The Instigator
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,869 times Debate No: 23261
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

royalpaladin

Pro

This first round is for acceptance only. Please do not use semantics in this debate. Drops count as concessions.

Definitions will be provided in-case. Please do not troll this debate or attempt to define key terms in Round 1. The first round is strictly for acceptance.
THEBOMB

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
royalpaladin

Pro

Definitions:
Blackmail is defined as a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.[1][2] Usually blackmail involves asking another individual for money in exchange for not revealing the information. Note that this definition excludes extortion which, as Professor Walter Block of the University of Central Arkansas notes, Extortion is the demand for money or other valuable consideration, coupled with the threat to do something which both is and should be illegal. For example, 'Give me X of your money or I will kidnap your children' . . . In very sharp contrast, blackmail is the demand for money or other valuable consideration coupled with the threat do something which both is and should be legal." [1] My opponent therefore cannot reject blackmail on the grounds that it is extortion because there is a distinct difference between the two offences.

Contention 1: The actions behind blackmail are completely legal, so it is foolish for blackmail to be legal.

Blackmail possesses two fundamental components, namely asking an individual for money and threatening to expose/exposing private information. Neither of these activities are independently illegal.

Asking an individual for money is obviously legal in almost any context. If I walk to the bank and ask them for a loan, I am asking them for money. If I ask my employer for compensation for performing my job, I am asking them for money. In fact, not only is asking an individual for money not illegal, but offering individuals money in order to maintain silence about specific issues is perfectly legal as well in the form of nondisclosure agreements, which are defined as "a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by third parties. It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org......).


Second, revealing embarassing information to the public is absolutely legal as well. If I possess information about an individual, my First Amendment rights allow me to reveal the information to the public at any time I please. For example, the media hounds presidential candidates in order to discover evidence of scandals because it is legally permitted to reveal this embarassing and potentially damaging information to the public due to freedom of speech. Moreover, whistleblowers are permitted to reveal the illegal activities of corporations and governmental agencies to the public despite the fact that such information might be damaging.


Since these two components of blackmail are absolutely legal, it is nonsensical that the sum of these components, or blackmail, is illegal. Professor Walter Block of the University of Central Arkansas explains, "The claim that blackmail should be prohibited by law, given that its two constituent elements are both and should be legal, is like being told that fishing is legal, bicycle riding is notagainst the law, but that dropping a baited hook into the water in an attempt to catch a fish while sitting on a bicycle will land you a term in the hoosegow. A request for money, and a promise to keep a secret, have as little intrinsically to do with one another as a fish and a bicycle" (Source: http://www.walterblock.com......).


Thus, blackmail should be legal because, logically, both of its component actions are legal.


Contention 2: Legalizing blackmail would allow for greater protection of both parties in the blackmail process.

Because blackmail is illegal, neither side can propose that a written, formal contract be created in order to protect both parties involved. Legalizing blackmail, however, would promote the creation of contracts that protected both parties because such contracts would have the force of law and would be mutually beneficial. The blackmailer would be protected because it would guarantee that he would receive the promised money after handing over the incriminating evidence to the individual in question, and the blackmailee would be protected because it would allow him or her to dictate terms that would prevent the individual in question from legally requesting more money and/or blackmailing him again and revealing the information after obtaining the money anyways.


Either of these contentions independently justifies the resolution.

Sources
1. http://www.walterblock.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
THEBOMB

Con

Thank you for this debate. I shall begin with my case and then, if I have time, I will move on to my opponent's case. If I do not have time, I will address their case next round.

Before I begin my case, it is necessary to identify the three kinds of economic exchanges/coercions.

1. Criminal Coercion

Example: give me money or I will kill your dog.

As we can see, this offer links coerced choice with an impermissible threat. You have a right to both your money and your dog. I am asking you to give up one of these things which you have a right to. The impermissible threat should be quite obvious; I have no right to threaten to kill your dog.

2. Legal Economic Exchange

Example: Give me money or I, as a storekeeper, will keep this new set of golf clubs.

This links a legitimate choice with a permissible threat. I have a right to my golf clubs; you have a right to your money. You (or I) is proposing to exchange these rights. The permissible threat is I have a right to threaten to withhold the golf clubs from you. I own them.

3. Blackmail

Example: Give me money or I will expose your secret.

Here is where it gets really interesting. Blackmail links a coerced choice and a permissible threat together. The choice is you have a right to both your money and your secret. I have a right to threaten to expose this secret.

Note: In the case of blackmail there is an asymmetry of rights not found in either case 1 or 2. In the case of criminal coercion, the victim has all the rights and the coercer has no rights. In the legitimate economic exchange, each party has one right and they exchange them. In the case of blackmail, it is a little more tricky, the victim has two rights (their money and their secret) and the blackmailer has one right. But, the blackmailers one right is one of the things the victim has a right to (information, the secret). Because of this, the blackmailer is effectively forcing the victim to choose between one of their two rights (their money or their secret) or suffer consequences.

In sum, blackmail is neither a legal economic exchange nor is it criminal coercion. It is in a class of its own. As such, it is my burden to prove it is in society's best interest to prohibit coerced choices. It is my opponent's burden to prove it is not in society's best interest to prohibit coerced choices.

My opponent is obviously going to attack the premise that a person has a right to their own information. They are going to claim information about oneself is no right. In order to uphold my case, I must successfully show that the victim has a right (even if a non-exclusive, passive right) to his or her information. In the words of Joel Feinberg the right "to keep one's affairs secret, or one's reputation undamaged" is a passive right or something which is "not to be done to by others" (1). I am not arguing the victim has an exclusive right to their information, no, I am merely arguing they have a passive right to their information. The victim has a right to information about oneself only because other's have a duty not to interfere with the victim's right. Now guess what? Both the blackmailer and the victim have a passive right to this information (that is if we assume the blackmailer got the information through legal means). But, without the blackmailer, the victim has the sole passive right to the information about his/her self. Now, with the blackmailer on scene, the victim still has their original passive right to the information, but, the blackmailer has effectively given themselves this passive right as well.

By their offer, the blackmailer effectively forces the person to choose between two rights which were and are originally theirs. The victim has a right to their money and the victim had the sole passive right to their information. The blackmailer is offering the victim to re-buy his/her right to the information. Why should this be permissible?

Now for a Rawlsian Argument.

If we accept the distinction between a legitimate and a coerced offer, then I can give a Rawlsian argument as to why blackmail should be illegal. (2) A rational, self-interested person would choose to prohibit blackmail simply because they do not want to be subjected to coercive offers. Can my opponent rationally tell us she wants to be coerced into giving me money? With Rawl's original position in mind (2) then we now have a choice between the following two scenarios. If a coercive offer is legal, then, I have the right to constantly force other people into coerced situations, just as other people have the right to constantly force me into coerced situations. If coercive offers are illegal, then, I do not have the right to force others into coerced situations, but, other people do not have the right to force me into coerced situations. Assuming a person would prefer to be safe rather than sorry, and then we are now in a state where it is better off that blackmail is illegal; a state where none of us can blackmail rather than all of us. By illegalizing the coercive aspect of blackmail, we are effectively illegalizing blackmail. Part of blackmail is coercion.

Furthermore, would we not want to illegalize coercion (thus, illegalizing blackmail) for the same reason we want to eliminate unfair trade practices? Since we live in a largely capitalistic society (no I do not want to turn this into a debate over the merits of capitalism versus communism), it is to societies advantage to eliminate coercion. If an offeror builds a coerced choice into a contract, then the ability to contract freely is limited. It is justified to eliminate coercive offers (not solely because of self-protection) but, because we are members of a capitalistic society it would be in societies best interest to protect the ability to contract freely. Blackmail is a coercive offer. It creates a coerced choice for the victim, even if the threat is permissible.

Now to move on to my opponent's case.

Contention 1. Actions are legal should lead to blackmail being legal.

This argument commits the fallacy of composition where my opponent is inferring that "something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." (3) They say that because the actions which make up blackmail are legal, blackmail should be legal.

Contention 2. Greater protection

This creates disjointed contracts. If blackmail is legalized, then everyone has the right to use blackmail. Since we hold this true, what perfect person whom no one has any information on, will be able to draft such a contract without any bias at all. How is my opponent going to determine whether one of the parties has information on the person whom is drafting the contract to blackmail them? Who will create their contract? This proposition is entirely illogical as it suggests there is an infinite amount of people whom can create these contracts. Without an infinite amount of people to create contracts between blackmailer and the blackmailed, you cannot definitively provide total protection for all people. There will always be someone who is screwed in the end. It is also illogical to think either of the parties can draft the contract suggested as there will definitely be bias in that case.

Sources:
1. J. FEINBERG, SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY page: 60 (1973).
2. J. RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971).
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
royalpaladin

Pro

Opponent’s Case
He begins by discussing three different types of economic exchanges. Let us take a look at these examples.

Example 1: Extortion. He tells you that if I threaten to kill you kitty unless you give me money, I have done something morally wrong because the act of threatening to kill the kitty is wrong. Hence, the entire action is wrong because one of its constituent parts is morally condemnable. This reasoning will be critical later on in the debate, so please extend it cleanly across the flow. The only reason that we know that this action is condemnable is because one of its parts is condemnable.

Example 2: A storekeeper threatens to not sell golf clubs. His analysis is spot on here. The storekeeper has a right to threaten to not sell the material if he does not receive money in exchange.

Example 3: Blackmail. He concedes that a blackmailer gains the right to another person’s information once he obtains it through legal means. He then questions why we should permit people to force others to select between two rights.

Turn the analysis that the blackmailer gains a right to another person’s information. The moment that my opponent concedes this, he also concedes that the person gains the right to do what he pleases with that information. This is a direct extension of the right to property. If I own something, say a shoe, I have the right to do what I please with it. I can give that shoe away, I can wear it, and I can shoot it with a shotgun. If I have a right to a specific piece of information, I can do what I please with it. I can give it away or keep it safe; the choice is my prerogative. This is adequately demonstrated by the second “exchange” example he provided. In that example, a store owner tells an individual that he will sell the golf clubs to someone else if he does not receive any money. Blackmail fits that definition. The blackmailer owns a piece of information and he is telling that blackmailee that he will give the information that he owns to someone else if he does not receive funds.

The fact that someone may have an “original right” to a an object does not mean that he has a greater claim on that object; rather, both individuals with claims on the object must come together and decide how to resolve the competing claims. This can be proven to be empirically true. When two individuals are divorcing, for example, neither side has automatic claim on their household objects or money even if they were the ones who originally brought said objects or money to the arrangement. Both individuals have competing claims on the assets and thus must decide together how to resolve those claims. Blackmail is nothing more than a resolution process. The blackmailer is offering the blackmailee a chance to purchase the rights to the information from the blackmailer. In other words, the two parties are coming together to resolve the competing claims. Just as “trades” are perfectly legal and moral in a divorce process, so is blackmail legal and moral.

In the second contention, he discusses a contractarian view of justice, namely that “I would not want to be coerced, so I should not promote coercion.” People who join society want coercion to exist. This is justified by the fact that in order for a society to function at all, coercion must exist and be considered just. The state itself must use coercion in order to achieve its own ends. The state enforces all of its laws through coercion; individuals who break laws are arrested, for example, and people are coerced into paying taxes in exchange for the state’s goods and services. Unless coercion existed, the state, and according to Rawls society because the an effective society depends on the existence of a state, would collapse. Ergo, any individuals in the Original Position would agree that coercion is just because they would want to form a society. (Note that I am arguing that, as a principle, coercion is not unjust and would be wanted by society. I am not arguing that all coercion is just. If he argues this, he is strawmanning.)

My opponent might argue that we only want the government to be able to coerce us, and that we do not wish to be coerced by others. This is false because all human interactions require coercion. Parents will want the ability to coerce their children to listen to them; without that ability, children have no incentive to behave properly or to become nurtured. Similarly, teachers will want the ability to coerce their students to do their homework and to study for exams. Even interactions between adults require coercion. My opponent’s Example 2 in Contention 1 of his the previous speech was an example of coercion. If I tell my neighbor to get off of my lawn unless he wants me to take legal action, I am using coercion. If I tell a thief to leave my house or I will defend myself from him and kill him, I am using coercion. If I tell an employee to do his work or I will fire him, I am using coercion. All of these examples demonstrate that coercion is not inherently unjust (as my opponent presumes), that society depends on coercion to function, and that people in the Original Position would want coercion to exist.

He tells you that in a free market society, coercion is bad. The problem is that coercion is necessary for capitalism to exist. First, the example he provides of a storekeeper using coercion to obtain the profit of his choice is an example of coercion that is necessary for capitalism to function. The government also has to use coercion to enforce the idea of property rights. Contracts themselves require coercion for enforcement. There is no reason that coercion should be banned because it is both just and because it is necessary for society to function.

My Case
He objects to contention 1 by arguing that it is a fallacy of composition. It is not a fallacy because I am not using it to justify a statement as being true. I am simply using it to claim that something should be legal because no aspect of it is illegal. The only way in which we can evaluate whether or not an action should be legal is if we examine its parts; otherwise, we are simply rejecting it for no reason. My opponent himself was using this type of reasoning in his first contention when he discussed the reason the extortion is wrong. He told us that it is illegal because one of its parts, namely murdering/threatening the kitty, is illegal. Moreover, he is rejecting blackmail for the same reason. By claiming that coercion is bad and then arguing that blackmail is coercive, he is arguing that blackmail is bad because one of its parts is bad. Ergo, this rebuttal is not a reason to ignore my contention. Instead, this contention is basically dropped. The impact is that blackmail should be legalized.

In contention 2, I discussed safer contracts. He first argues that sometimes the parties will not actually have information. This is easily resolved in the contract making process; if the blackmailer does not have embarrassing information, then the blackmailee will not agree to the contract. He then says I cannot provide infinite enforcement. That is not a reason to not permit blackmail because I have a net benefit of protecting as many people as possible. In his world, nobody is protected because blackmail is illegal. In mine, I am protecting as many people as possible. The fact that I will not be able to protect all people in practice is not a reason to not protect some people. I outweigh based on magnitude. Finally he says that the parties will be biased. This is true for any contract, but that does not mean that we should not let contracts exist and that we should not protect any contracts. Moreover, since both parties are self-interested, their interests will negate each other and the contract-making process will ensure a fair and agreeable contract exists for both sides. The parties themselves are responsible for this agreement just as parties in a business deal are responsible for their agreements.
THEBOMB

Con

My defense.

Economic Exchanges:

  1. 1. Criminal coercion

My opponents attack here is that it is morally wrong to threaten to kill the cat, thus, the entire action is wrong. The entire action is wrong not because threatening to kill the cat is morally wrong. A person has a LEGAL right to their cat and their money. Another person has no right to force them to choose between these two LEGAL rights. You see one person holds everything; the other person is forcing them to choose. Thus, the coerced choice links into the impermissible threat. You have a legal right to your money and your cat. The other person has no legal right to your money and your cat.

  1. 2. Legal Economic Exchange

Conceded. If you take this is as a sum total of the “rights” present, the shopkeeper has one legal right (to the golf clubs) and you have one legal right to your money. You are simply offering an exchange.

  1. 3. Blackmail

If we take blackmail as a “sum of rights” you have two rights (your information –passive – and your money – legal.) The blackmailer shares one of these rights with you (your information – passive.) As such it links a coerced choice, the blackmailer forces you to choose whether you want your money or your information, and a permissible threat, they can release the information.

I would like to point out that both the blackmailer and victim share this right of information. As such, they both have an equal share to the information. The blackmailer may be able to do what they want with the information and they can release the information. What I am arguing is that even with this shared right; the blackmailer cannot force the victim to choose between their money and the blackmailer’s share of the information. Both blackmailer and victim have a passive right to the information, something, which has not been refuted “The victim has a right to information about oneself only because other's have a duty not to interfere with the victim's right.” Under this alone, we can say blackmail should stay illegal as the blackmailer is not upholding his societal duty, to not interfere with the victim’s passive right to their information. By their threat, the blackmailer is interfering with two rights: the victim’s passive right to their own information and the victim’s legal right to their money. Thus, blackmail should stay illegal as to uphold these societal duties. Nevertheless, I shall continue.

My opponent cites a shoe to show a physical example. I never argued the blackmailer cannot do what they please with the information. It is a permissible threat to release the information to the public at large. It is impermissible to demand money as it is not a legal economic exchange. As I adequately explained above there is an “in the case of blackmail there is an asymmetry of rights not found in either case 1 or 2…In the case of blackmail…the victim has two rights (their money and their secret) and the blackmailer has one right. But, the blackmailers one right is one of the things the victim has a right to (information, the secret). The blackmailer is effectively forcing the victim to choose between one of their two rights (their money or their secret) or suffer consequences.” The shopkeeper has SOLE rights to the clubs, you have SOLE rights to your money and you exchange. Blackmail would be like you buying the clubs, the shopkeeper obtaining half of them and then saying “give me the price of the clubs or I will destroy them all, including your share.” The blackmailer is not saying he will just give away his right to the information; the blackmailer is giving away the victim’s right as well. The blackmailer can simply just give the information away and be done with it; that is their right. But, once they begin coercing the victim into choosing between their right to the information and their right to the money, it is just that, coercion.

An original right does matter. They do have a greater claim. Let’s take your divorce scenario. There are two parties, Party A and Party B, without prenuptial agreements. Before the marriage even began, Party A bought a house, after they married Party B moved in. Party A never created a joint ownership of the house. Party B has no legal grounds to claim they have ownership over the house, so, when divorce comes, party A still retains full ownership of the house. My situation more accurately depicts the situation. Even taking my opponent’s depiction, the blackmailer and blackmailee do not willingly come together; they have to be forced to the table by the blackmailer. The blackmailer is offering something which he does not have the right to offer. The blackmailer has the right to reveal the information, but, going along with my opponent’s analogy, the blackmailer offering the victim their information would be like Party B offering Party A the house, even though Party A, by law, still controls the house. Party B (the blackmailer) can reveal this information, if they want, but, Party A (the victim) still controls it. (1)

Contractarian:

My opponent cites state coercion. Laws which punish criminals are not coercion. It would be more like an exchange. The government and laws are upheld by society. If all of society were to stop following laws, what exactly could the government do? Nothing. They would be powerless to stop the will of the people. Laws are only in place because society wants them to be there. Society is exchanging their right to kill people in return for protection. There is no coercion because the state is just following what society wants. Society is telling those who do not follow society, to follow society simply because they commit crimes, which they inherently agreed to not commit by being part of society to begin with. By being part of society, you are agreeing to pay taxes to the government.

Human interaction does not require coercion. Let’s take your two examples, child rearing and schooling. My opponent does not show how depriving your child of say TV is an example of coercion. In this case, the TV is completely owned by the adult. The child is merely asking permission to use what is not theirs. As for the teacher, the teacher controls the grades. They are merely allowing the student to do their work, for the teacher; in return, the teacher gives the student a grade. It’s an exchange. How is a legitimate economic exchange an example of coercion? The shopkeeper is not forcing me to buy from him. Your neighbor has no right to be on your lawn, in the first place. You have a right for him to not be on your lawn. Same for the thief, you have a legal right for him not to be in your house.

As for free market capitalism, my opponent says the shopkeeper is being criminally coercive. How exactly? He simply offers an exchange: your right for his/her right. Coercion implies a threat in which one is forced to do something, getting nothing in return.

Attacks

Contention 1.

My opponent’s objection here is that she is not justifying a statement to be true. If that is so, then, my opponent concedes her first contention as they attempt to justify the statement that “The actions behind blackmail are completely legal” therefore, it should be also. Barring that, they take entire parts of blackmail out of context. In my case, I did no such thing. My point about the kitty was by it being your money and your cat. Therefore, no one else can take it from you.

Contention 2.

You do not have a net benefit simply because you will never be able to find an unbiased third party. If blackmail was legal what stops one of the two parties from blackmailing the third party, then they have to make a contract, etc. If a contract is so unfairly balanced to one side, it results in one of the sides receiving no protection. How does this change blackmail? One of the two sides has no protection already.

  1. http://family.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 3
royalpaladin

Pro

I concede.
THEBOMB

Con

Nevertheless, I thank PRO for a wonderful debate :) I have to say I was very surprised by the concession.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Thank you very much for your input TUF.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Rawlsian argument
"Can my opponent rationally tell us she wants to be coerced into giving me money?"

Me being a philosophy debater, I really liked where you were going with this contention, however, in answer to the question, I think most people would say yes.

If I had a piece of information about this person that was so detrimental, that I could practically ruin the persons life by revealing it, I wouldn't doubt that person wanting to give me what I want. Technically, while it is screwed up majorly, it does fall in line directly with Pro's Contention 1. It is legal, and assuming no threats of violence or death are being made, and information was obtained legally, there is no reason why it should not be used as blackmail Legally.

Anyways guys, I actually do feel THEBOMB won this debate before the concession anyway given the Criminal Coercion contention.

If the Pro had phrased this debate "When no threats of violence are present, Blackmail should be legal" Then I would completely agree with her. Unless she conceded of course ;-)

Good job to both of yall.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
As a debater, I think It is apparent that THEBOMB shows some great effort in this debate. The same can be said for royalpaladin. This debate was a learning experience though, and I actually did enjoy it.

I am going to give a little RFD, even though I am going to give the win to Con anyways for the concession.

1. Criminal Coercion
"The impermissible threat should be quite obvious; I have no right to threaten to kill your dog."

I think this is kind of the main thing that really seperates your case. I feel blackmailing when not harmful is fine. But when you are being threatened, something needs to be done. A threat of death or violence should always be taken seriously, whether through black mail or not. So I agree with you entirely on the criminal coercion point.

2. Legal Economic Exchange
"Example: Give me money or I, as a storekeeper, will keep this new set of golf clubs."

Kind of confused as to where you were going with this one. This is normal for store keepers. If mean strictly that he will not proceed through with the sale simply because the merchant doesnt have the money, then it is obviously justifiable for the storekeeper not to make the sale. But you might have meant that the store keeper was asking for additional money in addition to the sale (commissions) in order to sell that customer that piece of equipment. I a hoping you were meaning the latter, but even so, I don't know if that is more of an issue of legality through blackmail. I would think that would be more of an issue of violation of company policy as "Holding" (that's what wal-mart calls it), which is illegal in and of it self. That portion actually doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with Blackmail, as that is more fraudulent, and the threats are just for commissions. Which isn't really blackmail, as the customer can shop elsewhere, and due to the dumb shopkeeper, they have lost a sale.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Wow... I just read All of that, going back and forth on who I would decide. At the end of round 3, I decided finally that I though royal's case was better, and I was going to vote for her, then BAM out of no where she concedes! The fvck Royal, the Fvck?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
how would the wording of the resolution make a difference? The case is the case is the case. Making something legal is the same as making something not illegal.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
I think royal would have done better if she had worded the Resolution to be "Blackmail Should Not be Illegal", the case would have seemed stronger then. Just my opinion.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
that was fun :P
Posted by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
This should be very interesting.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
"Do not troll the debate"

Awh....I was gonna run reverse-racism...
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Yeah I kind of agree with the resolution....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by awesomeness 4 years ago
awesomeness
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded (Why the heck does anyone concede!?) Additional comments as to my opinion of the resolution and some of the contentions argued can be found in the comments.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concede.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. I give conduct for honorable concession. Great job both.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession