The Instigator
BlondeDeliberation
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
EHS_Debate
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is best for the United States

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 10 votes the winner is...
EHS_Debate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,692 times Debate No: 10639
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (10)

 

BlondeDeliberation

Con

I would like to thank who ever accepts this debate. Since I am Con I will let my opponent go first.

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest
EHS_Debate

Pro

Introduction:

Americans over the last two weeks have become slightly more likely to favor sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. At this point, 47% of Americans would advise President Obama to increase the number of U.S. troops -- either by the roughly 40,000 recommended by the commanding general in Afghanistan or by a smaller amount -- while 39% would advise Obama to reduce the number of troops. Another 9% would opt to leave troop levels as they are, while 5% have no opinion.

"Since August 2008, between 30% and 37% of Americans have said it was a mistake to send troops to Afghanistan. Sixty percent in the current poll say U.S. involvement was not a mistake."

======

Definitions:

President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan - Obama plans to send approximately 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in order to gain the upper-hand in the country.

Afghanistan - Can be used synonymously with Afghan.

======

Contentions:

Contention One - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed.

Contention Two - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country.

======

Contention One - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed.

The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure."

Without increased troops, our efforts in Afghanistan will be for not. The military commander within Afghan actually requested approximately 40,000 additional U.S. troops. Obama found a middle ground by sending around 30,000.

General McChrystal warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost.

======

Contention Two - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country.

"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors," General McChrystal says, referring to NATO, "have given Afghans little reason to support their government."

The reason that insurgents have occupied Afghanistan is because Afghanistan is known for their weak government. It is safe to assume that these insurgents will have to find a new "nest" when Afghanistan is provided a safe democracy. This is essentially the main reason for our presence in Afghanistan, to give them help in forming a new government.

======

Sources:

http://www.thelocal.de...

http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
BlondeDeliberation

Con

Thank you for the brief introduction and for setting definitions.

First I will refute my opponents contentions, then simply list my own.

======

ProC1, Rebuttal:
If we are to break down this resolution on a technical level, we find that the debate is about the 30,000 troop increase employed by Obama as of late.
General McChrystal did indeed warn political forces in the U.S, through a 66 page letter, to send more troops to Afghan as soon as possible in an attempt to prevent certain insurgencies from dominating the weak government of the Afghans. However, he did this IN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT. He made the request as a safety net, so that the U.S. absolutely could not fail like the Soviets did when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous results back in the 1980s.
Now, with more knowledge, the president's National Security Adviser, General James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim.
The United States themselves, already have sent more than 70,000 troops to Afghan, approx. 71,000. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters?

ProC2, Rebuttal:
My previous rebuttal also stands for my opponent's 2nd contention.
Included: Afghans are in the process of redirecting, stabilizing, and controlling their government with the help of the U.S. It is not America's job to be the "global police." The Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist forces' first target is Israel (U.S. allies) due to the religious [Muslamic] conflict. So, yes it is our obligation and commitment to step in; however, we have sent approx. 71,000 and are now sending 30,000 more. Our country is going to benefit AFTER Isreal. So why aren't our other allies such as Britain and France assisting with the war in Afghan? Why are we working so hard and spending so much money, men, and time on a war in which the U.S. is not prioritized as a direct benefactor. Does that sound like it's in the United States best interest?

======

ConC1, We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan:

-Representative David Obey said on CNN's State Union, "The problem is that you can have the best policy in the world, but if you don't have the tools to implement it, it isn't worth a beanbag, and I don't think we have the tools in the Pakistani government and I don't think we have the tools in the Afghan government. And until we do, I think much of what we do is a fool's errand."
-Being committed to Afghan for the next 8-10 years will cost approximately $800-900 billion.
For only the first year of marines, costs are approx. $30 billion.
The U.S. does not have this money; we are already in unnecessary war debt.
Our country is being told to pay for this by a minimum of 1% increase tax, "war tax". ("Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010")
On a side note, may I bring to your attention, that the new health care reform is ALSO costing Americans about $900 bil over the next 10 years.
We don't have the money to continue doing this. The small amounts of money that will contribute are coming directly from the people of the U.S.
This leads me to my second contention.

ConC2, This country is by the people, for the people:

-The majority of U.S. citizens do not want to be at war and do not want to pay an unnecessary war tax.
-Obama is taking the initiative to force America into being the "global police." In this, he has put our country into further debt and gave up more men to this unending war.
"The people" do not want to contribute to this war, especially financially, when overall it's to protect another country over our own.
The U.S. is having to put their faith in the Afghan government completely. If they do not succeed in stabilization, then our entire efforts would have been a waste.

ConC3, Terrorists are different form militaries:

-Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. Terrorists operate very differently than stable armies. Success will not be reached by sending troops into a village against enemies that have no morals.
-The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work is most beneficial. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.
-The Taliban and al-Qaeda organizations will continue to hide and use whichever weak government they can overtake. Prevention is good. However, we cannot stop every potential terrorist formation. We are using more money, time and men than necessary.

ConC4, Terrorist Attacks still happen:

Only in 2009:
-Feb 4, West Memphis, Arkansas, United States. Trent P. Pierce Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board was critically injured in a car bombing that occurred in his drive way. There are reports that he received serious injuries to his abdomen and face, but no internal trauma was reported. No one else was wounded in the blast. D-0, I-1
-May 25, New York City, a small explosive device exploded out front of a Starbucks in New York City destroying a bench it had been placed on. No injuries or deaths were reported in the blast that brings fears of terrorism. D-0, I-0
-June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded. D-1, I-1
-Nov 5, Killeen, Texas A gunman opens fire indiscriminately at Fort Hood. Connections to al-Qaeda are investigated. D-13, I-30
-Dec 25, A Nigerian suspect known as Abdul Mutallab attempts to activate an incendiary device on an aircraft en route from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, the suspect ignites himself on fire until it is extinguished by the crew. The aircraft lands safely in Detroit with the only injuries reported to be the suspect himself and two others. D-0, I-3

======

Summary:
We don't have the tools to continue this war, especially not the money. The money will ultimately come from the citizens of the U.S. However, those same citizens don't believe the war should even be continued. The war that we have and are putting so much time and so many resources into is going to end up benefiting another country before the U.S. We are contributing to the war, but we are doing it the wrong way because terrorists differ from militaries so drastically. And in the end, terrorists are still happening anyway, aside from our prevention tactics.

Thank you
EHS_Debate

Pro

I thank my opponent for debating this topic.

I will begin by backing up my own case and then by refuting my opponent's arguments.

======

CONTENTION ONE - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed.

My opponent's only argument to my contention one was that since there are less than 100 al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan according to General James Jones that the increased troops sent are not necessary. However, the 30,000 troops being sent aren't going to be stationed in Afghanistan just to rid the country of the rest of the insurgents. They will be helping in establishing the new Afghan government and strengthening the borders.

General James Jones also mentions that Mr. Obama has received Gen. McChrystal's request for additional troops, and the force numbers will be part of a larger discussion that will include efforts to beef up the size and training of the Afghan army and police, along with economic development and governance improvements in Afghanistan.

Wether or not there is a significant terrorist threat in Afghanistan is not the case.

======

CONTENTION TWO - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country

My opponent asks, "So why aren't our other allies such as Britain and France assisting with the war in Afghan?"

* France has more than 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In August 2008 10 French soldiers were killed and 21 wounded in a Taliban ambush in the Uzbin Valley.

* In a detailed Commons statement, the prime minister confirmed that all the conditions had been met to allow an extra 500 troops to be deployed in December – taking the force level to 9,500.

Our allies are helping with the war in Afghanistan. As my opponent has stated, there are less than 100 al-Qaeda fighters left in Afghan, this only helps my case. It will now be much easier for our troops overseas to help establish a stable government for Afghanistan. There is a less likely chance for American casualities and the troop increase will greatly speed up the process.

======

Con-Contention One Rebuttal - We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan

I will refute this with a few comments.

The President of the United States met with his advisors at several war meetings and have discussed the issue of Afghanistan. If the United States did not have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan, wouldn't the President of the United States know about it before you?

Another problem with this contention is that we do in fact have the tools. We have the apporoximate 30,000 troops at the ready. The leading General in Afghan notes that there has been enough water provided by U.S. aircraft to keep the troops hydrated, thankfully. All our troops need to do in Afghan is aid in the rebuilding of the Afghan government. This is included with Obama's plan for increased troops.

======

Con-Contention Two Rebuttal - This country is by the people, for the people.

This contention's tagline suggests that the whole contention depends on wether or not the people support the war.

Americans over the last two weeks have become slightly more likely to favor sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. At this point, 47% of Americans would advise President Obama to increase the number of U.S. troops -- either by the roughly 40,000 recommended by the commanding general in Afghanistan or by a smaller amount -- while 39% would advise Obama to reduce the number of troops. Another 9% would opt to leave troop levels as they are, while 5% have no opinion.

"Since August 2008, between 30% and 37% of Americans have said it was a mistake to send troops to Afghanistan. Sixty percent in the current poll say U.S. involvement was not a mistake."

I have just turned my opponent's contention around and have used it for my own case.

======

Con-Contention Three Rebuttal - Terrorists are different form militaries

My opponent is shooting herself in the foot. She states earlier that there are less than 100 insurgents in Afghanistan now. Does this not show that our efforts in Afghan have been successful? The last part of our presence in Afghanistan is to help develop a new government. Yes, terrorists are different from militaries, but the United States forces have proven effective in the Afghan area.

======

Con-Contention Four Rebuttal - Terrorist Attacks still happen

My opponent then lists accounts of Terrorist happenings.
However, this contention is irrelevant. In no way can this support the Con of the resolution. Why have a police force then to stop crime? Crime will still occur won't it. With the use of this analogy, Contention Four is irrelevant within this debate.

======

Summary -

My opponent claims that we do not have the money to continue this war, however, I have shown that that is not the case. She also believes that the only reason why American forces are in Afghan is because of the insurgents, which I have shown also to not be the case. My case still stands that the increased troops are needed, and that establishing democracy in an allied nation is in the United States best interest.

======

Sources -

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.google.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
BlondeDeliberation

Con

Thank you

I will first refute my opponent's arguments then I will continue to build my own.

=====

ProC1, Rebuttal:
Because there are only 100 Al-Qaeda reported remaining, 30,000 additional troops are unnecessary. Gen. McChrystal wrote in more than half of his 66 page letter that we needed the men to fight off and control the insurgencies. However, my opponent just stated that the additional 30,000 troops are NOT going to be used to rid Afghan of these said insurgencies, but that they will be establishing the government and strengthening the boarders. If this were the case, why would Gen. McChrystal (who is stationed in Afgan) report the need of 40,000 troops to rid the country of Afghanistan of these insurgencies?
Yes it is necessary to strengthen the Afghan government so that the Al-qaeda and Taliban forces do not have a nesting area to take over and gain control in. BUT, when we have already contributed about 71,000 troops, we should not need to send 30,000 more. We should demand more help from our other allies so that we not are continuing to waste OUR money, men, and time.

ProC2, Rebuttal:
My first rebuttal also stands for my second yet again.
Also, yes we are getting very little help from very few allies in a war that is not ours. Like i said, it is not really even our war. Why are we obligated to take complete control in strengthening the Afghan government and preventing insurgency growth or intrusion? Because we are doing this mostly for the sake of Israel and Afganistan, our other allies should take more initiative. WE ARE NOT THE GLOBAL POLICE, and because of this, we should not have the full responsibility and obligation of the task in Afghan. Because we practically do, and the ratio of benefit isn't equivalent, this is not in the best interest of the United States.

=====

ConC1, We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan:
Okay, so we have water. However we do not have the money. We are indeed getting all the essentials necessary to continue this "war," however in doing so. our country is doing farther and farther in debt. For a war that is not directly benefitting us, further debt is not worth it. Continuing a war that creates this additional debt is not in our country's best interest, especially when it will not directly benefit us and could ultimately fail completely.

ConC2, This country is by the people, for the people:
My opponent stated "At this point...*stats*"
My opponent failed to point out that "at this point" was prior to the new year, and prior the "war tax" initiation.
David Obey from CNN said "..when war taxation begins, and the general citizens of the U.S. discover the realities of this never ending war, poilitians need to be ready to put up a fight.."
Newsy generally stated that it is not America's citizen's responsibility to pay for a war that is not their fault or problem or choice.
Families of the soldiers being sent off do not approve of the war either. These families know firsthand that an unnecessary abundanace of men are being sent off for a war that is primarily benefitting two other countries before our own.

ConC3, Terrorists are different form militaries:
My opponents has a circular argument concluding that our efforts must have helped; however, this is an illogical fallacy. What proves that it was us that brought the count down? The terrorist groups could have dispearsed on their own and scattered to attack other weak countries.
We need to handle the remaining insurgencies and build the Afghan government by using policing and intelligence so that we do not end up like the Soviets.
In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels." Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

ConC4, Terrorist Attacks still happen:
The fact that terrorist attacks are still happening in the U.S. proves that no matter how much control we attempt to have on Middle Eastern countries, there will always be rebels and haters ready to initiate riot and attack.
Also, we do not have the upper hand that we wish, even within those Middle Eastern countries:

2008
May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
2009
Feb. 9, Iraq: A suicide bomber kills four American soldiers and their Iraqi translator near a police checkpoint.
April 10, Iraq: :A suicide attack kills five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen.

=====

Summary:
First, my opponent actually never proved that we have the money to continue this war. Also, I never stated that we were in the war ONLY to prevent insurgencies, I simply stated that the General requested more troops specifically to prevent the insurgencies.
I have proved that we do not have the money for this war, and in tern, our country is paying for it. We have sent too many soldiers for the small job remaining. Therefore we are indeed wasting time, men, and money. Terrorist attacks will always happen despite our efforts in Afghan. It is not our responsibility to be the global cops and therefore we should not take such a huge role in this war that is not benefitting us.
I have proved how this war and sending 30,000 additional troops is NOT in the United States best interest.

Thank you.

Sources (for entire debate):
U.S.constitution.org
CapeCod Times
CNN
FreedomMedium.com
InfoPlease.com
Newsy.com
HuffingtonPost.com
ObamaAdmin.com
NY Times

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I strongly urge a vote in favor of the negation to this resolution.
EHS_Debate

Pro

To end this debate, I will provide arguments against all four of my opponent's contetions, back up my case, and tell the judges why they should cast an affirmative vote.

======

ConContention One - We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan

The fact of the matter is, we do have the tools. If the United States did not have the tools they would not send more troops to Afghanistan. The point of this issue if, why should we use these tools. Since we do have the tools to continue a war, as shown by the Presidential decision to continue it, this contention essentially has no meaning.

My opponent states:
"We are indeed getting all the essentials necessary to continue this "war," however in doing so. our country is doing farther and farther in debt."
However, the war in Afghanistan won't cost as much money once Afghanistan has a new government. Unlike what my opponent said, it is improbable that U.S. forces will need to be in Afghan for 8-10 years.

======

ConContention Two - This country is by the people, for the people

My opponent dismisses the crux of my argument. The majority of the United States is in favor of the war in Afghanistan. I have backed this up with statistics.

She argues that in the future that won't be the case, however, this debate is dealing with the present, here and now.
I have shown that yes, this country is by the people, for the people, and have given evidence that indeed, the people support the war in Afghanistan.

======

ConContention Three - Terrorists are different form militaries

My argument is not an illogical fallacy as you say. There are intelligence reports indicating that the insurgents in Afghanistan have largely fled to Pakistan due to the United States and their allies's presence.

Your Soviet argument does not apply here. The Soviets attempted to deal with Afghan in the 1980's, however, they did not have the technology that we do now. The Soviets did not understand how terrorists work, they did not understand how many were still stationed within Afghan.

But the American forces do. As we have both agreed to, there are at most 100 insurgents left within Afghanistan. The United States has made a difference in this country. The United States is helping Afghanistan.

======

ConContention Four - Terrorist Attacks still happen

My opponent has not attempted to refute my argument against this contention and it still stands. Here is another example to help illustrate why this can't be used for this debate.

A little boy stands next to an ocean throwing washed-up starfish back into the water. One by one he throws them back in. An old man walks up to the boy, noticing the thousands of starfish lying on the beach and asks the boy,

"Why are you wasting your time? What difference are you making? There are thousands of them."

To this the boy replies, "Well Sir, I made a difference for this one." And throws another starfish back into the ocean.

======

I will now back up my own case

======

Contention One - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed

I did not say that the reinforcements there were not to help rid the country of insurgents. I mentioned that that is not all that they will be doing. As shown below,

"General James Jones also mentions that Mr. Obama has received Gen. McChrystal's request for additional troops, and the force numbers will be part of a larger discussion that will include efforts to beef up the size and training of the Afghan army and police, along with economic development and governance improvements in Afghanistan."

My opponent still clinges to the idea that the reinforcements will only be used to rid the 100 insurgents. As I have shown, that is not the case.

======

Contention Two - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country

Establishing democracy in an allied country is in the best interest in the country, because they need the assitance of our goverment because they are so unstable. The instability of this country is caused by an insurgency. Due to the overwhelming power of this insurgency, their current government cannot handle this.

With the incorporation of a new government, this country will be happier, and will be more sustainable than ever before. Since ALL insurgencies are cause by disatisfation towards some entity, quelling the insurgency and establishing a stronger government sounds like the best way to go, right?

======

I hope I have clarified all of my contentions and have shown that they still stand.

As for my opponent's case, however.

Contention One -We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan
I have shown that we do in fact have the tools, otherwise our government would not make the decision to send more troops.

Contention Two -This country is by the people, for the people
I have agreed to this tagline, but have shown that it indeed works for my case, rather than my opponent's.

Contention Three -Terrorists are different form militaries
Yes terrorists are a different form of militaries, but as we have both agreed on, the United States has proven effective against terrorists in the area of Afghanistan.

Contention Four -Terrorist Attacks still happen
I have shown that this contention is irrelevant.

======

For these reasons, I urge an AFFirmative vote. Thank-you for your time.

======

SOURCES:

http://www.thelocal.de......

http://www.nytimes.com......

http://www.washingtontimes.com......

http://www.google.com......

http://www.guardian.co.uk......
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sammyH 7 years ago
sammyH
By the way. France is supporting Obama's plan so Con was wrong....
http://www3.wdtn.com...
Posted by sammyH 7 years ago
sammyH
Too bad there is no timing in this debate. Since there is none the debators can just go on and on.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Arguments and sources to PRO. There are multiple claims on CON's part that she makes that are unsupported and completely unsourced. Posting a list of popular new source home pages in no way helps.

To PRO, the saying is 'for nought,' not 'for not.' It essentially translates to 'for nothing.'
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Comments from judges would help also. :)
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Oh wow lol
Posted by bambiii 7 years ago
bambiii
south dakota isn't that viscous.
although for po fo one year there was a fist fight in finals.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
haha. Yeah, and Im going to the most vicious tournament besides State for my first time
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
Californian debate? I heard they were vicious over their 0.0, luckily in my state you have the few "good people" and everybody else "generally' sucks =P.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
maybe you should lol
Posted by bambiii 7 years ago
bambiii
nice :)
maybe i should move to california...
naw.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by MagicManManiac 7 years ago
MagicManManiac
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlondeDeliberation 7 years ago
BlondeDeliberation
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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 ztkerls 7 years ago
ztkerls
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by ZKnecht 7 years ago
ZKnecht
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Frosty5794 7 years ago
Frosty5794
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by bambiii 7 years ago
bambiii
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
BlondeDeliberationEHS_DebateTied
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