The Instigator
Mickeyrocks
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: On balance, governments are desirable and necessary.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,635 times Debate No: 7404
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

Mickeyrocks

Con

I negate, "Resolved: On balance, governments are desirable and necessary."

=Observations=

1) The resolution is hypothetical, so linking directly to the U.S. or other empirical data is effective for analogies or real-world evidence, but not necessary.
2) The resolution has to do with the actions of Governments and their roles, thus economics, punishment and the rest is included with the affirming / negating of the resolution.
3) Weigh impacts quantitatively (on balance)

CONTENTION ONE: THE STATE WILL BE THE DOWNFALL OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

FIRST, THE DESTRUCTION OF STATISM AND HUMAN SURVIVAL CAN ONLY BE ASSURED IF A VANGUARD OF INDIVIDUALS REJECT THEIR TIES TO THE STATE

BERES, 94.

To fulfill the expectations of a new global society, one that would erect effective barriers around humankind's most murderous forms of self-determination, the essential initiatives must be undertaken within States. In this connection, national leaders can never be expected to initiate the essential changes on their own. Rather, the new evolutionary vanguard must -- in the fashion of the growing worldwide movement against nuclear weapons and nuclear war -- grow out of informed publics throughout the world. Such a vanguard must aim to end the separation of State interests from those of its citizens and from those of humanity as a whole. This vanguard must grow out of searches for individual self-determination. But the journey from the herd to selfhood begins in myth and ends in doubt. For this journey to succeed, the individual traveling along the route must learn to substitute a system of uncertainties for what he has always believed; learn to tolerate and encourage doubt as a replacement for the comforting "securities" of Statism. Induced to live against the grain of our civilization, he must become not only conscious of his singularity, but also satisfied with it. Organically separated from "civilization," he becomes aware of the forces that undermine it, forces that offer him a last remaining chance for both meaning and survival.

SECOND, OUR DESTRUCTION IS INEVITABLE UNLESS WE ELIMINATE HIERARCHY: (1) SOCIAL BREAKDOWN; (2) ECO-DOOM; (3) NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION

AN ANARCHIST FAQ, 05.

Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2) destruction of the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. This "orthodox" approach isn't working, since the problems in question are getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon, or a descent into urban savagery -- or all of the above. Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle of hierarchical authority, which underlies the major institutions of all "civilised" societies, whether capitalist or "communist."

THIRD, THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING WAR, GENOCIDE, AND OPPRESSION

MARTIN, 90.

Is the state system really so bad? War is the most obvious indictment of the system, and this alone should be enough to justify questioning the state. War is not simply a by-product of the state system, to be moderated and regulated when it becomes too dangerous to populations. Rather, war is part and parcel of the state system, so the destructiveness of war makes little difference. War is the external manifestation of state violence. In short, maintaining the 'integrity' of the state system is more important for state elites than intervening against genocide. There are many other social problems caused, sustained or aggravated by the state, including suppression of dissent, state support for corporate elites, and the activities of spy agencies and secret police. These problems stem essentially from the system of unequal power and privilege which the state both is part of and sustains. The state is not the only way to embody and sustain unequal power and privilege: it is a particular way involving bureaucracies for administration and military forces for defending against external and internal enemies.

FOUR, WITH CAPITALISM, SOCIAL BREAKDOWN IS INEVITABLE.

AN ANARCHIST FAQ, 06.

With human values replaced by the ethics of calculation, and with only the laws of market and state "binding" people together, social breakdown is inevitable. Little wonder modern capitalism has seen a massive increase in crime and dehumanisation under the freer markets established by "conservative" governments

CONTENTION TWO: THE STATE DEHUMANIZES THOSE WHO OPERATE UNDER IT

FIRST, THE STATE DEHUMANIZES INDIVIDUALS AND CONDEMNS THEM TO A MASTER/SLAVE RELATIONSHIP WHERE AUTONOMY IS NONEXISTANT

AN ANARCHIST FAQ, 05

Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgment of the dominated to the will and judgment of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social breakdown. Little wonder such an authoritarian relationship "condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities."

SECOND, CAPITALISM DEHUMANIZES INDIVIDUALS

AN ANARCHIST FAQ, 06.

Creative, self-managed work is a source of pride and joy and part of what it means to be fully human. Wrenching control of work from the hands of the worker profoundly harms his or her mental and physical health. Capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of the wage-workers" and were an "outrage upon human dignity and personality." This is because wage labour turns productive activity and the person who does it into a commodity. People "are not human beings so much as human resources."

THIRD, DEHUMANIZATION IS THE SUM OF ALL EVILS AS IT JUSTIFIES THE WORLD'S ATROCITIES

BERUBE, 97.

The dehumanization of humanity's destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of society, lies a dehumanized image of man.

CONTENTION THREE: PUNISHMENT ENACTED THROUGH THE STATE HARMS SOCIETY

FIRST, PUNISHMENT PERPETUATES THE PROBLEMS IT ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE

SULLIVAN, 80.

To use power as a principle for relationship- - is to share in the cultivation of the despair and violence one is attempting to dissolve. It is a sharing in the creation of the very social conditions that bring about the social harm they claim they are attempting to eliminate. In fact, power as a tool only threatens "the physical structure of the universe, undermines our participation in useful activity…and usurps out autonomy.

SECOND, REJECTING PUNISHMENT PROVIDES ADEQUATE MEANS TO SOLVE FOR SOCIAL PROBLEMS THROUGH PEACEFUL INTERACTION RATHER THAN DOMINANCE

SULLIVAN, 80.

Resolutions of conflict in the context of mutual aid do not end in hatred, for the foundations of that hatred are explored and given vent and changed, perhaps by people doing more agreeable work-a revolutionary idea for this culture! These kinds of resolutions can only evolve into a deeper commitment on the part of people to each other, to community living. The conflicts themselves are seen as the material for growth.
Danielle

Pro

My opponent presents this debate as a hypothetical, and thus invites all forms of government and economics into the argument. I'd like to make my thesis clear:

On balance, governments are desirable and necessary.

Note: I mentioned Con's faulty citation previously in the "Comments" section. I'm concerned that none of my opponent's "contentions" were taken from his own thought process. All of his arguments are copy/pastes of other propositions that have been made from a very biased source (One such, The Anarchist Faq, and the others which he has no links or actual titles for). If my opponent can not present his own argument, then his competence in this debate can be challenged. Since I am not arguing Mickeyrocks, but rather the authors of various other works, this is what I would say to them...

Premise one:

Against "contingent 1" THE STATE WILL BE THE DOWNFALL OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

The snippet of Beres that my opponent has mentioned doesn't clearly define what "human interests" are or what Beres is arguing for. We can see that governments are the reason nuclear war has not devastated our world. If anarchy ensued, or this "vanguard" of individuals were to destroy government, the nuclear weapons (and all military artillery) would be left to be pillaged (or given to this "vanguard"). Therefore, instead of being in stable hands -- through treaties and in the hands of competent individuals who are trained to handle such artillery -- these weapons will be in the hands of hostile individuals. Just like in nature, as the Philosopher Thomas Hobbes has proposed, the strongest will overthrow the weak and take control of these weapons for their own group's interests.

Just because government is disbanded does not mean that humans will not band together in interest groups. Anarchy will overthrow the "establishment" and "rules" and thus leave the world to true Survival of the Fittest. Governments, on balance, help resources get to individuals within the state. There are millions of individuals if left to their own devices that would perish without the aid of other more competent individuals who are running our resource distribution (economics).

Against: SECOND, OUR DESTRUCTION IS INEVITABLE UNLESS WE ELIMINATE HIERARCHY: (1) SOCIAL BREAKDOWN; (2) ECO-DOOM; (3) NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION

"social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.;"

1. It is not clear to me how my opponent proposes that governments raise poverty, homelessness, crime and violence etc. Until my opponent can properly give me cause, I can not take this proposition seriously.

2. Eco-doom is more inevitable if steps are not taken to correct it. Obviously this is a state policy problem and not one of government but of late scientific resolution. With time and research, governments can fix this problem. Also, my opponent, An Anarchist Faq, does not clearly give a proper cause from government which causes "eco-doom" to begin with, so again, I can not take this proposition seriously.

3. I reject this proposition under the Appeal to Fear fallacy. My opponent gives no hard facts and only appeals to fear in order to push his resolution. Ad Baculum. With that said, most of my opponents arguments commit Ad Baculum (an argument where the threat of force induces fear to prove a point).

Against: THIRD, THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING WAR, GENOCIDE, AND OPPRESSION

My opponent does not take into consideration the atrocities individuals perform, including electing officials into office that would support such "atrocities" in the first place. He unfairly accuses states of these mass problems when he doesn't realize that it is the individuals that do not come against their own policy makers and form a new government. Just because one group of leaders isn't working does not mean that another, more enlightened group of political leaders can't form a more coherent, functioning government. What my opponent also doesn't understand is that War at least follows some sort of rules (we can see things like this in the Geneva convention, etc.), and would not be as dangerous as all out guerrilla warfare.

Against: FOUR, WITH CAPITALISM, SOCIAL BREAKDOWN IS INEVITABLE.

My opponent proposes that Capitalism is a cause of dehumanization. Again, my opponent doesn't give me any data to work with; he only proposes Capitalism does so without giving proper facts. Another thing my opponent doesn't add is that Capitalism is an economic policy and not a "government" on its own, and it must be paired with a government in order to function. It is like having a car without wheels. Also, the fallacy of Questionable Cause can be added here, as my opponent hasn't supplied me with the data that f actualizes the cause and effect.

Premise two:

Against "contingent 2": THE STATE DEHUMANIZES THOSE WHO OPERATE UNDER IT

Misleading Vividness Fallacy. Perhaps my opponent hasn't heard of Republics by making this claim. Human beings aren't subjected to "slave" positions, but have all the right in the world to amend, change, and overthrow their government in order to establish a better or more democratic government.

Against: SECOND, CAPITALISM DEHUMANIZES INDIVIDUALS

I agree that "Creative, self-managed work is a source of pride and joy and part of what it means to be fully human." Capitalism offers just that. It gives the individuals the right to choose their own business, employ whoever they want to employ, and create whatever they wish to create and distribute. Fallacy of False Dilemma again. If the employees do not like their wages, under Capitalism, they can wage strikes in order to compromise with their employer. There are many ways to fix their problems if they wish to.

Against: THIRD, DEHUMANIZATION IS THE SUM OF ALL EVILS AS IT JUSTIFIES THE WORLD'S ATROCITIES

Easily thrown down, Composition Fallacy.

Against "contingent 3" : PUNISHMENT ENACTED THROUGH THE STATE HARMS SOCIETY

I will quickly throw down whoever "Sullivan's" argument is by saying that without punishment by the state for laws broken by individuals, there wouldn't be a safety that they can live with without being in an aggressive state of nature (re: Social Contract). Also, government is not the real cause of punishment (Fallacy Post Hoc), and it is more of an issue of psychology and human nature. Even if humans are left to their individual selves, an eye for an eye type of revenge would still rule. These laws that governments make and the punishments they give for a broken contract are not against human interests but for their interest of protecting their privacy and survival.

Since I only have 1 minute left to post (haha!), that's it for now...
Debate Round No. 1
Mickeyrocks

Con

====
PRO
====

Citations:

1) Quoting isn't bad debate nor is it incompetent; if I take a philosophy class and learn about Kantian ethics by reading Kant, that doesn't make me stupid for agreeing with his categorical imperative because it's not "my own", and if I argue in favor of the categorical imperative it would make sense to quote Kant to crystallize the argument.
2) I'll cite everything, and it'll waste space... =/

Louis Rene Beres, Professor, International Law, Purdue University, "Self-Determination, International Law and Survival on Planet Earth," ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 11, Spring 1994, p. 7-8.

AN ANARCHIST FAQ, "Introduction," primarily by Iain McKay, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas, version 11.1, January 10, 2005. Available from the World Wide Web at: www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secAint.html, accessed 5/10/05.

Brian Martin, Associate Professor, Science, Technology, and Society, University of Wollongong, UPROOTING WAR, 1990. Available from the World Wide Web at: www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/uw07.html, accessed 2/1/05.

Berube '97
(David, Ph.D. in Communications, "Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side", NanoTechnology Magazine, June/July 1997, p. 1-6, URL: http://www.cla.sc.edu...)

SULLIVAN IN 1980
[Dennis, Criminal Justice Author of Various Monographs and Scholarly Articles, The Mask Of Love: Corrections in America" p 169-70]

That was fun.

====
C1: Downfall of existence.
====

>>Beres Card:

Basically, she reverts to a "State of nature defense" to justify this. Hobbesian "state of nature" arguments existed before sociology and criminology. Let's examine this excerpt from Sociologist David Bordua (here's the citation Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 369, World Population (Jan., 1967), pp. 149-163)

"Culture makes morally mandatory the seeking of success goals but differentially distributes the morally acceptable means to these success goals, the legitimate opportunities that loom so large in the approach. This gap between culturally universalized goals and structurally limited means creates strain among lower class youths who aspire to economic advancement. Such strain and alienation leads to the formation of delinquent subcultures, that is, normative and belief systems that specifically support and legitimate delinquency, among those boys who blame the system rather than themselves for their impending or actual failure."

Strain theory elaborates that the cause of delinquency (and thus, crime) are institutional inequities between individuals. By eliminating hierarchy through anarchy, one eliminates these inequities and thus solves the problem of crime itself.

>>3fold Destruction Card:

1) Link back to the delinquency quote from the sociologist. Here's the proof. Moreover, Bordua outlines three different types of delinquency that all inherently erode society, "conflict, criminal, or retreatist (drug-using)" all three of which are linked to inequities.
2) Not mutually exclusive on either the affirmative or the negative, point can be discarded.
3) Kay, this will link into the next contention so I'll address it there.

>>Martin card on war / genocide etc:

1 - individuals don't perform the actions, states do. Obviously you can't have a war without an army, an army is lead by the government - logical progression follows that without state you do not have an army and you do not have a war.
2 - She impacts AGAIN to state of nature, but you can cross-apply the "strain theory" argument here as well. Criminology trumps my opponents assertions. (note: her evidence is a philosopher who died almost 400 years ago.)
3 - Nuclear annihilation > guerrilla warfare

>>Capitalism Card:
"and it must be paired with a government in order to function." Thank you for providing the link.

Capitalism dehumanizes. An Anarchist FAQ elaborates, "capitalism is, by its very nature, hierarchical. The worker is subjected to the authority of the boss during working hours (sometimes outside work too). As Noam Chomsky summarises, "a corporation, factory of business is the economic equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down." The worker's choices are extremely limited, for most people it amounts to renting themselves out to a series of different masters. And master is the right word for, as David Ellerman reminds us, "[s]ociety seems to have 'covered up' in the popular consciousness the fact that the traditional name [for employer and employee] is 'master and servant.'"

If you don't have a choice you lack autonomy, if you lack autonomy then you lack what it is to be human. Clear warrant. ;)

====
C2: Dehumanization.
====

>>State Dehumanizes card:

"All the right to amend, change, and overthrow..."

1 - individuals are suppressed by the state, and if they are suppressed by the state it kind of makes sense that the state won't let them change through proper means (empirical examples include Stalin's Russia)
2 - the only course left is overthrow... which means Anarchy, so her potential benefits under the state system don't exist because either they're impossible to achieve (legitimate means) or the eventually lead to anarchy (which is what I advocate).
3 - "Domination", which is what the quote says, argues that simply holding power over another individual (i.e. hierarchy) is the cause of dehumanization. She never addresses this point, so the impact remains.

>>Capitalism dehumanizes:

1 - All of the reasons why capitalism doesn't dehumanize rest on freedom of choice of work, but it's essentially like choosing who your master is. All of the benefits of capitalism my opponent presents are not exclusive to capitalism, but also exist under a socialist system; however, in socialism there is no hierarchy and thus the harms of hierarchy are dissolved (i.e. the dehumanizing effect, crime, etc.)

>>Dehumanization justifies atrocities:

http://www.nizkor.org...

? I argue atrocities are justified through the dehumanization of man, if Hitler viewed Jewish people as humans he would not have felt justified in his actions. No rebuttal here from Lwerd.

====
C3: Punishment
====

1) State of nature argument again. You can cross-apply what I said earlier to that.

Alright, so let's summarize the arguments thus far.

The PRO gives you the following argument to justify EVERYTHING in her rebuttals, her case, whatever.

1) In reverting to the state of nature, we have no rights, everyone gets hurt, etc etc. Blatant appeal to fear. Science helps us eliminate her argument though:

First: The cause of crime itself is inequality. By solving for inequality (elimination of hierarchy) we solve for crime.
Second: Punishment is self-perpetuating. By allowing peaceful reconciliation we foster respect for human rights under anarchy, thus eliminating the few crimes that are not solved by an anarchical structure.

She also uses the:

2) "You can change under the state!" argument.

First: This assumes democratic legitimate governments, but in non-legitimate governments overthrow is necessary which results in Anarchy, thus she supports my own case here.
Second: It ignores all of my capitalism impacts.

So the Pro's points are easily discarded - they rely on assertions, arguments that can be quickly turned, or are incomplete. The CON presents the following:

FIRST: Under Anarchy, humans retain their individual liberties and thus their humanity.
SECOND: Without retention of humanity, atrocities can be justified.
THIRD: The negative solves for crime.
FOUR: The negative prevents against threats to human existence, which are rooted in the State.

At this point, it doesn't make sense to do anything but negate.
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mickeyrocks

Con

Mickeyrocks forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mickeyrocks

Con

Mickeyrocks forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
Once she forfeited I decided not to post either :)
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
This debate was good... Up until the sea of forfeits. Due to the forfeit in the rebuttal round, I will give my vote to the one I agreed with (Given their cases)

Vote goes to Con.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Thanks... I wish I had more time to work on it!

That said, I am DEATHLY ILL and the odds of me sitting at the computer to write a round within the next 13 hours is slim to nill. I apologize for my probable forfeiture of at least one round, though I wouldn't be opposed to finishing this debate or debating this again if you'd like as soon as I get a little better.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
Good job getting the argument in on time :)
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
=/

I hope you get to write an argument for this.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
I have full MLA citation, I just didn't have the room to give it. I will in the next speech if you want.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
The citation here is pretty irrelevant, as nobody will be able to validate the sources based on the fact that we don't know what the works even are. Hmm :P
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
I thought you were joking about the Statism :)

And yeah, my friend sent me a Statism K so I decided to run it here as a joke; I'm running something similar for the vigilantism LD resolution so I wanted to get some practice with the arguments.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
DAMN IT!!!! I was just about to take this... I found my state good file too...
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
wow... Nice job posting a Statism K as an argument...

Although I may actually take this... (just let me find my Statism file lol jk)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
MickeyrocksDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
MickeyrocksDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
MickeyrocksDanielleTied
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 TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
MickeyrocksDanielleTied
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 Colucci 8 years ago
Colucci
MickeyrocksDanielleTied
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 LB628 8 years ago
LB628
MickeyrocksDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00