The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: Pakistan is not a legitimate sovereign state

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,987 times Debate No: 24532
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: Pakistan is not a sovereign state.

Definitions

1) Pakistan is indeed the nation of Pakistan in South Asia

2) legitimate: conforming to justified standards, rules or laws

3) sovereign state: a nation or state that holds authority or jurisdiction over a territorial region

Rules

1) No semantics or trollng

2) Drops are concessions

3) No new evidence or arguments in the last round

4) Forfeit(s) will result in a loss

*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 will start argumentation.
Magicr

Con

I accept this debate and my opponent's definitions.

I look forward to seeing the reasoning Pro will provide to show Pakistan to be something other than a sovereign state.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: Pakistan is not a legitimate sovereign state


Framework

There are three main interpretive stratums of sovereignty that are juggled in the realm of international relations:

The first is the notion that sovereignty does not actually exist and it is a figment of human moral and logical reasoning. This is an argument posed by many anarchists and it derives from the argument that governments are based and maintained in compulsion and even violence which would debase any claim to legitimate sovereignty. I could argue this position but I will not, and it wouldn’t make sense for my opponent to argue this position since if all sovereignty is illegitimate then by logical implication Pakistan would have no claim to sovereignty.

The second is the notion that sovereignty is an absolute right of nation states and all territorial governments have claim to legitimacy (a position held by ultra-realists). The issue with this interpretation is that is exempts all governments from irrational, unethical, violent and coercive behavior held account to no authority other than its own arbitrary existence. This would be problematic for my opponent to defend since it voids all notions of legitimacy and governmental accountability.

The third and most apt interpretation for both my opponent and I is the notion that sovereignty is balanced between legitimacy and illegitimacy. In other words, there are levels to a nation states’ claim to sovereign authority over a territorial region. The United Nations has dictated four criteria which indicate whether a nation has credible and legitimate justification for a status of being a sovereign state.

The first is that the nation state cannot have been involved, planning on or involved in genocide or genocidal related violations. This can be justified through the fact that when government’s claim authority over a region of people they are creating a reciprocal relationship. Genocide or genocidal relation violations degrade that relationship by having the government involved or having condoned actions which debase all notions of human rights, individual liberties and human worth.

The second is that the nation state cannot harbor, promote, finance or aid transnational criminal organizations, which includes terror organizations, drug cartels and human trafficking circles. This standard can be justified by the fact that transnational criminal organizations participate in actions which disrupt the operations of other state’s legitimate actions and dealings and willingly act with disregard for human life and human worth.

The third is that the nation state cannot have violated the integrity of another nation which has legitimate claims to sovereignty. This can be justified by the fact that in a realm where all nations must co-exist and work towards their own ends peacefully a nation which seeks its own gain by violating the integrity of another debases international legal and normative ethical standards.

The fourth is that the nation cannot violate established norms dealing with nuclear weapons or illegitimate nuclear material. This can be justified because at the point in the development of weaponry, nuclear technology poses the greatest threat to the livelihood and security of nation states. In its development illegitimate nuclear technology distorts the international balance between nation states and causes a variety of adverse effects such as arms races.


C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities

This is a fact probably not known to many in the West, but the authorities of Pakistan have condoned and have turned a blind eye to systematic brutality and killing of Shia ethnic groups in Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan. Pakistan as a nation is divided into different regions of the country with differing ethnic groups. The most politically dominant region is the Punjab which has controlled Pakistan since its inception and secession from India. However, essentially all the other regions of Pakistan and especially Baluchistan hold separatist politically groups seeking independence from the Pakistani state. In response the Pakistani authorities have for many years now have systematically violated the rights of the ethnic groups in Baluchistan. The DT indicates a small sample of recently killed Shia Muslims:

“However, before I proceed further, let there be no doubt that those massacred recently in Quetta used to identify themselves as Shia Muslims and belonged to the ethnic Hazara community. Their names are: Ms Bakht Jamal, Zafar, Alam Khan, Ghulam Sakhi, Hafizullah, Nazir Hussain, Mubarak Shah (Spini Road attack March 29, 2012), Ejaz Hussain and Ali Asghar (Kirani Road attack April 2, 2012), Qurban Ali, Muhammad Zia, Muhammad Hussain, Shabir, Nadir Ali, Saeed Ahmad (Prince Road attack April 9, 2012); Muhammad and Ms. Fatima (Sattar Road and Kasi Road respectively, April 13, 2012), Abdullah, Juma Ali, Muhammad Ali, Syed Asghar Shah, Eid Muhammad (Brewery Road April 14, 2012), and Suleiman Ali (Kawari Road April 16, 2012). This list is neither exhaustive nor includes the injured.” [1]


C2: Pakistan deals with transnational terror organizations

Matthew Waldman published a work called The Sun in the Sky: The Relationship between Pakistani’s ISI and Afghan Insurgents. This work was based off of numerous interviews with current and formers members of the Taliban: “The author conducted semi-structured interviews…with nine insurgent field commanders…ten former senior Taliban…5 twenty-two Afghan elders, tribal leaders, politicians and analysts; and thirteen foreign diplomats, experts and security officials”. This interviewed work demonstrates clearly the relationship between the Pakistanis and the Afghani Taliban and Haqqani network. Waldman isolates numerous points of contention when evaluating the impact and extent of the relationship between the ISI and these groups. The Taliban and the ISI are involved in a reciprocal relationship which has developed into a necessary synthesis of the two groups. The interviews indicate that to sustain the Afghani insurgency, the Afghani Taliban need and are dependent upon the Pakistanis for supplies, training and sanctuary. This in turn gives the Pakistanis the advantage of increased regional strength and influence. Waldman writes: “According to a Talib… President Zadari told them they were arrested because he was under a lot of pressure from the Americans and that, ‘you are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations’”. Throughout the interview it becomes clear that the government, as indicated by top level officials, is indeed colluding with these terrorist groups. [2]

Moreover, Pakistan has funded terror operations in India almost since the creation of the state of Pakistan. Recently there was a terror attack in Mumbai trained, funded and carried out by terror groups in Pakistan. [3]


C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology

Pakistan is most noted in the world of science for being the creator of the nuclear black market started by Professor Kahn. This nuclear black market is responsible for the reason we are in the nuclear mess on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea and Pakistan have been major partners in exchanging nuclear technology, and has brought about North Korea’s nuclear program. This violates the NPT and various other nuclear trade standards and regulations instituted by the UN and the IAEA. As a result, it is partially Pakistan’s fault for the continuing deterioration and destabilization of the Korean Peninsula. [4]


[1] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk...\04\19\story_19-4-2012_pg3_2

[2] http://www.debate.org...

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...

[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Magicr

Con

BoP:

Because Pakistan is generally recognized as a sovereign state by a variety of organizations, including by the U. S. State Department [1], the BoP rests on my opponent to prove that Pakistan is not a sovereign state. In order for Pakistan not to be considered a sovereign state, my opponent must prove that Pakistan does not have authority over its territory. He has yet to do this. All that I must do in order to fulfill my BoP is to negate my opponent's arguments.

Framework

I will agree with my opponent in saying that sovereignty is a balance of legitimacy and illegitimacy, however I have not been able to find the U. N. Criteria anywhere online and my opponent did not source them. I will accept them as being a part of what can be used to determine a nation's legitimacy, but not the only factors involved because if they were, the United States probably would not be considered a legitimate sovereign nation.

Examples of this:

The first criteria is that the nation cannot be involved in supporting a genocide. Under the Reagan administration, the United States supported several dictators in Latin America who greatly infringed on the human rights of their citizens [2].

Another problem with these criteria is that the fourth item violates the third. For nations to agree to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a country that possess legitimate sovereignty is violating that county's sovereignty.



I will now respond to Pro's main arguments.

C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities

"This is a fact probably not known to many in the West, but the authorities of Pakistan have condoned and turned a blind eye to a systematic bratality and killing of Shia ethnic groups in Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan." This fact is so unknown to us in the West that a search on the BBC website for "genocide in Pakistan" yielded only one result [3]: A timline of Bangledesh that included information on 2000 dispute over comments on the 1971 war with Pakistan [4]. My opponent claims that the Pakistani authorities have condoned this genocide on Shiite Muslims, yet provides no evidence that this is the case. He does provide one source for this argument, however this source discusses the response of the Pakistani media, not the response of the government. Additionally, the article makes no claim that the genocide was condoned by the Pakistani government.

C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations

I concede that there are some relationships between some members of the Pakistani government and military and members of the Taliban. If supporting the Taliban is a sign of an illegitimate government, then the U. S. would also have been considered an illegitimate government when it supported the Taliban during 1980's [5].

The other argument made under this heading was that Pakistan funded terror operations in India almost since the creation of the state of Pakistan. This claim is unsourced and therefore unfounded. He does provide a source that discusses the arrest of a man for the Mumbai attacks. The man planned these attacks in Pakistan, but this does not mean that the Pakistani government was involved in funding the attack.

C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology

The main problem with this section of my opponent's case is that, once again, he does not provide evidence to back up his claims. He claims that Pakistan has violated international standards on nuclear technology. The issue with the source he provides to show that Pakistan helped North Korea in the past is that the article is from 2002. He does not provide any evidence to show how or why the current Pakistani government is violating these international standards.

I will also repeat what I said much earlier: It is a violation on a nation's sovereignty to tell them they are not allowed to posses a certain technology.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.state.gov...

[2]- http://readersupportednews.org...

[3]- http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[4]- http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[5]- http://www.scoop.co.nz...

Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

BoP

My opponent argues that I have the BoP and as such he must simply negate my arguments. I am fine with this, and the framework helps determine if I meet my burden. As long as I can link into the standards presented under the framework I have upheld my burden.


Framework

Another problem with these criteria is that the fourth item violates the third. For nations to agree to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a country that possess legitimate sovereignty is violating that county's sovereignty.

My opponent first points out that I did not provide sources for the standards, but regardless accepts the standards. Also, since he did not directly address the independent justifications for each standard and drops are concessions we can safely use these standards as measuring sticks for legitimacy or illegitimacy. But in terms of sources I did not link them all since they are scattered throughout tons of UN literature. The genocide criterion was established under the Genocide Convention which limited individual and governmental self-governance in the case of genocide. The transnational standard was established under various terrorism conventions. The aggression standard has been adopted ever since the ratification of the UN Charter. Finally the nuclear standard was established with treaties such as the NPT. [1] [2] [3]

My opponent makes the argument that under these standards the U.S. could be considered non-sovereign as well. As mentioned above it is a scale ranging from legitimate to illegitimate. However the strategic problem with an argument such as this is that it assumes the opponent would intuitively reject the claim that the U.S. could have violated these standards. Thus it isn’t an argument against the standards but rather the application of those standards. The standards themselves are still applicable to Pakistan even if they are applicable to the U.S..

My opponent tries to argue that the 4th standard contradicts the 3rd standard but this is untrue on two levels. First, the 4th standard under the application of the NPT dictates that nuclear technology can be traded as long as it is for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the 3rd standard is referring to aggression against another state, so blocking the exchange of nuclear technology does not amount to aggression.


C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities

My opponent tries to refute my genocide point by arguing that his search on the BBC yielded only one result, the genocide in Bangladesh. This is not the genocide I am referring to, but regardless this argument isn’t an argument. Prefer my sources since they are sources with direct contact to hot spot areas in Pakistan. The genocide itself is not as big as say the genocide in Sudan, but is still genocide nonetheless. I know my opponent may not be used to searching from non-western sources but throughout south eastern news networks there is coverage about it. However I will provide more sources if necessary. [4-8]

My opponent further argues that my article makes no claim that the government is involved. That is not my argument. My argument is that the government is condoning this action by allowing it to persist in a disputed region under Pakistani control. Instead of taking action the Pakistani government is allowing militant forces to systematically kill Pakistani Shias. Under Article 2 e of the Genocide Convention a government has violated the terms of the Convention by being complicit in genocide.

C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations

My opponent again tries to implicate the U.S. as an argument against Pakistan. Again I say using the US isn’t an argument against the standards. But more importantly the argument about the Taliban is a false analogy since: (1) the Taliban wasn’t involved with transnational terrorism such as they are now with groups like AQAP, but (2) the U.S. assisted the Taliban in response to what would have been a violation of standard 3 of non-aggression. The U.S. was assisting the Afghanis in response to military aggression on the part of the Soviet Union.

My opponent argues that the terror attacks were planned in Pakistan but that does not mean the government was involved in the attack. I guess my opponent did not read the whole source or is unaware that the ISI is the intelligence branch of the government but:

“Last year, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan's premier spy agency, was implicated in the Mumbai plot by David Headley, an American-Pakistani LeT militant who was giving evidence in a trial in the United States.

Headley told Indian intelligence services he carried out the surveillance for the Mumbai operation while working for the ISI. His claims were backed up by Kasab, who also told prosecutors during his trial that the attacks were conducted with the support of the ISI.”

By conceding the argument that Pakistan aids, funds and assists terrorist organizations gives me a direct link to the 2nd standard.

C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology

The main problem with this section of my opponent's case is that, once again, he does not provide evidence to back up his claims. He claims that Pakistan has violated international standards on nuclear technology. The issue with the source he provides to show that Pakistan helped North Korea in the past is that the article is from 2002. He does not provide any evidence to show how or why the current Pakistani government is violating these international standards.

I will also repeat what I said much earlier: It is a violation on a nation's sovereignty to tell them they are not allowed to posses a certain technology.

My opponent tries to essentially refute my contention by saying “well, you know Pakistan violated international law a long time ago.” Unfortunately for my opponent this does not refute the substance nor make any impact on my contention. Pakistan by violating international law, starting the nuclear black market, and aiding North Korea in their acquisition of illicit nuclear technology has lost its legitimate sovereignty.

His final argument is that telling Pakistan they can and cannot do something violates their sovereignty. Refer to the argument up top. But moreover, this argument begs the question and assumes they have legitimate sovereignty and as indicated by the first two contentions they clearly do not. .

[1] http://www.preventgenocide.org...

[2] http://treaties.un.org...

[3] http://www.un.org...

[4] http://www.presstv.ir...

[5] http://abna.ir...

[6] http://pakistanblogzine.wordpress.com...

[7] http://www.aimislam.com...

[8] http://www.gilgitbaltistan.us...

Magicr

Con

Framework

"My opponent first points out that I did not provide sources for the standards, but regardless accepts the standards."

I did not accept the standards as the entirety of these standards, nor did I accept them as the only representation of what constitutes a legitimate state.

"My opponent tries to argue that the 4th standard contradicts the 3rd standard but this is untrue on two levels.... Moreover, the 3rd standard is referring to aggression against another state..."

"The third is that the nation state cannot have violated the integrity of another nation which has legitimate claims to sovereignty. This can be justified by the fact that in a realm where all nations must co-exist and work towards their own ends peacefully a nation which seeks its own gain by violating the integrity of another debases international legal and normative ethical standards."

The third standard does not limit violating integrity to aggression, as can be seen above. Therefore, the fourth standard still contradicts the third.

C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities

To justify his contention, my opponent must prove that the Pakistani government has participated in genocidal activities. According to the first standard, the nation state cannot have been involved in the planning or the genocide itself. My opponent's contention is that Pakistan has participated in genocide itself.

My opponent next says that he has provided more sources on the genocide. I thank him for this, but two of the sources dealt with protests in response to the genocide, and none claimed that the Pakistani government had "participated in genocidal activities." I will point out, however, that in one of the sources he provided, there is evidence that the Pakistani government is fighting the genocide.

"Last Thursday, Pakistani security forces thwarted a terrorist attack against Shia Muslims of Hazara community after they gunned down a would-be bomber on Kirani Road near Hazara Town, a pre-dominantly Shia neighborhood in the provincial capital, Quetta." [1]

Next, he argues that his argument is that the government is condoning the action. This is an obvious change in his argument. The original contention was that Pakistan participated in genocidal activities. Now he is arguing that because they are unable to completely stop the genocide, they are condoning it.

As I stated above using the quote from Pro's source, the Pakistani government is not taking action. I would certainly say that sending troops in to prevent an terrorism and genocide is an action.

"A government has violated the terms of the Convention by being complicit in genocide."

Complicit- choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others [2].

My opponent has certainly not proved that the Pakistani government has chosen to be involved in genocide.

C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations

I will concede this link to the second standard.

C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology

This argument has boiled down to the difference between the past actions of a nation and the present actions of a nation. The topic and hand is whether or not Pakistan is a legitimate sovereign state, not whether or not Pakistan was a legitimate sovereign state. In 2002, when my opponent's article was published, Pakistan had a different government then it has no. My opponent is trying to link events of a decade or more ago to the present legitimacy of a country. And he does this without providing a reason why these past events should still have an effect on the present nations sovereignty.

Refer to what was said above about the third standard being violated by the fourth.

How things stand: a tale of contentions and links to standards

My opponent made three contentions to support four standards.

C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities. He is using this contention to support the first standard. In this round I refuted his argument, so he currently has no link to the first standard.

C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations. I conceded this contention giving him a link to the second standard.

My opponent has not really made an argument linking to the third standard, so he does not have a link.

C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology. I also refuted this argument in R3, so there is no present link to the fourth standard.

Currently my opponent has made one out of four links. Thus, the way things stand in the debate as of now, Pakistan can be considered legitimate.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.presstv.ir...
[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro

Framework

My opponent argues that he didn’t accept the standards, nor did he agree that those were the only standards for legitimate sovereignty. Explicitly he did not accept them; however, the rules state: “drops are concessions.” What this means is that if my opponent doesn’t respond to a specific argument, my opponent concedes/accepts the argument as valid. Under the framework my opponent’s only argument dealt with sources, but as I mentioned under each standard there are independent justifications separate from using the international order as an authority. My opponent never responded to the independent justifications thus concedes them. As such, since the justifications for the standards are conceded then those are the standards that have been used for the round to determine validity of sovereignty.

As is evident by now my opponent concedes the 2nd standard of transnational criminal and terror organizations. At this point since the standard is accepted and also the fact that Pakistan does aid, harbor and assist terror organizations then I have met my burden. Each standard is an independent standard, meaning as long as I link to at least one or at best all of them I have proven the resolution true.

My opponent tries to continue his argument that the 4th standard contradicts the 3rd. His reasoning is that nations cannot violate the integrity of other nations in terms of nuclear programs. But remember, the 4th standard is about international agreements, like the NPT, so the country is agreeing to the conditions of the agreement. At that point it isn’t about violating integrity.


C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities

My opponent has indicated that according to my sources Pakistani authorities had thwarted an attempt of another planned attack against Shia Muslims. This is good, but the inaction of the Pakistani government very much outweighs. According to the same source:

“Addressing protestors, the British former Home Secretary Alan Johnson criticized Pakistani government for being ineffective in taking measures against the sectarian killers who persecute Hazaras on daily basis and with impunity. ‘I am here to stand in solidarity with Hazaras (Ethnic of Shia Muslims) who face ethnic cleaning in Balochistan yet the government of Pakistan is showing no concern. In the last 10 years more than 700 Shia Muslims have been killed which is a scandal. The government doesn’t seem concerned and has shown no interest in catching the killers…’”

My opponent’s argument is equivalent to the end of the holocaust when certain German sectors released concentration camp prisoners and then some German sympathizer claims that at least the Nazi’s helped some. That is ridiculous. The Pakistani government has been complicit by its inaction and essential impunity towards the militants.


My opponent claims that I have changed my argument, and he quotes my contentional tag. However, if he goes back to the substance of contention 1, my opening line is: “This is a fact probably not known to many in the West, but the authorities of Pakistan have condoned and have turned a blind eye to systematic brutality and killing of Shia ethnic groups in Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan.”

My opponent argues that Pakistan is not complicit and gives a generic definition. However prefer this definition since it is the legal definition and provides a variety of degrees of complicity. Definition 3: having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, a person fails to make an effort he is legally required to make.

Using this legal standard for complicity, it is clear that Pakistan is complicit because in terms of magnitude of harm allowed vs. harm prevented my evidence clearly demonstrates that the Pakistanis have allowed more harm to occur than what they have prevented.

Thus, I link into the 1st standard as well as the 2nd standard my opponent concedes.


C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations

“I will concede this link to the second standard.” – my opponent

My opponent at the bottom of his case says I have not linked into the 3rd standard. However, ym opponent misses/drops and thus concedes the link I offered in this contention which links back to the 2nd and 3rd standard. Last round I wrote,

“Last year, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan's premier spy agency, was implicated in the Mumbai plot by David Headley, an American-Pakistani LeT militant who was giving evidence in a trial in the United States.

Headley told Indian intelligence services he carried out the surveillance for the Mumbai operation while working for the ISI. His claims were backed up by Kasab, who also told prosecutors during his trial that the attacks were conducted with the support of the ISI.”

This concedes argument indicates not only does Pakistan fund and train terror organizations, but those terror organizations have violated the integrity of India through unwarranted aggression. This 2nd contention links me to offense on both standard 2 and 3.



C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology

I concede the arguments from my opponent. Strike the 4th standard from my offense.

I think at this point it is clear that I link into 3 of the 4 standards presented under the framework. On a scale of legitimacy Pakistan is at this point 75% illieigitmate in its actions and complicity. But as I mentioned above, the standards are separate so even if you don’t think I win them all, I still link into at least 1 of the standards – the transnational terror standard.

I will remind my opponent that this is the last round and since I cannot respond to his arguments no new arguments will be allowed: only summation, voters and conclusions.

I very much enjoyed this debate! :)

Magicr

Con

I will concede.

I realize my error in not individually challenging the standards proposed by my oppoent. By accepting those standards, I lost the debate.

I thank my opponent for a very interesting and educational debate.



Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
I cannot help but agree with this resolution.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Whoa sorry I didnt link the definition in the round. Here is the link: http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Note: the first paragraph under the framework Rd. 2 should have been marked off as what my opponent said in Rd. 1.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
No. Though it is definitely an objection to that argument.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 4 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Is this motivated by claims about the US violating Pakistan's sovereignty when it went to kill Bin Laden?
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
had so much more to write :<
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Oh yeah didnt notice that. The official resolution is the one in the title. Thx for pointing that out :)
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Did you mean to include legitimate in the resolution you posted in R1? I noticed you used it in the title and the definitions but not in the resolution itself.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
It was accepted faster than I expected ^_^
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
CiRrKMagicrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: asdf
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
CiRrKMagicrTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The standards produce and automatic win for Pro. Con would have almost certainly won had he challenged the standards, which appear to be arbitrary.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
CiRrKMagicrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
CiRrKMagicrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.