The Instigator
statusquo5
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
146190
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
146190
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,033 times Debate No: 10786
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

statusquo5

Con

I will negate the resolution and await the aff. to respond. Please use an LD format for the round. Please do not reply after the 3rd round as there is no 2NR. I will not post my real case and do not expect you to do the same, but you may at your own risk.
146190

Pro

Thank your for this debate

I affirm the resolution Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

For the clarity of the debate, I offer the following definitions:

Economic sanctions from heritage.org- An economic sanctions is any restriction imposed by one country (the sender) on international commerce with another country (the target) in order to persuade the target country's government to change a policy.

Ought from dictionary.com- Used to indicate obligation or duty

Foreign policy from Merriam-Webster- the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states

Objectives from thefreedictionary.com- an aim or purpose

Observation: As the particular "foreign policy objective" is not stated in the resolution, we have to debate economic sanctions as a general principle.

My value of this round is democracy which is defined according to dictionary.com- a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Clearly democracy is needed for a society to be fair and just. For this reason democracy should be the paramount value in this debate.

My criterion for this round will be free trade which is defined according to dictionary.com- trade between countries, free from governmental restrictions or duties. Increased trade and economic integration promote civil and political freedoms directly by opening a society to new technology, communications and democratic ideas. An interesting corollary is that governments that "protect" their citizens behind tariff walls and other barriers to international commerce find it much easier to deny political and civil liberties. So economic sanctions are a barrier to international commerce and allow governments to deny political and civil liberties. So democracy is not upholded, therefore there aren't equal rights and privileges in the target country.

C1: Economic sanctions strengthen oppressive regimes and don't lead to democracy
According the Shane Smith, "Sanctions: Diplomatic Tool, or Warfare by Other Means?", economic sanctions serve as a rallying point for oppressive leaders. They use sanctions as a political cover to increase repression. Rather than having a pacifying effect on the targeted actor, sanctions strengthen a leader's domestic support. Outside pressure can be also used by leaders to ignore domestic troubles, placing the blame for economic instability on the outsider, and providing political cover to further repress domestic dissidents, while directing resentment toward those who impose the sanction. Some scholars, such as Daniel Fisk, conclude that "economic sanctions are a policy instrument with little, if any, chance of achieving much beyond making policy-makers feel good about having done something for a particular domestic." According to George Friedman, "Acting while avoiding action in Iran", this points to an interesting characteristic of sanctions. One of the potential goals of placing sanctions on a country is to generate unrest and internal opposition, forcing regime change or at least policy change. This rarely happens. Instead the imposition creates a sense of embattlement within the country. Two things follow from this. First, there is frequently a boost in support for the regime that might otherwise not be there. The idea that economic pain takes precedence over patriotism or concern for maintaining national sovereignty is not a theory with a great deal of empirical support. Second, the sanctions allow a regime to legitimize declaring a state of emergency – which is what sanctions intend to create – and then use that state of emergency to increase repression and decrease the opportunity for an opposition to emerge. An example where economic sanctions strengthened a regime is Cuba. Economic sanctions have been in place on Cuba for nearly fifty years, and nothing has changed. Castro increased his own power by blaming the United States for the failure of his policies. To this day, Cuba remains a Communist country.

C2: Free trade promotes democracy
The Atlas program, "Free Trade in the Fox-Bush Era," held on April 18-19, 2001, emphasized aspects of free trade that are often overlooked in typical public discussions. Atlas's keynote speaker, Fausto Alzati, former Mexican Minister of Education and founding chairman of the Mexico City-based think tank, CILACE, opened the discussions by describing free trade's positive impact upon democracy. Alzati acknowledged the standard efficiency arguments made for free trade by its proponents: the enhancement of economic opportunities and the creation of wealth. Just as important, however, is its role in promoting democracy. Using the Mexican case as an example, he described how free trade is gradually dismantling the traditional sources of revenue - customs duties in his country – that have enabled authoritarian governments to remain in power. Hence, free trade has a strong, dampening effect upon authoritarian rule, enabling greater opportunities for democracy to take hold. In fact, Alzati said, Mexican President Vicente Fox would never have been elected to office without the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA started dismantling long-standing avenues of rent seeking, weakening the abilities of corrupt leaders to fund their power bases. To nurture democracy, Alzati concluded, we need to have "real free trade" - not purely for economic reasons, but also to enhance the quality of life and democracy for people around the globe.

Thank you for this debate. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
statusquo5

Con

I first thank my opponent for the debate. The order is NC, AC.

I negate: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I value justified action. Justice is the main evaluator of what ought or ought not be used. Justice is defined by Aristotle as "giving each their due" and ought is defined by dictionary.com as justice, moral righteousness, or the like. To achieve justice, the value criterion will be using the most effective means.

Contention one: Economic sanctions circumvent nuclear war.

Subpoint A: Sanctions are the only effective tool against Iran. Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control states "There are only three options at this point. The best is strong sanctions applied by a coalition of like-minded countries, led by the United States. The other two are living with a nuclear-capable or nuclear-armed Iran, or bombing those nuclear and military sites in Iran that we know about. Given Iran's belligerence toward the United States and Israel, its support of terrorism, and its bloody repression of domestic opposition, allowing Iran to get the bomb is simply too dangerous. Attacking Iran's nuclear sites would start another war in the Middle East that is hard to see the end of, and the chance that a bombing campaign would destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites is slim. This leaves sanctions, which, to have any chance of causing Iran to give up its nuclear work, will have to be put into place."

Thus, unless the aff. can justify bombing nuclear sites and starting a war as effective means to achieve foreign policy objectives, this argument stands. The impact would be that economic sanctions are the onnly viable method to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Subpoint B: In the case of Iran should Iran get nuclear weapons, a nuclear arms race would occur. Brent Scowcroft writes: "If Iran is allowed to go forward, in self-defense or for a variety of reasons we could have half-a-dozen countries in the region and 20 or 30 more around the world, doing the same thing." and Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, states "failure to enforce Iranian compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, could lead to a race for nuclear weapons." "Think of Egypt or Turkey or Saudi Arabia," he said. "They can hardly afford not being nuclear if Iran turns . . . nuclear."

Since Iran getting nuclear arms would generate a nuclear arms race and then possibly a war, this will outweigh anything aff. offers on magnitude. Unless the aff. can justify a nuclear arms race, this argument stands.

Thus I urge you to vote negative because stopping a nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war outweighs anything the aff. can offer.

On to the AC

I agree with all the def. other than ought which is defined by dictionary.com as justice, moral righteousness or the like.

Observation: I disagree with my opponent's observation, achieve foreign policy objectives is quoted in the resolution. Since objectives is plural the resolution asks about foreign policy objectives in general and whether sanctions ought be used.

Value/Value criterion debate- You look to my V and VC because my opponent doesn't warrant or show democracy is the only way for fairness and just. Justified action is the better value for this round as justice is defined as giving each their due.

You will use the neg. VC because free trade cannot be looked upon. This is because if a country threatens our well being do we still trade with them? Also, since the resolution asks whether we ought do something, it is a question of justice. Thus, using the most effective mean is the best way to attain justice because it gives a higher than that everyone will attain his/her own due.

Opp. C1: Although sanctions may allow regimes to blame outside forces for their misfortune, one has to ask, is the Iranian president blaming woes on the U.S. worse or is an entire nuclear arms race with constant tension and war threatening to erupt worse? Thus the neg. outweighs.

Opp. C2: Not only is this irrelevant, but as I have proven, do you really trade with someone who's threatening your well being? My opponent's contention is illogical, not to mention once more outweighed by the possibility of a nuclear arms race. Once again you must ask, would having good trade relations be better than not having a nuclear arms race? The neg. once again outweighs.

Without sanctions a nuclear arms race occurs, so I negate. Since the neg. clearly outweighs the aff. I strongly urge you to negate as well.
146190

Pro

I'll defend my case and then I shall move on to my opponent's case.

My opponent states that ought from dictionary.com is defined as justice, moral righteousness or the like. He never explains why is counter-definition is preferable to my definition of ought. Besides morals are subjective to individuals which basically means that what I consider moral may not be considered moral by my opponent, or vice-versa. Therefore, my definition of ought still stands.

My opponent states that since the word objectives is plural in the resolution, that implies foreign policy objectives in general and whether sanctions ought to be used. Once again my opponent hasn't explained how the pluralization of the word objectives implies foreign policy objectives in general. Maybe my opponent didn't clearly understand my observation. Basically what my observation is saying is that since the FPO(s) in the resolution are not stated, we have to debate about whether economic sanctions should be used as a general principle to achieve any foreign policy objective. Note the word "any", because in my opponent's case he focuses on the objective of stopping a nuclear war. Therefore, my observation still stands.

My opponent states that democracy shouldn't be the value of this round because I don't warrant it as the only way for fairness and just. You need a society to have equal rights by being fair and just, before you can give each his or her due. Economic sanctions are a barrier to international commerce and allow governments to deny political and civil liberties (see my C1). So democracy is not upholded, therefore there aren't equal rights and privileges in the target country. As you can see economic sanctions go against my opponent's own value of giving each his or her due.

My opponent says that free trade shouldn't be the criterion of this round because if a country still threatens our well being do we still trade with them? Neither side has to prove or disprove sanctions that sanctions are justified in call cases. If you look back to my observation, economic sanctions are not always implemented for the purpose of security. I've shown that economic sanctions violate free trade, thus not achieving equal rights for all, thus not achieving democracy, and thus not upholding justice.

C1: My opponent says "Although sanctions may allow regimes to blame outside forces for their misfortune, one has to ask, is the Iranian president blaming woes on the U.S. worse or is an entire nuclear arms race with constant tension and war threatening to erupt worse? Thus the neg. outweighs." What you have to look at here, is that economic sanctions goal is to cause the target country's citizens to rebel against the government or hurt the citizens so the government changes its policies. My opponent conceded the point that economic sanctions fail in doing that. If, they fail how are economic sanctions going to put pressure on Iran, in this example, to stop its nuclear program? What would be the incentive for Iran to stop if the public supports the Iranian government?

C2: My opponent says my second contention is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant since it shows that free trade achieves democracy, thus attaining equal rights and fairness, and thus attaining justice. Justice is defined by my opponent as giving each his or her due. Economic sanctions clearly do not do that, since oppressive regimes keep on oppressing (see my C1). So my case not only supports my value, but it upholds my opponent's value better than his own case.

On to my opponent's side of the flow

His value was justice with the criterion of the most effective means. All my opponent has done is defined them, he never offers reasoning has to why they should be the value/criterion pair of the round. Moreover, he never offers a link between his value and criterion. How do the most effective means (I am assuming economic sanctions) give each his or her due?

C1: Economic sanctions circumvent nuclear war.

Subpoint A: Once again how will economic sanctions give each his or her due? Second, my opponent hasn't offered evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Simply because a country has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon is not grounds enough for sanctioning them. Imagine for example, someone owned a handgun and they were arrested because they had the capability to murder someone. Third, economic sanctions haven't deterred Iran from its nuclear program before, so why should they do now?

Subpoint B: Once again how will economic sanctions deter Iran from its nuclear program, and thus stop a nuclear arms race when it hasn't before?

My opponent's case doesn't uphold justice as much as it does national security, which I think is the value my opponent should have used.
Debate Round No. 2
statusquo5

Con

The order will be NC, AC.

First to definition debate. My opponenet states that I don't say why my definition is preferable to his, but his definition states that ought is "used to indicate obligation or duty." However the def. does not state what kind of obligation it is, therefore he has no link in his definition to morality, justice, etc. In my definiton, justice and morality are both acceptable paving the way for my value of justified action.

On my definiton of justice , sanctions promote the greatest good. It is impossible to give literally everyone their due and sanctions will come closer to giving each their due than my opponent.

Value/Value criterion debate: You are using my value of justice because my opponent again fails to state why democracy is the only way to achieve fairness merely saying his is a prerequisite to mine. However, he fails to state why this is true, why we need a democracy to have justice. In countries where the government is not a democracy does it mean that justice cannot exist? Thus you cannot look to my opponent's value.

Criterion debate: My value criterion of using the most effective means is better because his VC of free trade doesn't link to democracy. Sure, he gave the concept of trade promoting human rights, but did not warrant on why this is true. He also did not state why my value criterion is bad or cannot be used so you can extend my VC.

NC

C1: My opponent's only response was that I have no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon. However, it is currently in development and the fact that it does not have nuclear weaps is proof that the sanctions are working. Since my opponent gave no other reason for Iran's non proliferation, sanctions will be the main factor.

Extend my subpoint A and the Millhollin card: This is the most important argument in the round because it shows that sanctions are the most effective option we have available. My opponent failed to provide a counterplan and failed to refute this so it remains true for the duration of the round. My opponent says the capability for a country to develop a nuclear weapon is not reason enough to sanction them, but the Millhollin card clearly states that a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to our well being and because my opponent did not refute that, the Millhollin card is true for the round.

Extend subpoint B and the Scowcroft and Barak cards: This card shows that if Iran got the bomb other countries would rush to do the same. This would lead to a nuclear arms race and my opponent only states how sanctions deter will stop the nuclear arms race when it hasn't before. However, since he says himself Iran currently has no nuclear weapons, it means that means Iran's nuclear program hasn't succeeded yet. As well, my cards clearly show that a nuclear arms race will occur should Iran get the bomb, something my opponent did not respond to with warrants of his own. Thus Scowcroft and Barak remain true for the round as well.

On to the AC

C1: My opponent continually states that sanctions cause government regimes to gain more support. I have already conceded this and oughtweighed him with the nuclear arms race and nuclear war. In my NC I state "Since Iran getting nuclear arms would generate a nuclear arms race and then possibly a war, this will outweigh anything aff. offers on magnitude. Unless the aff. can justify a nuclear arms race, this argument stands." My opponent did not refute my outweighing on magnitude or justify a nuclear arms race, so I still outweigh.

C2: His second contention is still irrelevant because he fails to show how democracy will attain justice. "It's not irrelevant since it shows that free trade achieves democracy, thus attaining equal rights and fairness, and thus attaining justice. Justice is defined by my opponent as giving each his or her due. " He fails to show why free trade will give each his or her due or how free trade will even attain democracy. In addition, he never stated why democracy is the only way to achieve democracy? Does justice only exist in a democracy?

Since the neg. outweighs in magnitude and would not cause a nuclear arms race or war (things my opponent all conceded to), I stongly urge a negative ballot.
146190

Pro

I'll defend my case, then move on to my opponents, and then to voting issues.

Definition debate: My opponent says his definition of ought should be accepted rather than mine because my definition doesn't state what obligation and because of this it doesn't link to morality or justice. First of all ought in the context of the resolution doesn't mean moral righteousness, it just means whether sanctions should be used or not. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning that morals are subjective from person to person. So what he thinks is right, may not be right in my view. My definition of ought is more concrete than his value of moral righteousness and justice.

Value debate: My opponent supports his value of justified action by stating that sanctions promote the greatest good and then he says that sanctions come closer to giving each his or her due. How are sanctioning innocent people for the action of their government giving each his or her due? My opponent in his case never links how sanctions give each his/her due nor does he show how sanctions will come closer to giving each his or her due than democracy. My opponent contends that I don't show why democracy is the only way to achieve fairness and that I say democracy is a prerequisite to his value. He says "In countries where the government is not a democracy does it mean that justice cannot exist?" No, justice cannot exist in government and societies that are not democratic, because people do not have an equal say and thus equal rights. This clearly doesn't give each his or her due. In my case all I was saying is that by promoting democracy, we achieve my opponent's value of justice. Once again, my opponent hasn't shown how sanctions will do this. Thus, his value should be dropped in favor of mine.

Criterion debate: Once again my opponent has failed to link his criterion of using the most effective means (economic sanctions) to his value. Besides, he never warrants how sanctions are the most effective means to achieve any foreign policy objectives. He contends that I have not warranted how free trade promotes democracy, and thus equal rights. However, this argument by opponent should be dropped, since I clearly gave the example of Mexico (see my C2). The reason why my opponent's criterion shouldn't be used is because he has failed to link his criterion to his value. I clearly showed why his criterion shouldn't be used in my last speech, and my opponent hasn't addressed any of those arguments. So those arguments should be allowed to extend. For these reasons, his criterion should be dropped in favor of mine.

My opponent drops my observation that we need to debate sanctions as a general principle to achieve any foreign policy objective(s). This clearly goes against his case, since all he talks about is the objective of stopping nuclear war/arms race. My observation should be allowed to extend as well since my opponent has not contended it and this shows he must agree with me.

Against my first contention, basically my opponent has conceded my whole argument and thus agrees with me. He states that sanctions can prevent a nuclear war, thus he outweighs me in magnitude. However, if you look back to my observation, the foreign policy objective is not always stopping nuclear war/arms race. Besides, my opponent hasn't warranted how sanctions will stop a nuclear war/arms race anyway. Sanctions are created with the goal of causing the people to rebel against their government in order to cause a policy change. However, my opponent conceded that sanctions fail in doing that. So what would be Iran's incentive in stopping its nuclear program when its people wholeheartedly support it? I have already argued these points in my last speech, which my opponent hasn't refuted in his last speech. Therefore, all these arguments should extend.

Against my second contention, once again my opponent hasn't refuted any of points so these should be allowed to extend. My opponent basically says that I failed to show how free trade will lead to democracy, and therefore giving each his or her due. Once again, if you look back to my example of Mexico, I have shown that free trade does lead to democracy. My opponent contends that I have never shown why democracy is the only way to achieve democracy. This argument doesn't make sense because of course if you used democracy then it would result in democracy. He states that I haven't shown that justice only exists in a democracy. If you see above in the value debate, I already addressed this point.

Now moving on to my opponent's side of the flow

He has not refuted my argument, that there is no link between his criterion and value, so these should extend.

Subpoint A: My opponent has just said that Iran is currently developing a nuclear weapon. Once again, he hasn't proven this. He says that the fact that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons right now is due to sanctions. However, this is false since sanctions haven't done anything to stop Iran's nuclear program. His Millhollin card just states that a nuclear armed Iran is not in are best interests, but his card fails to show how sanctions will stop these nuclear weapons. Moreover, my opponent hasn't addressed any of my arguments that sanctions haven't worked in the past against Iran, so why now? So these arguments should be allowed to extend. Also he hasn't linked this point to his value and criterion.

Subpoint B: Once again my opponent doesn't show how sanctions will stop an arms race? My opponent also contends that since I stated Iran currently doesn't have any nuclear weapons, this means that their nuclear weapons program has failed. It doesn't mean that their nuclear program has failed, but rather it's developing towards a nuclear weapon. Once again all his cards do is show why we can't allow a nuclear armed Iran, but he never warrants how sanctions if they have failed before, will work now against Iran. In other words all these impacts such as a nuclear arms race will still happen even with sanctions. My opponent contends that sanctions are the most effective means available, however clearly they wouldn't be as he hasn't shown why sanctions will be effective against Iran. So in that case we would have to look to other options, in order to stop a nuclear arms race. Once again, he hasn't linked this point to his value and criterion.

My opponent also drops the argument that his points aren't supporting his value of justified action, but instead are supporting a value of national security. This argument should extend as well.

Voting Issues:

1. My opponent hasn't linked his value and criterion.
2. My opponent hasn't shown the connection between his case and his value.
3. My opponent hasn't shown how why sanctions will deter Iran now, if it hasn't in the past. Thus he isn't preventing any of the impacts such as nuclear arms race which he talks about in his case.

These are the reasons why I urge an affirmative ba
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
@Nails.

I would disagree with you on your point #4 "It seems to me that sanctions ARE free trade..."

That may be true if the government was only restricting its resources, but when it tells private businesses that they can't sell to someone, that is not free market, since the government is telling others what to do with their resources.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
OK, will do.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Post a link next time, so they can be verified. That's one benefit of debating online.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
Actually the sources that I put to support my cases, I didn't paraphrase those. Maybe I should have put quotes around them. I'm sorry if it looked like I paraphrased them.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
1. I don't think democracy is inherently valuable. There needs to be a justification for why it is the best form of government, and I think it is quite debatable.

2. Your second contention is not a contention at all. You are just linking your value and criterion. That should be done just above/below the criterion, and shouldn't be labeled as a contention. A contention is a reason to vote for you.

3. Sanctions are often used to promote democracy in a country. This could be a turn to your case.

4. It seems to me that sanctions ARE free trade. We are doing what we want with our resources by refusing to trade with countries we don't like. Banning sanctions is disallowing free trade.

5. Don't paraphrase articles. It's dishonest because it allows you to manipulate what we actually said.

One argument you might add is that our companies unintentionally promote democracy. McDonald's, Gap, and Wal-Mart, which we take for granted here, are symbols of Western culture in the communist world. By refusing these symbols of Westernization, we halt these countries' transition towards Western ideals. I know there's one or two sources with good lit on this.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
Nails, could you offer a way how I could strengthen my case or how you would have attacked my case? That will help me argue my side better. Thanks!
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Both values and criteria were completely unwarranted in the original speeches, and the rebuttals to them were no more than dualing assertions. CON says that stopping nuclear war outweighs everything else in the round, so that's the most clear weighing mechanism I have to go by.

CON's only offense is the Milhollin card, which he claims somehow means sanctions will stop Iran from gaining nukes. (1) Milhollin doesn't have any warrants, just a LOT of sketchy claims, and (2) PRO is right that Milhollin doesn't say sanctions will work in stopping Iran in the first place.

Then, CON's only argument against PRO's c1 is that he outweighs, which makes no sense to me. PRO made it clear that sanctions strengthen regimes rather than harm them. Seeing as CON didn't rebut this, this would mean sanctions give Iran a greater possibility of going nuclear. That's where I vote PRO in arguments.

Sources were poor on both sides. PRO paraphrased his sources and CON's sources didn't say nearly what he claimed.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
Dude, they extend because you didn't address them at all...
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
So your running a disad...
Posted by statusquo5 6 years ago
statusquo5
Also you edged the line in the 2ar. You can't really bring new args in and target my V and VC from a new perspective and can't extend anything like mexico becacuse you didn't do so in the 1AR.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
statusquo5146190Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
statusquo5146190Tied
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:15 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
statusquo5146190Tied
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