The Instigator
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points
The Contender
twsurber
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points

Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,151 times Debate No: 9794
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (15)

 

Metz

Con

Because this is the nov/dec LD topic and both my opponent and I do LD debate this is going to be done in LD format. This means that although I am technically the instigator I will not present a case in this round. PRO(AFF) should present their case in round 1.

This is How The Debate Will go.

Round 1
Neg: I am setting up the debate
Aff: Affirmative Case

Round 2:
Neg: Negative Case And Rebuttal
Aff: Affirmative rebuttal

Round 3:
Neg: Negative Rebuttal and summary
Aff: Affirmative Rebuttal and summary.

Alright, Good Luck to my opponent, Twsurber, who will be taking Pro(Aff) for this debate.
twsurber

Pro

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

I. INTRODUCTION: I concur with the stated resolution. In my presentation I will demonstrate that compulsory immunizations not are not only justified, but are also necessary as deemed by respected medical professionals.

II. STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

III. DEFINITIONS:
I respectfully request that my opponent stipulate the terms: vaccination, immunization, and innoculation are synonymous.

PUBLIC HEALTH - Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. (source: www.medterms.com)

CONCERNS - 3 : to be a care, trouble, or distress to (source: www.merriam-webster.com)

JUSTIFY - 1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable (source: www.merriam-webster.com)

COMPULSORY - 1 : mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com)

IMMUNIZATIONS - : Vaccination. Immunizations work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body. The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them. Immunizations prepare the immune system to ward off a disease. To immunize against viral diseases, the virus used in the vaccine has been weakened or killed. To immunize against bacterial diseases, it is generally possible to use only a small portion of the dead bacteria to stimulate the formation of antibodies against the whole bacteria. In addition to the initial immunization process, it has been found that the effectiveness of immunizations can be improved by periodic repeat injections or "boosters." (source: www.medterms.com)

IV. VALUE PREMISE: Sensibility

V. VALUE CRITERION: The expert opinion of medical professionals is often sought not only in matters relating to health, but also to testify in legal matters. Therefore, it is sensible to value the expert opinions of medical professionals in this discussion.

VI. CONTENTIONS:

CONTENTION ONE: Three of the most respected "go-to" professional organizations not only endorse, but also encourage immunizations.
A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or near record lows. However, we cannot take high immunization coverage levels for granted. To continue to protect America's children and adults, we must obtain maximum immunization coverage in all populations, establish effective partnerships, conduct reliable scientific research, implement immunization systems, and ensure vaccine safety". (source: www.cdc.gov)

B. The American Medical Association states: "Immunization has been one of the most successful public health advances of the century". "The physician's role in providing education and advocacy on important issues regarding vaccination is critical". (source: www.ama-assn.org)

C. The World Health Organization states: "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year". (source: www.who.int)

CONTENTION TWO: It is quite sensible to prevent illness and disease by the the most cost effective measure available. It is clear that when a person is healthy, they are much more capable, in regard to physical ability, to work. When people are ill, they are either forced to miss work, or work at an often reduced capacity. Further, it stands to reason that the same illness could potentionally be passed on to other people, causing further illness and reduced productivity. Visits to physicians and pharmacies incur costs to insurance companies, people, or both. While it is somewhat beneficial to the GDP, it is both reasonable and sensible to avoid or prevent illness when possible. To immunize simply passes the common sense test.

A. The World Health Organization states: "It (vaccination) is one of the most cost-effective health investments, with proven strategies that make it accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations". (source: www.who.int)

B. To quote respected statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". (source: www.ushistory.org)

CONTENTION THREE: Despite claims to the contrary, vaccinations are virtually safe. With anything comes a certain degree of risk, yet where the rubber meets the road immunizations are worth the risk. By definition, vaccinations are certainly reasonable, right, and just. If there is a virtually safe way to protect against many illnesses, it is in fact just. Further, those who are able, cannot justify failing to receive immunization. False alarms issued by uniformed people cause undue panic and doubt. This is where the compulsory piece fits into the equation. Due to misinformation, people may elect to not get immunized. This should not be a choice, but a duty as a member of the human race.

A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccines are held to the highest standard of safety. The United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. Years of testing are required by law before a vaccine can be licensed. Once in use, vaccines are continually monitored for safety and efficacy". (source: www.cdc.gov)

B. The Center for Disease Control states: "Evaluating Information on the Web
Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate?
Is there any regulation or standardization of info on web?
Sources
Are you confused by the amount of information on immunizations on the Internet? Concerned about the rumors linking vaccines and diseases like diabetes and autism? Below are some tips to help you navigate your way through all of the information available and determine its accuracy.

Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate?
Consider the source of information.
A good health Web site will display who is responsible for the site. Also, there will be a way to contact the information provider or Webmaster.

Information should not be slanted in favor of a Web site's sponsor or source of funding. Health information should be accurate and unbiased". (source: www.cdc.gov)

CONCLUSION: I have demonstrated that getting immunized makes sense from a variety of viewpoints. I have quoted from the some of the most respected medical authorities. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to get vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Con

The Value is Justice defined as fairness. Justice is a prerequisite to any other value. Anything applied unjustly has no value. For example Equality can be achieved by equal oppression. Before it holds value for itself, equality must be just. This can be applied to any other value as well.

The criterion is deconstructing biopolitical classism. Deconstructing Biopolitical Classism is a necessary component to justice because no values can be conceptualized with marginalizing policies. If groups of people are marginalized then, by definition we cannot achieve fairness. Furthermore a state with exclusionary policy reaffirms social hierarchies perpetuating the idea of bio-political dominance.

C1. Compulsory Immunization makes worse the Problem of Class discrimination

By definition a compulsory action must have a punishment. Otherwise the action is no longer "compulsory" but "recommended" If there was no punishment for breaking laws then following them would no longer become compulsory. My argument is that the affirmative mindset will be furthering the marginalization of lower classed by placing them in a system of perpetual punishment.
Low-income communities will be directly hurt by compulsory immunization policies due to decreased access to medical care. Brietta R. Clark in 2005 [1] explains. This fear is neither atypical nor irrational in light of one of the most visible, yet ignored, problems for minority communities - hospital closures and relocations. Increasingly, hospitals, private and public, have closed or terminated services in areas populated by minorities, while relocating services to more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These closures have primarily occurred in urban areas with the greatest need and least resources. Remaining hospitals willing to care for minorities or the poor are either located far enough away that timely care is effectively foreclosed or they are already overburdened and understaffed. Hospital closings and the disintegration of a medical framework is already an issue faced by the poor. Compulsory Immunization Policies will make this worse.

Clark ‘05 continues The magnitude of the harm suffered by minority communities may not be immediately obvious because our health care system is a complex patchwork of private and public actors without clearly defined duties hospital closures can trigger a domino effect that threatens longer term access and quality of care for remaining hospitals, and the maintenance of a quality primary care network of providers for minority communities.
Compulsory immunization programs will increase the strain on the remaining medical facilities making care almost impossible. These immunization programs would force low-income families to either travel to receive care or wait in line for hours to maybe receive a vaccination before supplies are exhausted. Only limited amounts of vaccines can be stored by a medical facility at a time and if the facility is already overcrowded the increased strain will push it over the edge.

Now Lets go to the Affirmative case.

Definitions are fine.

On the value of sensibility.
1. No warrant. Sensibility is not an important value. Justify according to my opponents definition of justify he has a burden to prove an action to be just or right. Thus justification requires an appeal to meta-ethical values.
2. To justify an action is to prove an action to be just. Thus my value justice is textually warranted over my opponents.

On the Criterion:
1. Not defined. The aff did not present a criterion that was clearly articulated. If there is no explicit criterion it becomes impossible to impact back to anything.
2. Medical professionals disagree, there is no clear standard of medical "rightness" we can appeal to. Thus the Criterion lacks any sort of brightline. If both my opponent and I quote a medical professional regarding the issue of compulsory immunization who wins? Thus not only does the criterion lack a brightline, weighing mechanism but also a link back to the value.

Contention 1:
1. My opponent claims his quotes are from the three most respected "go-to" professional organizations yet never explains why this is true.
2. The resolution does not state "immunizations are good" I would agree with that statement. However, it says "Public Health Concerns Justify COMPULSORY immunizations" none of these quotes actually explain why compulsory immunizations are a good thing, the merely explain why the concept of immunizations is good. There is a huge difference.

Contention 2:
The affirmative argues that immunizations are "common sense" and thus we should affirm the resolution. However there is something wrong with this statement. It may seem common sense to my opponent and other but not everyone. There is the issue of class discrimination I talked about in my case. To these people it may not be "common sense" My opponent in this contention actually further magnifies the harms of my case. I criticize the otherization and marginalization of the lower classes and my opponent makes a statement that furthers shows the view that the lower classes are "the Other" and what is sensible for me is sensible for them. You(the judge) ought to vote neg off this alone. In rejection of this idea.

Contention 3:
My opponent says that "those who are able, cannot justify failing to receive immunization." This may be so however there are those who are unable and he resolution is on COMPULSORY immunization meaning those people would be locked into an endless cycle of state punishment furthering the problem of biopolitical classism.

Thus the Resolution must be negated.

[1] Brietta R. Clark, 2005 (Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School; J.D. University of Southern California Law School; B.A. University of Chicago, "Disentangling Fact From Fiction: The Realities Of Unequal Health Care Treatment: Article: Hospital Flight From Minority Communities: How Our Existing Civil Rights Framework Fosters Racial Inequality In Healthcare," DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 2005 9 DePaul J. Health Care L. 1023 pg nexis//ef)
twsurber

Pro

Thank you to my opponent.

1AR

I. REVIEW
A. "Justice is a prerequisite to any other value". This is a declarative statement. By what authority is justice a prerequisite? Can you produce a legitimate source which ranks values, and more specifically one which places justice at the top?

B. Although a lateral derivative, the term justice is not synonymous with justify.

C. "Anything applied unjustly has no value". I counter that even things applied unjustly may have value to someone. An example of this: I feel that slavery is unjust, yet it was quite valuable to a slave owner's plantation.

D. "...due to decreased access to medical care". People still have the same access to medical care. Although they may have to travel further or wait longer, the opportunity still exists.

II. Opponent's Contention One:
A. The Center for Disease Control (CDC), American Medical Association (AMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are clearly among world's most respected leaders in health related matters.

B. Why are immunizations necessary? Why should they be compulsory? It's a cause and effect scenario. Immunizations are necessary because they are paramount to prevention of disease. Immunizations have saved millions of lives. Failing to receive immunizations puts lives in unnecessary jeopardy. Countless man hours are lost, people sometimes have residual effects from diseases (ie, partial paralysis from polio), and in some cases premature death. The reason immunizations should be compulsory is to protect the greatest number of people possible. Further, if given a choice, many people who are able to get immunizations choose not to for what boils down to selfish reasoning. They do not care about the welfare of fellow human beings.

III. Opponent's Contention Two:
A. My opponent states, in essence, that poor people should not be required to receive immunizations due to cost prohibitions. Assuming that a governing body actually pursued compulsory immunization, they would logically conclude to take poverty into account. Similar to other social programs that assist those less fortunate in other areas would provide the same proportionate services in regard to immunization. Since the economic can of worms is opened, the increased demand for immunizations would create jobs and increase GNP. Everything from LPNs, to medical supplies, to vaccines, and possibly even satellite facilities would be added to balance both the supply and the demand.

B. Ultimately, the welfare of society outweighs the fear of social discrimination. The people who are poor are already poor. They know that they are poor. Receiving immunizations will not significantly change the amount of assets a person has. If anything, the benefit of a stronger immune system would keep people healthier, therefore giving them an increased opportunity to work.

IV. Opponent's Contention Three:
A. My opponent fears that people will be in a perpetual state of punishment. From a criminology class I had in school I recall the professor state, "No action is a crime unless something prohibits it". People who chose to disobey the law by refusing to receive their compulsory immunizations would certainly be breaking the law. Choosing to break the law, any law, will likely result in a consequence. The people who would be in a perpetual state of punishment would be doing so by choice.

B. "Thus the resolution must be negated". I have addressed every contention and found them to be more like excuses rather than legitimate reasons to negate the resolution.

SUMMARY:
Society as a whole stands to be healthier by getting immunizations. This is why it is justified. Millions of lives have been saved, and millions more will be saved from premature death as a result of getting immunizations. The arguments of cost, class discrimination, and perpetual punishment do not outweigh the good of society. With the probability that some people will inevitably choose to not be immunized, it is necessary to make it mandatory. In doing so, there will be an instrument to enforce the law. This is what makes it compulsory. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Con

Alright. At the top starting at the Neg.

First on the values.

The purpose of a Value in LD debate is to establish something (e.g. Justice) that is valued for intrinsic goodness. LD is a values based debate, one that appeals to meta-ethical standards like justice. It is thus apparent that justice is a prerequisite to other values. If we value equality, there is nothing good about equality unless it is equally just. People can be EQUALLY oppressed.

My opponent argues that "Although a lateral derivative, the term justice is not synonymous with justify" Two Responses.
1. If it is indeed the lateral derivative it is the only implied value in the resolution and thus becomes the resolution question.
2. My opponents own definition of the term "justify" was to prove to be just. Meaning the goal of justifying an action is the prove the action to be just making Justice the resolutional value.

My Opponent made no attacks on the Criterion of deconstructing biopolitcal classism. Dont let him bring it up in his next argument since I dont get a chance to defend that section of my own case at all. He cold dropped it. In other words signaled his agreement with it. The implication of this is that because I won the Value Debate that it becomes impossible for the AFF to win unless he can show an active way he deconstructs biopolitcal classism better than I do.

Also the ONLY attack my opponent made on my case was "People still have the same access to medical care. Although they may have to travel further or wait longer, the opportunity still exists." However this is the very statement that I disproved in my case. Extend my entire contention. Heres the argument once again:
Compulsory Immunization requires a punishment. The lowest socio-economic classes will not have access to medical care. This is empirically proven. Thus we place them in an endless cycle of punishment AND they wont be able to get the vaccine. None of the warrants were attacked to again this is cold dropped by my opponent.

On to the Aff Case.

My opponent dropped my attacks on both his Value and Criterion meaning that you as the judge have to use mine for evaluating the round. Once again here were my arguments on the Value and Criterion.

"n the value of sensibility.
1. No warrant. Sensibility is not an important value. Justify according to my opponents definition of justify he has a burden to prove an action to be just or right. Thus justification requires an appeal to meta-ethical values.
2. To justify an action is to prove an action to be just. Thus my value justice is textually warranted over my opponents.

On the Criterion:
1. Not defined. The aff did not present a criterion that was clearly articulated. If there is no explicit criterion it becomes impossible to impact back to anything.
2. Medical professionals disagree, there is no clear standard of medical "rightness" we can appeal to. Thus the Criterion lacks any sort of brightline. If both my opponent and I quote a medical professional regarding the issue of compulsory immunization who wins? Thus not only does the criterion lack a brightline, weighing mechanism but also a link back to the value."

The implication of this is that his "source quoting" offense falls. I establish that we cannot decide who is a more "credible" source on each particular issue. Also within such organizations as the WHO have internal disagreements and are no more qualified than any medical researcher.

So lets go onto contention 1

A: my previous analysis on this wipes out this argument. There is no such thing as "most qualified" in the medical field.

B. However they bite into the harms of the NC. That proves from a different angle that they are just justified. Bioethics is not just what will save the most people. Also may I remind everyone that people have adverse reactions. Vaccines are cultured in eggs and if someone has an egg allergy they will be affected. If someone has an immune deficiency, they will be affected. Also the voluntary Immunization rate is tremendous. My opponent brings up Polio. Polio is now dead thanks to immunization. I admit this. HOWEVER it was voluntary immunization. Obviously compulsory wasn't necessary.

Contention 2:
Not cost prohibition per se. Availability of Medical facilities. This is not something that can be fixed. This is an inherent problem with society and the medical system. Immunization WOULD NOT fix this. Also my opponent never explains why they would "take poverty into account" because honestly do any of you see the government really doing that now? Sanctioning off once eligible welfare recipients. A race to the bottom for welfare spending just so the poor dont move to their states? This is not a government who always takes the poor into consideration. Also the people I am alking about are not Nurses or doctors that could get Jobs in medical facilities.
Also my opponent drops my marginalization point.

B. I will talk about the punishment factor in C3.

Contention 3:

Nothing prohibited Hitler from killing his own people.
Also choice is not a factor. The Prohibition would be not get vaccinated and the lowest classes don't have access to medical facilities. THEY CANT GET IMMUNIZED. They are breaking a law, and thus get punished.

Summary and Voters
My opponent did not attack ANY of the warrants in the NC. I proved that in the case of Compulsory Immunization Poor would not have access to medical facilities. And could not Get vaccinated. Proved and not refuted.
MY opponent dropped his Value and Criterion meaning we default to mine. I empirically prove and is un-refuted that this will increase classism not decrease it. So thus The resolution is negated right there.
My opponents only offensive arguments regard general welfare. HOWEVER, LD is not about impacts that dont relate to a criterion. All impacts must relate to a criterion that relates to a value. Also I have proved it is not for the general welfare as well.
There is no offense coming out of the AC. THE NC remains largely unattacked and thus the resolution ought to be negated unless my opponent can magically provide a proactive reason the resolution is just. not unjust=/= Just. This is a Burden he gave himself dont let him ignore it.

Good Debate tws,
Metz
twsurber

Pro

Thanks again to Metz for a good challenge.

OBSERVATIONS: My opponent insists upon beating a dead horse. Bio political class ism is just a fancy term that amounts to discrimination toward the lower class. Marginalizing is just a fancy term that implies poor people aren't important. Placing additional emphasis on the word justify appears to be a tactic to draw our attention away from the issue at hand. While I am duly impressed that my opponent can use uncommon terms, he may have unnecessarily created some confusion amongst the audience with this banter of psycho babble bubble gum.

My opponent claims that I have not addressed his positions when in actuality I have.

I. He insists that compulsory immunizations are not justified because the lower class does not have access to them. Let's break this down logically.
- Are there medical facilities in existence? YES
- Are vaccines available at the existing medical facilities? YES
- Are there trained people at these medical facilities to administer the immunizations? YES
- Are the lower class people being physically held captive? NO
- Are there signs outside the said medical facilities that read, "Lower class people cannot receive immunizations"? NO
It stands to reason that this contention is invalid. There are medical facilities and the lower classes may go.

II. Lower class people will be in a perpetual state of punishment.
- I have established that they do in fact have access.
- They may choose to receive their immunizations. (In compliance, no punishment)
- They may choose to not receive their immunizations. (Not in compliance, consequence justified)
It stands to reason that if the lower class follows the law, they will not be in a perpetual state of punishment.

Medical experts state that immunizations are an efficient way of protecting society as a whole, including the lower class. Unfortunately some people will come up with all kinds of lame excuses to not receive their immunizations. This irresponsible action not only infringes upon the natural rights, it potentially & unnecessarily puts lives in danger. Therefore administering immunizations must be compulsory. In the interest of public health and safety, compulsory immunizations are indeed justified. VOTE PRO! Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
I had one contention
Posted by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
Ah. I see the refutation now. I still don't see where Metz's first contention ends and second contention begins, though.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Good points! Sometimes I let the competitive side get the best of me. I'm actually using DDO as a tool to test drive some strategy in order to help my debate team. Obviously I kinda suck at L-D, I came up on the POFO side and still have struggles with the premise and criterion thingies.

Thanks for a great challenge, and I'm sure we'll do another topic again soon partner. Thomas
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
NOTE: People voting in this debate. Don't read these comments, or at least dont vote on them. The Debate is over. Vote on what is in the section entitles "debate rounds" not the one entitles "comments" Otherwise that is not fair, especially to tws who's case and arguments received the most critiquing. (being mainly my fault, and I apologize, Tws, if you found that offensive. My theory is that this is practice for us and it only helps us improve)

Actually Ocean there were refutations to points I made. HE talked about both my contentions.

Tws here is my suggestion:
First I didn't have three contentions. I had one. If you keep track of how opponents label things its going to help people keep track of your responses. Also attack the warrants to claims. What I noticed you did is in rebuttals made lots of counter assertions but didn't really explain why I was wrong. Rebuttals still need warrants. Also just because a qualified source says so doesn't means its true. What I would do is take the arguments they make in favor of immunization and make a cased based on that, not merely the fact that they agree with you.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
What did I miss ocean? I thought I addressed things, but happy to have specific feedback. This will hopefully make my team better at the tournament in a 2 weeks.
Posted by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
I don't see a refutation of Metz's contentions.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
begging?
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
The debate is over Metz, you can stop begging now
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
The value debate was dropped in r2.... Also its hard to argue sensibility as a value since it just doesnt exist...
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
There definitely needs to be better value debate on both sides here.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by newguy 6 years ago
newguy
MetztwsurberTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by bchblondie 7 years ago
bchblondie
MetztwsurberTied
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 gamingmaster42 7 years ago
gamingmaster42
MetztwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ryanschultheis 7 years ago
ryanschultheis
MetztwsurberTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by goldstandardanarchist 7 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
MetztwsurberTied
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 tnoodles 7 years ago
tnoodles
MetztwsurberTied
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 Guy_In_Mi 7 years ago
Guy_In_Mi
MetztwsurberTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hnwebber100 7 years ago
hnwebber100
MetztwsurberTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
MetztwsurberTied
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 oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
MetztwsurberTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42