The Instigator
edwhite41
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
RougeFox
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
RougeFox
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,860 times Debate No: 14549
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (6)

 

edwhite41

Pro

(This debate will take place in LD Debate format: AFF (Round 1) NEG (Round 2) AFffirmative Rebuttal (Round 3) Nebative Rebuttal R (Round 4) Affirmative Cristalization (Round 5))

"The date is July 28, 1999. Kathleen Grossett-Tate, a Florida highway patrol trooper and single mother, brought Tiffany Eunick home to watch for the evening. After dinner as the children watched television, Grossett-Tate went upstairs. Around 10 P.M., she yelled for them to quiet down, but didn't check on them. Forty minutes later Tate told his mother that Tiffany was not breathing… Experts testified that Tiffany suffered a beating lasting 1 - 5 minutes. She had 35 injuries, including a ruptured spleen, lacerations, and damage to her rib cage, a fractured skull, brain contusions, a partially detached liver and bruises all over her body." Lionel Tate went on to serve only three years for this heinous act. Before being released and convicted again with armed robbery.

This is an example of one reason why I affirm the resolution: "Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system" The Value that is proper for this round in affirming the resolution is the Social Contract. This is the proper value for the round because the issue at hand is about the relationship between the government and those elements of society that threaten order. The government must do what is best for the most citizens because Americans allow themselves to be governed by laws in return for protection. When an individual of society endangers others by committing crimes, the government has an obligation to remove the criminal from society, holding the individual responsible for their actions and providing a measure of retribution for the victim; if the US government fails in capacity, the government is unequivocally unjust, and is not fit to govern. Therefore the criterion for fulfillment of the social contract in this debate is holding juvenile criminals accountable for their crimes. My first contention is treating juveniles who commit violent felonies through the juvenile system doesn't support the social contract. My second contention is treating juveniles as adults when it comes to violent felonies works to achieve the social contract.

Before I continue, allow me to present several definitions found in the People's Law Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Cambridge International Dictionary.
JuvenileGenerally . . . refers to people between the ages of 14 and 17. They lose their juvenile status on their 18th birthday (Fair-Debt-Collection.com)

ChargeTo assert as an accusation

Violent FelonyA felony is a crime carrying a minimum term of one year or more in state prison, since a year or less can be served in county jail. However, a sentence upon conviction for a felony may sometimes be less than one year at the discretion of the judge and within limits set by statute. Violent crimes include aggravated assault, arson, assault and battery, domestic violence, hate crimes, homicide, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, terrorism and theft/larceny.

Ought Advisability

Treated as adultsThe same legal filing, hearing, trial and/or judgment in the ongoing conduct of criminal prosecution for juveniles as adults

Criminal Justice System|The series of organizations involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and jailing those involved in crimes.

Again urge you to affirm today because affirming confirms the value of the social contract by holding juveniles accountable for their violent acts.

Contention 1: Treating juveniles who commit violent felonies through the juvenile system doesn't support the social contract.

Point A: Juvenile courts are unjust and faulty
Barry C. Feld of the University of Minnesota Law School writes: "Despite the criminalizing of juvenile courts, most states provide neither special procedures to protect youths from their own immaturity nor the full panoply of adult procedural safeguards. Instead, states treat juveniles just like adult criminal defendants when treating them equally places youths at a practical disadvantage, and use less effective juvenile court safeguards when those deficient procedures provide an advantage to the state."
This shows how juvenile courts, that the NEG inherently argues for, are unjust and cannot possibly hold juveniles effectively responsibly, while at the same time alienating their rights. Both of these are violations of the social contract and are reasons why the juvenile justice system is unjust

Point B: Juvenile courts have lost their rehabilitative effect
Jeffrey Fagan and Elizabeth Deschenes (Associate Professor at Rutgers and Research Sociologist at UCLA): "Proponents of deterrence and incapacitation policies criticized the juvenile court as ineffective at controlling violent juvenile crime. A series of damaging studies on the apparent weakness of rehabilitation programs negated the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court. Furthermore, the statutory limitations on punishment in juvenile court were criticized as inappropriate given the seriousness of violent crimes by adolescents and the public danger from juvenile violence."
This shows that the rehabilitative aspect of the juvenile justice system is not as advantageous as the NEG will have you believe

Contention 2: Treating juveniles as adults when it comes to violent felonies would work to support the social contract.

Point A: Juveniles growing up in this day and age know what the implications of their actions are.
Again I cite Barry Feld: "Developmental psychological research on adolescents' cognitive decision-making ability suggests that "for most purposes, adolescents cannot be distinguished from adults on the grounds of competence. A review of several psychological studies of adolescents' reasoning processes and understanding and use of medical information about their conditions and treatment options found that adolescents and adults generally made qualitatively comparable decisions."
This shows that contrary to what the negative will have you believe adolescents are capable of decision making with equal ability as adults, and therefore can me held reasonably responsible for their actions.

Point B: Treating juveniles through the criminal justice system would be fairer because a defendant's youth would still be able to be adjusted for blameworthiness according to age while still giving all the benefits of a criminal trial.
Barry Feld "Because the rationale for youthful mitigation rests upon reduced culpability and limited opportunities to learn to make responsible choices, younger adolescents bear less responsibility and deserve proportionally shorter sentences than older youths. The capacity to learn to be responsible improves with time and experience. With the passage of time, age, and opportunities to develop the capacity for self-control, social tolerance of criminal deviance and claims for mitigation decline. Several youth sentencing policy groups and scholars implicitly endorse the concept of a "youth discount" or a sliding scale of criminal responsibility for younger offenders."
This is a more desirable situation, because it would improve the flexibility of the justice system allowing juveniles to be sentenced fairly and on a case by case basis.
RougeFox

Con

( I have never done LD, but I am familiar with the rules and format and such.)
NC, then AC

I negate the Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system
I define the following terms:
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Juvenile as "a young person"
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Treat as "to discuss terms of accommodation or settlement"
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Ought as "implying obligation"
In the status quo, a democracy such as the United States treats those who are charged with crimes in a way that respects their rights. This is a critical part of justice in a democracy.
Further, treat implies that juveniles will be sent to adult prison and subjected to adult punishments
Thus, I value Democracy. Prefer this value because it is critical that the United State's upholds its core values in it its government. Note that this value encompasses my opponent's value of the social contract theory, thus, mine should be preferred.
In order to achieve the value of democracy, we must uphold its core values. Thus, whichever world upholds democracy's values better wins the round.

Contention 1: Treating juveniles as adults does not respect their rights
A democracy must respect the rights of the criminal. Thus, if the negative shows that, in the aff world, the criminals' rights are not respected then you negate.

Sub Point A- Juveniles are frequently subject to abuse in adult prison.


Ziedenberg and Schirald report:
Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (August 1998). The risks juveniles face: housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive and self-defeating. Corrections Today. , 60, n5. p.22 [Jason Ziedenberg and Vincent Schiraldi are researchers with the Justice Policy Institute.]
A 1989 study by a team of researchers, led by Professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University's School of Public Health, compared how youths at a number of juvenile training schools and those serving time in adult prisons reported being treated. Five times as many youths held in adult prisons answered yes to the question, "Has anyone attempted to sexually attack or rape you?" than those held in juvenile institutions. Nearly 10 percent of the youths interviewed reported that another inmate had attempted to sexually attack or rape them in adult prisons, while closer to 1 percent reported the same in juvenile institutions.

Ziendnberg and Schirald
continue:
Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (August 1998). The risks juveniles face: housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive and self-defeating. Corrections Today. , 60, n5. p.22 [Jason Ziedenberg and Vincent Schiraldi are researchers with the Justice Policy Institute.]
There is a dearth of data on rape, suicide and assault rates among the 4,000 juveniles who are sentenced to adult prisons, as well as the 65,000 children who pass through the adult jail system every year.
Some states lump suicide deaths under the category "unspecified cause," making the problem invisible. Other states and jurisdictions list rape among "inmate assaults" - effectively masking the problem. Academics in this field warn that any statistics on rape are "very conservative at best, since discovery and documentation of this behavior are compromised by the nature of prison conditions, inmate codes and subcultures, and staff attitudes." There also are obvious incentives for prison officials to underreport incidents of rape and suicide because they are administratively embarrassing to the prison system, and could be used as evidence for lawsuits.

Thus, it is clear that the rights of the juvenile criminals are being violated more in adult prison than juvenile prison because they are subject to more abuse in adult prison than in juvenile detention and instances of abuse in adult prison go unreported. This does not protect their rights so it does not uphold democracy.

Sub Point B- If juveniles were treated as adults, they would be subject to cruel and unusual punishments.
In the case, Roper vs. Simmons the Supreme Court ruled that putting a juvenile to death is cruel and unusual punishment. However, if juveniles were treated as adults they would be subject to this punishment as well, going against the Constitution. Thus, the affirmative cannot be looked to because it cannot uphold the Constitution and therefore cannot uphold the democracy of the United States.

On the AC

He begins with an anecdote about one long ago case in which he feels (and thinks the judge will feel) as if improper punishment was served. This is an appeal to emotion. Also, this is not sufficient to vote aff, because aff would have all juveniles treated as adult so this one situation does not matter. Further, he has not shown what was wrong with the outcome of the case.
He values the social contract. This is not only encompassed by Democracy but it also cannot be looked to because juveniles cannot engage in a social contract. They cannot engage in a social contract because they are unable to vote and thus unable to participate in government and thus are not bound by the social contract. My opponent's VC of holding juveniles accountable for their actions is non-unique because juvenile courts do the same. My opponent is loosing the framework debate so we must look to mine.

On his 1st Contention:
Point A.) Feld provides no reason how juvenile courts alienate their rights. This card cannot be looked to because my opponent has not provided a reason which supports the assertion that juvenile courts restrict rights. Further, his source says that juveniles treated as adults would be at a disadvantage, which works for the negative side and is a turn. Also, juveniles in adult prison are less protected because they are abused. Further, he has not shown juvenile courts do not respect their rights, and, since adult courts harm juveniles more, thus infringing on their rights more, this point cannot be looked to. Because juveniles charged with violent felonies have their rights infringed on more when treated as adults, this works against the affirmative.
Point B.) I did not argue rehabilitation. Thus, this is irrelevant because it in no way shows why you must vote aff.

On his 2nd Contention
Point A.) I did not argue that juveniles do not know the consequences of their actions. So, this point is irrelevant.
Point B.) Turn this. He is advocating the neg because he is saying that their should be taken into account. Thus, they would be treated differently, thus, this works for the neg because they would not be treated as adults, they would be treated differently. So, this point works for neg.


Even if you adopt the affirmative's framework, the negative links into the social contract theory better than the affirmative because:
One, juveniles do not engage in the social contract, while adults do, meaning that juveniles ought to be treated differently under the social contract.
Two, the negative shows that the rights of the juveniles would be infringed on more in an aff world than the neg world.
The aff has no offense at this point and their offense isn't even sufficient to vote aff because it has no reasons as to why the things occur, just assertions.

Thus, I negate

Debate Round No. 1
edwhite41

Pro

I will address the value clash, attack my opponents case, then return to mine.

My opponent in his opening statement says that Social Contract supports his case, but then goes on to say its a fallacious value because juveniles can't engage in social contract. My opponent seems to be trying to have it both ways which doesn't work. On the contrary however, juveniles can and do engage in the Social Contract by living as US citizens. They enjoy equal constitutional rights such as the first amendment. Furthermore, my opponent's Value Criterion is ridiculously vague, because he fails to give any examples of the cores of democracy. There is no way you can vote to negate if there's no clear way to evaluate his arguments. Finally, Social Contract is not an extension of Democracy because you can have a social contract in any governing situation. If you take these points together, it's clear that I win the Value clash.

Moving to his contention:
My opponent states that treating juveniles as adults alienates their rights because of potential for abuse, and because its a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Point A: Potential for abuse is an argument that should be eliminated from this debate on several grounds:

1: Because we cannot presume innocence or guilt in American courts, the extent of this debates lasts from indictment to verdict. This means any abuse after that time that could happen is not relevant to this debate.

2: The resolution does not prevent special steps to be taken to prevent abuse

3: In juvenile detention, violent offenders are the most likely to be the abusers or other juveniles.

4: In prison, Adults are also abused, with this train of logic, it'd would therefore be impossible to send anyone to prison.

Moving on to his second subpoint:

Its a huge jump to say that just because the death penalty cannot be used against juveniles treating them through the criminal justice system is unconstitutional. Obviously if someone is mentally not fit for court, a judge wont sentence him or her to death, they take into account the characteristics of the defendant. In an AFF world, the resolution allows for age to be taken into account as a mitigating factor. If it's unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to death, then a judge won't.

Moving back to my own case, Contention 1:

In sub-point A: Feld does give reasoning to explain how juvenile courts violate rights. The very nature of a juvenile trial violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury. Jury trials have been shown to have more favorable outcomes for the defendant. This means the juvenile courts don't meet the requirements of the social contract because juveniles aren't receiving their rights. Furthermore, my opponent twists my words when saying that juveniles in the adult system would be at a disadvantage. Juveniles in the juvenile system sometimes being treated softly when its convenient, and sometimes being waived to adult courts when its convenient puts everyone at a disadvantage because of the obviously uneven playing field, so to speak.

My opponent fails to argue against my point about the loss of rehabilitative effect. I argue this card to negate the only potential upside to the juvenile justice system so that it's understood that it is unjust and there is no upside. Regardless of him arguing that point, I argued it, and there fore my not responding, it should be taken as a drop and I win on that point

Moving to my second contention:
Sub-point A:
As with the same reasoning as previously stated my opponent dropped this point, It argued that juveniles are cognizant of their actions, so punishment through the adult system for violent offenders is reasonable.

Sub-point B:
The idea that this point could be used as a turn is confusing. I argue that in the AFF world, age would be a mitigating factor while still giving the defendant all of the advantages and processes of a real trial. Additionally, my opponent failed to negate this point and tried to unsuccessfully use it to support his case . I would urge you to take this as an affirmation by my opponent of this argument.

Let's not forget, these aren't youth that are stealing gum balls, the juveniles were are debating are hard-core, animalistic, violent people who have acted out in a way that has harmed an innocent and taken their liberty. I urge you to affirm.
RougeFox

Con

Simple. I win. Extend that treat implies that juveniles will be sent to adult prison and subjected to adult punishments- this defends my contention, thus is stands.
Value
My opponent's value is very vague. There are many versions of the social contract theory. He has not specified which. Thus, you cannot look to it. Further, he conceded that his value criterion was non-unique. Extend this. At this point we can't look to the AC because he has no value or value criterion

I said that we must uphold democracy's core values. I also pointed out that protecting the rights of the accused is a core value of democracy. Put 2 and 2 together and you can see my value criterion. Now that you can see it ever so clearly, extend it.

AFF Plan
Basically, the AFF is arguing against juvenile courts. However, he is saying that age should be a factor in the decisions of the criminal justice system. He says this twice. My interpretation of "treat" which he conceded, shows that, in order to affirm, the punishments and jails would have to be the exact same. Thus, in order to affirm, age must not at all be a factor.
"In an AFF world, the resolution allows for age to be taken into account as a mitigating factor" The resolution does not allow for this. I will show why
1. The only difference between a juvenile and adult is their age.
2. If age is taken into account, then this difference will be taken into account
3. Thus, they will be treated differently, thus negate.
So, you can, if you are so inclined, negate off of the AFFs plan. However, I will address it anyway.
His case
1.
A) Neg doesn't have to advocate juvenile courts. I just have to advocate some difference in treatment. I advocate that age be taken into account at trial and that juveniles be sent to separate detention centers. In light of the extension of the interpretation of "treat", this means you negate. So, this is irrelevant.
B) I could care less if he extends this.
2.
A.) He worded this in his case as defense "contrary to what neg will have you believe" but extends it as offense. This is abusive. Don't look to it. Negate off of abuse
B.) He argues neg because age would be a mitigating factor. Whereas this is the difference between a juvenile and adult, this negates the resolution. So, the turn stands.

NC
My sole contention
Sub point A) He doesn't address the meat and potatoes, just why we shouldn't look to abuse. However, with the extension of the "treat" interpretation, it is clear that abuse can be looked to.
1. Extension of "treat" interpretation means this falls
2. It does. Putting juveniles in separate detention areas, as my cards show, prevents abuse. Again, extension of "treat" interpretation means this falls
3. He needs evidence for this sort of claim. If he does not provide it, it cannot be looked to. If he does provide it, it is abusive because I wouldn't have a chance to respond to it. Either way, I win this point.
4. This is bad logic. If there is a choice between more abuse or less abuse, less abuse ought to be taken. There is only one option for adults. Also, this is irrelevant because we are talking about juveniles.

Extend this entire subpoint.

Ziedenberg and Schirald report:

A 1989 study by a team of researchers, led by Professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University's School of Public Health, compared how youths at a number of juvenile training schools and those serving time in adult prisons reported being treated. Five times as many youths held in adult prisons answered yes to the question, "Has anyone attempted to sexually attack or rape you?" than those held in juvenile institutions. Nearly 10 percent of the youths interviewed reported that another inmate had attempted to sexually attack or rape them in adult prisons, while closer to 1 percent reported the same in juvenile institutions.

Ziendnberg and Schirald
continue:

There is a dearth of data on rape, suicide and assault rates among the 4,000 juveniles who are sentenced to adult prisons, as well as the 65,000 children who pass through the adult jail system every year.
There are obvious incentives for prison officials to underreport incidents of rape and suicide because they are administratively embarrassing to the prison system, and could be used as evidence for lawsuits.

Thus, it is clear that the rights of the juvenile criminals are being violated more in adult prison than juvenile prison because they are subject to more abuse in adult prison than in juvenile detention and instances of abuse in adult prison go unreported. This does not protect their rights so it does not uphold democracy.


You can negate on it alone
.

Subpoint B) His response is that juveniles can be treated differently. This advocates the neg. If he kicks the response, the point stands and you negate. If he doesn't, he advocates the neg and you negate.

Reasons to negate (in brief)
1. Value- He conceded that his value criterion was non-unique. Vote neg on that.
2 Abuse- He worded two of his subpoints as defensive, yet he tried to extend them as offense
3 More Abuse- He is trying to say that the AFF can advocate that age can be taken into account in an AFF world. But, since age is the only difference between a juvenile and adult, this is false. But, even if you buy his interpretation, it is over limiting because the AFF already gets to set the debate because the AFF opens it up. If you buy his interpretation, it is abuse because of ground skew because it would prevent me from running a kritik or counterplan or using my legitimate interpretation of the resolution. So, if you don't buy his interpretation, you negate off of the turns and arguments. If you do buy his interpretation, you negate because it is abusive.
4 Arguments- he conceded that treat implies juveniles will be sent to adult jails (upholding my first subpoint, which was never properly refuted) and that juveniles would be subject to the same punishment (upholding my second subpoint, and making his interpretation wrong). He also advocates neg.

Remember, there is more than one way to treat juveniles differently than adults. Juvenile courts are not the only way. He conceded the "treat" interpretation, which helps my interpretation of the resolution as a whole. At this point, it is game over. NEGATE.


Debate Round No. 2
edwhite41

Pro

Because LD debate follows an AFF, NEG, AFF, NEG, AFF format, this will be the last post with the remainder of this round and the following rounds remaining empty. As per LD format, this last AFF "speech" is short containing a general summary and voting points.

Make no mistake, the issue we are debating today, is whether treating juveniles using the same system as adults will make the US better. We are not debating whether, however, that child should be judged exactly the same as adults. This notion is absurd. The idea of mitigating factors cannot play a role per the resolution is a miscarriage of the resolution. There would be not possible way to treat them in judgement the same as adults, because adults are all judged under different circumstances. Furthermore, in LD debate, there is no prohibition of using a defensive stance as offence, after all, it is said that the best offense is a good defense. Additionally, whether or not juveniles will be sent to adult prison and face abuse is irrelevant as argued before. Finally, as I proved in the AR, my value and value criterion are clearly superior. In response to my opponent, because we are debating the United States, the social contract I refer to is US social contract. This implicit assumption is not vague because I explain what the social contract is in my AC.

You must affirm today to uphold the social contract of the united states by holding juveniles accountable. My defensive arguments are just as valid as my offensive arguments because the flip side of holding juveniles accountable, is the aspect of achieving that in a fair way for the juveniles. Juvenile courts are inherently unjust, which by itself would be reason enough to treat juveniles in adult court, but paired with the advantages that the adult courts give, the decision is simple, vote Affirmative.

RougeFox

Con

Alright, I guess we're done here.
Debate Round No. 3
edwhite41

Pro

Yep, thanks for the debate, I've got a tourney on the 12th
RougeFox

Con

Good luck. Where is it at?
Debate Round No. 4
edwhite41

Pro

Marriott Ridge High School, I'm in MD
RougeFox

Con

Have fun. Hope I could help even though I don't do LD.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by edwhite41 5 years ago
edwhite41
well I suppose that could be a block, but again, where I debate, policy-esque and what-if-this-happened scenarios are void if you challenge them
Posted by oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
Let's say that you advocate a nationwide system where juvenile trials get jury. That's what *ought* to happen. It happens in LA, and it isn't unreasonable for it to happen everywhere.

Also, depending on the region, LD is infected with policy aspects anyway.
Posted by oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
I think what he meant when he said it was non-unique was that it was also upheld on the negative.
Posted by edwhite41 5 years ago
edwhite41
well in the US they're either treated by the adult system, the juvenile system or treated by no system. This isn't policy where you can make up a system for them to be treated by. Those are the parameters the NEG must work by.
Posted by oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
Neg doesn't have to argue that juveniles should be treated in the juvenile system. They can argue a completely different system, as long as it isn't the adult one.
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
Is there such a thing as a "unique" value?
Posted by edwhite41 5 years ago
edwhite41
I'm not sure what non-unique is trying to say, thats why I dropped it. In an LD debate, I've never heard anyone call anyone's value non-unique
Posted by edwhite41 5 years ago
edwhite41
I understand, but the big value for NEG for this debate is Justice, or Democracy and when NEG uses those values, my argument will allow you to win, because, if you prove that the Juvenile court system is unjust, then the NEG world cannot be just, because the only alternative to adult court is juvenile court, by default NEG supports the juvenile court, or no court at all, the NEG has to choose one of those options. Therefore, the NEG cannot achieve their Value and AFF wins
Posted by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
I said that your VC was non-unique and you dropped it though...so how do you win the value debate?
Posted by oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
Ed, I've debated LD for four years. I'm just saying that you saying the juvenile system is unjust doesn't do anything to prove that they adult system *is* just.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lilmoreck 5 years ago
lilmoreck
edwhite41RougeFoxTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: If you make a claim, give a warrant. Neg, be nice. Overall good args on both sides
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 5 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
edwhite41RougeFoxTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: simple, con crushes on line by line
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
edwhite41RougeFoxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by edwhite41 5 years ago
edwhite41
edwhite41RougeFoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
edwhite41RougeFoxTied
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 oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
edwhite41RougeFoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05