The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Nationalism a curse or progress

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 95871
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




Nationalism, a cancer that has taken root and has a strong foundation in the world today.
Let's see what tribalism of old and nationalism of the new world has done.
On the macro level, nationalism has divided the human species into 196 or 195 parts, depending on the countries of the world (196 countries if you count Taiwan as a country). Question arises that when the Creator of this world built this earth without any borders, why has Mankind made them?
This has further created divisions in Mankind known as Racism. When Mankind is not ready to unite under the banner of Humanity then why would a White colored HUMAN consider himself equal to a Black colored HUMAN?
Enough about divisions, let's talk about conflicts. Due to nationalism, Mankind kills its own kind, its own species, HUMANS without hesitation kill one another. World war 1, world war 2, the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict, Kashmir Conflict, Sri-lankan civil war and i can go on and on and on, just because the two Fighting HUMAN groups, (and try to understand my emphasis on HUMAN), are ethnically different. Millions of our fellow HUMAN brothers and sisters are dead and more will die if we (HUMANS) do not untie under the bond of Humanity with the core foundations of loving everyone, respecting each other's differences and trusting one another.
Now let's see what nationalism has done in terms of economy. The creator of the world gave bounties to His creation, Humans, and scattered the resources around the globe. But alas the world got divided and HUMANS were never ready to share their wealth with each other and do not even feel obligated to help their fellow poor humans, so what has happened? A division of the land known as Kuwait is the RICHEST country in the world just because that nationalist group sits on a piece of land in the part of the world where crude oil is extracted and The Central African Republic which sits in a on a land where diamond is the major resource but due to ethnic violence, major political instability and corruption, it is the world's poorest country. Blood diamonds is the fame of Central African Republic.
People will argue that capitalism is the cause of unjust distribution of wealth but in reality the cause of division in the economy of the world or individual country is directly related to nationalism as when Humans cherish the division of humanity, how can we (Humans) bear the concept of unity in economics which emphasizes on equality of wealth, thus capitalism a necessary tool which complements nationalism.
The plague of nationalism is currently over the world and only when Mankind rises together united in the bonds of love, mutual respect and trust will this evil nightmare end.


To deny nationalism, in all of its forms, you are denying the very nature of human beings. Nationalism is no different than any other grouping with which people self-identify; whether it be religion, politics, sports teams, etc.. People have an obvious and overwhelming need to belong to a group. Groups offer a sense of identity, a feeling of security and a sense of comfort to its members.
The creator? That is an entirely different subject and the premise for which I totally reject as having any place in this discussion.
Humans have been killing each other long before the concept of a nation had ever been introduced. By suggesting that nationalism is to blame for this phenomena is tantamount to suggesting that religion is the cause of war. Like religion, nationalism only provides the excuse people use to carry out their natural predatory aggression.
Your arguments seem to become more convoluted as it progresses. Instead of arguing that nationalism is the cause of all to the violence in the world you have drifted off into economics, individual countries, resources that are valued and some vague notion of what you believe capitalism to be.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to give my fellow opponent, Taxidea, a warm welcome for accepting this debate. Good luck to you!!!
Firstly, my challenger (Taxidea) has given a weak opening argument without even conversing about how nationalism has brought progress in mankind for he is in favor of "Nationalism a progress".
(As per rules of any debate, all citations must be quoted with the proper author name and articles, page numbers etc)
Secondly due to lack of knowledge of my friend, he has criticized that " Instead of arguing that nationalism is the cause of all to the violence in the world you have drifted off into economics, individual countries, resources that are valued and some vague notion of what you believe capitalism to be." (Taxidea). We are all here to learn and it may be that i will gain new knowledge when my friend posts a rebuttal, until then i would like my friend to read the articles below cited from which i came to the conclusion that nationalism and capitalism go hand in hand, complementing one another.

1.Tracing the Matrix of Nationalism and Capitalism by Kevin E. Schmiesing ( )
2. Nationalism at the centre and periphery of Capitalism by Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira (
3. How Is Nationalism Related to Capitalism? by Gale Stokes- RICE University- Comparative Studies in Society and History, Volume 28, Issue 3 July 1986, pp. 591-598 (
4. The Spirit of Capitalism, Nationalism and Economic Growth By Liah Greenfeld (

My friend here says, " To deny nationalism, in all of its forms, you are denying the very nature of human beings. Nationalism is no different than any other grouping with which people self-identify; whether it be religion, politics, sports teams, etc.. People have an obvious and overwhelming need to belong to a group. Groups offer a sense of identity, a feeling of security and a sense of comfort to its members" but he is indeed forgoing the fact that even though we identify ourselves with a group in-spite of that there is difference of opinion among them over several issues, nationalism is not the nature of Humans but rather difference of belief, outlook, perspective, attitude and perception of life and issues relating to it is the core of Human nature.
Hence i say respecting each other's differences in mankind. Nationalism has divided us into such bits and pieces that basic Humanity is lost.
My friend say's "People have an obvious and overwhelming need to belong to a group. Groups offer a sense of identity, a feeling of security and a sense of comfort to its members", I ask, what better group do you need to associate yourself with, the other person has the same two eyes, two legs, two arms and hands, a brain, ears but rather than focusing on our similarities, we prioritize on the differences and create divisions of the same species and outcast our own kind. This shows more of a sense of insecurity rather than security and sense of comfort. What is the fault of the person being born in a Black family for which he is outcast-ed in the society, treated as an inferior Human? What is the fault of a person being born in a Palestinian family for he and his family is blown to shreds by Israelis? What is the fault of a person being born in a poor family for he suffers in attaining the basic needs of life, food, cloth, shelter and health?
It is this Evil, Nationalism which has been successfully and carefully implanted by some in Mankind to divide Humanity for their own greed and objectives.
Let me speak in a way of parable, Do you see the birds, how they rise in the morning from their homes, leaving behind their young in the nest in search of food for themselves and their young , the same species of birds flying together in flocks, caring for their own kind and thus after a hard day's work return in the evening to nest for good night's rest? Same is for humans, the only difference here is that we humans of the same species do not flock together rather we hurt and even go to the extent of killing each other over material gains.
Such is the sad story of Mankind for divisions between us has taken basic humanity away. We would rather hate than love, we would rather hoard than share and we would rather oppress than liberate Mankind.


This is my first debate in on this site but is not my first debate and my opponent"s clarification of the rules, however well intentioned, the condescension is neither required nor appreciated. That being said, I believe the primary problem with my opponents arguments start with the fact he is taking two entirely different concepts and attempting to combine them into a single entity to prove a point about human nature.
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Full Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Full Definition of nationalism
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Obviously, neither of these concepts are related based on the strict definitions of the words.
In his first citation, my opponent is referencing a source from the Acton Institute, a publication based on a religion. Any argument which has and underlying foundation rooted in the belief of a deity, to me, lacks any validation. The entire principle of religion is a demand that you believe without question and that is called faith. No matter how well they attempt to dress it up, by definition faith is the lack of proof.
His second citation is based on a translation of a Portuguese document published in 2008. In his opening statement in his abstract; "In this work I show that nationalism, together with liberalism, socialism, efficientism and the environmentalism, is one of the ideologies of the modern societies." the author has clearly is melding four different beliefs into a single thought. Further, the author makes some interesting leaps of logic and he flips between definitions of what he believes nationalism to be.
In his third citation, my opponent has reference a publication from Rice University dated 1986 in which there is a partial abstract and a list of five publications where he would like me to go and see whether or not they are relevant. While the title is directly on point to my opponent"s arguments, there is nothing in the body of work to show how it relates.
The fourth citation in the list shows and error code 404 and reads "book not available on server".
While attempting to read what my opponent explained was the evidence from where he drew his conclusions, I feel I was sent on a chase of the wild goose variety. In future, I would hope he will provide actual citations from actual sources which can be verified.
In his final argument, my opponent opted for a parable in much the same way children in Sunday school are taught about the nonsense in the bible. Hardly the kind of discussion about nationalism I was expecting. So much for his rebuttal to my initial statement.
Nationalism, as it currently stands is nothing more than a natural extension of the tribes throughout history which have grown to their current states. This evolutionary process is very likely to continue as is evidenced by the European Union, now in its infancy. At some point this union with be thought of as a nation and the subsequent generations will think of this union as its own nation and will have the associated nationalism attached to it in the same way that all of the other countries currently think of the place where they live.
When children are growing up, there is an indoctrination which occurs. They are taught to be proud of their families, community, town, state, country, etc. Singling out nationalism as the ultimate form of wrongs in the world makes no more sense than it is to blame pride in the family. Humans are communal animals. Perhaps, at some point in the future, that community will encompass the entire planet. Blaming nationalism for all of the ills in the world just defies logic.
Debate Round No. 2


Good Evening everyone!
So far it's round 3 of the Debate, " Nationalism a curse or progress" and yet my opponent has failed to enlighten us and build his case as to How nationalism has given Humanity progress. My opponent is still stuck in the dictionary meaning of nationalism and capitalism. I will not go into a boxing match with my fellow debater over the citations i gave or the dictionary meanings of these words. So far God is concerned, i would only say to my friend that if you do not believe in God, its fine, your own choice and will but it does not mean that my first citation is wrong due to your beliefs, there are millions out there who do believe in Him and for them that citation is valid. Well i'll let the Judges decide whether my citations are relevant or authentic.
Moving on, ill continue to expose nationalism as a curse for Mankind in round 3, that is so far i have tried to do in my previous rounds as well, let's hope my opponent will enlighten us as to how nationalism is a progress for humans in this round.
Let us focus what nationalism has done in terms of violence in this world. My aim is not to give nightmares to readers by sharing the links below but my aim is for readers to understand how deadly this evil is of nationalism and how HUMANS are killing HUMANS over this philosophy of nationalism.
Its 1939 and Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany, began to invade Europe starting from Poland and ending with the invasion of USSR. He came up with a weird philosophy, the Aryan Race with the emphasis to exterminate Jews. We all know how this war ended, 2 Nuclear bombs exploded in Japan and the war was over. Millions died, cities leveled to the ground and countless families shattered. All because of nationalism, individual states fighting over their own agendas. Who lost in this war? Answer, Humans not Germany, not japan, not Italy but Humans were the biggest looser. Us and allied claimed victory but that so called victory is a curtain, it was the biggest failure for us HUMANS in our written history. The cost of a life in WW2 was $13, the cost of a bullet at that time.
I know we are humans, its the choices we make that define us and humans have freedom to choose and sometimes their choices can take them to such an extreme low level that there is no difference between them and animals. For instance there is this term which is an extreme consequence of Nationalism, Ethnic Cleansing. It is defined as the attempt to get rid of (through deportation, displacement or even mass killing) members of an unwanted ethnic group in order to establish an ethnically homogeneous geographic area.
Shame, shame on those who are continuing to kill each other on the basis of their ethnic identity. Killing one human is as though you have killed whole of Mankind. I ask, what is their fault if they are born in a Black race or a Palestinian race or a Serbian or Kurd or Armenian race or XYZ race for which persecution is happening on them just because they are different than the oppressor group?
Nationalism the cancer of mankind has created divisions rather than uniting the world. As far as my opponent states that it is a mere "natural extension of the tribes throughout history which have grown to their current states" is false. If this is true, USA should be an extension of the tribes of American Indians who were living there, but Alas they were systematically exterminated by the British and the so called population of Uncle Sam, majority is of English (BRITISH) ancestry.
This cancer of nationalism needs to be cured before utter oblivion prevails on the earth and only unity through the bonds of love, respect and trust can make us Humans progress and evolve us a species but evolve this earth into the Heaven it was meant to be not the hell it is today due to our own deeds.
Thank You.


I find it a little confusing that my opponent does not want to acknowledge the very basics of the topic at hand such as the meaning of the words we are discussing. Since he has no interest in the official meaning of the words, I would like to know what definition he is planning to discuss. Refusing to discuss the citations he provided is also puzzling to me since he went to great lengths in round 2 to explain the rules of debating, the value of citations and how they were to be used. The entire point of the citations you used were by your own admission, how you came to your conclusions. I fail to see how it is a boxing match when I point out the problems I had with your citations. You offered them, presumably as a way for me to read the same information that helped you draw your conclusions then; defended only the first and made no mention of my observations about the others including the one that did not exist. If you assumed I would not read the information provided, it was a bad guess. Since you used these citations as the basis for your beliefs I think it fair that you show which parts were the most convincing to you. Perhaps a quote or two.
Nationalism, as previously stated, is merely the evolution of the tribal communities. North America was conquered by predominantly European settlers in exactly the same way that every piece of land has been conquered and reconquered by invading forces. It was not done in the name of nationalism since the word didn"t even exist before 1844, according to your own citation. Once conquered, they established a new group living together for a common goal. Whether or not you believe the goal to be a just one is irrelevant.
The simplistic use of Hitler going on his rampage across Europe has nothing to do with nationalism and as you so clearly stated he used the Aryan Race as his justification for his actions. You are missing the most basic concept of human aggression and its predatory nature. People have been killing each other since the dawn of man on the planet. (I am not talking about Adam and Eve). If you are going to be referencing Hitler as rebuttal point then it is incumbent upon you to explain how he came to power. Hitler was not created in a vacuum and yet you ignore the obvious factors of the Treaty of Versailles and the world-wide economic depression.
The reason I am so dismissive of any god references is simply because you have not stated which god is giving you your inspiration. If there is some specific knowledge which will enlighten us all that has been passed on to you then I would love to know what it may be. If you plan on bringing in any bible references then I will need to know which version of which bible you plan to use.
Ethnic Cleansing is a nice new topic introduced to the debate at hand and again it has nothing to do with nationalism. By definition it has to do with ethnicity, unless you don"t want to accept the definition of that word either. Words matter and by extension so do their definitions.
Again, I have checked every reference listed, even the youtube banality. Youtube is not really a validated reference on any kind but I still watched because you were using it as a rebuttal point. Not one of the references listed even mentions nationalism so I have to wonder why you posted them. Please explain.
The American Indians were exterminated by the British? You have a very selective reading of history if you believe the statement you posted. The name "Uncle Sam" didn't even come into existence until the war of 1812.
My position, again in case you missed it is this: Nationalism is merely the current point on the evolutionary scale upon which we currently reside. Countries have come and gone over the course of human history. People have conquered and been conquered since humans came into existence and long before there was such a thing as a country let alone nationalism.
Debate Round No. 3


Good Evening Everyone!
This is the Final round and so far my opponent has failed to give us any insight or knowledge as to How nationalism has been a progress for humanity. He is still stuck on the dictionary meaning of nationalism while i have provided everyone PUBLISHED ARTICLES FOR EVERYONE TO READ AND COME UP TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS ( without me influencing their opinions on them), yet he refutes those PUBLISHED articles and came up with his dictionary meaning of the word nationalism and states, " loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" without stating any references or citations himself, but for sake of my opponent, ill stick to his definition in this concluding round and give my closing argument by explaining through his interpretation of nationalism of how evil this curse of nationalism is for humanity. And for his sake i plead him to rather than giving rebuttals and counter arguments to the statements i have made, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US AS TO HOW NATIONALISM IS A PROGRESS FOR HUMANS because so far you have not given us any points and have failed to build your case. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US AS YOU ARE PRO- TOWARDS NATIONALISM, HOW IS IT A PROGRESS FOR HUMANS, PLEASE BUILD YOUR CASE!!! LET THE JUDGES OF THIS DEBATE DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG!!
Moving on, in all of my previous arguments on this debate i gave various reasons why nationalism is a cancer for HUMANS, i linked various problems, difficulties, trials, tribulations and ills to nationalism, for all of these problems are directly related to nationalism.
Keeping in mind the DICTIONARY meaning my opponent has provided, i link racism to it, for two HUMANS ( and please mark my emphasis on humans) born in two separate nations with different cultures and interests, placing primary emphasis on promotion of their cultures and interest will never see each other as equals, one will always try to place the other as inferior to him. White hating black, yellow hating brown etc.
I link Division of Mankind to nationalism, humans against humans in forms of nations, killing each other on the orders of their respect governments or authorities or leaders just because things were not going forward in line with their INTERESTS. Hence i also linked GENOCIDE and Ethnic Cleansing for there are many examples in our written history to prove how nations committed these crimes in the name of nationalism, Baluchistan one the recent examples a province of Pakistan trying to seek independence from it, Germany the biggest example of what it did in WW2 and WW1, Kashmir another example trying to seek independence from India, Palestine is another example, Serbia the worst of them all, i could go on and on, all in the name of nationalism.
This evil of nationalism has brought nothing but distress, death and destruction to Humans. It has divided mankind, a single species into different unnatural groups, each competing the other for material gains and interests and they go to the extent to eliminate the other group if deem necessary to them.
In the end i would like to say a few words to my fellows humans......
Ye have divided again, oh mankind. Don't ye see how your Lord diversified thee, diversifying mankind giving ye different colors, shapes and sizes, intelligence, qualities, strengths and weaknesses so that ye can distinguish between one another and made it easy for thee to recognize each other. Thy Lord diversified mankind so that ye may unite and strengthen through diversification and build a heaven on this earth through your own deeds. But look at what ye have done mankind, ye planted a seed of division in mankind which has grown into an evil tree bearing out fruits of oppression, racism , inequality, exploitation and persecution in mankind. It is your own deeds which has turned this garden into hell. Plant the seed of unity in mankind walking in the path of your Sustainer. Care for it like a gardener with the tools of love, respect and trust. And ye will see a beautiful tree of unity sprout in mankind giving righteous fruits for all. Care for all in mankind regardless of their color, beliefs or race. Don't ye see ye are one kind, the same species. Love rather than hate, share rather than hoard and Unite rather than divide, for ye can make this earth a wonderful adventure and a replica of the heavens above by your own deeds.
Thank you and may God bless all!!!
(I believe in the God of Abraham and i follow the laws given to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad)


My numerous attempts to bring my opponent back on topic and away from the long unrelated tangents has proven to be an exercise in futility. His outright refusal to accept the most basic of concepts such as the definition of the word we were discussing was a major indicator that his grasp of the subject matter was tenuous at best. He was even offered an opportunity to explain his understanding of the word nationalism and again he avoided any mention of some alternative description. Instead he introduced several divergent topics in their most superficial forms including capitalism, cancer, a creator of some sort, ethnicity, evil, genocide, Hitler, nuclear weapons, Uncle Sam, and finally wrapping it up with what appears to be his version of the sermon on the mount.
In his final summation, my opponents had attempted to reintroduce the discredited, unrelated, and non-existent references as proof that he had developed a case while trying to disparage my comments with vague references instead of specifics as well as the use of capital letters as if he were making some statement with incredible depth.
I understand that my opponent appears to have a great deal of anxiety about the state of the world and rightfully so. The place is a mess and the simplistic platitudes and the na"ve belief that it can all be summed up and corrected with an end to nationalism is exactly the kind of thinking that has people wringing their hands and chasing their tails.
Humans, are the single most destructive parasite on the planet (subject for a completely different debate) and my opponent"s attempt to simplify one aspect of behavior and equate it with the reason for the apparent chaos which currently exists does nothing to move the discussion forward.
I clearly stated a few times that nationalism is simply the current state of evolution in which we find ourselves and I further believe that the world will come together more as a global community (if we live long enough) and used the infancy of the European Union as an example of that point; remembering of course that the United States, in its infancy consisted of 13 colonies. To suggest that any snapshot in time as being representative of the entire human condition seems to me to be too simplistic to be valid.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

This was a pain to read, mainly because I don't think anything was clearly spelled out from the outset. What, exactly, is the burden of each debater? Neither side is very clear on this. Con seems to view his burden as simply showing that nationalism is damaging to the progress of humankind, whereas he views Pro's burden as showing that nationalism provides some means for mankind to progress in a positive way. It would have been nice if Con had ever spelled this out, but that's what I am (charitably) attributing to his case. Pro assigns a similar burden to Con, though his argument places the additional burden on Con of showing that nationalism is causitive in the harms it causes to human progress. The main difference between Con and Pro on burdens is where Pro's burden is, as Pro ascribes a burden of simply showing that nationalism is part of the progress of humankind. Again, to some degree, I think I'm being charitable here " Pro doesn't do a much better job spelling out the burdens.

So, whom do I believe? Since neither side seems particularly cognizant of the burdens, you're both leaving it up to me to decide whose burdens are better. I'm inclined to agree with Con, if only because that ascribes two mutually exclusive burdens, whereas the burden on Pro that Pro himself ascribes is not mutually exclusive from Con's burden (i.e. nationalism can both be a part of the general progress of humankind, yet at the same time be causing substantive harms). I'd be more inclined to buy Pro's way of looking at it if he'd spent the time comparing their burdens at all, or at least explaining why his burden was entirely separate from Con's. Lacking that, I'm forced to side with the debater whose burdens make the most sense for setting up a 1v1 debate, even if they're not entirely clear, and that's Con's.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 2)

This is really bad for Pro, because it means that he had to argue, at some point in this debate, that nationalism was causative in the progress of humanity, rather than simply being a part of humanity's progress. Yet I don't see that anywhere. I do see some vague allusions to what could be the future of nationalistic socieities and how it could potentially be beneficial, but it lacks any analysis as to why nationalism itself is leading to beneficial progress for humanity. That means that the best case scenario for Pro is one where I completely reject Con's case, and call this a tie, since that would mean that neither side met their burden.

Despite all of the effective rebuttals, I don't quite get there. I buy pretty much all of Con's rebuttals to Pro's case, but it's all pure mitigation, and not complete mitigation at that. Con's correct that nationalism is a symptom of a larger problem of exclusion, and that therefore it's just one of many reasons why someone might reject their neighbor and therefore one of many reasons why the harms Con cites exist. Con really doesn't ever address this logic, and much of his case is dramatically weakened as a result. I'm not buying the God argument because there's no impact to it, nor am I buying that any of the sources Con presents end up helping his case to any degree. He doesn't defend any of them, and in the third round, just throws out a bunch without providing any in-debate analysis whatsoever.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
(Pt. 3)

The reason he's winning this debate anyway is because I'm buying that even if nationalism is just one reason among many for why humanity seeks to cause harm to itself, that is still a reason. It's still a harm. It's not a cancer in the way that Con states because it's not causing anything that wouldn't exist in some form without it, but it gives yet another reason why people engage in conflict with one another. It's not a great reason to vote for him because it is non-unique, and Con doesn't give any clear instances where nationalism alone has bred conflict, but I really don't need that much. It's a linear addition to the problem of providing reasons for humans to hate one another and act on that hatred. Maybe nothing substantial would change without it, but even Pro accepts that it can be and has been used for ill. That's reason enough to side with Con, even to the smallest degree, which is all he needs at this point.
Posted by omerfarooq86 1 year ago
thats weird Iannan13 :S
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
It's not letting me accept the judge nomination.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Is nationalism and patriotism not just an expression of self preservation ?
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
No, wanting to live your life and me wanting to live mine is the definition of self preservation, not patriotism.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Then I just described what patriotism is in its most simple form...
Posted by BackCommander 1 year ago
@Canis, That's not nationalism, nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
I want to live my life..You want to live yours.. The most simple form of "nationalism" is not a "curse"..It is not "progress"..It is what happens if you can not be "you" the way you want.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.