The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
Volkov
Con (against)
Losing
57 Points

Missile Defense

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: 5/15/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,029 times Debate No: 8296
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (18)

 

Danielle

Pro

* I just posted this challenge a little while ago, but my opponent has proven to be rather incapable. Thus, if a more competent opponent comes along , I urge him or her to take this *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I feel neither here nor there regarding the issue of Missile Defense, admittedly, but there haven't been a great deal of debates in the Challenge Section recently. Thus, I thought I'd start one up again regarding a topic I've tried to debate in the past, though never really got to finish. Stating the first argument, I'll assume the position of Pro. However, I wouldn't be opposed to debating this from the position of Con in the future. Nevertheless, I wish good luck to my future opponent, whomever that may be.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Introduction:

The idea concerning the defense of an incoming nuclear attack has been prevalent in the United States since the Cold War era. Today, various systems currently exist and continue to be developed by the U.S. as a pro-active effort to avoid turmoil and destruction. Admittedly, these current systems are essentially useless, as well as a drain on our already staggering economy. As Pro, I am advocating for the development of new, efficient and practical systems designed to serve and protect the United States of America, and/or massive reform to our current missile defense.

Definitions:

Missile Defense -- A system, weapon, or technology involved in the detection, tracking, interception and destruction of attacking missiles [1].

Social Contract Theory -- The view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society; It implies that the people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order [2].

Contentions:

1. Threat --> The possibility of a nuclear attack is not as far-fetched as one might think. As it stands, America is one of the least popular countries in the world. Other nations see us as arrogant, expensive bullies. Our presence in the Middle East can very well be a catalyst for a strike, or perhaps terrorist-riddled or oppressed nations such as North Korea or Iran will launch an attack on the U.S. for either moral or political gains.

2. The Value of Life --> An incoming nuclear attack could take thousands or even millions of lives. Because we live in a society where life is considered of high moral value, protecting and saving lives should be a major priority.

3. Social Contract --> The Social Contract Theory is one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West [2]. It is the concept upon which America was founded and maintained. According to this philosophy, endorsed by thinkers such as Locke and Hobbes, the government should provide protection to its citizens through any feasible means, as citizens should be willing to sacrifice some tax dollars to ensure the protection of the nation and each other. This would certainly be feasible through the elimination of other unnecessary government funded projects, such as Abstinence Only sex education, or possibly even the highly unsuccessful and frankly unconstitutional War on Drugs.

4. Role of Government --> Based on the ideology posited by the Social Contract Theory, the government has both the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens. Failure to do so would speak volumes about our country and change the way we are perceived both domestically and abroad. In the past, the United States has been regarded as a strong and powerful country to be respected and revered. Today, many people doubt, ignore or deny our prestige in terms of politics, the economy and our military. Such a project has the potential to change the world view about our nation, and inspire Americans to achieve further economic growth.

5. Psychological Impact --> We live in a volatile world where many people fear or are preparing for the worst. The Bush regime with overly endorsed fear ongering has finally come to an end, but perhaps the repercussions have not. For Americans, this type of defense can serve as a reminder that for the most part, We Are Safe. There's nothing wrong with embracing freedom rather than fear, so long as we do not remain ignorant or isolated to the world's problems. To clarify, I am not suggesting that we ignore potential threats, but rather improve the quality of our lives by not being hindered by fear of something as catastrophic as a nuclear attack.

6. Technological Advances --> The U.S. does currently have several small-scale nuclear defense systems in place. I propose that seeking to revamp or improve the quality of said systems would lead to technological innovation that could change the world in terms of defense, or possibly other aspects of science. Results have the potential to globally impact the world in a positive way. An example would include technological know-how by automobile mogels Mercedes-Benz, who during World War II created a notable series of aircraft, tank, and submarine engines ... also produced parts for German arms, most notably barrels for the Mauser rifle [3].

7. Global Repercussions --> The assumption that this type of defense would lead to militant opposition by other nations is flawed. Instead, we can assume that our efforts will serve as a useful deterrent, and hinder any inclination to launch an attack on the U.S. After all, if we were equipped to defend our nation, then to attack our country would be illogical as it would only instigate a hostile (and probably violent) response. To leave our country open to an assault would be irresponsible. Further, the fear of any country actually using these weapons (and thus introducing the concept of WWIII, and - as some people say - the end of the world as we know it) may actually increase the notion that PEACE is important and something we should strive for not just because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but because we have the power to ultimately destroy humanity. If that doesn't serve as an argument for peace, I don't know what does.

8. Economic Repercussions --> Sure, a massive project such as this would cost the government a great deal of money. However, it would require a large amount of personnel; i.e. the creation of new jobs. In a country where outsourcing is a major threat to the workforce today, this could potentially save many people and families from the undesirable reality of unemployment. The logic behind this thinking is that the many workers and contractors employed to design and maintain these systems will in turn pump some money back into the economy. They will also be able to contribute via taxes, and not deplete economic resources such as Welfare or Unemployment.

Conclusion:

That's all for now, folks.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org.........
[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu.........
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org......
Volkov

Con

I thank my opponent for the interesting debate and her well written argument.

I shall start by refuting her contentions in favour of the anti-missile defense system.

1.
As it stands, the United States is in more danger from loose nuclear material or undetectable terrorist cells attacking American nuclear plants (http://www.cdi.org...). Building anti-missile defense systems does nothing to stop this as it is completely under the radar - there is no red blip coming at us to see. The money being put toward building such a system would more be better spent ramping up surveillance of America's borders and the surveillance of nuclear material in other countries which could come under threat. For instance, it would be much more productive (not just for the US, but for the entire world) if the money meant for anti-missile defense was spent towards locking down Pakistani missiles, keeping them safe from the ever-encroaching Taliban.

My opponent says that it is possible that so-called 'terrorist riddled' or oppressed nations such as North Korea and Iran will launch an attack on the US for moral or political gains. Aside from the fact that neither Iran or the DPRK are 'terrorist-riddled', this is an absolutely absurd notion.

There is no gains to be made from oblivion, which is the state that those countries would be in if they ever decided to launch an attack on the United States. The backlash from the people within those countries (just before they become smoking piles of ash) would be enormous at the same time, and there would be no political or 'moral' order left in the country. For the ruling elite of a country, this is not a feasible option.

No matter how many centrifuges are spinning in Iran, or how many smaller-than-Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons North Korea has (http://www.cdi.org...), the United States has many, many more powerful weapons ready to go the second anything happens.

One can make the argument that terrorists have no political or moral order to begin with, and actually seek oblivion above all else. Terrorists launching an attack against the US with missiles is not outside the realm of plausibility, but as I noted earlier, it would be much more efficient if money was put towards better surveillance and the lock down of nuclear arsenals in vulnerable countries, like Pakistan. I believe the best example of this was the magnificent, and rather startling, story of A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, whom I shall elaborate on in a later argument.

2.
I could not agree more with my opponent's statement, but the way she is proposing to save lives will in the end actually cost them. There is two ways this occurs.

i) By focusing on the anti-missile defense system, America ignores the biggest threat to their safety - terrorists that sneak in undetected. By allowing themselves to focus on the ghosts of the Cold War, the US will turn a blind eye to the protection of loose nuclear material and the surveillance of nuclear arms smuggling. That will cost lives.

ii) By ramping up their defenses, the United States sends a clear message to other nuclear-armed nations in the world that should they ever try an attack, the US will be prepared. Is that such a bad thing to American citizens? Of course not. But to other nations, it is only the call-to-arms because now the US can attack those countries, but they can't fire back. By installing such a system, the US could inadvertently set off an arms race among other nations for the same reason my opponent cites; the value of life. In doing so, the US will cost the lives of its citizens, and the lives of many others around the world.

5.
Once again, my opponent is quite correct in stating that Americans should not be hindered by fear of an attack. Yet, the anti-missile system does nothing to prevent America's biggest threat, and as I stated before, the anti-missile system will more likely provoke an arms race than hinder your enemies. I fail to see how that brings down America's fear levels.

6.
My opponent once again makes good points. Military investment does help increase technological advances, and there is some very good examples she sourced. But the simple fact is, and if I may use her own argument against her, you cannot trade the value of life for technological advancements. There may be great scientific wonders to come out of building the anti-missile defense systems, but it is all pointless if there is no one around to witness them.

7.
The assumption that this type of defense would lead to militant opposition by other nations is indeed *not* flawed. My opponent fails to recognize that despite all of America's efforts to curve nuclear proliferation in the past decades, India, China, Pakistan, Israel and more recently, North Korea and possibly Iran, have all become nuclear-armed nations. Does my opponent really believe that those nations will not build the exact same systems she is promoting, therefore negating the United States' position?

As well, I would like to introduce my opponent to Ivan (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
This is what you get when you have an arms race; weapons become bigger, badder and scarier. In building the anti-missile defense, the United States is only inviting other nations to learn how to get past it, and I almost guarantee you they will. The US does not need another arms race. The world doesn't need it either.

Instead of promoting peace, it will only opt to destroy it.

8.
My opponent cites the building of the anti-missile defense system as an economic stimulus.

Well, great! I can sure use money when that mushroom cloud comes rolling towards me.

The fact of the matter is that my opponent can't really say whether or not it will be a good economic stimulus. Even if it was productive, are the trade-offs worth it? What is the use of an economy when we're being bombed? Is there even an economy after we're bombed? Won't disturbed foreign relations sink the economy as well? Too many unanswered questions, which makes this point vague at best.

As well, getting such a large work force involved in what should be secret military applications seems like a risky move that will undermine my opponent's 'peace' theory. As it stands now, there is already Chinese agents working in American industry that siphon off military technology (http://www.popularmechanics.com...). Can you imagine what will happen when they get a hold of anti-missile defense tech? The whole system crumbles, and makes the entire effort pointless.

3 and 4.
Finally, I would like to address my opponent's allusions to the Social Contract. Just so we are clear, I completely agree with the Social Contract and how it stands. But there is a point to be made here.

Just because the anti-missile defense system is 'feasible', doesn't mean it is effective. While it may protect American citizens for a time, it would only lead to greater danger down the road, all the while ignoring the other, very present dangers that surround not only the US, but other countries as well. It will only lead to more sacrifices by the American public for very little effectiveness. Even though the government will have fulfilled its side of the Contract, it clearly doesn't do it right.

If my opponent really wishes to show American superiority in the world, the US should focus on helping vulnerable nations lock down or destroy their arsenal, co-operate with other nations to keep watch on loose nuclear material, and promote the ideals of non-proliferation and even eventual dismantle of major nuclear stockpiles. The anti-missile defense system does none of these things.

I await my opponent's sound rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

1. Con asserts that building anti-missile defense systems does nothing to stop [radioactive attacks] as it is completely under the radar - there is no red blip coming at us to see. While this is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that what missile defense CAN eliminate is an attack from a nuclear missile(s). Not everyone has access to radioactive warfare, and nuclear weapons still exist. Why should we not protect ourselves against what we can, simply because the likelihood of a various attack may be greater? This especially does not make sense, since the reason that a radioactive attack is more likely (even though it does less damage) is BECAUSE of the very systems (though flawed) that we currently have in place.

Con does not disagree that a need for extensive defense is necessary. Even if he advocates for an increase in technological defense against the alleged more likely radioactive attacks, does not necessarily mean that missile defense should not exist or continue to be developed. Also, as a point of clarification, a group called Iran Focus (self-explanatory) has obtained a list of 20 terrorist camps and centers run by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, thus making the notion that there are terrorist groups in Iran valid. Moreover, I didn't say that there were necessarily terrorists in North Korea; what I said was terrorist-riddled OR oppressed nations such as North Korea... and certainly my opponent would not argue that North Korea is not oppressed.

Moving on, my opponent notes that there are no gains to be made from oblivion; the backlash from citizens + the rest of the world would make an attack "not worth it." This is a less than adequate defense for many reasons. First, I have already established the aspect of a "threat" to the United States. What my opponent is forgetting is that extremists, or those who are hungry for war, RARELY USE LOGIC AND REASONING. Was it reasonable for those involved in the 9/11 attacks to commit suicide by crashing a plane into a NYC building? After all, look what the results were: suicide, death/murder (which goes against the peaceful teachings of Islam), global conflict, war in the Middle East, U.S. occupation of several Islamic countries, terrorist allies being imprisoned and tortured in camps, etc. In other words, those who did the killing really did not accomplish much for their cause, I would say. And yet people are motivated by the most bizarre things; don't under-estimate the lengths people will go to for the honor of that which they find to be of utmost important. Even oblivion.

More importantly, the rest of my contentions had nothing to do with the LIKELIHOOD of an attack. Rather I made points regarding why missile defense would be a good idea and/or beneficial to society in general. These points included the philosophy of the Value of Life and Role of Government (the idea that protecting citizens is important, and the government has the right/responsibility to do so using the philosophy of the Social Contract Theory which many of our laws and traditions are based on); The positive psychological impact having the missile defense would serve (as a sort of weapon against fear-mongering); The technological advances and impacts that this development would have on the world and future at large; And finally the economic rewards that this type of project could have.

--

2. A) Re: By focusing on the anti-missile defense system, America ignores the biggest threat to their safety - terrorists that sneak in undetected...

That is simply not what I have suggested at all. One, advancing technology to be able to detect these "under the radar" threats can be incorporated into the newly revamped missile defense. Problem solved. Two, I never suggested less focus on eliminating terrorism; I'd still be all for Special Intelligence gathering information and deterring attacks of all kinds.

B) Re: The US could inadvertently set off an arms race... In doing so, the US will cost the lives of its citizens, and the lives of many others around the world...

Nay. An arms race is defined as a competition between two or more parties for real or apparent military supremacy. Nowhere does this mandate an actual attack of any kind, thus saying that building defense would automatically lead to a loss of lives is a clear use of the Appeal to Fear fallacy. This line of reasoning is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.

--

5. Re: Once again, my opponent is quite correct in stating that Americans should not be hindered by fear of an attack. Yet, the anti-missile system does nothing to prevent America's biggest threat...

This is faulty logic. That's like saying because heart disease is the leading cause of death for women, that steps to detect or prevent breast cancer are not important, as it is more likely that women will die from something else.

--

6. Re: You cannot trade the value of life for technological advancements. There may be great scientific wonders to come out of building the anti-missile defense systems, but it is all pointless if there is no one around to witness them...

Correct, but Con has never proven that a loss of life is more likely to occur with the missile defense in place. He simply asserted that there may be an arms race (which I conceded to, as it does not hinder my argument), and that the U.S. should focus on other more prominent threats, such as a radioactive attack (which I also agreed with, as it once again is irrelevant to my contentions for this debate). Thus, if we can assume that the end of the world is not likely to occur as a result of missile defense technology, and/or that the defense would actually inhibit an attack (using my opponent's arguments again HIM this time, in stating that countries would want to avoid an all-out nuclear war with a result like oblivion), then all of my arguments regarding the benefits of technological advances still stand. Apply these arguments here as a win for the Pro.

--

7. Re: My opponent fails to recognize that despite all of America's efforts to curve nuclear proliferation in the past decades, India, China, Pakistan, Israel and more recently, North Korea and possibly Iran, have all become nuclear-armed nations.

Con just helped me build my case, and undermined his. He tried to state that nuclear weapons aren't important, since an attack on the U.S. is more likely to come in the form of small-scale terrorism. Then he noted all of the countries that continue to develop missiles... hmm. This seems like a reason to take my points into account even more. It also makes the readers apply the concept of countries (with crazy leaders!) like North Korea to my other arguments. Thanks, Con.

--

8. Re: Even if it was productive, are the trade-offs worth it? What is the use of an economy when we're being bombed?

Con never argues that this would be an unproductive endeavor. Indeed, it's not outlandish for the government to invest in this kind of growth, i.e. Obama's plan to create jobs in looking towards Alternative Energy. Thus Con only cites the unnecessity of an economy after the country/world has been destroyed. The use of several fallacies can be applied here, including Misleading Vividness (dramatic events are taken into account in order to persuade someone, i.e. suggesting living in a "mushroom cloud" as a result of establishing missile defense... ha). Like I said, there is no evidence to suggest that we'd be living in a mushroom cloud with no use for an economy as a result of the government investing in new technology and creating new jobs.

--

3 & 4. Re: Even though the government will have fulfilled its side of the Contract, it clearly doesn't do it right...

Mayhaps this is an appropriate time for an Ends Justifies the Means argument?

Re: American superiority in the world...

No characters; I'll address this in the next round!
Volkov

Con

I would like to address my opponent's contentions with a similar situation to our hypothetical situation; a day at the beach.

Imagine that you're off to the beach today, and you will bring with you several things. You will have with you a hat, sunscreen, a towel, a book or some sort of activity you can do while out there. The sun is beating down on you, the water is cool, the towel is keeping sand out of your behind and you have a nice activity to do while relaxing in the hot sun. With this situation, I shall debunk some of my opponent's arguments.

"Why not protect ourselves against what we can, simply because the likelihood of a various attack may be greater?"

If I wear the hat to the beach, I protect my head and shoulders from the sun, therefore negating some of the negative effects of UV rays. This is not a foolproof way though, because I may have to take the hat off and it will not protect my entire body. This is where sunscreen comes in handy, because it helps cover those areas. I am now fully protected from the sun.
This is similar to the anti-missile defense system and operations intended to protect from undetectable threats.

Now, it seems as if I just proved my opponents argument correct, due to having both the anti-missile defense and the security operations working together to protect the US. But, let us remember that the situation is much more complicated than that.

"Con never argues that this would be an unproductive endeavor. Indeed, it's not outlandish for the government to invest in this kind of growth..."

Indeed, I never argued that it would be unproductive, and my opponent cites a very good example. But, she fails to factor in our global relations into her economic argument, a question I asked in my previous argument that went unaddressed. I shall explain anyways.

I can sit there, relaxing on the beach with my hat and my sunscreen, doing my productive activity and living a nice life. No one will dispute this, as I'm still doing something productive. But it is still so hot out, the heat is bothering me and disrupting my activity. I think I need to go for a swim. Unfortunately, I need to take off my hat to swim. But alas, I still have my sunscreen there to protect me from the UV rays. I am now cool, doing something productive and living a nice life.

Now as that was probably a little more vague than I wanted it to sound, so I shall explain it in detail.
By building this anti-missile defense system, the US may be boosting its economy with jobs and productivity, it is only hurting its international relations and therefore, it is still hurting the economy. I think the most vivid example of this the current tension between the US, Europe and Russia. If you're not aware of the situation, I invite you to view this link: http://russia.suite101.com...
While so far Russia's response has been to threaten to station missiles in Kaliningrad, there is many serious economic repercussions Russia can inflict upon Europe. I just need to refer to the recent Russian-Ukrainian Gas Crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk...) to prove that point.

My analogy works through this; the activity I brought along is equal to the United States living as a protectionist, insular state, that is protected by the missile defense systems. The heat represents the pressure of the world on the US, which disrupts my activity. I decide to jump into the cool waters of globalized trade, but I can't do that if I have my anti-missile defense hat on. Therefore, it is sensible that the sunscreen is on me, to give me some semblance of effective protection, without jeopardizing my international relations.

Of course, the US is not Europe but I seriously doubt that increased tensions across the world would equal increased trade and commerce. As the United States has many corporations across the world which rely on foreign business and capital to thrive, the anti-missile defense system will only give those countries that view the defense system reason to shut out American companies. This would affect the American economy greatly, costing many jobs that are dependent on trade. Also, unfortunately for my opponent, her idea that this would help create productive jobs is only a temporary status, much like Obama's infrastructure plans. Therefore, it is clear that while building such a system may prove to be productive and help the economy, the system will only serve to destroy America's global-based economy.

Anyways, I shall move on. I would like to address a certain quote my opponent made:

"This line of reasoning is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim."

Is this not the basic reasoning for my opponents claim as well? To build an anti-missile defense system is to protect from something Americans fear; to win support for such a thing, Americans must fear the possibility of a nuclear attack. If what my opponent says is correct, then it is clear that the very basis for her argument doesn't constitute evidence for a claim. But this of course is not true, as my opponent cites many other reasons to support her argument, as do I. This is negated.

I would like to direct my opponent to the link I provide: http://www.indianexpress.com...

This link explains my argument of how the anti-missile defense system could create an arms race. It is simple a matter of logic; tit for tat, or tit over tat. As the US creates a system to defend against missiles, giving it a huge advantage in any situation or warfare, other countries shall find ways to build the same systems or shall build new systems to get past the US anti-missile system. I would also like to point out that the missile defense system will cause the US to back out of several major treaties, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and peace in the world (http://www.armscontrol.org...).

My opponent also says that I helped her case, which is simply not true. I used it as a point to not that the US may advance in technology all it wants, but if it doesn't have effective security operations to help keep down nuclear proliferation then it is all pointless. My opponent can use it as an argument in her case, but she should also address my point.

All this culminates in an argument against the anti-missile defense systems. But, instead of elaborating upon A.Q. Khan's story in this argument, I shall present that in the next one. For now I will argue on the basis of my contention to my opponent's "Social Contract" theories, namely: "Even though the government will have fulfilled its side of the Contract, it clearly doesn't do it right..."

My opponent says that now may be the time to deploy, "the end justifies the means". She is right, in a sense. But I believe the government has more of an obligation to make sure they get the means to work effectively to the ends. This anti-missile defense system has too many drawbacks to be effective and have net-positive ends, ends that the system may not even be able to provide. I would like to point out how many times anti-missile systems have failed to perform consistently:

1. http://www.armscontrol.org...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
3. http://usmilitary.about.com...

If my opponent wishes, I can find many other instances. This is clearly not an effective system, and while there is room for improvement, at the moment it lags far behind the prevent measures that could already be put in place to defend America, its allies and vulnerable nuclear-equipped nations like Pakistan.

My opponent is clearly trying to employ justifications that ignore a lot of facts, but none of them stand up to the arguments I have proven.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Volkov

Con

Well, either my opponent thought my argument was so well rounded it was undebatable, or that is was too bad to be addressed.

Unfortunately it has taken me too long to find the source material for my A.Q. Khan argument, but I do not believe it is completely needed either. My opponent has not countered my argument, but I have countered hers, and I believe that I have proven definitively that the anti-missile defense system does much, much more harm than good to the American way of life. It is ineffective, it endangers foreign relations and could possibly cause economic collapse, all for the sake of defending against something that will most likely never happen, while ignoring the greater and more potent danger of terrorism and vulnerable nuclear material.

The anti-missile defense system is pointless; Americans do not want to see their tax dollars squandered on this system while it endangers their lives and ignores the real problems. The anti-missile system should be DOA; and those voters should vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
mongeese:

"Defaulted CON due to forfeits."

Well that's a sh1tty thing to do.

1) A person can still win a debate (i.e. make better arguments and/or have their opponent not offer an adequate rebuttal) while missing a round; to dismiss someone's POV automatically and assume that they have not won the debate simply because of a missed round is a little close-minded and naive.

2) Even if you go by the DDO implemented voting system, missing a round warrants perhaps an automatic loss of conduct vote; however, that says nothing about who you agreed with before/after the debate, who used the more reliable sources, made the most convincing arguments, had the better spelling and grammar, etc.

"It seems that theLwerd almost wins every debate in which she forfeits the last round."

Lol - are you stalking me? ; ) Nah, jk. See above though ^
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
RFD:
B/A: PRO/PRO
Conduct: CON - Pro forfeited a round.
S&G: TIED
Arguments: PRO - Con could not prove how Missile Defense is a bad idea.
Sources: CON - Con had quite a few more.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Defaulted CON due to forfeits.

It seems that theLwerd almost wins every debate in which she forfeits the last round.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Well I appreciate the explanation. We'll have to do a rematch at some point when you will have time.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
"Well, either my opponent thought my argument was so well rounded it was undebatable, or that is was too bad to be addressed."

Neither. The only time I forfeit rounds is when I am unable to get online.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
DanielleVolkovTied
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 MasterET 7 years ago
MasterET
DanielleVolkovTied
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 KeepTheChange 7 years ago
KeepTheChange
DanielleVolkovTied
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 Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
DanielleVolkovTied
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 LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
DanielleVolkovTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
DanielleVolkovTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
DanielleVolkovTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
DanielleVolkovTied
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 SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
DanielleVolkovTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
DanielleVolkovTied
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