The Instigator
pc1114
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Con (against)
Winning
104 Points

Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,728 times Debate No: 8134
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (20)

 

pc1114

Pro

Military Conscription is just one more thing that is taking away our human rights. "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right�€"the right to life�€"and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time." Therefore my affirmation of the resolution: �€œMilitary Conscription is unjust�€�.

Definitions:

Conscription: When the government claims a man's life belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in any way they wish.

Military Conscription: When the government claims a man's life belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle.

Slavery: A form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others.

Preview:
My contentions are in the form of a syllogism and are as follows:

1. All Conscription is Slavery.

2. All Slavery Is Unjust.

3. Therefore All Conscription Is Unjust.

Contentions:

1. All Conscription is Slavery.
A. �€œThe most immoral contradiction�€"in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups�€"is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher�€"though not much higher�€"rung of hell should be reserved for those "liberals" who claim that man has the "right" to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life." If we have no right to life and are just property of the government what else is conscription but slavery?

B. Slavery is �€œA form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others.�€� And conscription is �€œWhen the government claims a man's life belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in any way they wish.�€� All conscription is the state claiming that it�€™s people are it�€™s property to do what they wish with, and slavery is forced labor where people are considered the property of others in this case the government. Therefore all conscription is Slavery.

2. All Slavery Is Unjust.
A. Slavery is Unjust even if you just look at the definition of slavery, �€œA form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others.�€� Every man in the world no matter what his ethnicity or his condition was created equal. Therefore one man saying that he is good enough to be the master of another man, or a government saying that they should have the power to force their population to do what they want, is unjust.
B. Other than being morally wrong it is also Biblically wrong. The says that in Gods eyes all men are equal and that one is not greater than the other.

3. Therefore All Conscription Is Unjust.
A. "If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom�€"then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?�€�
B. First of all conscription is slavery, this I�€™ve already proved. Second as we all agree all slavery, no matter one form, the concept of one man or body of men owning other human lives is immoral and unjust. Therefore all conscription, including military conscription, Is UNJUST.
alto2osu

Con

Good morning, and I thank my opponent for creating this debate and allowing us to discuss this topic.

First, I'd like to address the definition framework.

Second, I will present my arguments against my opponent's syllogism. The negative's "burden," if you will, would be to prove this syllogism false. Hence, while I don't technically have an offensive negative advocacy, I don't feel that this debate requires one. If my opponent disagrees, I will provide one in round 2.

Conscription:
This is clearly out of context and abusive to the negative's ground. Not only is the word choice of this definition particularly non-universal & prejudiced, but motivation is artificially inserted to weigh the debate toward the affirmative unfairly. Hence, I would like to redefine to something far more accurate:

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: A compulsory enrollment of men for military or naval service; a draft.

This is more equitable within the round because it accurately describes the governmental act of conscription, and it fairly limits the topic to the subject of the draft. My opponent's definition draws no brightline between Siberian labor camps, for example, and the actual draft, which are clearly different situations. If my opponent wants to link slavery and conscription, let him do it in his case, and not by skewing the definitions to make it so without citation.

Military Conscription:
Again, apply my above definition instead as more equitable.

1A:

1. Most of my opponent's case arguments are taken from Ayn Rand without citation. While this isn't a reason to negate on-face, I ask that my opponent properly declare his sources in the future.

2. This argument is oversimplified and hyperbolic. The draft does not imply that a person has no right to life. Rather, it utilizes the social contract in order to defend the liberties and rights that a democratically minded state is founded upon. It would be irresponsible of the government not to protect its citizens from outside invasion and enslavement via a standing military, but a government is of the people if it is legitimate. Hence, the army must be of the people. Not only that, but a legitimate government is made up of officials who we vest with the authority to declare war on a dangerous state or to defend a nation if that time comes. If the military is required to preserve a given state, then the citizens should be required to participate in its maintenance.

1B:

1. Conscription, in and of itself, does not entail soldiers as property. In a legitimate government, conscription is merely a clause in the social contract. In fact, if the citizens of a given nation are governing themselves properly, conscription would not be necessary as every citizen would feel a communal responsibility to protect the nation in which he or she lives. While some illegitimate governments may enact conscription unjustly, you are arguing in absolutes. As the negative, if I can prove that countries could use conscription in a manner other than you and Ayn Rand assert, then I've won the debate. So, let's consider the US and slavery for a moment. In the US, African American slaves, for example, were treated as property. Quite literally, in fact. They had no right to vote, no right to property, life, or liberty. However, does a soldier, even on the battlefield, lose his right to all of the benefits of American citizenship? Besides the possible danger to his life (which can technically be said of ANY profession, even a chosen one—think construction, deep sea fishing, police work, fire fighters, etc.), a soldier retains all of his rights as a US citizen. This is not to say that becoming a police officer is the same as conscription, when it clearly is not. No one is compelled by the state to be a police officer. It merely proves that the possible sacrifice of life to serve a community is not restricted only to conscription, and therefore it cannot be argued that the possible sacrifice of life is inherently unjust, nor does it automatically make a person property of the state. The affirmative fails to link soldiers to property past the fact that they might have to die in battle, which is no evidence of the state's ownership of a man.

2A:

1. Again, the affirmation insists that conscription always entails a dictatorial government forcing people into military service, in which they are doomed to die. This is entirely exaggeration. Since my opponent is arguing conscription as a universal concept, I remind the readers that I need only prove that this concept, in and of itself, does not equate to slavery. And clearly, by examining conscription's role in legitimate governments who recognize the social contract and follow it, we see that legitimate governments use conscription only to defend the rights that have been established within a state by defending against outside aggressors. This is the state's job, and if the state is comprised of its citizenry, then its citizenry has an obligation to chip in. This would, obviously, include military service. At the point where the state is under-resourced, either people must be compelled to protect their own rights and the rights of the community, or the state perishes.

2B:

1. I'm not sure I need to respond to this, since my opponent makes no specific scriptural reference, but I challenge my opponent to find this passage and actually relate in it any way to the proper conception of conscription. If my opponent would like, I will detail for him how many people are held unequal in the Bible, though I find it useless to the debate at hand, as the Bible is Christian mythology, rather than a text on governmental workings or motivation. While I will admit the importance of Christian doctrine in informing many governments and constitutions, the direct link of slavery or equality to the Bible doesn't really provide offensive ground for the affirmative.

3 all:

1. First of all, conscription has opt-outs. National guard service, religious exceptions, and documented anti-war or pacifism exceptions are only a few. I would not characterize a legitimate state's use of conscription as completely non-consenting, "unspeakable martyrdom." Second of all, as I have stated on numerous occasions in this round 1 post, the affirmation's descriptions of conscription do not speak to the whole of the concept. In a legitimate state, not only is the conflict engaged in or declared by the people or representatives of the people, but the social contract strongly implies that citizens have an obligation to help protect the state if the state is founded by and made up of its citizens. To refuse to help defend your state is akin to withholding the resources that a state requires in order to remain a viable state. If that state is the state that has freely awarded you the rights you have, then you have an obligation to help protect it.

2. In fact, you can turn most of my opponent's arguments on the obligation argument alone: a conscription, in general, equally distributes the weight of protection of the state amongst citizens as a whole, rather than a volunteer service with incentives, such as what most first world militaries practice today. This leads to a phenomenon of a military comprised of socioeconomically abused soldiers, as they are the only ones that need the incentives in the first place. Hence, the elite remain out of military service more often, and the burden of military service is shouldered by the poor or disadvantaged.

Because my opponent's syllogism clearly fails to prove that conscription, as a concept, is akin to slavery, and because conscription is logically more equitable in times of conflict than volunteer service, I urge a strong Con vote.

Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
pc1114

Pro

First of all I would like address something that my opponent said in their response to my contentions, "Second, I will
present my arguments against my opponent's syllogism. The negative's "burden," if you will, would be to prove this
syllogism false. Hence, while I don't technically have an offensive negative advocacy,
I don't feel that this debate requires one. If my opponent disagrees, I will provide one in round 2."
You do need a case as the negative even if you can prove my syllogism wrong, because i have only stated one reason that
the military graft is unjust. My opponent needs to disprove me and prove why it is just, showing how I am wrong is not
sufficient because there could always be other reasons, therefore just disproving this one does not make it just.

Secondly I would like to go over my opponents rebuttals of my syllogism.

1:

A:
I am sorry for not citing Ayn Rand i had it and did not copy it properly into my argument.

B:
If the government can claim the right to take a living person who is naturally entitled to the freedom and liberty that
all people should justly enjoy and put their very lives at risk than yes they are claiming them to be property of the state
that the entity that put him at risk is treating him as property? Also my opponent said, "The draft does not imply that a
person has no right to life. Rather, it utilizes the social contract in order to defend the liberties and rights that
a democratically minded state is founded upon." Well is you take a quick look back to the resolution which states, "Military
Conscription is unjust". It says nothing about the country or nation that is drafting their military is a "democratically
minded state", it only says that it is unjust.

2:

A:
My opponent says that i am equating the draft with a dictatorial government forcing people into military service, and
that is the the truth. The Draft is where the government can take all the young people out of their homes at a certain age
and FORCE them to participate in the military. There does not have to be any consent on the side of the person or people
joining the service, therefore they are being forced. Also in my opponents rebuttal they said, "This is the state's job,
and if the state is comprised of its citizenry, then its citizenry has an obligation to chip in. This would, obviously,
include military service." Again i would like to say they say if it is comprised of citizenry, well like before when you took
a look back to the resolution it does not state that this only applies to democratic states or non dictatorial governments
it applies to every state that is in existence.

B:
I'm sorry i was preparing this argument for a Christian School that i attend and did not intend to put this in my argument
as I know it does not apply to many people including my opponent, but if they would still like me to prove this concept I
would be happy too.

3:

A:
I know that conscription has opt-outs and that is great, but it still does not justify people who have no reason to opt-out
being forced, yes forced, to join the military or any other branch of its governments army. You keep going back to how my
definition does not apply to the entire concept well neither does my opponents, it is only talking about those countries that
have a free government. The resolution does not just talk about democratic or free governments, but is talking about all
nations and countries no matter what there type of government. Also you say that if you do live in a free government then
you have the obligation to protect it. Well not all people are cut out to be serving in the army, some people could be
better helping their country in a different field as work, the draft in the long run could easily do more damage
than it does good. We need to let those who are built to be in the army to serve their country where they should be, the
military, but those who have other gifts and could be helping their nation more in other ways should not be forced to do
something else.

B: A conscription may equally distribute the burden of its nations defense better, but is this a good thing if it is
distributing this weight to people who, like I said earlier, could be doing more for their nation in some other
branch of work. Also my opponent said that the elite sometimes choose not to serve because of the high amount of criminals
involved. If the elite is truly the elite they would stop at nothing to serve their country, these are the kind of people
we want protecting our nation.

Therefore because my opponent so far supplies no reasons that the draft is just and because their responses fail to negate
my arguments, I urge you to vote Affirmative.

Thank You.
alto2osu

Con

On the lack of a negative "case":

While your reasoning makes little sense, I can provide a negative advocacy if you want to spread both of us in terms of time and space to argue. Basically, my advocacy will be based upon the logic I've already outlined in refutation to your case. In other words, no new arguments here. These are all claims I've already made that have gone unrefuted.

But before I do that, I want to state that I think it unfair to say I am required to have an advocacy to defend against all possible reasons to affirm, even though the affirmation doesn't assert them into the round. I will address any arguments that the affirmation brings, but the purpose of an advocacy on either side is not to categorically refute everything that the other side MIGHT say. (I apologize for caps…this silly interface can't italicize)

Negative advocacy:

Conscription, when used within a legitimate government, is just due to the fact that legitimate governments utilize social contract and democratic theory to build their infrastructures. Therefore, citizens are obligated to protect said nation under these theories. As I stated before, either you protect the state or the state will be demolished by a competing state, which inherently leads to less protection of rights. Hence, conscription is justified to preserve a legitimate state in times of military need. Conscription can even be used in a less than legitimate state or an illegitimate state to do the same thing, but at that point conscription may be applied unfairly. However, since illegitimate states are already violating human rights in the first place, this is to be expected. That aside, I reiterate that if I can disprove that conscription is categorically not unjust, then I've sufficiently negated the round.

Also, the turn at the end of my round 1 posting can be considered an independent and offensive reason to negate. Conscription balances the load of protection of rights from the socioeconomically disadvantaged to the entire population of (male) residents possessing citizenship. Besides legal loopholes having nothing to do with conscription as a general policy, conscription does not discriminate.

Aff's 1 (general): Note that my opponent does not address any of my analysis regarding my burdens, other than that I need a case, apparently. I specifically state that, since he is talking about a general concept, rather than a specific country, that my job is to cast doubt on his advocacy. I do this using the implementation of the conscription in legitimate states. If it can be implemented in a legitimate state and be just, then it cannot be wholly unjust. Hence, you negate the resolution. Don't let the affirmative shirk his burden to affirm the resolution he wrote.

1B: All of my analysis on this subpoint essentially extends. Soldiers are clearly not always considered property, even if drafted into service. Space compels me not to elaborate, but I encourage you to re-read my round 1 post on this subpoint.

Aff's 2 (general): The affirmative is absolutely right. We must consider all governments. However, the affirmative is responsible for proving that conscription is wholly unjust. I'm not talking about one or two exceptions, here. I'm talking about a good chunk of the governments in existence. If we are to weigh an act as just or unjust, we should weigh the act itself, not simply the way it could be implemented by states who clearly abuse human rights to begin with. If the affirmative cannot account for those democratic nations or social contract-abiding nations, then he cannot affirm.

2A: Please note that he does not address any of my arguments, except to reiterate the false claim that I am limiting the debate to only democratic nations, and that I can't do that. My job as the negative is to disprove that conscription is always unjust. I am doing that by pointing out high profile exceptions and by analyzing conscription as a concept. I don't ever limit the field of debate. I'm doing what I should be doing: disproving the affirmation J

2B: I don't think we have the space anymore. We have enough already. I'll drop the biblical arguments if you do.

Aff's 3 (general): My definition clearly applied to the "entire concept" of conscription. My arguments, on the other hand, seek to cast doubt on the affirmative's declaration that ALL conscription is unjust by bringing up examples that show that the concept does not inherently have to be unjust. Its application can be unjust, but so can the application of just about any concept. Conscription, being the compulsory enrollment of men for military or naval service (as accepted by my opponent) is not in and of itself unjust, especially if applied in a nation that utilizes the social contract. I also want to reiterate my example of soldier rights in the US to demonstrate that conscription does not automatically rob a citizen of his rights. It does put the "right to life" into some jeopardy, but my opponent is assuming, in his rhetoric, that every soldier sacrifices his life, which is patently untrue.

On the turn: I think my opponent fundamentally misunderstands my argument regarding voluntary service unfairly burdening the poor with the duty to protect the nation. Allow me to elaborate.

I didn't say anything about criminals at all. What I said was that, in a voluntary service model, the socioeconomically or socially disadvantaged end up protecting the country, rather than an even mix of citizens from all parts of society. Incentives for joining the military, such as the ability get funding for higher education, are only necessary for those who don't have funding for higher education, such as underserved minorities or the poorest of the nation. If they wish to escape their poverty, then this is one of very few options (maybe the only option) that they have. A member of the elite, wealthy class has no lack of resources to pursue higher education. In fact, things like legacy allow them easier access into universities than even more highly qualified applicants. Hence, in order to even go to college, the non-elite are, by lack of choices, essentially coerced into military service. So, voluntary service essentially has this coersive, or forced, element to it, as well. Conscription, at this point, becomes the more equitable option for defending a country.

I am negating. I negated the affirmation's syllogism, and proved via its negation that conscription is not unjustified. The affirmation never specified anything about having an independent advocacy. Nor did the affirmation specify that my job is anything but disproving him. However, I have provided a negative advocacy, as it were, and I look forward to my opponent's response to it.
Debate Round No. 2
pc1114

Pro

I see your reasoning on why you don't need a case, and i did not mean that you have to prove all the situations wher people
claim it is unjust wrong, just that you need reasons why it is just, just because you can prove that it doesn't equate with
slavery doesn't prove that it is just.

My opponents main rebuttal of my case is based around the fact that "Soldiers are clearly not always considered property,
even if drafted into service." I'll keep this short and simple, the negative says, "It does put the 'right to life'
into some jeopardy, but my opponent is assuming, in his rhetoric, that every soldier sacrifices his life,
which is patently untrue." I am not at all assuming that every solider sacrifices his life at all, what I'm saying is that if
a government has the power to take someones life and put it in a situation where they do not know if they will come back
alive or not, then they are obviously in control of that persons life. Can you say, "I'm forcing you to put your life in
danger and possibly die, but I'm not treating you as my property, I'm just using you in the way I want to?" No. If they
can do that as a government, then they are treating their people as property, clean and simple. Another thing that my opponent
brought up is that the wealthy have no want to be enlisted in the army, they can do better elsewhere. Do we want people
fighting for our nations defense who have absolutely no reason to be there? Like I said earlier, that rich person could be
doing better things that will also better their nation, such as creating jobs for people or making advances in technology or
whatever else their skilled in doing.

My opponents case regarding the resolution mainly revolves around one thing, and that is, "As I stated before,
either you protect the state or the state will be demolished by a competing state, which inherently leads to less
protection of rights. Hence, conscription is justified to preserve a legitimate state in times of military need." So are you
saying that we should take away the peoples right to choose, which i personally believe is the most important right that
a human being can have, to protect his other rights? No.

As I have clearly outlined in my case my opponents rebuttal of my case is void and I have negated their advocacy. What more
reason do you need to believe the truth? Military Conscription is Unjust. Therefore I strongly urge to vote
affirmative.

Thank You
alto2osu

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, and offer final responses to my opponent.
On whether I need an advocacy or not (first paragraph of aff's RD 2 response):
Actually, if I prove that conscription is not slavery, then I have broken your syllogism, which is directly negating the resolution, hence proving that conscription is not unjust. Since you claim that conscription is only unjust because it is slavery, I just have to break that chain to win. But besides that, my rebuttals to your case directly contain my advocacy (which is that conscription is just in that citizens of a legitimate government have a clear obligation to defend the state from outside invasion/attacks). I just didn't see the point in restating it and labeling it a "case," as it was a space waster.
Response to 2nd paragraph of aff's RD 2:
Unfortunately, as I've outlined, this issue is not "clean and simple," as my opponent states. In fact, the issue of possibly giving one's life to the state in exchange for the state's protection is a highly convoluted issue. Please note that my opponent has nothing to say here about a citizen's obligation to protect the government which furnishes him with the protection his rights (social contract, etc.). Though one may die in the process of military defense, is that not sometimes a necessary sacrifice to protect the state and its citizens as a whole?

A military is a real world necessity: no country gets along without one. The alternative to conscription in times of invasion or severe conflict is a volunteer service, and I've already outlined the complete inequity in that system. Conscription divides a necessary duty to one's state equally amongst citizens, at least moreso than the affirmation's alternative world.

On the wealthy not needing to serve in military:
Okay, so poor people have nothing better to do than die for the protection of the state? What about underserved minority populations, like some African American or Hispanic populations, who are essentially forced into military service by their desire to quit the poverty into which they were born? My opponent does not address the fact that his alternative also forces people into military service; at that point, the forcing of people is essentially a wash, as I pointed out in round 2. Conscription, as an alternative to voluntary military service, is far more equitable, and therefore more just.

Not only that, but the wealthy have just as much of an obligation to protect the nation as everyone else. Legitimate governments are not just of the wealthy people. They are of all people, and therefore all people should be equally responsible for the duties and sacrifices it takes to establish and maintain the state. The chances of those wealthy people dying for their country in CEO offices on the 50th floor is very unlikely…

On the right to choose:
This isn't about the "right to choose." In the real world, citizens have obligations which they cannot shirk, such as the obligation to protect the nation in which they live. Certainly- citizens could "choose" to stay home in times of war and not risk dying. If that was the true case, then an invasion would certainly succeed due to the state's inability to defend itself. At the point where the invading nation enslaves the population, or oppresses the population, you won't have most of the rights you had in the first place. Consider the entire African continent for an empirical example of what happens when a nation cannot defend itself from foreign invaders.

Not only that, but the voluntary service alternative is equally, if not far more, forcible than conscription. The affirmation cannot escape a world in which we discriminate openly against those who cannot afford a life without committing to military service.

For these reasons, I encourage a sound vote for the negation of this resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
Negative doesn't need to prove the opposite of the resolution true.... The Negatives burden is not, as the affirmative tries to say, to prove military conscription to be just. In all debate Aff has the burden and neg has the presumption therefore if Aff can't show the resolution to be true Neg wins. So if the Neg in this round can dismantle pro's syllogism pro no longer can meet his own burden.
Neg Wins
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Which convinces one to affirm that conscription is always unjust how? That's addressed in my case pretty clearly, but believe as you will...
Posted by Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
Hitler had conscripted forces.
Posted by Geek.Rachel 7 years ago
Geek.Rachel
I'm going to have to say that the Neg won this round for several reasons.

First and most importantly, the neg had stronger arguments that covered many different points, providing multiple reasons that military conscription is just. The aff, however, only really forced the slavery point, even after it was proven illogical.

Second, the grammar and spelling! I can understand that you copy/pasted from MS, but it was quite unprofessional to not take the time and correct simple things such as quotation marks. Aff also repeatedly used the word "well" whenever trying to make a point.

Finally, the negative had far more organized attacked. Said attacked were specific, clearly stated, and tied together. Aff made more general remarks and I had a hard time following the arguments that were being made. Overall, it appeared that the negative really attacked all points, while the affirmative failed to do so.

Good debate, to the both of you. :)
Posted by Jake4d 7 years ago
Jake4d
I had to go with Con, even though I agreed with Pro before and after the debate. It was a close call for me, as I am an Objectivist. (aka Ayn Rand fan) Both sides had some really good points, but I don't think either "sealed the deal".

Con said; "the purpose of an advocacy on either side is not to categorically refute everything that the other side MIGHT say."

This is true, but IF you CAN categorically refute everything the opponent MIGHT say you are guaranteed a win. In this debate I don't think this was possible for either side, but in some debates a categorical refutation of everything that MIGHT be said on a topic is possible.

PS I am glad you both dropped the Biblical argument because both the old and new testament are full of proscriptions on how slaves should be treated, but there is not one verse that says slavery is unjust or immoral.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
The neg is a girl, but thank you for the feedback! :D
Posted by animea 7 years ago
animea
Neg wins.

The slavery argument was a wash. Neither side clashed with the opposing viewpoints.

However, Aff completely drops wealthy impact(along with virtually everything other than the slavery argument), this means the impact debate flows cleanly to neg.

On sources, neg won the only source debate in the round, definition arguments.

Neg articulated himself with better grammar and spelling.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Just as an FYI, I kind of tag you a little bit for not citing the quotations. I had to go hunting for the source...just make sure you cite in case next time! :)

Good luck with round 2!
Posted by pc1114 7 years ago
pc1114
Ok thats fine im sorry i copied it from my case in Microsoft word. The weird marks ar quotation marks, thanks for accepting.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Where in the world did you copy this from? Having issues reading the case. I would like to accept it, though, if no one preempts me. Will post again if I can't. Need a couple of hours...
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlackMask 7 years ago
BlackMask
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 7 years ago
TheCategorical
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jose_barahona 7 years ago
jose_barahona
pc1114alto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by whitbeyworld 7 years ago
whitbeyworld
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSexicanMexican 7 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
pc1114alto2osuTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by pc1114 7 years ago
pc1114
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Marine1 7 years ago
Marine1
pc1114alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
pc1114alto2osuTied
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