The Instigator
C.Artificavitch
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
RaeTulo
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

NCFL LD topic 2010

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
C.Artificavitch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,412 times Debate No: 11741
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

C.Artificavitch

Con

Sorry that the whole resolution wasn't posted. It turned out too long. The full resolution is RESOLVED: That the United States government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil. I'll be Neg. Thank you to whoever accepts. Traditional LD format please. Thank you, I look forward to a fun debate.
RaeTulo

Pro

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for the debate. (:
I make a promise to be civil. :D
Hahah.
I'm also not competing in CatNats, so feel free to use any ideas, if you like.

"...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." [UNudhr]

I agree with this statement. I stand in affirmation of the resolution that Resolved: The United States Government has a moral obligation to afford the same rights to all people on U.S. soil.

I'll begin by listing a few definitions for clarification.
Constitutional rights: simply put, constitutional rights are rights given or reserved to the people by the U.S. Constitution, and, in particular, the bill of rights, or the first ten amendments. This is defined by the Legal Dictionary.
[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... rights]

People: Defined by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "...all members of the human family..."
[The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found at http://www.un.org...]

US Soil: All 50 states and the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories or outlying areas which include the American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Midway Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[http://www.usa.gov...]

My value for this debate will be morality, as it is inherent in the resolution. Morality is defined by the Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology as the relation of conduct or character to the moral standard. The criterion for measuring this value will be minimization of dehumanization.

I'll post brief arguments and taglines and allow my opponent to do the same before I go into detail. (:

Contention one: Faithfulness to founding documents and international agreements.
[a] The Constitution
Constitutional rights include freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, bear arms, no quartering of troops in homes, no unreasonable search and seizure, major ("capital and infamous") crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain; in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel, trial by jury, right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments, unenumerated rights are reserved to the people, equal protection of the laws, no racial bars to voting, no sex bar to voting, and no poll tax. [legal dictionary] The United States government has an obligation to remain faithful to our founding documents, and to give the same rights listed above to all people on american soil.

[b] The United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Considering this Pledge has 32 articles, I'll keep it short and sweet.
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, ...Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." [UNudhr]

•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

To read the rest, go to the link posted above, under my definitions.
The Government has an obligation to be faithful to both of these documents.

Contention two: Respect for humanity.
In other words, minimization of dehumanization, which is my value for the round. Let's also talk about justice and freedom for a second. "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." [UNudhr] I'd like to point out, that according to Maslow, Freedom and Justice and Orderliness (or peace) are necessary for one's self-actualization. Nearly everyone feels they need these things. If we take away rights from some, we're taking away from that person's self actualization. Dehuminization is very self explanatory ; To make one feel less than human. Is this moral? No.

Thank you for the round. I'll post more detailed arguments later. Do you do cross examination, or no?
Debate Round No. 1
C.Artificavitch

Con

I wasn't planning on Cross-Examination, but I'll be happy to answer any questions. =). I personally though waive my right to cross-examination. For a brief road map, NC-AC.

I affirm, Resolved: That the United States government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil.

I agree with all her definitions.

Observation 1: Since this topic is very broad in terms of using an example to debate upon, we need an example that is fair. I offer illegal immigration. So when the resolution is talking about people on American soil, the underlying question is "Is our government morally obliged to afford the same constitutional rights to non-citizens living in our country?" Focusing on illegal immigrants would keep us off of abusive arguments such as released felons, or terrorists living in secret in our country. (Notice how these abusive arguments would have worked in favor of the Con.) So in this debate let's talk about the effects of affording illegal immigrants the same constitutional rights as American citizens.

The best value to determine today's round will be Maximization of Peace. The utmost important goal in today's round is to preserve the most peace, and if possible achieve more peace. So I urge the voter's to vote on who maximizes the most peace in today's round. The way the con will be maximizing peace today is limiting non citizen's rights. Since the resolution is asking the affirmative to afford the SAME rights to all, then its the con's job to show why they shouldn't have all the same rights. Granted, they do have unalienable rights, such as right to life, liberty, freedom of religion, etc.

To measure how much peace we maximize, we will look to the criterion of government legitimacy. Pretty much a government has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens first, and when we help the non-citizens in the country such as illegal immigrants, we upset the people, hurt the economy, allow invasion.

C1- Protecting illegal aliens is essentially encouraging a border-less America.
Pretty much like she said I'll go into detail later in round, but when we willingly give illegal immigrants shelter and rights, we are saying "We don't want you here, but if your here your here." Its like telling a child that they can't have candy, but when the child steals the candy, they go unpunished and are allowed to keep eating the candy. By giving them rights, we encourage illegal immigration, and even if not that we don't discourage it. That equals a border-less America.
C2-A border-less America is not only bad, it's invasion.
A border-less America is bad because they are not in the system so not paying taxes, yet they take advantage of our public resources. It said's in the constitution that the government has to protect us from invasion. Having thousand's of illegal aliens sneaking in our border is essentially that.

AC

Her value of Morality falls because since the government is th agent of action, that's the one who is enacting morality. But since the government is an institution and not a human, it has no moral agency, Morality falls.

Her criterion has no backing, no analysis, and without a value nothing to link to. Minimization of Dehumanization falls.

C1- (a)She fails to note that a right would be voting. I'll leave in in the hands of the voters to decide if its smart to allow a non American citizen to vote. Also, she advocates objectivism, which is like saying, "Lets not stray from the rules". Well someties rules need to be adapted, changed, or gone with the changing generations.

(b) Yeah, but as the UN they have to respect our rules and policies. Also them having that influence over us is like a non citizen of the US being able to vote for our president. Once again, bad.

C2- Were giving them right to life and basics, just not "affording them the same as American citizens". thus there no de-huminization occuring.

Thanks for accepting round, great arguments, also check comment box please, RaeTulo
RaeTulo

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his thoughtful response. (:

First, the value and criterion debate;
My value of morality must stand, as first off, it is inherent in the resolution, and also, the documents and agreements that we as a nation must abide by, all have one core principle: morality. While I agree that maximization of peace is important, we must see that the maximization of peace stems from morality, and thus, the ultimate value must be morality. The US government has an obligation to abide by it's founding doctrines which have a core principle of morality, and therefore has the obligation to achieve morality through affording all people on US soil the same constitutional rights.

My criterion, minimization of dehumanization, must also stand. Government legitimacy is important, however let's look to what makes a government legitimate; to abide by it's core principles and founding doctrines, and to enforce the law. All of our laws and founding doctrines all stem from one core principle of morality. So, in order for our government to be legitimate, it must be faithful to it's core principles and founding doctrines, and enforce its laws, all in order to minimize dehumanization, which is moral. We must see that in order to achieve my value of morality, minimization of dehumanization is very necessary. To dehumanize is to make somebody feel "less than human." To afford certain rights to group A, and not to group B, is to make group B feel lesser than group A, and this is not moral. John Locke's Social Contract tells us, for lack of a better term, to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. To treat somebody as less than yourself, you are treating them as less than human, which, again, is immoral. So in minimizing dehumanization, we are achieving morality, the value to which you must look to in this round.

*My opponent speaks of illegal immigrants, and neglects to bring up felons and terrorists because it is abusive.
I thank him for this, however, any terrorists living in the United States are illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants are felons. So, his consideration is appreciated, however, it's unnecessary. **So, felons, illegal immigrants, etc. have all violated the law, and the social contract. I think my opponent, and many others, would agree on two things: 1) Violation of the law and/or the social contract justifies revocation of rights. 2) Those who violate the law or social contract were at one time, or would have been, afforded the same rights that were given up through this violation. ***As we see, whether or not the US government continuously affords the same rights to all people on US soil, the rights were, at one point, afforded.

1." Protecting illegal aliens is essentially encouraging a border-less America."
[** & *** Cross apply]
Remember that the government does not have an obligation to give the rights to felons, illegal immigrants, etc., AFTER they violate the law or social contract. The rights were afforded before laws were broken and the social contract was violated, but the violations justify the revocation, and the government has met its obligation through previously affording these rights.

2." A border-less America is not only bad, it's invasion. "
" A border-less America is bad because they are not in the system so not paying taxes, yet they take advantage of our public resources. It said's in the constitution that the government has to protect us from invasion. Having thousand's of illegal aliens sneaking in our border is essentially that. "
Yes, this is true. However the resolution does not ask about the present, it asks about whether we OUGHT to give these people the same rights as others. Illegal immigrants and felons are afforded the same rights at one point, or would have been afforded the same rights before they violated the social contract and the law. We ought to abide by our constitution, as my opponent concedes. And to afford these rights, whether continuously or otherwise, is to have met the moral obligation.

Now, to extend my case.
1. Faithfulness to founding documents and international agreements.
The US government has an obligation to abide by these doctrines, which all have one core principle: morality, which is also the value you must look to in this debate. The Declaration of Independence tells us that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. To deny these rights is immoral, and does not minimize dehumanization. The 14th amendment of our constitution says " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Does our government have jurisdiction over anyone on US soil? The people under our jurisdiction MUST be afforded the same rights. Revocation of rights, meaning the taking away of rights, implies that the rights were, at one point, afforded. The violation of law and/or social contract justifies the revocation of rights.

Vote pro. (:
Debate Round No. 2
C.Artificavitch

Con

No problem RaeTulo. Though yours was way more in depth. I was in a hurry last round. I'll make this one extra good, to cover my slack. ;)

Value and Criterion debate:

My opponent says her value MUST stand for two reasons. 1) Its inherent in the resolution. I'm guessing she means because of the wording "moral obligation". 2) Morality is the core principle in all the documents and agreements we as a nation abide by. Well to start off, I know there's not a big emphasis on evidence in this debate, which is fine by me, but since my opponent is Affirmative she has the burden of proof. I don't remember seeing the core principle of morality in each one. Also even though the resolution uses the word "moral" in it, the fact remains that the United States government has no moral agency, seeing as it's not human, thus not being rational. On top of that this argument goes unrefuted, so extend and kick morality out of the round.

Ive delinked morality, so throw out minimization of dehumanization with it, seeing how that doesn't tie to the only value left in the round, mine. Also, she goes on to state we must remain faithful to our founding doctrines and principles, but this would be taking on an objective viewpoint. I made a block against objectivism in my last round, which also went unrefuted, so in this debate it stands that objectivism is bad, which makes her criterion bad.
(I know in LD that it's a rule that once an attack or argument is dropped, not brought up in every round, then you cannot bring it up again, but seeing as this is an educational round helping me prepare for CatNats, I don't think that rule should penalize in this round). Also she talks about dehumanization being bad, since group A is favored more than group B, but what if group B is bad, or not worthy of humanization. Now to the social contract...=)....I'm very happy you brought this up. If you look up social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org...), its also an agreement between nation and citizen. If the person becomes a citizen, they agree to give up certain rights such as privacy, for times when the right of general public protection comes into danger. So if these illegal immigrants came here but are not citizens, then they have not agreed to the social contract, so we have no moral obligation to provide them the full extent of constitutional rights.

About the felons, that is fine with me to include them, I just thought it would be abusive to the Affirmative. Just to point out, my opponent says she is technically advocating the resolution as long as the rights were given at one point. Even though this is a huge circle argument, (like saying by negating we affirm), very unspirit of the resolution like, and the word is "afford" not "afforded", I actually find it a clever idea. =). Props to RaeTulo. But sadly, the illegal immigrants have not agreed to the social contract, thus never had the rights. Also, when equal under the constitution, every one has the rights to arms. So in the Affirmative world, you better lock our doors and grab your crucafix cause there will be a lot of ex-felons running around with guns.

1. My opponent sticks to the "as long as it was afforded" argument, but since the resolution says all people afforded to, and illegal's were never given them (see social contract block), then shes not meeting her burden placed on her by the resolution. She now has two options. Continue to advocate her current position, making her untopical, or to switch to attack my arguments. But seeing how she agrees that illegal's are breaking our laws, then I don't see that being very successful.

2. All I'm getting is you agree that its bad to have a border-less America. So you agree my impact has weight in this round. But you try to delink me from the resolution by saying that it's now and present situation. But to clarfy on my part, I'm saying in the Aff world it's a borderless America. Seeing how the Aff world is current right now, then it's not present times. So i have link, impact, and only weight in round. That itself should buy me the round.

Her Case.

1. She says the people under our jurisdiction MUST have constitutional rights provided to them. So means she just switched advocacies, so she now only cares about US citizens, not "all people on American soil".

So, I'll save voters for last round, but as it stands now I have the only weight/impact inthe round, and only value to link into. Along with only criterion to measure/achieve value with.

Vote Negative please
RaeTulo

Pro

Thanks for your response. (: Sorry about the dropped point, I forgot to cross apply my Criterion argument over to that point, since they're about the same.

Anywho...onto the standards debate;;

My value of morality stands, as the documents our government, and our whole nation, must abide by all include one core principle of morality. The laws and rules included in these doctrines stem from justice, and justice stems from morality. My opponent continues to argue that the government doesn't have a moral agency, and therefore, no moral obligation, and so my "value must be dropped." However, if you read through his NC, you'll notice he concedes that the government does have a moral agency when he says "Pretty much a government has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens first..." Through this, we can see that, as agreed by myself and my opponent, the government does have moral obligations to meet. My opponent's value, Maximization of peace, is important, however, maximization of peace falls under the category of morality, and thus, the ultimate value must be morality.

My criterion, then, must also stand, because Minimization of Dehumanization is one of the most important moral obligations the US government has to meet. My opponent's criterion, Government Legitimacy, must be dropped because without a value it cannot be linked to anything, as my opponent has pointed out.

Onto my first point...
Faithfulness to our founding documents and international agreements. This includes the Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. As my opponent brought up earlier, all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind..." [UNudhr]

My second point...
Respect for humanity [or minimization of dehumanization]
"To dehumanize is to make somebody feel "less than human." To afford certain rights to group A, and not to group B, is to make group B feel lesser than group A, and this is not moral. John Locke's Social Contract tells us, for lack of a better term, to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. To treat somebody as less than yourself, you are treating them as less than human, which, again, is immoral. So in minimizing dehumanization, we are achieving morality, the value to which you must look to in this round." [1AR] (It is 1AR, right? Hahah) My opponent says that group B may not be worthy of humanization. First off, we must see that, even if group B is an unpopular group, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights all tell us that all people are afforded certain inalienable rights. We must remain faithful to these doctrines, and therefore, have a moral obligation to afford these rights to all people on US soil.

My opponent's case:
My opponent says that illegal immigrants are a problem because they don't pay taxes and take advantage of public services, however, according to MSNBC "In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job." and since 1996, more than 11 million ITIN's (Individual Tax Identification Numbers) have been issued to illegal foreigners, so that they may be recognized as taxpayers. We must see that illegal immigrants, yes, are obviously here illegally, however, most abide by our laws, find work, pay taxes at higher rates than public service usage, and my opponent lists this as the only burden that illegal immigrants put on our nation. Without immigrants causing this trouble, we must see, they're not doing any harm.

I'd also like to reiterate the fact that, once somebody's violated our law or social contract, the revocation of rights is justified. As my opponent pointed out, illegal immigrants haven't agreed to the social contract, however as I've shown, most of them do abide by our laws and core principles.

Vote pro. (:
Debate Round No. 3
C.Artificavitch

Con

Value debate-

"My value of morality stands, as the documents our government, and our whole nation, must abide by all include one core principle of morality."

As the affirmative (Pro), she has the burden of proof. She has given no evidece of Morality being our core principle.

"The laws and rules included in these doctrines stem from justice, and justice stems from morality."

C stems from B and B from A. But wheres the proof? Wheres is the actual link? The arguments matter because her only defense is that "Morality MUST stand" because it's a core principle. It's ot as a matter of fact, and she has no evidence, but even if proven, it doesn't matter because she doesn't prove that the governmet has a moral agecy. She saids that I cocede to it. Yeah, my bad. But just because I'm wrong too doesn't make her right. Since she has no reason the government does have a moral agecy, then they don't. Drop her value and criterio, and drop my sentence about moral agency. Even if she could PROVE that my value is a prerequisite to hers, in this debate it doesn't matter because morality has no place in this round.

Criterion-

"My criterion, then, must also stand, because Minimization of Dehumanization is one of the most important moral obligations the US government has to meet. My opponent's criterion, Government Legitimacy, must be dropped because without a value it cannot be linked to anything, as my opponent has pointed out."

Well if we are goig by the values, once agai drop her criterion and adopt mine. Also, extend objectivism arguement she drops.

First point-

"Faithfulness to our founding documents and international agreements. This includes the Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. As my opponent brought up earlier, all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind..." [UNudhr]"

Well, this doesn't have any effect in her rebuttal because she just repeats her contention. No analysis. Also, yes everyone has inalienable rights, but that doesn't include the right to vote.

Second point-

"Respect for humanity [or minimization of dehumanization]
"To dehumanize is to make somebody feel "less than human." To afford certain rights to group A, and not to group B, is to make group B feel lesser than group A, and this is not moral. John Locke's Social Contract tells us, for lack of a better term, to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. To treat somebody as less than yourself, you are treating them as less than human, which, again, is immoral. So in minimizing dehumanization, we are achieving morality, the value to which you must look to in this round." [1AR] (It is 1AR, right? Hahah) My opponent says that group B may not be worthy of humanization. First off, we must see that, even if group B is an unpopular group, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights all tell us that all people are afforded certain inalienable rights. We must remain faithful to these doctrines, and therefore, have a moral obligation to afford these rights to all people on US soil."

Just to shoot down this whole argument, just know that everyone has inalienable rights, but those don't include the right to vote.

My Case-

"My opponent says that illegal immigrants are a problem because they don't pay taxes and take advantage of public services, however, according to MSNBC "In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job." and since 1996, more than 11 million ITIN's (Individual Tax Identification Numbers) have been issued to illegal foreigners, so that they may be recognized as taxpayers. We must see that illegal immigrants, yes, are obviously here illegally, however, most abide by our laws, find work, pay taxes at higher rates than public service usage, and my opponent lists this as the only burden that illegal immigrants put on our nation. Without immigrants causing this trouble, we must see, they're not doing any harm."

If you check, you will see that this is new evidence brought into the 4th round. So just throw that out of the debate.

Social contract-

For clarification, whether or not we provide them the rights means nothing. The question is, is it our moral obligation? No, because they have not agreed to our social contract, thus no obligation exists between that man or woman and government.

Summary-

So far, The Con has won the social contract argument because since they have not agreed to it, there is no "moral obligation", as the resolution calls for.

Extend objectivism argument.

Extend the value and criterion to the Con side.

Both sides have provided clash.

Illegal immigrants are a harm to America, extend that.

Thanks for the great responses. =). Vote Con.
RaeTulo

Pro

RaeTulo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
C.Artificavitch

Con

Well, I promised you voters last round, so here they are. but before I give them, please allow me to extend some crucial points.

Extend my value of Maximization of Peace because 1) It is the only value left in the round. Her value of morality has been thrown out due to my past arguments which went uncontested. 2) My value has been argued the "most moral" choice, so since that goes uncontested as well, extend it.

Extend my criterion of Government legitimacy because it is the only criterion to link with. That being one of many reasons.

Voter #1- I won the Value/Criterion debate, because mine stands, hers falls, uncontested. Seeing as that's the core of LD debate, I have won the debate already.

Extend Objectivism, which goes uncontested throughout the debate. This argument shows that affirming is stubbornly immoral.

Voter #2- In the Aff world, you have stubborn headeness, leading to a borderless America, linking to the fall of America and the world as we know it. In the Negative world, rainbows and sunshine.

Voter #3- Seeing how my attacks on her case go uncontested, we must assume she concedes and that her case now has many many fallacies, making it fall. Her attacks on my case were dropped, making mine if not perfect, at least the better alternative. So as the only one with any substantial arguments, vote Negative.
RaeTulo

Pro

RaeTulo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Matth3w 4 years ago
Matth3w
Liked the debate, missed the voting, though, would have voted. This is the debate for my school system this year. Interesting topic.
Posted by RaeTulo 4 years ago
RaeTulo
Ahh, sure. (:
I'll use my prewritten neg.
Posted by C.Artificavitch 4 years ago
C.Artificavitch
thanks. now that were done debating, i'll admit that case was crap that i threw together lol. I just wanted to work on debating it. Hey, want to debate again and switch sides?
Posted by RaeTulo 4 years ago
RaeTulo
I concede to that. :/
Hahah, my apologies. This is the first debate I've ever forfeited rounds, you had me stumped, I'll admit.
You're going to do AMAZING at CatNats, go rock it!
Good luck to you.
Posted by C.Artificavitch 4 years ago
C.Artificavitch
Conduct- Seeing as my opponent forfeited 2 rounds, including the last, i should get the vote on conduct.
S/G- Tied
Convincing Arguments- I made a number of arguments that went unrefuted and dominated hers
Sources- I backed up my case with evidence
Posted by RaeTulo 4 years ago
RaeTulo
Sorry for the forfeit!
I'd never forfeit a round except for I just worked a 26 hour weekend,
and I logged on just in time to see I had missed the deadline.
So I'll definately have my next round posted. (:
Sorry again!
Posted by C.Artificavitch 4 years ago
C.Artificavitch
So does anyone have any evidence for this topic? Warrants, cards, websites to get them, anyhting would be greatly appreciated. =)
Posted by C.Artificavitch 4 years ago
C.Artificavitch
Thanks. =). No big deal if we don't strictly follow format. Debate.org format hinders traditional format. The main thing is, after we have each had to speeches, no new arguments are brought up. Now we just battle over current ones.
Posted by RaeTulo 4 years ago
RaeTulo
Just to let you know, I'm not all too familiar with the rules and structure of LD, as I'm a PF debater usually.
So, if I make any mistakes, don't be afraid to point them out. (:
Thanks.
Posted by RaeTulo 4 years ago
RaeTulo
I completely understand.
Thanks for setting up the debate.
I hope you do well at CatNats.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RaeTulo 4 years ago
RaeTulo
C.ArtificavitchRaeTuloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by C.Artificavitch 4 years ago
C.Artificavitch
C.ArtificavitchRaeTuloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60