the United States and many others have fought against throughout history.

--> Slavery is illegal. Forcing a citizen to work against their will with fear of punishment (with the other option being escape/treason) is indeed a form of slavery. It also reminds us of the practice of indentured servitude; an act that has been banished for many years.

--> Through this practice, the government is essentially stealing from the citizens; they are stealing the livelihoods of individuals who are not free to decide their fate. They are stealing students from learning, workers from work, children from parents, parents from children, etc. They are taking away rights without the individual's consent.

2. The Government & Morality

--> The government does not always engage in war for the right reasons. For instance, many feel that the 9/11 attacks were a mere instigation for government propaganda in order to compel Congress to wage war in the Middle East, as specifically a direct objective benefiting solely the Bush Administration.

--> The government as a whole is a corrupt institution. If it can enter a war for whatever reason - even whilst an overwhelming amount of the population disagrees with it - think of what other rights the government can take away on a whim. It is this kind of control that people have fought against for centuries. This kind of control is immoral and revokes the freedoms granted in documents such as the Constitution of the United States of America.

--> This practice establishes the fact that the government and the government alone determines what endeavors are moral, just, or are worth fighting for. Those sent to fight have no say in their futures, even if they vote.

--> Military conscription has always had a history of bias. For instance, there is a great amount of class bias; working-class men were always drafted in greater quantity than middle-class men. Further, typically it has always been men who had to be drafted in the United States -- what about the women? In a country that embraces equality of the sexes (or is supposed to), this practice seems highly unfair. The army also discriminates against gays.

--> By drafting people based on chance or as a whole, you are unaware of whether or not each person can handle the stress that military life induces upon the individual. Not everyone is mentally capable of dealing with those kind of restrictive, disciplined and violent environments. TIME magazine just published an article regarding the skyrocketing amount of soldiers now being treated by psychologists for PTSD and other disorders, and who are being prescribed (and often in turn becoming addicted to) medication. This number would only increase with involuntary enlistments. Again this deals with infringement upon an individual's rights (and health care) as well.

3. Effectiveness

Are these violation of rights worth the risk?

--> Some have asserted that this practice would actually HURT the military's performance rather than assist it. It is of common belief that rivalries between those drafted and those who enlisted voluntarily would cause tension and incohesiveness amongst the troops. This inner turmoil would be counterproductive to military goals.

--> Another problem is that those who are not inclined for military training may not perform up to par, and their inability to perform as needed could be detrimental to a platoon's mission(s).

--> One reason why some favor conscription is because they see it as a solution to strengthening our armed forces. However one must keep in mind that those who are forced into the military will most likely not want to continue on that path once they are given the opportunity to leave. Thus this 'solution' would actually not solve any problems, and is therefore not worth the trouble.

4. Cost

If military conscription is ineffective, is it worth the financial burden?

--> If we hired thousands to millions of new soldiers, that would be a costly feat for our government, ESPECIALLY during a time of war. This practice would harm both our government as a whole and the individual tax payers who would be forced to pay into this monstrosity.

5. Not Necessary

Given all of these negative implications, we must now consider the clear fact that military conscription is unnecessary.

--> So far our current policy of not acting on military conscription (with the exception of registering for the draft) has worked for us. There has not been an attack on U.S. soil in over 40 years, with the exception of 9/11, which could not have been prevented even if we had a mandated militia. Why fix something that isn't broken?

--> Further, even if some deem the armed services something that IS broken (because of lower enlistment numbers), we must keep in mind that there are other ways to solve those problems. For instance, we can offer higher benefit packages to make enlistment more enticing.

--> If there were ever a situation where military enlistment was absolutely needed to protect freedom at home, and this became apparent to the masses, history has shown us that enlistments WILL increase if need-be. For instance, when the United States was attacked during WWII, we experienced a surge in enlistments of eager recruits wanting to fight to protect their freedoms and families at home.

--> In this day and age, technology has become superior to man-power in terms of warfare. Therefore it is knowledge and money and weapons that have become more valuable than soldiers. All-in-all, this process is unnecessary.

6. Social Impact

--> In addition to economic impacts, there will be social repercussions to enacting conscription. Drafts have been known to be divisive amongst society, and cause disruption, riots, protests, etc. Consider the negative impacts of the counter-culture of America in the 1960s. Examples include police brutality, racial divide (The Black Panthers), drug abuse, etc.

7. Responsibility

--> Con's argument will be that at age 18, one has the opportunity to leave the U.S. if they do not wish to comply with the current policy of conscription. Note that this does not address the fact that the U.S. should have this policy to begin with (hence the debate). In other words, this does not explain why conscription should be a responsibility. Under this logic, the people of the U.S. should have to accept any current law or injustice blindly or leave. That is clearly not how a democracy works.

--> Again, if the U.S. needs soldiers and citizens fail to step up, it will be their problem in the end. We have rights and responsibilities as citizens; the government doesn't have the right to force conscription. Con must explain how the policy of military conscription is democratic. I'll leave my rebuttal at that for now until Con replies.

IV. CONCLUSION

My contentions have proven why military conscription is not only immoral and dangerous, but also ineffective and unnecessary. Why spend all that money and cause so many negative social implications for a process with little to no benefits? There may be some, but on balance, conscription is unjust.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank pro for her response. After reading the many reasons Pro stated to show military conscription as unjust, I still maintain the Con position.
The resolution is unconditional. Pro asserts military conscription is unjust, not some of the time, but all of the time. I need only give one example where military conscription is just to maintain my position.

Rebuttals to Contentions (part 1):
Democracies do indeed value the rights of an individual; however, those rights must be protected. The government of the people, for the people, and by the people is not completely separated from the people. Our government consists of citizens, and when we suggest the government protect certain rights we must understand that citizens are the protectors. The government does not fight a war, soldiers do. Pro agrees the government must protect unalieble rights, but when those rights are put in jeopardy by an enemy the citizen government must take all necessary action to preserve those rights for future generations. For the citizen government to allow a foreign power to take control of our country thereby eliminating unalienable rights permanently is unjust. If the draft can prevent such actions then it is not only just, but essential to liberty.

Pro contends the draft would cause the U.S. to become a totalitarian state, but history does not support this contention. The U.S. used a draft in several wars http://en.wikipedia.org... and has done so since the Civil War. We have managed to maintain our republic and individual rights have grown substantially since the first use of the draft. I see no evidence suggesting military conscription leads to totalitarianism.

Slavery is indeed illegal, but is not analogous to military conscription. Using the criteria pro offered, jury duty (a very necessary obligation in a free society) is also slavery. When one is drafted, the individual is paid the same as a volunteer at the same rank, is given pay for hazardous duty just like a volunteer, and is given the same rights, privileges, and incentives as any other member of the military. Their families will receive medical care and all privileges too. I see nothing in the history of slavery allowing for so much.

Pro contends conscription steals from the citizens, but conscription can ensure we have citizens at all. If we do not have the standing army to repeal attacks from enemies then we will lose the very nation built to protect unalienable rights. When one abstains from defending our freedoms, she steals the protection from those who are unable to stand in defense i.e. children, the handicapped, the elderly, etc.

Government and Morality (section 2)
I agree the government does not engage in war for the right reasons all the time, but Pro's position applies when the government does go to war for the right reasons; therefore, this point is outside the scope of our debate; 9/11 "truffers" notwithstanding.
We do have corrupt officials, but the government cannot just go to war for any reason. And war powers are not unconstitutional as the Constitution grants the Government war powers. See Art. 1 Sec. 8. No where does the Constitution state the majority of the citizens must agree with the war. As for having a say so in the matter, we do. Instituting a draft would be political suicide in today's U.S. and, yes, votes do count. Ask Senator Franken.

Pro is correct that conscription has a history of bias, but Pro's position is that conscription is unjust all the time. Even if the bias of the draft could be avoided, Pro would still maintain the draft unjust so this point is not relevant to this debate.

Effectiveness (section 3)
Pro insists many could not handle military duty and she is absolutely correct which is why all draftees, like volunteers, must undergo rigorous testing to serve in military combat. Many volunteers are turned away due to medical problems, psychological issues, and criminal backgrounds; the same would apply to draftees. Our soldiers today do not stand shoulder to shoulder and fire when told. The training is highly sophisticated and those unqualified, drafted or not, do not serve in this area. As for the Time article, if the subject is on today's military then draftees are not included as one soldier in the military today is a draftee. http://www.time.com...
I see no evidence presented suggesting draftees would be more prone to PTSD than a volunteer or that their performance would be sub par; our performance in WWII with millions of draftees contradicts the latter point as well. As for the inner turmoil, one does not wear a sign saying "draftee" and the platoon would be none the wiser unless the draftee said something.

Cost (section 4)
Cost is a non issue if the fate of the nation is in the balance. Spare no expense in this situation. Pro has not shown conscription to be ineffective and even if effective, Pro's position does not change.

Necessity (section 5)
I agree we do not need conscription now, but we must examine this subject in totality. Pro's position is that conscription is always unjust, even when needed. I agree the option, due to the changing military technology, is less viable than during the Civil War, but all the equipment and incentives in the world do not help a dead man fight. Conscription, if used to fill in decreasing ranks during times of war, will provide the necessary man power for our national security. Pro's position can stand only if she can show conscription is never necessary. I submit that if an attack resulting in the loss of 30-40 % of our military should occur then conscription would be needed to protect our Nation.
Pro mentions the surge of volunteers during WWII, but neglects to mention that the draft was in full effect also. Millions were drafted. http://www.sss.gov...
And, yes, they were needed.

Social Impact (section 6)
Pro gives some fine examples of the results of an unnecessary draft by focusing on the turmoil in the 1960's, but I can not find this level of opposition to the draft during WWII, although protests did occur. Pro has only alluded to the social impact of unnecessary military conscription, not conscription itself. I submit that the social impact of the destruction of the United States on citizens would outweigh the negative impact of a necessary draft.

Responsibility (section 7)
The "love it or leave it" position is fallacious and I have no interest in using it here. If the U.S. cannot fill the ranks in a time of war, a time when our nation is under attack then the problem will be ours as we would be living during the resulting take over. I need not show conscription to be democratic, only necessary to preserve our country. I submit that WWII was a time when the draft was needed, and the hypothetical I presented above would satisfy the necessity argument also.

Conclusion
If an event took place resulting in substantial casualties in the U.S. Military, then conscription is a viable answer to an impending invasion. Our unalienable rights are not granted by the U.S. but they are protected and mandatory service, in a time of war, is a price we pay for this somewhat limited freedom. Pro contends that forcing one to serve means our individual rights by way of natural law do not exist. To some degree this is correct, as humans have developed societies and we don't get to opt out. One is welcome to say natural rights of the individual are more valuable than the society meant to protect them, but when that protection breaks down how is one to defend against an army wishing to take them away? A government of citizen soldiers to fight back sounds like a good answer, and considering our success rate, I agree. Conscription, under limited circumstances, is just so long as it is a last line of defense.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

I have limited characters, so I'll get right down to it.

During the Vietnam war, as many as 70% of Americans were OPPOSED to the U.S. being involved in the conflict [1]. Yet people were still drafted to fight a war against their will; a war that was pointless in the sense that it did not threaten the U.S. nor any of our liberties at all whatsoever. Proof is that we essentially lost that war, and yet our liberties are supposedly still in tact. In other words, while it's easy to draw up the argument that sometimes we have to fight to protect our rights, the reality is that often conscription is abused as it was during the Vietnam War. During the Bush administration, there was a fear that people might be drafted despite the declining support for the war.

Additionally, Con's entire "argument" against my point has already been refuted by me in R1. He points out, "For the citizen government to allow a foreign power to take control of our country thereby eliminating unalienable rights permanently is unjust." This completely neglects my points from the previous round that stated (1) In case of a perceived necessity, we can increase benefit packages for the military to draw voluntary enlistment, and (2) History shows that during perceived necessity, military recruitment actually increases on its own such as after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the attacks on 9/11 [2]. Thus Con's proposed forced enlistment continues to violate rights of human liberty and jeopardizes democracy without considering other factors.

Moreover, Con again appeals to emotion (fallacy) in bringing up the fact that it our patriotic duty to fight in the name of the U.S. and democracy. However, as I pointed out, the government as a corrupt institution manipulates its power to engage the U.S. and its citizens in conflicts that many of us do not want to be in, i.e. Vietnam. To say that we have to take away people's rights in order to protect rights is contrary to what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted our constitution. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who are willing to give up liberty for a bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." In other words, Con's suggestion is contrary to American values of democracy. Keep in mind that my point wasn't to suggest that the U.S. would become a totalitarian state as a result of the draft, but merely that the practice of forcing people into conscription was reminiscent of totalitarian objectives.

In regard to conscription being a form of slavery, the term is defined as as servitude or the involuntary subjection to another [3]. In that case, it would appear as if conscription fits these parameters. Plus, just because the military might pay you doesn't mean that you get the benefits of being involved with none of the banes. In fact you become property of the U.S. government and are subject to various restrictions and relinquishing of certain freedoms, or risk being deemed AWOL, for instance. Plus, the point here is that you don't have the CHOICE of what you do, so yes, the term slavery applies.

While Con offers that jury duty might be considered slavery as well, there are some fundamental differences that make this a less than stellar example. First, the penalties for skipping jury duty are far less than the penalty (in terms of jail time) for skipping out on the draft. Second, a jury is absolutely necessary for the implementation of the justice system that this country sees fit. On the contrary, sometimes we employ conscription in cases where it's NOT necessary, i.e. Vietnam.

Additionally, you actually need to seek people out to serve in various juries; however, the military already has a standing army which can carry out all necessary functions for the time being. If something changes, we can always call upon our own citizens to enlist. If they choose to jeopardize their freedom by not enlisting, then clearly that's a choice the citizens have made for themselves. The government is supposed to be a representation of the citizens - not the boss of the citizens. In saying, "When one abstains from defending our freedoms, she steals the protection from those who are unable to stand in defense i.e. children, the handicapped, the elderly, etc." what Con is essentially conveying is that one should be forced to give or sacrifice their life for someone else without their consent. I disagree.

Con notes, "War powers are not unconstitutional as the Constitution grants the Government war powers." True, but the war going on in Iraq right now is illegal and unconstitutional. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, Congress allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself [4]. In other words, it's very easy for the minority to abuse the powers of government and overrule the majority in terms of political power. Instituting a draft would not be political suicide as Con implies, because so far there has been a successful conservative wave of patriotism and nationalistic values in the U.S. meaning many might even favor a draft if FOX News did a good enough job of persuasion.

Next Con asserts that the draft's history of bias and discrimination is irrelevant to this discussion, because maybe in the future it wouldn't be biased. That's a ridiculous argument. Maybe it WOULD be biased, and history shows us that it's likely to be so. Moreover, the very nature of the draft is designed to be biased. For instance, the Amish can technically get drafted but typically don't because they're "conscientious objectors." What if that "conscientious objector" status was extended to ALL conscientious objectors? There would be no point of the draft. And if you discriminate about whom you apply that objection to, you're still discriminating, based on religion or anything else. If you violate people's rights in the sense that you force them to go against their religion, etc., then you're infringing upon other rights. Either way, you're going to infringe upon the constitution and morality.

Con claims that draftees undergo "rigorous testing" to ensure that they're capable of enduring military combat, mental or physical. I merely have to cite a plethora of studies indicating otherwise: that may people sent off to war are not capable of handling the immense stresses and pressures of the military... Or how about this source, which cites the military voluntarily sending mentally unsound soldiers into combat on purpose [5]. Plus, if young people are forced to go into the armed forces, it will only foster resentment against authority and will undermine any skills they might learn. This is an ineffective ideal.

Con says, "Cost is a non issue if the fate of the nation is in the balance" however cost most definitely becomes an issue if this unnecessary and immoral option actually contributes to the negative fate of a nation. Con has the burden of providing an example in which conscription would be necessary. A diminishing militia is not sufficient reason. Citizens should fight voluntarily for what they believe in. If people don't want to fight to protect themselves and their rights, they shouldn't have to, nor should they be forced to give their lives for others. That should be optional. Furthermore, Con's point about WWII is irrelevant; yes there was a draft, but people also volunteered just as they did after 9/11. Back to Con for now...

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.usmilitary.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://www.albionmonitor.com...
[5] http://www.democraticunderground.com...
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank Pro for her third and final round. I am taken back a bit as I expected a conclusion, not a full round of argumentation. I am well within DDO etiquette to respond to claims of fallacies, and correct attempts by Pro the reword my argument erroneously. I will present no new arguments.

Pro spent a portion of her final round blasting former President Bush, the Republican Party, and FOX news; none of which have anything to do with the resolution. As I made clear, we do not have but one draftee in the armed services and no draft has been instituted in any of the gulf conflicts. Fear of a draft serves only to further my point that instituting one now would indeed be political suicide regardless of the talking heads at FOX news.

Pro spent time on the Vietnam conflict and the illegality of the Gulf War, the latter having, again, nothing to do with the resolution. (As a side note, the legal analysis from the referenced blog shows very poor scholarship) I fully agree that instituting the draft during any portion of the Cold War and Vietnam was a mistake, but the resolution applies even when the draft is properly instituted as it was during WWII so a misuse of the draft in one or even two situations is not enough to uphold the resolution. I explained as much in my last round.

Pro continues with the claim that enlistment increased in response to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 thereby negating the need for a draft, but millions were drafted during WWII and they were needed. History does not support the position that the draft was unnecessary during WWII. The voluntary enlistments were not enough in WWII, and no draft was instituted after 9/11. I am not sure why Pro continuously mentioned it.

Pro contends I committed a fallacy in an appeal to emotion, but this charge is unwarranted. I never once used the phrase "patriotic duty" and my argument (no quotes needed, Pro) is based on the necessity of the draft as a limited option, not emotional appeals.

Pro's attempt to distinguish jury duty from slavery but add conscription to the definition is unconvincing. The scope of the penalty for either is irrelevant, and like jury duty (which Pro agrees is essential to our county) military conscription is a necessity in certain cases. I have provided an example where conscription would be viable and history, in the respect of WWII, showed a strong example also.

The rewording of my claim concerning bias is poorly done. Pro created a straw man and attacked it, not my actual argument. I made very clear that the resolution was unconditional; therefore, it applies even if all bias is removed from the draft so any argumentation concerning bias is irrelevant.

As for Pro's contention concerning training and testing, I cannot understand why pro linked a source which cited another source which then cited a third source for the required material. The original article is very speculative and deals with a war in which no draft was instituted i.e. the Iraq War. My point in RD 2 was a response to draftees training compared to volunteers – it is identical. I am aware of PTSD and I am aware that a substantial portion of soldiers do not suffer from this condition. I enlisted in the military and underwent more tests than I can remember now. Most of the people turned away failed the physical, the others the psychological portion in Basic Training. Draftees and Volunteers undergo the same testing, period. If Pro has a plethora of source contradicting this point, she should have stated them, merely or otherwise.

In conclusion, the resolution was not upheld. I provided an historical example of the necessity of the draft and a hypothetical. Pro presented an unconditional resolution and attempted to uphold it using conditional circumstances. Pro's continued references to the Iraq War and 9/11 were outside of the scope of the debate and both leave the voter with little to consider. I urge voters to consider my argumentation, not Pro's straw man representations of my position, and negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Yeti,
I am not sure WWII should be left out of a debate on the draft. Lwerd asked that the debate focus on the US so I think we were both right in referencing it.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
I have the feeling, that during debates on the draft (on here, or elsewhere) world war 2 is going to be brought up, EVERY TIME..

that may be a seperate debate! Was the draft necassary or was it not? Should've we even gotten involved in the conflict to begin with?
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Nor do I continue debates in the comments section.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
"I have provided an example where conscription would be viable and history, in the respect of WWII, showed a strong example also." -- Actually, you haven't proven that a draft was necessary or even right. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that the U.S. provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in order to gain support for our involvement in the war. This increased recruits and patriotism necessary to fight. Engaging in this war without an attack on US soil would have been contrary to what the constitution outlines and former leader's pleas of isolationism, for example. FYI I'm not attempting to continue this debate in the comment section lol merely explain my points... mayhaps I should PM this to you instead so that people don't get the wrong idea.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I don't reward points at all on any of my debates unless a forfeit occurs. My conduct was fine, and I responded very well to complete misrepresentations of my argument in your final round. In addition, I concluded instead of offering new points in the final round. All together, I see no need to award conduct to either side by anyone, much less by one of participants.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Another straw man: "I fully agree that instituting the draft during any portion of the Cold War and Vietnam was a mistake, but the resolution applies even when the draft is properly instituted as it was during WWII so a misuse of the draft in one or even two situations is not enough to uphold the resolution." First, I maintain that a draft is wrong in every situation. Your wording suggests that I have left something out instead of simply disagreeing with you. Second, I argued that the draft WASN'T necessary even during WWII... so you're doing the same thing again; making it seem as if I dropped an argument instead of refuting an argument.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Con, I just started reading your last round response, and already I'm awarding a conduct point to myself. You said, "Pro spent a portion of her final round blasting former President Bush, the Republican Party, and FOX news; none of which have anything to do with the resolution." That is a complete straw man. I made a joke about Fox news and said almost nothing about Bush nor Republicans... Not to mention that I doubt anything I said could be considered "blasting." Hmm.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Whoops! I didn't even realize that it was my 3rd/final round when I posted that! I'll give my RFD soon when I'm done with my homework (I haven't voted yet actually).
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Yes, Con, I meant to say R2 :)
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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 beamer1 7 years ago
beamer1
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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 alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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 Awed 7 years ago
Awed
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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 numa 7 years ago
numa
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
DaniellesherlockmethodTied
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:43