The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
LakevilleNorthJT
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points

Military conscription is unjust.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,814 times Debate No: 4831
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (18)

 

Danielle

Pro

I. INTRODUCTION

I affirm the resolution 'Military conscription is unjust.' My definition of military conscription for this debate reads: 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). I also encourage that this debate focus primarily on the United States; that is to say that the resolution actually reads: (Legalizing) 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.

II. CONTENTIONS

1. Rights
2. Morality
3. Effectiveness
4. Cost
5. Necessity
6. Impact

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 propoganda in order to compell Congress to wage war in the Middle East, as specifically a direct objective benefitting solely the Bush Administration.

--> The government as a whole is a corrupt instituion. 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 Constituion 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.

--> 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.

--> 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 incrase with involuntary enlistments. Again this deals with infringement upon an individual's rights as well.

3. Effectiveness

Are the above 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 -> 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 repercissions 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.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on my 6 contentions, I have proved 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? On balance, military conscrition is unjust.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

Military Conscription

Hello and Good Luck.

Road Map: Overview, AC, NC

Overview: THIS IS LD VALUE DEBATE. Before voting on this round I would like the judges to remember that this is LD Debate and not normal debate like the last tournament. In LD Debate the most important thing is the value/criterion. My opponent fails to give either of these. This is bad because there is no way to evaluate the round (no criterion) and there is no way to tell when your goal has been reached because there is no goal (value). Thus, in this round you must vote for me because my opponent has failed to propose a value/criterion meaning that there is no way for them to win unless there is a link to my value. All I have to prove in this round therefore is that I link to my standards better than my opponent. No matter how abusive my value/criteria may be, you must use it because it is the only way to evaluate this round.

AC (Opponents Case)-

Resolutional Analysis- US is not in the resolution thus it is absurd you limit the debate to the US.

Conscription = Draft

Contention 1 (Rights)-

1.Violate Rights more if there is no draft. Shortage of troops means that country will be in turmoil in times of war. This means many innocent citizens may be KILLED. This is the biggest right violation possible.
2.Disregard American Values because the resolution is not looking to America.
3.Third Point also US specific.
4.Slavery may be illegal but so is murder of innocent citizens which is what will happen if there isn't a proper military.
5.More rights lost if innocent are killed because there isn't a military. Draft is necessary is some countries to compose a legit. Military.

Con. 2 (Morality)

1.If under attack rather than declaring war, then immediate draft need be an option.
2.My opponent assumes that the gov. is starting the war. I'm saying that if under attack, immediate draft is needed.
3.Says that it is unfair in the US but doesn't show how it is unfair in different places.
4.I addressed the last point in the rights part by saying negative harms more rights because innocents will be killed. This pt. is not morality related.

Con 3 (Effectiveness)-
Con 4 (Money) - GROUP

1.The lives of innocents which need be protected are more important than a monetary sum.
2.Tax payers would be willing to pay if the threat was high enough and the alternative is an attack on the country leading to death.
3.It is better to have an incapable military than no military.

Con 5- ( Not Necessary)-
1.May work for the US but not for other countries. Once again the res. Is not US specific.
2.Higher benefit packages would cost taxpayers money which my opponent already said was bad.
3.Other countries are not as rich as the US and may need drafts.

Con 6- (Social Impact)-

1.This is not known to happen in other countries.

NC- (My Case)

I negate.

'Military conscription is unjust'

I value Justice defined as giving each their due. Use this because the resolution is asking us to evaluate the justness of an action. Thus, Justice is the ultimate goal.

The criterion is Protection of Innocent Citizens.

Since aff doesn't provide standards this is what we use in the round.

I contend that neg protects citizens better than aff.

I will make this point clear and give you the judges a clear place to vote.

Claim- The Negative Debater Better Protects Innocent Citizens

Warrant- (Example) The US gets greedy for oil. They decide to invade a huge oil producer: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a weak army and is a developing nation meaning that supplies are low. If the US attacks the weak army, more people will die than if the US attacked a strong army. In this case military conscription is needed and thus just.

Impact- Conscription Protects more innocent people.

Thus, I have clearly shown that in this round a negative vote is necessary. The LWERD forgets a value/criterion which is worthy of an automatic loss. I have responded to every argument and brought up many of my own. Thus you must Negate.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

First of all I would like to address the fact that my opponent failed to post her argument in time on the debate.org site. You had three days to come up with an argument, you decide to wait until the last minute and then post your argument on facebook. As far as debate.org goes the round was forfeited and judges should treat it as such. Their is no way that we should buy the fact that it wouldnt let her post her argument and if it did it is because the time limit had been surpassed and the round forfeited. Judges, I am not going to run a huge theory argument on why this is bad but I ask that you take into consideration the fact that the Lwerd forfeited RD2.

Value Criterion- This is an ld debate tournament. It is not enough to simply say I don't know. If you don't know the specifics of ld debate then you shouldn't have entered this tournament. It's not difficult to figure out what ld debate is. If my opponent would have cared at all about debating correctly, she could have simply read a wikipedia article which would have solved this whole problem. Also, it doesn't matter how other judges vote. This is one round and I am making an argument that the con of the other debates could also make. Different judges judge different ways and there is no way to implement a universal type of judging. Thus, I ask you not to look at the stuff outside of this round. The Lwerd had no standard during the AC and thus we must use my standard.

The fact that the LWERD forfeited the second round should also be looked at.

Now I will rebute the actual case.

Rights

1.I am arguing that if an army-less country is attacked more people would die than if we used some citizens to form a military and essentially win the war.

2. They might not want to fight, but it is necessary for the nations freeddom. Because the people live in the nation, they have an obligation to that nation.

3.This point is essentially the same as the last. I am arguing that the fighting is necessary. As people living in the nation, the people have an obligation to protect their nation. By moving to the nation, the people concede to the possibility to the draft. (social contract)

4. Government can take steps possible to make sure well bodied people are drafted.

Cost

1.If we drafted a small number of well-bodied people then the small military would be effective.

Social Impact- Im saying that in certain situations where life is being threatened people would be accepting of military conscription.

Value/Criterion-

Lwerd doesn't tell why her definition is preverable thus you use mine because mine was offered first and the lwerd doesnt say why its bad. We give more people their due because more lives are protected.

My opponents response to my criterion is saying its the same as my value. Protection of innocents is a way of reaching my value, its in no way the same. The lwerd still gives criterion thus we use mine.

My Case-

No response to stadards- EXTEND

A strong army may result in a win. Meaning that conscription protects more.

Even if my opponent wins every argument, she has not linked to my c/v and has not provided a criterion of her own meaning I still win.

My opponent has failed to meet ld standards/ forfeited a round/ and has no way to win this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

[Introduction/Clarification]

Yes, I did fail to post my argument on debate.org. When I had tried to submit my argument, it kept saying "Your post must be less than 8,000 characters" and would not let me make a submission, even though I had almost 500 characters remaining (this happens pretty frequently for me and I've complained about it before; however, it will usually let me post so long as I have more than 60 characters remaining).

In regard to the time that I posted, first of all, it has absolutely no merit in this debate whether I posted when I had 20 minutes left or 2 days left. So long as I posted within the time frame allotted, I could have waited until the very last second if I wanted to. Con has no business trying to put down my argument because I waited almost the full 3 days -- there was a (personal) reason for that. Furthermore, as Con, he had the ability to not only wait 3 days to accept my challenge, but he also had another 3 additional days to post his argument (which he utilized). In that case, he is in fact the one who was at a greater time advantage than I.

Additionally, I posted the time that I submitted my argument in the comment section. For the first day or so (not sure how much longer after that) debate.org keeps track of when someone posts, i.e. 1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, 3 hours ago, etc. The time that I posted on Facebook supports my comment. Therefore my opponent was well aware of the fact that I posted my argument in time; for him to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie, however, I understand that you gotta do what you gotta do. Especially if you've put forth a really weak case such as Con has.

And finally on this point, it is not unusual for there to be problems posting on the site for a number of reasons. A round posted on Facebook can absolutely be valid -- consider a debate between Logical-Master and beem0r for the previous tournament, for instance.

--

In regards to the lack of v/c in R1, I agree with my opponent that different judges vote different ways, and I respect that. However, my point here was whether or not a v/c was NECESSARY from Pro in R1 from *ALL* debaters if an automatic loss was not to be considered. If the answer is yes, so be it. I definitely respect that LD debate rules should be followed, and I agree with Lakeville that I and other debaters should have looked into LD debate more closely. But if a v/c is deemed absolutely mandatory as to not result in an automatic forfeit, the same standard must apply to ALL Pro debaters in this tournament. Whatever else the judges vote on is subjective.

--

Now I will respond to each of Con's points:

[Rights]

1. Con says, "If an army-less country is attacked more people would die than if we used some citizens to form a military and essentially win the war." That is probably true. However I have never advocated for an army-less nation; I have simply argued against military conscription. One does not = the other.

2 & 3. These points were exactly the same, and stated that people MUST fight because they have an obligation to protect their nation's freedom. In response, first, not every country is free, so this point is mute. Second, this does not address the fact that military conscription is NOT limited to times of war. People can be drafted at any time for any reason under the terms of military conscription, even if it has nothing to do with their country's protection.

4. The govt. can make attempts that able-bodied people are drafted; however, that does not necessarily mean that they will.

--

[Cost]

1. "If we drafted a small number of well-bodied people then the small military would be effective." ... This is a horrible point. Because if a medium to large number of so-so or even non-able people were drafted, the military would not be effective. It's as simple as that. Plus, how would it be decided if people were able or not? Is it going to be like the 60s where people just claimed to be gay or mentally ill in order to avoid the draft? Looking into "who should go" assuming that there would even be mental, physical or social criteria is an unavoidable additional cost.

--

[Social Impact]

1. Con says, "Im saying that in certain situations where life is being threatened people would be accepting of military conscription." That may be so, but if a situation were that severe, history shows us that people would voluntarily sign up for the military and a draft would be unnecessary. This happened after 9/11 and ESPECIALLY during WWII (people were lined up around the block to register for the armed forces).

--

[V/C]

"Lwerd doesn't tell why her definition [of justice] is preverable thus you use mine..." was said by the Con. But actually, I did pose the question of how drafting people to war had anything to do with "giving people their due." To send citizens off to kill and/or be killed without taking other factors of their life and the situation into consideration is not justice. I feel that my definition of justice should apply, as it states "the preservation of rights" which sounds less like a death sentence and more like a universal principle. Further, Con's only statement in defense of his definition is, "We give more people their due because more lives are protected" which really makes no sense at all (and it's all I have to go by in this final round).

Next Con says, "My opponents response to my criterion is saying its the same as my value" which is completely untrue -- I never said that. I said that MY criterion was almost the same as MY value. His value was giving each their due (justice) and his criterion was "protection of innocent citizens." So far I have yet to find an adequate link, and given my opponent's case, I'm willing to bet that the judges haven't either. Then Con says, "The lwerd still gives criterion thus we use mine." I can't help but notice that this sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. But even if it did, Con would still be wrong -- I did provide a criterion: the preservation of rights (which is essentially how I have defined justice, the agreed upon value).

Con's final point reads "A strong army may result in a win. Meaning that conscription protects more." This is undoubtedly true, obviously. However unfortunately for Con, it has absolutely nothing to do with military conscription. A strong VOLUNTARY army could just as well result in a win and protect more lives.

And finally Con ends with, "she has not linked to my c/v and has not provided a criterion of her own meaning I still win." This is ridiculously false. In R2 I absolutely shattered his case even according to his own flawed v/c, by responding to and refuting his claim, warrant AND impact. Thus I have won this debate even on his own terms! Further, I also did in fact provide a v/c of my own in R2, so now Con is being downright abusive by just sort of making things up as we go along.

--

[Conclusion]

* If I lose this debate based on the lack of v/c introduced in R1, that's fine. However to impose this standard on me and none of the other debaters in the tournament is blatantly unfair, though I will accept whatever verdict the judges decide.

* If I lose this debate based on a missed round, I would like to point out again the proof I have indicating that I did not in fact miss the time limit. However, again I will accept whatever the judges decide.

* Contrary to what my opponent's claims are, I have in fact introduced a v/c of my own and defended it, while ALSO debating Con's very own weak and incredibly flawed v/c (even if I/the judges chose to accept it). Thus, I have indeed won this debate on all logical accounts and by far provided the better arguments, even if you exclude my R1 points. I leave the fate of this debate into the judges hands. If I lose - no biggie - but I'd like to wish my opponent luck in future debates, as I feel he'll need it. Thanks again for reading/judging ~ L.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

First, I'll give the Lwerd the benefit of the doubt on the forfeiture situation. For all purposes, lets just assume he posted his argument in time.

V/C- The lwerd basically concedes that she should be dropped for her lack of V/C. Her only argument is that in OTHER rounds, PRO may not be dropped for doing the same thing. I argue that this is absolutely ridiculous and is an unfair argument. I am not here to create a universal way of judging. My goal is to pursuade the judges of the issues in this particular debate. What goes on in other debates is absolutely irrelevant.

Rights-

1. I am saying that military conscription is necessary in a nation without a voluntary army.

2/3. I am not advocating conscription in all times. I am saying that in times of war when a nation is threatened, conscription is neccessary/just.

4. That doesn't neccesarily mean they wont either.

Cost- Lwerd never answers the point in which I say cost never amounts to human lives. No matter how much money it costs to look into if a person is well-bodied, it will eventually lead to an effective military.

Social Impact- Im saying that in certain countries where nationalism isnt high there would not be a sufficient amount of volunteers. Also, if you buy this argument from the lwerd, see how it shows why the draft is not neccessary not that it is unjust.

V/C- By showing why my criterion is bad, the lwerd has lost the round. I have alreadyt stated and the lwerd has failed to respond to the fact that all of his ofense needs to be linked to my standards. This is because he didnt present standards in his original case. None of his offense was linked to my standards. This means that none of his offense matter.

Voting- My case, as weak as it may be, according to the lwerd is cleanly linked to my standards and is the only thing you have to vote on. The lwerd drops all of it in his last speech.

Claim- The Negative Debater Better Protects Innocent Citizens

Warrant- (Example) The US gets greedy for oil. They decide to invade a huge oil producer: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a weak army and is a developing nation meaning that supplies are low. If the US attacks the weak army, more people will die than if the US attacked a strong army. In this case military conscription is needed and thus just.

Impact- Conscription Protects more innocent people.

This is linked to my criterion which has a clear link to justice. I have won.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I was just posting a round just to show an example of fast debating. As for Zero, I would assume that his intention was not to post an LD round, but merely to demonstrate his point as to the kind of conduct he sees in formal debate.
Posted by Cooperman88 6 years ago
Cooperman88
actually, LD in college is quite different then high school. They still have value debates that are quite slow. There is NFA-LD that isn't a value debate at all. That is supposed to be like CX in high school.

LM, that's not an LD round, that's a ceda round which is extremely like CX.

Neither is the round in zero's one.

High school LD is played out in parli for college people. It's still there, just not as prevalent.
Posted by Zero 6 years ago
Zero
Though the point still remains. Formal debate has been tainted. Alterations should be made so that more people will be more willing to become involved, therefore making the sport more popular. I have many friends who would have loved to do formal debate, only to switch to speech at the list minute after seeing an example of a formal LD or policy debate round.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 6 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
L-M: Holy sh*t, those Berkeley kids, man......

Zero: Well, LD debate was created by the NFL as an escape from drawn out CX tournaments. However, the policy cyborgs took LD over, and now it is elitist and technical.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
You think that's fast? That guy is actually going rather slow. Try this on for size:
Posted by Zero 6 years ago
Zero
"This form of debate is not supposed to be elitist or technical but an exercise in intelligent conversation and discussion."

No, this form of debate IS supposed to be elitist and technical or else you wouldn't see people speaking 400 wpm while strongly using techno babble that no normal person would comprehend.

Example:
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 6 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
I am judging the round for Facebook, and for this round, as clarification, I did not take into account the fact that theLwerd had no v/c v

Although it would be nigh impossible to win a LD round without one, the fact the most of the rounds in the fb tournament had no v/c or v, I'll let this pass ONLY FOR THIS ROUND.

Plus, theLwerd did not forfeit this round upon the circumstances.

I'll have a decision by tonight. Remember: HAVE A VALUE AND CRITERION!!!!!
Posted by Lithobolos 6 years ago
Lithobolos
all this formal value/criterion stuff is boring. This form of debate is not supposed to be elitist or technical but an exercise in intelligent conversation and discussion.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Okay I posted it in the Facebook group...
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Okay IT'S NOT LETTING ME POST MY ARGUMENT!!!

For clarification I am going to post my rebuttal in the Facebook group immediately so people can see that I did NOT forfeit the round. I am posting my argument in time -- it just won't let me post!!! It is now 12:56 am NYC time...
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Plato votebomb
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 2 years ago
Pluto2493
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 4 years ago
Nails
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 5 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 6 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 emman101 6 years ago
emman101
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by lawyer_in_training 6 years ago
lawyer_in_training
DanielleLakevilleNorthJTTied
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:30