The Instigator
Noblethe3rd
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
27 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  
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: 7/31/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,166 times Debate No: 4858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (11)

 

Noblethe3rd

Pro

Round 7 of the Online Facebook Debate.

War. Huh, yeah, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. - Edwin Starr

Our good buddy Edwin may not have an amazingly complex way of saying this, but the point is made. War is not a good thing. So is it possible to claim that forcing individuals to participate in something that is good for "absolutely nothing" can actually be just? I strongly stand by the resolution: military conscription is unjust.

Well seeing as there are only about 4 words to define, I figured I would define them all but "is" because I assume we aren't going to get into a debate about the concept of "being."

Definitions:
Military - of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy.
Conscription - compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft.
Unjust- not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Thus my arguments in this debate are going to revolve around the fact that forced enrollment into the armed forces is lacking in justice or fairness. So to start off with, let's look at my first argument.

1. Conscription in and of itself is unjust.
Military conscription, the idea of being forced enrollment of people to serve their country, where they desire to or not, is simply unjust. Often times, people are pulled from their lives, randomly, to serve in the military to fight in a conflict that most likely doesn't affect them. This basically means that the person who is selected to serve for his country in the military has little or no choice in the matter of whether or not he wants to pick up a gun and risk his life. That very lack of choice makes the idea of conscription unjust.

2. The restrictions and exceptions make military conscription unjust.
Let's take America for example. Being of the age of 21, I was required 3 years ago to register in the selective services. The basic restrictions are that all males that are registered citizens between the age of 18 and 25 are put on a list and given a number that in the event of a draft, that number could be drawn and force you to serve. On top of that, if you choose not to register, you are fined up to $250,000, serve up to 5 years in prison and the male will not receive funding from the government for education purposes (i.e. grants). So not only is the age restriction unfair in that it forces those who are starting their lives after high school, but it is also unjust in that it only requires males. Another exception is the idea of allowing exceptions to who doesn't have to serve. For example, if a male between the ages of 18-25 is going to school, he is exempt from the draft. So those who choose to not continue on to higher education, or went to school and no longer in the higher education area are no longer exempt. The idea that some people can avoid serving while others do not have the option to work around the system just further exposes the unfair nature of military conscription.

3. The people who enact the draft are exempt from serving.
Let's take into consideration the fact that those who have the potential to be enlisted are 18-25. This means that it is impossible for them to serve as a senator or representative of their state. Who is it that makes the ultimate decision to reenact the selective service bill? Senators and Representatives. The very fact that those people who decide whether or not to institute the draft will no have to worry about being selected means that the decision ultimately is not fair to those who serve, simply because they do not have say in whether or not they agree with the idea.

4. Military service is not a good thing.
So basically, the fact that the draft's selection process isn't fair should be a strong argument on why it is not fair. But let's look at the results of being enlisted a little more closely. Like I stated in the first argument, young men (in the case of America) are forced to leave their friends and family, often times travel overseas to risk their lives. Fighting in a conflict itself, whether it is at home or abroad, often times has long lasting effects on the soldiers involved. War experiences scar the psyche and bodies of those who participate and can potentially leave irreparable damage.

So you see, the very nature of the draft is largely unjust for many reasons. The fact that people are force to become involved in an armed conflict because of their sex and age should be blatant reasons as to why military conscription is unfair. Thank you for your time judges, and good luck to my opponent.
Logical-Master

Con

Alright, so first, I'm going to refute my opponent's case, then, I'll go on to providing my own.

I'll agree with the definitions, but if PRO decides to define them a step further, then I will not be obligated to agree.

Judges, please note that my opponent accepted cross examination for this debate, therefore, please read the comments of the comment section to record the information brought about during that session.

Rebuttal 1: Unfortunately, my opponent's defeat will be spelled out in this round due to the answers he has provided in C/X. The affirmative states that there are just laws in the United States, but there is just one problem with this assertion: IT COMPLETELY DISMANTLES HIS OWN ARGUMENT! He consideres it to be unjust for individuals to be forced to act against their own free will, but this is just what all laws do. We follow them even against our own free will. Therefore, the very lack of choice makes the idea of "laws" period unjust, if we are to follow my opponents logic in his first contention. This contradiction makes PRO's argument inadmissible, therefore, you are to dimiss it.

Next, during C/X, my opponent stated that laws were unfair if they didn't apply to everyone. Judges, it will be this statement that will also be my opponent's downfall during this debate. If we look at his definition of conscription, at no place, do we see any particular clause which would suggest that it is a concept which forces certain individuals into a country's armed forces. Rather, all that is suggested is that individuals are being forced into a country's armed forces. Ergo, the lack of fariness which the affirmative speaks of doesn't apply to conscription. I will explain in detail for his 2nd and 3rd contention, but essentially, what this means is that you are to immediately consider the second and third contentions that he presented as being completely irrelevant. I shall explain moreso in detail.

Rebuttal 2: The united States' chauvinistic tendencies have nothing to do with the actual concept of conscription, therefore, idea of conscription itself is not a link to the inequality which the instigator is talking about, therefore, his second contention is irrelevant and is to be dismissed from your judgment. Not only that, but even noted in the instigator's definition itself, at no place do we see "a system that forces merely certain groups of individuals to enter war." All the more justifying my request. Furthermore, working towards making all individuals eligible for conscription would solve PRO's problem and still leave conscription out in the open, further proving that his problem isn't actually conscription.

Rebuttal 3: First, this technically falls under the same problem I brought up in my previous rebuttal. Like previously, PRO's problem with conscription can be solved while still maintaining conscription. In other words, if he finds it problematic that senators and representatives are immune to drafting, than simply put, we can work towards making them play a role in being drafted. Hence, AFF's problem is solved and conscription is still up and running. Since this is the case, it is abundantly clear that his assertions have nothing to do with debating the resolution.

So with 3 out of 4 of his contentions being utterly defeated, that just leaves his fourth contention. Lets rip it apart.

4) There's no question that fighting in conflict can have long lasting effects on soldiers involved. But just as these effect can be negative, they can also be positive. When going to help resolve a conflict, one can manage to learn more about life than he/she ever understood while in the comforts of his/her own home. Many are ignorant and more often than not, take the lives of the soldiers for granted. But to be put in the place of a soldier resolves such ignorance; one learns just what it means to protect their country. Not just that, but having the honor of being able to defend one's own country can make one easily feel like a hero, thus raise one's self esteem to new heights. Also, for the thrill seekers (all the people who enjoy putting their lives on the line for the sake of a thrill, conscription is just what the doctor ordered. Just think how they may just be able to go home and brag to their grand kids about how they were part of something so epic.

In response to psycological trauma, there already exist programs which debrief soldiers as well as insure that their psychological wounds are healed so this is nowhere near as much as a problem as my esteemed opponent would like you to believe.

MY CASE:

LAST RESORT: I urge that the system which requires citizens to be forced to enter into their own respective country's military be used the way it was originally intended to be used; I urge that it be used as a last resort. In other words, if a country's technology, regular military forces, and regular defenses can by no means guarentee the safety of the nation, compulsary enrollment should be upheld. Or in even better terms, a country should resort to it only when it needs conscription. Now when I say "last resort", I mean a situation where the nation in question is at risk of being obliterated or by any other means compromised entirely. The people then have the opportunity look at their options. They can even contribute to the war in order to defend their nation as well as their way of life. Or, they can sit home and wait to see when they will be eliminated, conquered, or placed in any other undesirable circumstance. Basiclly, when military survivalbility and way of life is being threatened and the usual defenses (military and technological forces) are insufficient, a country is justified to turn to and rely on its citizens. To rely on conscription in any other scenario would be ABUSING conscription, which is then, "unjust". From this, we can conclude that conscription itself is quite just.

Keep in mind that we are debating whether or not military conscription itself is unjust. This is what enables me to cast the US's terms which go in addition to conscription as irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, such a debate enables me to ignore "abusive conscription"

Some of these points make require more elaboration depending on PRO's rebuttal.

Thus, I give permission and now stand waiting for cross-examination (if PRO finds the need) in the comment section.
Debate Round No. 1
Noblethe3rd

Pro

Noblethe3rd forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Con

Rebuttal 1: Yes, I do base my rebuttal on the idea that all laws force individuals to obey them. If we are to follow his belief that there are ANY laws that are just, then we must surely conclude that conscription, according to PRO, is just. If we are following the idea that conscription is unjust, then it is concluded that all laws are unjust. But since PRO is arguing in favor of there being just laws, then you have no choice but to agree that conscription is just.

That said, PRO tries to "prove" that there are some laws which don't force individuals to obey them, but the fact of the matter is that there is a penalty for violating ANY law. PRO says that traffic laws are put down in order to maintain safety. No one is suggesting that no good comes from such a law. However, people are still FORCED to obey the rules of the road. For instance, when driving to work, you can't just decide to ignore all of the red lights and go about your day. For if you do so, you are going to be punished by an authority. Therefore, you don't have any choice (in the context we're talking about), but to stop when you reach a red light. And as for there being no intention to force people to do anything but rather to insure safety and order on the roads, this is simply PRO trying to be a trickster. The intention of laws IS to force people to do something and that is to OBEY THEM. For in forcing people to OBEY the law, safety and order is maintained, hence, you're being forced to help maintain safety and order (even if you disagree). Tie this back to conscription and it's essentially the same. It is a system which is created to maintain the nation's safety and order, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Rebuttal 2-3: My fair judges, once again, PRO has made a move which will only hurt himself. There are four problems with his rebuttal.

1) At no point does PRO rebutt my actual argument which is that equality has nothing to do with conscription. The idea that congress could simply become less chauvinistic or in fact include themselves as part of conscription was merely meant to portray just how irrelevant inequality is when it comes to conscription. Thus, my argument goes unquestioned. Therefore, you are to agree that PRO's quibble is not a quibble against conscription, but rather the United States' chauvinism/bias as you don't need "inequality" in order to have conscription; inequality or equality, conscription still remains.

2) To pacify PRO for the argument's sake: PRO insists that if we are to have our leaders be a part of conscription in order to promote equality (which, by the way, was his intention since he insisted that conscription wouldn't be just UNLESS the leaders were forced to serve), the country would become unstable. THIS CONCLUSION HURTS NO ONE BUT MY OPPONENT!!!

Think about it. I asked PRO to clarify on what he thought justness and fairness was. He insisted that fairness concerned equality and that justness did as well. Also, during the round, he insist that justness is infringed when there is a lack of choice. So what is the problem? At no point is "lack of stability" considered as being unjust (lack of choice or inequality amongst everyone), therefore, I could very well agree that insuring equality would lead to lack of stability, and uphold my side of the resolution. Him suddenly saying that "lack of stability" is unjust is simply no more than the "changing the goal post" fallacy. In other words, he is redefining the definition after seeing that I've refuted his stance based on his previous definition.

3) To pacify PRO even further: Lack of Stability can easily be avoided. During WW2, the US was known to immediately promote lower military soldier to the next level of military soldier every time the military soldier above the aformentioned military soldier was killed. This was very effiecient as contrary to other nations, the US was never in a dissaray when it came to handing out orders as new soldiers were always read to take one anothers place. To link that to conscription, potential candidates from the left over individuals who were not drafted could immediately be promoted to new leaders. Whom these "pre-promotes" were could be determined during the usual elections for the regular leaders. In other words, think of every "head authority" as having a deputy. Every time the head authority was sent off to war, the deputy would take his/her place, only then being eligible for drafting. This would insure both equality and stability.

4) Sex/gender inequality argument is dropped.

Rebuttal 4: PRO acknowledges that people do gain from conscription, but the fact that some people lose out still makes it unjust (or in more concise terms, unfair; not everyone experiences the same effect)

1)People lose out ( no one denied this), but people also gain (self preservation as well as the other positive effects that were listed). Saying that some people lose out doesn't do him any good, for if people gain as well, THEN BY HIS LOGIC, we would be obligated to conclude that conscription is neither just or unjust since it is both fair and unfair to people (which would cancel each other out), but neutral on balance, which would lose him the debate as I only have to prove that conscription ISN'T unjust.

2) But to momentarily neglect the above point, I'm gonna go the extra mile and insist that the good that comes from conscription outweighs the bad. If you look back to my first rebuttal during this round, you'll note how I discuss PRO's interest in laws that have the intention of maintaining order and safety. Well, this is exactly the intention onf conscription. When all other defenses fail, the nation's order and safety can continue to thrive through relying on the extra miliatary forces provided by conscription. Not to mention that conscription helps in preventing people from dying, for if there is no other defense left, then enemy nations can easily act in eliminating all of the civilians. Whether or not the soldiers that are part of the conscription forces lose their lives, their actions will greatly benefit in the mission to protect the lives of others. Whereas without conscription in a last resort scenario, not only will these others be put in jeopardy, but the ones who could have been conscripted as well.

3) The purpose of the "mental treatment" argument was to demonstrate that people weren't at "irreparable" (which was how PRO described it) harm. Moreover, easily fixable mental damage is a small price to pay in order to insure the safety and order of the nation. All the same, should we really drastically raise speed limits so that people who sometimes need to make it to the hospital urgently will be more capable?

BACK TO MY CASE: PRO's only response to my case is that his 3 arguments that supposedly show that conscription is unjust still remain, but I've refuted all three of those, so don't look to that as being a reason to not consider my case. Furthermore, he is simply saying his points outweigh mine as he never provides an argument as to why his arguments should be upheld moreso than self preservation (he only says my case doesn't prove conscription is just). In other words, he has no argument other than "I'm right because I say so", all the more being reason to dismiss his argument.

As for the argument which spawned from C/X, I thought I would be focusing moreso on this argument, hence why I suggested I would elaborate more in the comment section, but what PRO is saying is that you simply look back at the comment section. Well, if you look at the comment section, you should note my arguments as I've not only listed a country which is not currently abusing conscription, but also gone into detail as to why citing other countries does not impact this debate.

With that said, I await the next round.

REMINDER: No new arguments are allowed.

PS: I can vouch for PRO not having forfeited as I during the glitch.
Debate Round No. 2
Noblethe3rd

Pro

Noblethe3rd forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Con

It is most unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited all of his final round, but, you must judge fairly and without any exception, therefore, you must extend my arguments from the previous round to this one.

This impacts the debate considerably because not only have all of my arguments gone unquestioned (which is reason enough to judge in favor of them), but if you look at my opponent's rebuttal to my case, it weighed on the notion that his arguments outweighed my case. In other words, he agreed that my case showed conscription had some just to it, but this his points outweigh that bit of just. Well, not only did I present a valid reason for you to disconsider that argument (which was because he provided you with no reason as to why his arguments outweighed mine), but with his final round being forfeited and all three (originally four, but again, he dropped one of those arguments) of his arguments not being continued, even according to him, you have no reason to VOTE in favor of the instigator, since my argument (which he suggested showed justness of conscription, hence his "at first I am sure you judges will think this is a reason to deem conscription just") still stands whereas his own do not due to the forfeiture.

Thus, it is most reasonable for you to vote CON.

I thank both the judges and my opponent for this interesting little session. PEACE!!!
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Gracias, amigo. (veinticinco characters)
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I thought that you were on vacation LM? Anyway, good to have you back.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
So nice to see that I am not the only one on this site who can read 20,000 + characters within 5 seconds then vote. ;)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
That does blow. I have a better idea though. I shall challenge you with the following resolution:

"If/when this debate concludes, debate.org version 3 will probably be up and running"

This or

"I have a suspicion that debate.org version 3 will be up and running by the time this debate concludes."
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
New debate idea:

"Version 3.0 of debate.org is now empirically denied."

Lol, this blowz.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Edit: I meant to say "I was there during the glitch." Latuz
Posted by Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
As much as my opponent would like for my arguments to be turned against me and completely dismantled, I find that in fact, he has only pointed out a couple flaws in my logic and allowed for me to solidify the main concepts as to why Conscription is unjust.

1.Let's start by going off of his first rebuttal. The fact of the nature is, my opponent bases his response solely on the idea that all laws FORCE individuals to obey them, which is not the truth. The laws that I used as examples in CX do not force an individual to obey them. My example of traffic laws are laws that do not have to be followed if anyone doesn't agree with them. These laws are not laws that are put down to force people to do anything, but in fact are there to maintain the safety and order on the roads. The punishment of tickets, fines and jail time are all means of showing the importance of following the laws to those that do not fully comprehend why they are necessary and good. Conscription on the other hand FORCES people to give up their lives for the sake of participating in military service against their will. If it was not against their will, then they would have simply enlisted on their own. So there is without a doubt a violation of free will taking place here. The removal of some one's free will is obviously a very good reason to deem conscription as being unjust.
Lets continue on with his second paragraph on his 1st rebuttal. This ultimately revolves around the idea of application, which I will defend and say that application is just as important as the actual idea itself. If an idea can't be applied justly, then it should not be considered just and thus I find that my points remain valid when pertaining to the application of conscription.
Posted by Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
2.This argument is going to be off his 2nd and 3rd rebuttal and will point out another reason why conscription is unjust. My original 2nd and 3rd arguments in my first speech both touched on the idea of equality. The idea that conscription can be applied with specific restrictions based on sex and age is a blatant violation of equal rights. It is discriminatory to force some one to do anything based on their sex and age. So then let's apply conscription to everyone. What would be the problem with that? Well that's where my 3rd argument in my first speech comes in. I would like to thank my opponent for pointing this fact out that if conscription was applied to everyone equally, not discriminating based on anything, then it would apply to our leaders. The fact that our leaders would be forced to serve would most likely result in a disruption of the way our government functions. The fact that the government would be disrupted means that the stability of the nation is in question and that harms everyone within that nation. So in fact, this is ultimately a lose-lose situation for the Con because no matter how it goes, equality or stability of the nation are lost. With the loss of these things it is becomes clear that my point still stands and that conscription is unjust on another level.

3.Off of his final rebuttal. I find his arguments do have a valid point in that SOME people actually gain something out of military service. But the problem still remains that not everyone gains something but in fact, many lose everything. Its not issue of who gain and who loses, but it's the fact that people DO lose out. They lose out on their lives, their mental health and physical health. On top of that, even though there is treatment to help with this, the fact that individuals are harmed in the process means that it would be absurd to call this just and fair for those individuals. Again, I see another reason why conscription is unjust.
Posted by Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
Now lets move to his case.

1.Final Resort. Seeing as this is the gist of his case, I am going to point out to the judges that there are 3 offenses, or reasons why conscription is unjust. So lets get rid of this interesting approach at justifying conscription. At first I am sure you judges will think this is a reason to deem conscription just, but in fact this is more of a reason to ignore the injustices that go along with conscription. The idea of self-preservation does make it tolerable for such actions to be allowed, it doesn't in fact deem it just.
2.
At this point I would like to create a new argument that seems to have spawned inside of CX and sort of sprouted up in my opponent's speech and my current one. That is, the question of considering application as factor in determining whether or not conscription is just. I would strongly encourage you as judges to consider my arguments revolving around the application simply because, as I have said before, a system can not be deemed just if it can not be applied with equally and with fairness.
Posted by Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
Ok, I just was screwed by the system. I was in the process of posting my arguments while it said I had 45 minutes remaining to post, yet I was just informed that I forfeited the round. IF the judges would be so kind as to consider my posts after this point as my 2nd round I would verymuch appreciate it.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 GreyGeeses 8 years ago
GreyGeeses
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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 necromancer 8 years ago
necromancer
Noblethe3rdLogical-MasterTied
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