The Instigator
lelanatty
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Parli: This House values life over liberty.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,498 times Debate No: 12003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

lelanatty

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. The first round is a constructive, and the second and third rounds are for rebuttal.

1. Life is liberty. Just the point of being alive is in itself a liberty that we have once we are conscious. In the words of one Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death!" We have the liberty to choose whether or not to be truly living.

2. Without liberty, we are not really living. Existing in a state of peace in which nothing interesting ever happens and one obeys every expectation of society is not living.
http://media.photobucket.com...
Exercising liberty is of great importance to keeping our society moving forward.

3. Exercising liberty is a form of patriotism. Our country was founded on the ideal that liberty, freedom from control, in our case freedom from control of a monarchal government, is of utmost importance to a person's being. As we have established from the very beginning, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are guaranteed to us. Choosing to exercise those liberties, therefore, is upholding truly American ideals and supports our country patriotically.
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate :)

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

1. Existence (life) is the ultimate value of all living beings. To be living means to be alive, i.e. not dead [1]. To have liberty means to have freedom from various forms of control [2]. As you can see, you need to be alive in order to have liberty. You can be living but not free, though you cannot be free and not living; for there would be no 'you' to have freedom. Right here we can see that the value of life supersedes the value of liberty. One can only value liberty if they are alive to hold that value in the first place. If we are to believe that liberty is a right, then we must accept that rights derive from rational, LIVING beings.

2. Con states, "Without liberty, we are not really living." This is false as it merely represents a philosophical position of my opponent and not actually a factual statement. For example, the former slaves of the South were alive and not free; the Jews in concentration camps were alive and not free, etc. To be living merely means to be alive (not dead) and in existence -- there are no other requirements. Indeed liberty is a trait paramount to the pursuit of happiness; however, it is not a characteristic of living itself.

3. In her third point, Con says that choosing to exercise our liberties is upholding American ideals and thus supporting patriotism. I disagree. Patriotism is something you do do for your country [3] while exercising your liberty is something you do for yourself. Further, as Americans we accept that there are certain liberties we just do not have. For instance, I do not have the liberty to walk into the White House and steal important documents. However, even without these liberties I am still alive (and happy). The point here is that I'd be willing to sacrifice certain liberties but I would not be willing to sacrifice my life.

4. Finally, it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said, "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." In his existentialist view of the world, Sartre presents the paradox of freedom. Freedom is something we all have and that we can never be free from (hence the paradox). He says that we are actually condemned to be free, and he also observes that freedom comes at a price. Anguish for Sartre marks the recognition of our own freedom [4]. In other words, freedom is our only being but we are not free to cease being free; the limit of our freedom is its necessity and inevitability. So I ask - does freedom (liberty) even really exist? As a determinist, I would argue no, and as an existentialist, Sartre would point point out that we cannot choose to not make choices hence our condition is limited and not free. Still, both Sartre and myself would probably argue that life is indeed worth living and that you can be happy and alive while not have total liberty either philosophically or physically (such as the White House example).

Thank you and good luck!

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
lelanatty

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I ought to learn much from her.
I will now defeat each of my opponent's points in the order given.

1.
A) "Existence (life) is the ultimate value of all living beings."
--Pro gives no proof of this, nor can she prove that this is empirically true, because individuals possess the liberty to choose what their ultimate value is.
B) "you need to be alive in order to have liberty. You can be living but not free, though you cannot be free and not living; for there would be no 'you' to have freedom"
--Believers in religion would argue differently. Particularly those who believe in heaven would counter that their soul would still exist, which is 'them', after they have died. This soul has all of the liberty it wishes to possess, for no forms of control that exist in life are imposed upon it. Which brings me to my next point, C). And, even if you don't buy the religion argument, even the most devout atheist would probably agree that if the form of control were bad enough, i.e. a brutal totalitarian government, situations such as the holocaust, etc, death would be freedom from that control. Therefore, death is liberty and is the ultimate end to life, giving a reason for it to be valued over life.

2. and 3. Pro's "2." is a statement of rebuttal and therefore belongs nowhere in the first round as per the rules stated in my first post, and must be disregarded as an argument in Pro's case. Characterized by Pro's stating that what she is arguing here was something that I previously said, "Con states," this is a rebuttal and not a constructive argument. This is also true for Pro's "3." in that she states, "In her third point, Con says." Both of these arguments MUST be disregarded as arguments in the first round, leaving Pro with only 2 main points for me to refute.

4. As per the resolution, this is Parli debate, and all arguments used must pass a "test" of sorts, called 'The New York Times Test.' This stipulation simply states that arguments must be something that a well-educated person of age, in our case high school and college, would know out of the top of their head, or something that a patron of the New York Times would know from reading it, hence the name. Having searched The New York Times' online archive and finding no articles about Jean-Paul Sartre printed in the New York Times newspaper since 1955 [1], which is very far before either of our births, finding it not likely in the least that one would read so far back into N.Y. Times history, and having the knowledge that my opponent and her resources are fluent in philosophy to a greater degree than most college students would be, find that this argument does not pass the 'New York Times Test'. But, because my opponent may not have fully understood the rules of Parli debate before accepting, I will argue this point with her.

My answer is simple. I must disagree with Jean-Paul Sartre on this one. One can "choose to not make choices" physically by making an ultimate and final choice, the choice to take one's own life. Physically after one is dead, what is done with the body is no longer the choice of the individual who has achieved ultimate liberty by making the choice to be free from all worldly control. Thus, liberty is valued over life. Philosophically we cease to have liberty when our ideas can no longer pervade society, which through technology is becoming increasingly hard to do. For your question, "does freedom (liberty) even really exist?" here is the answer: In life, total liberty does not exist until we are self-aware. From the very beginning we are taught to think and act in a certain manner, with no respect to our own liberty of decision-making. This continues as we grow, though as we become more and more self-aware, we make the decision to take our liberties or not to. Only when we are fully self-aware are we truly living, because only then do we have total liberty. In this manner, liberty comes in gradual steps before we are, by my philosophical definition, truly living, and thus liberty obviously supersedes life.

Again, thank you to my opponent. =)

[1] http://topics.nytimes.com...
Danielle

Pro

Thank you, Con, for your response.

1A ----> Con first argues against the premise that existence is the ultimate value. She says that I cannot prove this, and that individuals possess the liberty to determine what their own ultimate value is. Indeed her argument is self-defeating. In order for one to determine what their ultimate value is, they would have to be alive - thus life is the ultimate value. Life is the value from which all other values derive. Without life, values would cease to exist. Further, one cannot perpetuate their values without being alive, once again establishing my claim.

1B ----> Next, Con argues that in heaven a soul would have all types of liberty. First, I don't believe in heaven and I believe that this debate is limited to tangible things here on earth :) Second, I do not believe in souls and Con cannot prove that we have souls making this contention further irrelevant. Finally, if we're talking about heaven then we're not talking about life -- we're talking about an "afterlife." My argument was that you need to be alive in order to have liberty; any talk of souls, heaven or an afterlife is merely speculatory and thus irrelevant. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what Con was getting at here. The resolution isn't "This house values eternal life in heaven over liberty" but merely life itself.

1C ----> Con's next point is that death is freedom in the sense that is can offer freedom from totalitarian control, a life of oppression, or something else equally devastating. However, in order to be free you must exist. Again, I do not believe in existence of the self after death (nor is this debate a religious one) meaning if something is not alive, it cannot possess freedom or liberty. Additionally, Con cannot prove that everyone would rather die than suffer. A good example is the DNR (do not resuscitate) clause; some people sign it and would prefer to be euthanized than suffer physically, and some do not.

Remember, Con writes that death is liberty and the ultimate end to life giving it a reason to be valued over life. This is easy to refute. First, in order for her point that death was preferable over a harsh life to be counted, one must choose suicide over their hardship. If one does not choose suicide, then we must assume that they prefer life (even in bad conditions) over death. Second, if one opted for suicide i.e. choosing death as the ultimate value, then my Point 1 argument stands: you need to be alive to carry out or perpetuate ANY of your values. Without being alive, you could not choose death (meaning life is the ultimate value). If you do not choose death, you choose life (again making life the ultimate value). Either way, my point stands.

2 and 3 ----> Con states that my 2nd and 3rd points are irrelevant because I included the words "Con says" while posting them thus making them rebuttals and not constructive arguments. Admittedly I did respond to some of Con's points; however, those arguments were indeed my constructive arguments and they just so happened to counter everything that Con said in the first round. I think avoiding my arguments and pushing them off on this completely irrelevant "error" is ridiculously lame (especially since this is a debate site - not a formal debate) and a somewhat pathetic excuse to simply avoid the contentions I provided. My constructive arguments would have been the same even without writing "Con says" so please extend those arguments as a part of Pro's rebuttal if it will make Con more comfortable. For Con's convenience, I will copy and paste them in this round so they will hopefully be addressed in the next:

2) Con states, "Without liberty, we are not really living." This is false as it merely represents a philosophical position of my opponent and not actually a factual statement. For example, the former slaves of the South were alive and not free; the Jews in concentration camps were alive and not free, etc. To be living merely means to be alive (not dead) and in existence -- there are no other requirements. Indeed liberty is a trait paramount to the pursuit of happiness; however, it is not a characteristic of living itself.

3) In her third point, Con says that choosing to exercise our liberties is upholding American ideals and thus supporting patriotism. I disagree. Patriotism is something you do do for your country while exercising your liberty is something you do for yourself. Further, as Americans we accept that there are certain liberties we just do not have. For instance, I do not have the liberty to walk into the White House and steal important documents. However, even without these liberties I am still alive (and happy). The point here is that I'd be willing to sacrifice certain liberties but I would not be willing to sacrifice my life.

4. ----> I very much appreciate my opponent addressing my Sartre argument despite this being a "parli" debate. I am not familiar with formal debating standards; however, I do know Sartre's philosophy (and I have since high school) -- I merely included the links as evidence for my opponent, the audience, and because sources count in DDO debates. Additionally, my argument would still be the same and completely relevant even without mentioning Sartre or his quote (which is why I think my opponent actually decided to refute this one). So back to the rebuttal...

Con asserts, "One can 'choose to not make choices' physically by making an ultimate and final choice, the choice to take one's own life." Obviously this is a complete contradiction. In order to opt for suicide (an end to life to avoid choices), one must MAKE THE CHOICE of suicide thereby already negating Con's entire claim. Yet she continues, "Physically after one is dead, what is done with the body is no longer the choice of the individual who has achieved ultimate liberty by making the choice to be free from all worldly control. Thus, liberty is valued over life." I'm sure the audience is just as confused as I am wondering how one's dead body is at all relevant to liberty. Clearly once one is dead, they do not posses the liberty (or the ability to control what happens to their deceased body) and yet I fail to see the connection in any way as to how this proves that liberty should be valued over life. All she's proven is that one has the liberty to give up their life and control of their dead body, which does not negate the resolution in the slightest.

Con continues, "Philosophically we cease to have liberty when our ideas can no longer pervade society." Obviously an infant's ideas cannot pervade society and yet I would argue that they still have liberty. Nevertheless, Con also says that "total liberty does not exist until we are self-aware." Right here she concedes that liberty cannot exist without life, this confirming the foundation of my entire argument. Con also writes, "Only when we are fully self-aware are we truly living, because only then do we have total liberty." Again, this is not rooted in reality but merely her own philosophical interpretation. As I have explained in my second point, to be living merely means to be alive and in existence -- there are no other requirements. Liberty is not a characteristic of living itself.

Con concludes, "In this manner [becoming self aware], liberty comes in gradual steps before we are, by my philosophical definition, truly living, and thus liberty obviously supersedes life." In other words, she says that you are not really living until you are a self-aware individual, so liberty is therefore greater than life. Unfortunately, even by her own ideal she has only claimed that you have liberty before you're "living" -- not that liberty is greater than living. She cannot say that liberty supersedes life because she has already admitted that you cannot have liberty without being alive. And with that said, I'll send this debate back over to Con.

Thanks, Con!
Debate Round No. 2
lelanatty

Con

I thank my opponent for her timely response and her correction of her errors in making a rebuttal in her constructive post.

1A) Pro attacks my points as if she has not read the rest of my rebuttal before answering. First, she again simply asserts that one must be alive to make any decision. She says, "In order for one to determine what their ultimate value is, they would have to be alive - thus life is the ultimate value." Simply stating that one must be alive to make decisions does not immediately constitute life being the ultimate value. I show in my arguments in '4.' in my last post that liberty is necessary in order to be living. Pro even gives evidence toward this in her own case, with Sartre's Paradox of Freedom. She states, "Freedom [liberty] is something we all have and that we can never be free from." Later in her rebuttal she also says that she would argue that even infants have liberty, which is something I did not say. This shows that Pro agrees that even under her own definition of life, life is not present without liberty, and through her logic of the Paradox of Freedom, where she says freedom is something we can NEVER be free from, this absolute says that Pro thinks we are free even in death. Through this and through my own arguments, I show that liberty supersedes, pervades, and succeeds life.

1B) Pro's own narrow point of view and refusal to answer arguments about religion seems, as she puts it, "lame." I made this argument simply to consider all possibilities of beliefs about death. I believe religious people would agree that an "afterlife" is still life because they believe they have eternal life. Those who are religious believe that life isn't just "merely life itself" and take a deeper connotation from the word, so I wanted to include it to be considerate of all possibilities because there are people who truly believe there is a heaven and souls, and to them it further proves that liberty supersedes any definition of life.

1C) Pro states that "in order to be free you must exist" to try to prove that death isn't freedom, when in that very same point I prove that death is freedom, as she herself paraphrases it, "death is freedom in the sense that [it] can offer freedom from totalitarian control, a life of oppression, or something else equally devastating." That is simply an assertion again and is the same thing as saying in order to have liberty you must be alive. Pro then goes on to add to her previous point about how she doesn't believe in souls and an afterlife, which has nothing to do with what I am arguing here, and again she asserts that one must have life to have liberty. The 'do not resuscitate' clause is another good example of the liberties people posses even as they are dying, and the fact that it is THEIR DECISION whether to live or die gives them more liberty even if they would not rather have life, and shows that liberty is more ultimate than life. That liberty not just ought to be, but IS valued more highly than life in this case.

Remember) Pro automatically assumes and even says, "If one does not choose suicide, then we must assume that they prefer life." What Pro fails to consider is that a person in such dire conditions may not possess the means to commit suicide. I never said that if one prefers death that they would commit suicide, nor did I specify in any way the mode by which one in this kind of situation would die. Pro's argument falls. And again as Pro asserts that one must be alive to carry out values, we can look to my argument '4.' in that I say "we cease to have liberty when our ideas can no longer pervade society, which through technology is becoming increasingly hard to do." Pro also says that "without being alive, you could not choose death." This is a quite obvious and irrelevant argument to make. If someone is already dead, either they have already taken the liberty of choosing suicide, or they have died in some other way. Pro's next assertion, "If you do not choose death, you choose life" has already been disproven by my saying that some do not have the means to commit suicide. Whether these means are physical or mental are of no object and I hope Pro will realize that one still possesses liberty under a diminished mental state, especially when they are in a situation of control because oftentimes no attention is paid to mental issues.

2) We are getting into a definition debate here, so that will simply come down to who the voters believe more, if the voting system is at all fair. One in such a philosophical position as Pro's would not be expected to shoot down a philosophical definition of a word to adopt a literal one. Pro concedes that "liberty is a trait paramount to the pursuit of happiness" which by my definition possessing liberty is living and being truly alive. The Jews and the slaves who did not try to escape were existing only in their fear and thus were not exercising their liberty, just as you choose not to exercise your liberty to go into the white house and steal documents. Which brings me to my point about it being patriotic to take your liberties and use them.

3) You do have this liberty, to steal documents from the white house, whether you choose to accept it or not. After you choose to exercise this liberty you may have to deal with the consequences, but it may have brought greater purpose to, perhaps, protecting the white house's documents, which will give greater security to the posterity of our government and America as a whole because the government will be more easily preserved should something bad happen, because those documents would be more protected. For this reason, liberty should be valued over life. Taking liberties, in this example, leads to the preservation of the liberties the government guarantees us as well as our established laws and the status quo. This is a much greater and nobler cause than one person's life.

4) I understand the Pro's explanation here. I am glad that we are debating this point.

Pro here calls another form of liberty a contradiction to liberty. The fact that "one must MAKE THE CHOICE of suicide" supports my claim again that liberty is valued over life. When one takes the liberty to choose to end their life, they are putting into practice an ultimate liberty. Basically what I am saying is that taking one's own life is the highest liberty one can take. Therefore in this case liberty is valued over life because in taking this liberty, one no longer has a life, by Pro's definition of life.

Here, I would like the Pro to expound upon how infants have liberty. Also, my argument was that we cease to have liberty AFTER our ideas cease, not before they have even started to develop in our brains, so in this way Pro's point about infants' ideas falls. In her assertion, "Right here she concedes that liberty cannot exist without life" the Pro fails to explain herself and I find myself at a loss trying to figure how this proves that I am conceding anything, but the Pro also quotes another part of my argument "Only when we are fully self-aware are we truly living" which in itself refutes the argument she attempts to make by pulling my words out of the full context. And then here again do we come into the competing definitions, which I will leave to my point '2)'.

In conclusion, I have already proved in many ways that liberty is of greater value than life, so this point falls. Even so, I answer the second part of it thusly: Because you have liberty before you are living, which the Pro did not try to disprove and even, as I say in '1)' in this round, agrees with me, liberty obviously supersedes life from my definition.

In all of these ways I have negated the resolution, and Con wins.
I would like to again thank my opponent for this very interesting and fun debate.

I would also like to thank anyone who did not proclaim tl;dr, and urge you to vote Con, =) Thanks
Danielle

Pro

TY, Con!

1A. Con responds, "Simply stating that one must be alive to make decisions does not immediately constitute life being the ultimate value." I have repeatedly pointed out that in order for one to have values in the first place, they need to be alive. Con did not refute this statement. I also pointed out that all values (and rights) are derived from rational, LIVING beings. Con did not refute that either. Additionally, I noted that one must be alive in order to perpetuate their values. Guess what - Con did not refute that either. In short, Con has not refuted my point that all values derive from life. You need to be alive to HAVE values, and you need to be alive to perpetuate those values. Even if you wanted to give your life to perpetuate a value through achieving a goal (i.e. my opponent's suggestion of suicide), you would still be using your life to advance that value thus establishing my claim even further.

Con also writes, "She also says that she would argue that even infants have liberty... This shows that Pro agrees that even under her own definition of life, life is not present without liberty." First, just because an infant has liberty does not mean that ALL people have liberty. Some people are enslaved, for example. Nevertheless, even if people were to accept that life was not present without liberty, this in no way proves that liberty is GREATER or more valuable than life itself, hence this is a fail argument.

Moving on, Con says, "Through her logic of the Paradox of Freedom [she states] freedom is something we can NEVER be free from." Well, if Con agrees to this standard then essentially she is saying that we are enslaved to our freedom. If we are enslaved to our freedom (as Sartre says) then we are not really free, thereby defeating her whole argument entirely. Moreover, this paradox only establishes that living beings are not free; it does not establish that freedom is greater than life. If anything, it would imply that freedom doesn't exist -- but life does -- thus again only establishing my point.

Con continues, "liberty is necessary in order to be living." Indeed I have stated throughout this debate that liberty is NOT a condition of life itself. I have proven that one can be alive and not free, i.e. slaves. So basically, Con just contradicts herself throughout this entire debate. First she says that you can be living and not free (slaves) and then she says that you MUST have liberty if you are living. Well... which is it? These contradictions aside, my whole point about life superseding liberty stands because I've proven endlessly that liberty without life is impossible.

1B. Con says that my point about ruling out religion is lame. What's lame is attempting to expand the parameters of this debate in a desperate attempt at giving your side of a debate credibility. As I've explained, the resolution of this debate reads, "This House values life over liberty." It does NOT read, "This House values a blissful, eternal afterlife over liberty." The resolution itself very specifically refers to LIFE as in life here on earth; not the mere *possibility* of an afterlife. Con's point about religious people believing in an afterlife is completely irrelevant because this debate isn't about an afterlife. Further, Con once again self-defeats her own argument. She says that religious folk believe there is life after death, thus making "life" in the resolution relevant. Well even by those standards, all you have to do is read my other arguments about why life supersedes liberty (Point 1A) and that just negates her argument anyway.

1C. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what Con is talking about in her rebuttal here. Maybe it's the bad grammar that is making her argument incomprehensible (I'm being sincere). I said that you must be alive in order to be free, or to perpetuate your values. Con said that death is freedom; freedom from living. I agreed, though noted that in order to choose death (suicide) one must be alive in order to do so. This confirms my position that life is the ultimate value. As I said in the last round, without being alive you could not choose death. If you do not choose death, you choose life (again making life the ultimate value). This here is the foundation of my point for 1C.

Moving on, Con points out that a DNR clause is an example of how one expresses their liberty even as they are dying (in saying they do not want to be resuscitated). That's nice, but unfortunately it in no way, shape or form proves that liberty is greater than life. She says it is THEIR DECISION whether they want to live or die. Um, so what? Yes, it is their decision. That still does not negate my point, nor any of my points about life being necessary or the ultimate value. Could one have made that decision if THEY WERE NOT ALIVE? Answer: nope.

In fact, Con actually completely misrepresents liberty in her example. She says that one choosing a DNR proves that they value their liberty (choice) over life itself. That is a faulty way of rationalizing. Sure, one might choose death over suffering, but once again one needs to be alive in order to do so. A similar example would be a mother giving her life to save her child. She would give her life, BUT, giving her life perpetuates her value (of saving her child). So here I have once again demonstrated how one uses their life to further their values - even sacrificing their life in the process - thus making life the ultimate value and defeating Con in this debate.

2. Con continues to assert that liberty is a condition of life. It is not. We have no reason to accept that it is just because (she admits) that it describes "living" in her own subjective, philosophical opinion.

3. In short, I do not have the freedom (or liberty) to steal White House documents though I do have the freedom to try. Yes, we all have the freedom to do things but that does not mean we have the liberty to do it. I could say, "I've taken the liberty of killing your mother." Yes, I performed an action but that does not actually give me the freedom/ liberty/ right to do it. My whole point (which I clarified, and was ignored) is that I'd be willing to sacrifice certain liberties (i.e. the Social Contract -- taxes in exchange for services, for example) , but I would not be willing to sacrifice my life. People sacrifice liberties every day; they do not sacrifice their lives. If they do, they exercised that liberty ONLY on the basis and condition (!!!) that they were alive :)

4. Con writes, "The fact that 'one must MAKE THE CHOICE of suicide' supports my claim again that liberty is valued over life." This is false. Once again, one can exercise their liberty to make that choice; however, they cannot make that choice and exercise their liberty if they are not alive. In short, Con's consistent argument reads, "Therefore in this case liberty is valued over life because in taking this liberty, one no longer has a life." On the contrary, life is valued over liberty because no liberty could have been taken without life. If one chooses death, they have no liberty and no life. However, if one - say, a slave- chose life, then even if they did not have liberty, they would still have life. You are not non-living simply because you are enslaved (in a physical sense), and you are not non-living even if you are enslaved in a philosophical sense (as Sartre explains).

Finally (no more characters!) Con says that she is "at a loss" in trying to figure out how I claimed that she conceded to the idea that liberty cannot exist without life. I spelled out very clearly in the last round how I came to this conclusion. Once again, she herself said - and I quote - "total liberty does not exist until we are self-aware." A logic syllogism would easily describe how in order to be self-ware you must be alive, so naturally it follows that you can only have liberty if you are alive. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Not particularly.
Posted by lelanatty 6 years ago
lelanatty
Interesting.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Of course I changed my vote. Yes, people can vote however they want but it should be fair. You can give yourself points for sources and arguments if you really think yours was better (bias) but it's a plain fact that I had better s/g so your points there were unwarranted. I thought your manipulation was bad conduct, so yep, I changed my vote for that.
Posted by lelanatty 6 years ago
lelanatty
lol. and so now you change your vote... interesting.
Posted by lelanatty 6 years ago
lelanatty
As far as I can see, people can vote however they want to. And voting to make it a tie is voting to make it fair. My vote cancelling out your vote gets rid of our bias as members of the debate originally. That way it is only people who read the debate's decision about who wins.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
You're not supposed to vote to make it a tie. You're supposed to vote to make it fair. Poor conduct.
Posted by lelanatty 6 years ago
lelanatty
Oh, there's no justification for that. In case you couldn't fill in the missing piece of the puzzle, here it is: I had to vote the exact same way you did in order to give myself enough points just to make it a tie. I would have probably put tie on s/g if I knew that it was 1 point, which I don't know that.
And I know we are "allowed" to vote for ourselves but I was thinking "not supposed to" along the lines of ethical conduct.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
You are allowed to vote for yourself, but that still does not explain how you justify giving yourself better s/g points which is blatantly not true and points for sources when I have included several and you have included none.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by lelanatty 6 years ago
lelanatty
I was only trying to be fair because I thought we weren't supposed to vote for ourselves. The points system has been explained to me before but since it has been quite some time since I have been here I have inadvertently forgotten.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
lelanattyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
lelanattyDanielleTied
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 Wayfarer 6 years ago
Wayfarer
lelanattyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
lelanattyDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
lelanattyDanielleTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by lelanatty 6 years ago
lelanatty
lelanattyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60