The Instigator
JustinAMoffatt
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The United Nations should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
JustinAMoffatt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,831 times Debate No: 36168
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

JustinAMoffatt

Pro

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details. (http://www.debate.org.........).

FORMAT OF THE DEBATE:
R1 will be acceptance only, with no new arguments to be introduced in R4. 8000 characters per round with a 72 hour response time, plus a voting period of 1 week.

Definitions

The United Nations - "A political organization established 1945; headquarters in New York City in E cen Manhattan overlooking East River. It was created with intent of promoting international relations and world peace."

Abolish - "Destroy, disband, etc. To end the operations and effects of something."



If Stephen_Hawkins has any reservations, or would like something clarified, I would urge him to inform me of it in the comments section.

Otherwise, it's game on.

Here's to a fun and educational debate.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. I will be arguing in favour of the United Nations. I will be following as my vision of the United Nations the existence of an organisation that upholds the values found in the Charter of the United Nations, namely:

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
And for the ends:
  • to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
  • to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
  • to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  • to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
By following mechanisms or processes such as the Responsibility To Protect. This organisation, is of course the United Nations.


http://www.un.org...;

I look forward to my opponent's case against the United Nations, and look forward to a powerful case to be made by my esteemed opponent. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinAMoffatt

Pro

I thank my opponent for his acceptance. Let's begin.

My opponent stated something in his acceptance speech. He stated that he will be following as his vision of the United Nations an organization that upholds the values found in the U.N. Charter.

However, there is no such organization.

The United Nations was created with great goals in mind. Visions of glory and world peace danced before it's founders' (the "winners" of WW2) eyes. They created this international forum of discussion and legal affairs to, as my oppoent kindly stated, save future generations from war, promote human rights (such as the dignity and woth of a human being, and equal rights of the sexes). They sought justice. They sought international law. They sought respect for treaties. They sought better standards of life.

Do you, as the reader/voter/my opponent, see any of these fulfilled today?

I don't.

Indeed, the United Nations, once an aspiring organization for good, has instead become the perpetrator for such evil as it sought to eradicate.

I will show you how.

P1: The UN GA (General Assembly)

The United Nations General Assembly is the main body of the United Nations.[1] It has 193 member countries, all of which share an equal vote on propositions called "resolutions". This seems fair and democratic, doesn't it? Well, it is on a country basis. But not on a population or power basis. That's the scary part. It allows for a two thirds majority of nations, most of whom do not support the goals established in the Charter[2], to tell the world how to act (granted, to an extent).

This example, while a valid point to support abolishing the UN, could encompass my whole argument in a sense.

The UN is a failure not because of bad goals, but because of goals that are far too good (to the point where they're beyond reason), and a body that is corrupt and disregards those goals.

This is, sadly, not only applicable to the majority of third world countries that make up the UN's main body, but even more "elite" nations like the U.S. and the group of nations known as the EU (European Union).

P2: Peacekeeping does anything but....

Peacekeepers, the main form of "military" the UN has, are a disgrace to the organization. These soldiers in blue have recieved shame and criticism from everything to flawed doctrine and training, inability to be effective in situations, and even aggravating those they were sent to protect!

I will show all three of these gripes with the UN's main peacekeeping force.

A. Flawed doctrine

The peacekeepers, while armed, trained to fight, and sent to protect the victims of many atrocities, have a flawed idea at their core.

They believe that peace can be gained through peaceful means at all times.

"Peacekeeping" in the UN Peacekeeper's handbook is defined as helping preserve the peace, however fragile. It mainly consists of "...observing cease-fires and the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex model of many elements – military, police and civilian – working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable peace."[3]

Nowhere does it mention "use of military force", the key word in any UN document meaning an actual discharge of weaponry.

In order for the UN Peacekeepers to actually be able to engage in a combat situation is through specific permission from the UNSC (United Nations Security Council, we'll get to them later). This means that the UNSC, which is hugely flawed and in gridlock over practically every major situation, and is the only body with the power to "OK" lethal force, must agree and vote (which is harder than it sounds because of its make-up) to allow these peacekeepers to fire... on a situation-to-situation basis.

So, assuming they actually did get permission, it's too little, too late. This isn't hypothetical, either. This has happened.

Bringing us to...


B. Ineffectiveness

I am going to list three of the main incidents showing us key examples of why the UN peacekeepers are a useless waste of money and resources.

Rwanda. U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda watched (Yes... watched) as Hutu murdered 800,000 defesnseless Tutsi.

Bosnia. U.N. Peacekeepers declared safe areas for Muslims. Yet they did absolutely nothing but stand by as the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica.[4, for both]

Israel-Lebanon border. Hezbollah terrorists disguised themselves as U.N. Peacekeepers, used vehicles bearing their insignia, and lured Israeli soldiers inside. They murdered them all as real Peacekeepers did nothing to intervene. The U.N. wouldn't even disclose information about the incident until years later when the remains of the soldiers were returned to Israel and they were confirmed to be murdered.[5]


As we can see, U.N. Peacekeepers are reluctant to protect even the innocent, because (A) they have no emotional connection or feeling of responsibility for, or (B) are told to never engage without explicit orders that never come in time.

But it gets worse than that in...

C. Peacekeepers ARE the problem in some areas.

Peacekeepers have a reputation to not only be ineffective, but also be harmful to those that they should be protecting! The worst example of such a thing is the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), where the second largest Peacekeeping operation to date is still taking place.

However, it's not peaceful there. It is actually known as "the rape capital of the world", and it's all thanks to the boys in blue.

The thing is, many armed groups roam the countryside, pillaging the villages and looking for gems and treasures. Why? Because they're disorganized, bored, and not really from countries with the same values as the U.N. was formed with...[6]

Yeah...

So instead of protecting the innocent in the Congo, these soldiers are allowed to do practically whatever they want. Apparently, they want to rob, murder, and rape women and little girls across the whole countryside.[5, again]

This is so bad, that many advocate destroying Peacekeeping solely for the acts still being committed in the DRC. However, no action is ever taken. But that could all change with the removal of the U.N. This is one of many reasons we must abolish the U.N., and why it should be abolished today.

Moving on to my brief third point (running out of room, but I have so much more I could say)...

P3: The UNSC (United Nations Security Council)

The UNSC, the only body in the UN that can pass legally binding resolutions to impose on the rest of the world, is hardly representative, legitimate, or effective. The main reasons for these all stem from two design flaws in the UNSC.

1. The 5 permanent members

These 5 members always get to sit on the Security Council, no matter what. All the other 10 members must be elected and can't serve consecutive terms. However these five nations (U.S.A, U.K., France, China, Russia) will always be secure in their position of political power on the global stage.[7] However, on a council that is supposed to be both part of a democratic body, and one reflecting modern distribution of power, this is a joke to the rest of the UN.[8]

Second, the veto power, or the ability of any of the five permanent members to strike down any resolution, (Including certain urgent ones for Peacekeeping) perpetuates inaction and apathy amongst the politically diverse council members. This practically renders the Security Council inable to act.



So, with these three hulking criticisms of the UN as support, and my characters gone, I stand firm the UN should be abolished.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Thank you.

Sources

1. http://www.un.org...

2. http://www.ynetnews.com...
3. http://pbpu.unlb.org...
4. http://www.foreignaffairs.com...;
5. http://www.idppcenter.com...;
6. http://www.un.org...;
7. http://www.un.org...;
8. http://www.foreignpolicy.com...
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Today I hope to advocate the United Nations in world politics. During the course of this debate, I’ll focus on one clear misconception that is unfortunately endemic with how people view the United Nations, that the primary tool and goal of the UN is found in war. The United Nations, contrary to being a tool for warfare, is a tool for negotiation among countries, emphasising and producing nation-building policies and systems, and promoting the general welfare of civilians inside populations, thereby helping as many people as possible.

None of this requires warfare – military force is almost always a worse choice of action, and certainly ought to be the very last resort in every situation. Instead, the UN achieves its goals through peaceful means, granting sovereignty to each nation to facilitate international peace and co-operation.

The UN General Assembly

To quickly address my opponent’s point that the majority of nations do not support the goals established in the charter, this of course is simply false. The closest he comes to evidence for this is that there was a moment of silence for the passing of Kim Jong Il. This is of course nonsensical: other than North Korea being but one country, many nations including “United States, European Union members, Japan, and several other countries”[1]. Moreover, those who did take part, such as Al-Nasser of Qatar said he did so as it “was protocol”[2]. Of course, my opponent picks the worst example he can find: why not Chavez?[3] Or the fact there was none for Havel, who brought Czechoslavakia peacefully from communism to democracy?[4]

The reason why there are minutes of silence for leaders, including those we do not like, is that despite what my opponent is trying to lead us to believe, we live in a world where there are no rules of how nations interact with one another, no police force to restrain them. This includes the United Nations. The role of the UN is to help placate countries and allow us to co-operate so we can gradually move towards liberty, and not strong arm countries into falling in line with the UN goals.

This is because the world is made up of many ideologies, factions, and viewpoints. We seem to forget this living in our vast countries that we are in fact small. The southern hemisphere, feeling the full effects of what war and ‘Western intervention’ can do, are cynical of all attempts to intervene from militaries to corporations. Chinese and Asian cultures with a heavy culture of family support is contradicted by American individualism, which in turn is contradicted by the social democracy in many Western nations. The problem of pollution for MEDCs is contradicted by those vying for growth in developing nations. The United Nations, by stating one needs two thirds support, avoids upsetting any ideology in particular while facilitating international diplomacy. Thus, not only does the general assembly facilitate the existence of an international agreement to promoting the populace, but it also does so in a manner that no nation can do unilaterally: it creates an unbiased field for nations to discuss issues, and therefore is of a great benefit in what is otherwise a hostile partisan world torn into pieces by ideology.

The Success of Peacekeeping

Of course, some peacekeeping efforts have been problematic. However, the peacekeeping missions are not imperialist war machines which my opponent seems to be alluding as their goal. Instead, they are to watch and advise nations, as up until the 20th century the massive global consensus was one of supreme sovereignty of nations. Moreover, if they intervened everywhere atrocities were saw to take place, they would soon be intervening in our own nations to correct alleged “crimes”. The EU for example has repeatedly intervenes as of late in the UK’s affairs, and all it has done is angered the population and politicians[5]. However, the UN has taken many steps to improve its peacekeeping abroad.

Kofi Annan in 2000 stated “if humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”[6] There have been many problems of unilateral intervention: the most clear being in Somalia. A UN-led intervention was highly successful originally, but when the US led forces expanded their mandate to wage war against military leaders, the misconceived war led to “Black Hawk Down” debacles, and the Mogadishu effect.

The Mogadishu effect is how nations became fearful, especially in multinational interventions, to contribute heavily – though to properly invest may be a better phrase – in the nation-building and protection of a country where its people are dying in droves. Rwanda suffered heavily from the Mogadishu effect, where all other nations failed to intervene despite Romeo Dallaire in charge of Rwanda’s UN mission making passionate cases on a daily basis, suffering from post-traumatic stress and repeated attempts at suicide[7] after the hell he went through trying everything to remedy the situation. Kofi Annan states repeatedly a scarifying sense of personal responsibility to make sure a Rwanda never happened again[8]. To claim they simply did not care and did “absolutely nothing but stand by” is not just false, but downright insulting to the extreme effort the men went to in order to protect a vast population completely understaffed and completely without support.

And this is my key point: without support. Where was the United States? The UK? France? Russia? China? No nation would intervene in this atrocity, and as Kofi Annan stated: “we are no stronger than our member states”8. Without the UN, the atrocity would have been worse. Dallaire is accredited with saving over 30,000 lives alone with only 600 men at his command in Rwanda, and with five thousand claimed to be able to stop the crisis entirely[9]. Yet no nation intervened. My opponent is blaming the lack of support by member states on the UN, when in fact it is the member states at fault. Without the UN, this problem would not be resolved.

Yet would it be resolved with the UN?

The Responsibility to Protect

The R2P began as a concept in 2001, after the Mogadishu effect causing the death of millions being too large a burden to ignore. Though interventions such as in Timor-Leste were on the whole successful[10] and similarly Kosovo[11], major successes have come in the 21st century now we are more willing to bring in a peacekeeping operation. The Responsibility to Protect is the key ideological underlining of UN intervention: we have a duty to protect the lives of people from genocide, mass rape, and atrocities of this nature. If this is found too extensive, then the UN of course fails. However, desiring to stop these crimes, the purpose of the 21st century UN alongside facilitating negotiations among nations, stands.

I’ll conclude by pointing out the success of the UN peacekeeping operations. The key section is peacekeeping: its goal is to defend newly found peace and build nations. RAND studies show time and time again the UN are successful, moreso than e.g. the US[12], more effective and more efficient. “The UN spends 3 in one year on all nineteen of these missions about what it costs the United States for one month’s operation in Iraq”[13]. The UN is extremely effective at its role both peacekeeping and in creating a space for diplomacy. With that in mind I pass over to my opponent.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

[6] Kofi Annan, Millennium Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2000

[7] http://tinyurl.com...

[8] http://tinyurl.com...

[9] Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect

[10] http://tinyurl.com...

[11] http://tinyurl.com...

[12] The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-building by RAND, and

[13] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
JustinAMoffatt

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

I agree that the UN's purpose isn't in warfare. Rather, it was designed as an alliance of sorts, for countries to discuss and reason with one another. However, this is not what the United Nations has become. It has mutated to become a monstrosity under the banner of globalism. In reality, it's the home of international hypocrisy. It must be abolished, due to the fact that it is detrimental to the noble goals it claims to promote.

United Nations' General Immoral Activity (Formerly the UNGA)

Note: I renamed this point because it has morphed to cover all United Nations immoral activity, rather than just the UN General Assembly.

My opponent opens up with a statement that my only example of the "minute of silence" for Kim Jong II is hardly telling. I agree. It was merely to serve as an indicator. If one looks at the goals of the United Nations, and the members who make it, there is no correlation. I would challenge anyone reading this to see how many countries make up the United Nations General Assembly, that also support gender equality, basic human rights, justice, international law, or better standards for life? And it doesn't seem all of these members are too concerned with the whole "saving future generations from the scourge of war" thing, either...

However, just as he proceeded to show, there are many other examples of morally unsound UN General Assembly activity. These include extreme examples of anti-semitism[1][2][3][4] that are rampant (in both the UN General Assembly and HRC, or "Humans Right Council", mainly). These also include scandals in general[5][6][7] including Oil-for-Food programme, the Vatican child sexual abuse scandal, and Bribery scandals, all detailed in the sources provided.

My opponent then brings up a valid point, that we need nations to talk and reason with each other. I do not support, at least in this round, and American-centric, or western-centric ideology, here. I'm just stating that we encourage a tyrrany of the majority among a group of countries that do not support the ideals outlined in the United Nations charter. If we were to create an organization with different goals in mind, strictly geared towards communication and negotiation rather than the upholding of certain rights, then this would be a different story.

But we are arguing about the United Nations, whose charter, the very document that causes it to exist, states that it must promote basic human rights, living standards, justice, equality, and world peace.[8] If it is harming these goals, then there is no reason for it to exist. It would be much cheaper and safer to create a public forum for countries to discuss, rather than keeping the legally binding, military-weilding, and cash-guzzling body of lethargy we have today.

"Peace"keeping

I have already shown that the three problems with Peacekeeping missions are thus.

A. Flawed Doctrine
B. Ineffectiveness
C. Harm to Civilians

While my opponent tries to make the case for peacekeeping surrounding two aspects, the fact that the United Nations Peackeeping force wasn't designed to intervene militarily, and that Rwanada was handled the best to the bet of UN ability wihtout support, he only strengthens my points.

A. Flawed Doctrine

Now, while I understand that the UN Peacekeepers were intended to watch and advise, they were also intended to intervene when the goals of the United Nations were being threatened in any of its member states (which is now pretty much the whole world). However, there is no way they can do so with the flawed doctrine of not being able to fight unless given the command from the UNSC. My opponent hasn't addressed this, and how could he? The United Nations Peacekeepers are flawed at their very core. They cannot keep the peace.

Kofi Annan, while hardly a credible man[9], did have a point. It should be as simple as this. Countries surrender their sovreignty in the United Nations if they do not support the goals in the Charter, at least in my opinion. However, this is not the case in the status quo. What should be a mission for humanitarian aid is blocked by a political game of cat-and-mouse, where countries are told they can't act unilaterally by the United Nations, and the United Nations is told it can't act multilaterally by the countries. The United Nations Peacekeepers are rendered...

B. Ineffective

My opponent tries to link this to the Mogadishu effect. He claims that the reason for the ineffective Peacekeepers is that they have no country support. I agree. But how does this support the idea that the UN is worth saving? It doesn't. As for Rwanda, I was not arguing that the men who did fight there didn't fight valiantly. My point was the flaw in the United Nations' system of doing things. There's simply too much politics involved when action is necessary on the ground. And the lack of support makes for ineffective peacekeeping. One could argue that even with the Peacekeepers' total lack of effectiveness, it was only a giant cash-sink and nothing more. However, these Peacekeepers are a...

C. Harm to Civilians

Peacekeepers are absolutely notorious for the amount of sexual abuse and scandals they have produced over the years. These range from the well known, and previously referenced, DRC[10] (A.k.a the "Rape Capital of the World") to the lesser known but equally detrimental U.N. "Sex for food" scandal, where Peacekeepers held food hostage from adolescent, and very hungry, girls.... until sexual acts were performed.[11] Other examples include scandals in Haiti, which ranged from a cholera outbreak to sexual abuse cases.[12]

So, yes, the United Nations has gotten a few things right with Peacekeeping... but they are far overshadowed by the examples of a confused and scrambled force, who is rendered useless by incompetent command structure, and instead spends their time raping underage girls.

Peace? I think not. But if the United Nations were to be abolished, then we could be rid of these awful acts we're allowing to be commited around the globe under a "legitimate" organization.


R2P

R2P was a great and noble goal of the United Nations that just simply fell short, just like practically everything else the United Nations has attempted. With the most glaring recent case being Syria[13], where the country's people were left to be tortured, persecuted, and slaughtered while the UN took its favorite course of action (that is to say, inaction) of bickering in the UNSC over political ambitions and the like.[14]

This is simple. The R2P is useless with the current construct of the Security Council, my point on which went largely ignored. Meaning...

UNSC

Dropped. (Although I assume we'll be hearing a rebuttal in my opponent's R3 speech.

Conclusion

The Goal of the United Nations is to support the goals outlined in the Charter. So long as it is shown to be harming these goals, there stands no reason why the United Nations should remain. (This is not to say that a public forum for international discussion is bad, but the United Nations is far too corrupt to wield the power it has.) The United Nations can deem a "success" whatever they like. However, the real success comes from whether or not the goals of the United Nations were promoted at the end of the operation... and, as I've shown, they aren't.

The United Nations is generally morally unsound, scandalous, and ruled by a tyrannic majority.

The UN Peacekeepers are being hampered, ineffective, and harming civilians.

The UNSC is stagnant and illegitimate, despite the R2P that supposedly "binds" them to action.

Abolition sounds good to me.


Sources:

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...;
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...;
9. http://tinyurl.com...;
10. http://tinyurl.com...;
11. http://tinyurl.com...
12. http://tinyurl.com...
13. http://tinyurl.com...
14. http://tinyurl.com...;
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JustinAMoffatt

Pro

My opponent has become inundated with life's tasks (mainly school), as we all do, and has apologized for not responding in time. I thank him for it and wish him best of luck in his education.

He has stated that he doesn't think he can finish with a standard to merit the debate we're having. But I would encourage him to try, anyways. I understand if life is just too much at the moment, and that's fine. However, it would be a shame not to finish after such a stellar performance and fun debate.

Now, without further ado, since there's not much else to say on my arguments, I will be recapping and reinforcing them, then I will give my final statements.

First, the points.


The U.N. is corrupt and twisted in general nature

From the UNGA to the HRC, anti-semitism and anti-Americanism runs rampant throughout the entire United Nations.[1] I've shown this to be true. Also, combined with scandals that have shaken even the strongest faith in the organization[2], we see that the UN is just harming itself in its own pursuit of the goals set in the UN Charter.

Peacekeeping

I have shown how the UN Peacekeepers have flawed doctrine, are innefective, and cannot be trusted with the innocent peoples of the countries where they operate. This is crucial. In order for any of the goals in the UN Charter to be effectively promoted, the Peacekeeping core, or the teeth of the UN, must be trained, effective, and of good character. These three adjectives can't, in any way, apply to the current United Nations' Peacekeepers. Even if they were shown to be effective a majority of the time, which they aren't, the fact that any failure is not only tolerated but paid for by honorable member states is atrocious. This is one of the greatest points in support of abolition of the United Nations.

R2P

The "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine that is so greatly touted by the United Nations is a sham. This is a fault that can be attributed to the poor makeup of the United Nations Security Council. With costant bickering and quarrels, the effectiveness and integrity of the council that is responsible for world security is called into question. The R2P is a nice thought, but not a real idea in the United Nations.

UNSC

I have also shown that the UN can't effectively promote world peace, arguably the greatest mandate in the Charter, with the current corrupt, selfish, and largely apathetic Security Council. As shown with Syria, the council tends to favor its own political interests, and is designed in a fashion that would allow such abuses, and even encourage them. This is an ugly deformity on the "democratic and fair" body of the United Nations. It allows for an oligarchial system in what should be a democracy, and doesn't allow the United Nations to fulfil its mandates.

Conclusion

We've seen the United Nations' Charter and the goals that were set for it nearly 70 years ago. These goals still remain unaccomplished to date. Why? Because the United Nations is a flawed system, with far too high goals. This would not be a problem (aside from practically inhaling countries' funds), except for the fact that the Peacekeepers, scandals, and blatant bigotry shown throught the organization are harming the people of the status quo.

Not only is the United Nations failing to do anything good, far from reaching its goals, but it also is harming the very things it stands for by promoting racism, sexism, scandals, sexual abuse, flagrant money-wasting, and general distrust and apathy.

Does this sound like an organization for the betterment of the world? It surely doesn't to me. No such organization exists.

It hasn't worked in the past. [3]

It's not working now. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

So vote Pro.


Thank you to my opponent for a great debate. It's always fun to have a truly worthy opponent and adversary. I hope that we can both make it to the future rounds in this tournament, and possibly debate there. If not, maybe we can debate again sometime, anyways.

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
10. http://tinyurl.com...
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Frankly I still think my standard in this debate was quite poor. I'd have preferred a live version, simply because most of my responses were really better suited for POIs as opposed to an argument... my form ought to have been much better...
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
Conduct to Pro for the forfeit.

Arguments to Pro because Con's forfeited rounds leave Pro with the superior arguments. I thought it was close after the opening round but Pro having a slight edge. Would have been nice to see the whole thing play out.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Thanks Orange :) I'm honored. I'd love to debate Stephen again, sometime. I really hope he's doing well.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
This was going so well! It'd be great to see the two of you redo this at some point, I was really enjoying it.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Sorry, I've been busy the last few days with exam results and university. I won't be able to finish this debate with a decent enough standard to merit the debate we are having.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
He can.

:P

But really... He can.
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
well done justinamoffart.....lets see if stephen can do good
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
JustinAMoffattStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G was equal. Sources were great on both sides. Conduct: FF...Arguments: Stephen, by FFing dropped all arguments while Justin maintained and continued his. His overall argument was better in the end.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
JustinAMoffattStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
JustinAMoffattStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
JustinAMoffattStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF Sad to say this was a great debate, but cons inability to respond to Pros final points gave his arguments more strength.