The Instigator
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
varsityLD
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 11/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,516 times Debate No: 5955
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

Metz

Con

I just Finished debating this topic as Pro and I want to try it as con. Because this is the LD topic I wish to structure it as such...

Because in LD Aff gets the first speech I will allow Affirmative to start.

The structure of this will be as follows...

Aff starts
Neg Case and rebuttal
Aff rebuttal
Neg rebuttal and conclusion
Aff Conclusion

Judging:
As this is to be a Values debate I ask that it be judged objectivly based on who presented better arguments. Also who's criterion came out to be superior and best fulfilled the Core Value that came out superior.(sorry this is a bad explanation)

Opponent:
I ask only one thing and that is some experience with LD style debate(essentially how it works and the structure)

Alright Thanks
varsityLD

Pro

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen I am varsity LD and this is my first online debate so please bear with me. I am going to try and keep these as cut and dry as possible since I'm limited so ill just give a value, a criterion list and explain my contentions and I will leave it at that.

My value for this debate is going to be Equality, and my value criterion for this debate is going to be that of the right to vote.

"All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince." It is because I agree with Plato that I must affirm the resolution. Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. For clarification the Affirmative offers the fallowing set of definitions.

Contention 1. No democratic society exists so don't bring up a country that has one.

Contention 2. Democratic societies cannot punish people because of their traits, for then it will be oppressionistic and unjust.

Contention 3. If a democratic society doesn't allow anyone within it's ranks to vote then it is no longer a democratic society

Right: Adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
Democratic: of or like or supporting democracy. In accordance with the principle of equal rights for "All."
Society: A body of individuals living as members of a community.
Felons: One who has committed a felony.
Vote: A formal expression of opinion or choice
Equality: The state or quality of being equal
Republic- state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Now, To begin with I would like to point out that the resolution deals with a democratic society, so a major point of this debate will be what is a democratic society. Allow me to explain, anything done democratically, or a democratic society is a society in which every single member of the society votes on every single issue in government. Now you may be wondering to yourself well how is that possible, and I am here to tell you that it virtually isn't. There is no country in the whole world whose type of government is simply democratic. The closest thing anyone in the world comes to a democratic society is that of a republic, which is essentially the U.S. So if my opponent attempts to bring up a democratic society that strips it's felons of the right to vote, then they must be either daft or ignorant, for I have just said that it doesn't exist.

My second contention is that democratic societies cannot punish people because of their traits. The essential building blocks of a democratic society is that liberty, and equality should be offered for all. How can you claim that everyone is equal, and at the same time punish people because of their qualities? You cannot! You cannot expect a minority of people to live and die on the whims of others for the rest of their lives simple because of their traits, or who they are. Being a felon is no different than being Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian. Being an felon is a trait. So if a society punishes people for being themselves than that society is no longer a just society.

My third contention is that if a democratic society doesn't allow even one member of it's society to vote, then it no longer a democratic society. The meaning of a democratic society as explained before is a society in which everyone votes on every little problem. However if even one person doesn't vote on the problem, then what does that make the society. Well, if I don't vote then technically someone similar to me who votes the same way as me would be essentially representing me thus changing the government to a tainted democracy, or even a form of republic. In lamence terms if a democratic society doesn't let a felon vote then it isn't a democratic society anymore.

So when asked if a democratic society "ought" to allow felons the right to vote, if the society wants to remain democratic it should. If the society wants to remain a just unoppressionistic one it should. Lastly if the society IT WOULD. So should democratic societies allow felons the right to vote the only logical, factual, Moral, and Just interpretation of the resolution lies with the Affirmative.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Con

Resolved: In a democratic society convicted felons ought to retain the right to vote.
I negate

I will first build my own case and then move to my opponents

my Core value for this debate will be that of Justice.
My Value Criterion will be the social contract.
The Social contact is a mutual agreement between the Government and the governed instituted to protect the rights of individuals in society. In exchange for the protection of Natural right the governed must accept restrictions of certain rights and must assume certain duties.

1st --Violation of Contract

Locke believed that the violation of the social contract negated the contract between the parties and entered them in a sort of state of war in which no rights were preserved. One of the things required of the governed in to uphold the laws and regulations put in place by society, So in this resolution the felons violated the social contract by not upholding the laws of Society so they are essentially allowing for the violation of their own rights and removal from society because, humans, being rational beings, made a conscious choice to not uphold the duties given to them by the government acknowledge that the government is not obligated to protect those rights. So By violating the Contact felons have essentially removed themselves from society and therefore must be considered as non-citizens to that society. Non-Citizens do not have the right to vote in a foreign country and that is how Felons ought to be treated. They are equal to non-citizens in that regard because just as the felons removed themselves from society non-citizens have not entered into the social contract.

2nd Contention--Double standard
If Felons are being allowed to vote we are creating a double standard by which the law breakers are also law makers. This also gives more rights to convicted felons because we are essentially telling them you can break the laws and still get all of the same rights. By this we would be condoning felony which would destroy society. This does not uphold the Affirmative core value of equality because we would be granting more rights to those who had disobeyed the social contract. This does not uphold either core value therefore felons should not vote. Because Humans are rational beings they are knowingly disobeying society and are essentially saying they are above society.

Now I will address the affirmative case.
Core Value: My Core Value of Justice is superior to the Core value of equality. The reason for this is the goal of every democratic society is to create justice and democracies believe they are the most just form of government making justice the superior Core Value.

Criterion: First of all I would like to point out that voting does not make a democracy therefore the right to vote is an invalid Criterion. Also the democratic society is based upon the social contract making it the most superior Value Criterion.

1st contention:
The democratic philosophy applies to republics as well. for example a representative democracy is a form of democracy making republics applicable in this debate.

2nd contention.
It is not punishment because of qualities because it would not punish a quality. the Social contract is a mutual agreement the felons broke their part. it doesn't matter who or what qualities they posses it is simply that they show a blatant disregard for society

3rd contention
So then according to my opponent he would allow children to vote... This would obviously destroy democracy.... Again a republic is a democracy and this idealistic society argued by my opponent cannot exist because it is impractical and impossible due to human faults. Not everyone will vote even if they can making this contention irrelevant. Also only around 5% of felons are even registered to vote...
varsityLD

Pro

ok Ladies and Gentlmen first im going to attack my opponents case and them i am going to strenghten the base of my own.

The first thing that i would like to point out is that my opponent is mis interperting the resolution. After reading the resolution thrice over I still fail to see were it mentions existing republics of any kind. The Resolution states and I quote "In a DEMOCRATIC society felons ought to retain the right to vote" Not in DEMOCRATIC Ladies and Gentlemen you cannot argue the resolution until you understand that you are arguing over a non existant society. I pointed this out in my Opening speech. Also my opponent explains how only 5 % of felons are registered to vote. I must ask in what DEMOCRATIC country? Surely you can't be speaking of the U.S. Its a republic! and this country not only strays beyond the scope of the resolution, but doesnt apply. Unless you can't prove to me that every single last person votes on every single last bill and amendment in the U.S, and that people are not appointed to take care of these things, then you can't prove the U.S is a Democratic society, so i pray you do not mention it again. If you take a moment to read the definition of republic, and of democratic in my first speech you will see that they do not have the same definition, so are not the same thing.

Also, your rebuttle to my second contention is that by stripping people of thier right to vote, you are not subjecating these people to oppression due to thier qualities. So let me ask you this. Is bieng a felon a quality? Yes. So by not allowing somone to vote because they are a felon in essence is not allowing somone to vote because of a trait, or quality that they posses. So by choosing these peoples leadership for them because of thier traits you are subjegating them to oppression because of who they are So my opponents argument is invalid.

Thirdly as addressed before i said that no democratic society exists in reality, so this debate is strictly moot. So when my opponent says that the society i am speaking of can't exist. I know, because i told you that in my first speech. Simply because the resolution brings up a non existant society doesnt mean it is our job to assume it means the next closest thing. We need to take the resolution for what it is. So if the resolution states a Democratic society then we assume that it is talking of a democratic society, and a democratic society is one in which everyone votes.

Now to attack my opponenets contentions

First of my opponent claims that according to John Lock everyone in a society makes a social contract to obey it's laws. However John Lock was also a firm beleiver in liberty and Equality. Waht my opponent is forgetting is that in a Democratic society voting is seen as a fundamental right. A fundamental right is a birth right that cannot be taken away under any circumstance. By stripping someone of this right the society is once again no longer democratic.

Now for the sake of the reader i must point out i am not saying that criminals should not be punished, because they should. However i am saying that punish them as you may you cannot remove their right to vote under any circumstance because you lack the authority to remove a brith right as you are not god, and because by removing this right you are breaching the integrity ad values of your society.

My opponents second contention is that by allowing criminals to break the law and retain their rights you are creating a double standard. But i must ask how so? The criminal is receiving thier punishment is that not enough for you? How do you suppose punishment should be handled. In a democratic society punishment is equal and opposite. you cannot give somone the death penalty for parking in a handicapped spot. these men have recieved thier punishment, and by stripping them of thier right to vote you are breaching the the rule of equal and opposite punishment

excuse me if this seems rushed but my tourny is tomorrow and i gotta right a neg myself toight so i hope i dint miss any thing
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Con

This may be rushed as well as I also have a tourney tomorrow...

I will First attack the affirmative case and move to fortify my own case then crystallize and offer my voters.
CV: My Core value of justice was not refuted allowing it to stand as the Core Value for this debate
VC: This was also not disputed so the social contract must be seen as the Value criterion for this debate

1st contention:TO start I would like to point out the definition of democratic according to the Princeton dictionary--Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves. The Democratic philosophy works for a republic system as well because the people vote on the representative which is known as a indirect democracy but a democracy nonetheless. So this point is irrelevant because if we are debating an impossible society why would we be debating a situation such as this?? The resolution applies to all democracies representative. or otherwise.

2nd contention: My opponent argued in defense of this contention that a felony is a quality. However this person chose to commit a felony. So they made an active choice to disregard society so it is a choice not a quality. so you are not oppressing them based on who they are, you are not oppressing them at all in fact, they are meeting justice. Also they are being punished for what they did not who they are.

3rd contention: First off all the rebuilding of this was a mis-quote of my point so I ask that you, as the reader and judge, look back to my response to the original point. Also a society cannot survice if it allows children to vote because then candidates would play towards children who would very obviously vote out of self intrest on points like "eliminating homework" This society would quickly die out.

Moving on to my own case

CV: unanswered
VC: Unanswered seen as accepted.

1st: my opponent contend that John Locke was also a firm believer in liberty and Equality. and so he would not advocate removal of rights. However if you will read the "Treatise of Two Governments" Locke says that the social contract is only valid as long as it is a mutual agreement. So the felons violated their part so they have voided the contract between them. Because Voting is a privilege of society(since you can't vote without a society) it is taken upon violation.

2nd: My opponent says that disenfranchisement is an unequal idea because they have already received punishment. However if Felons,who have broken the social contract, are given equal rights to those who have not we are creating an unequal society. If the rest of society has the same rights as a felon then those felons who have violated the contract, through such things as voter fraud, insurrection, Murder and terrorism are then elivated because they can commit a crime and still have the rights of everybody who has not.

Now to crystallize this debate and offer the voting issues.
As I can see it this debate has boiled down to four main issues which are my voting issues for this debate.

1st the idea of whether of not a democracy actually exists.
2nd whether or not the social contract advocated deprivation
3rd impact of democracy
4th social equality

Now the first of these can be seen to stand in my favor as I have fully refuted this point by saying a republic is a form of democracy therefore invalidating it.

The second, as i said earlier also falls in my favor, because John Lockes idea on violation of the social contract, also without a social contract man shall turn to right man and NO RIGHTS SHALL BE PRESERVED so a social contract MUST exist and it advocates deprivation of rights after breaking and removal from society.

The third falls quite clearly in my favor due to the fact my opponent would advocate allowing children to vote under his own case which would destroy society.

For the fourth we must look to my second contention. Here I quite clearly prove that allowing felons to vote is unequalk and therefore does not fulfill the Core value of my opponent as well as my own.

Thank you all

(just a note this is my last speech the last speech in the last round I will Just post a congratulations or something of the sorts)
varsityLD

Pro

Ok kiddies its 10:45 at night i gotta be at school at 5:00 in the morn to be at the bus and i still havent written my neg,(out drinkin) so im ganna make this snippy

My opponent seems to have picked up this thing were he refutes the points of mine he can, and leaves the rest in the trash however i wont allow him to do so

alrighty all attak him and solidify his own and then congradulate him,(cause in my 3 years of debating i have never had someone come this close to beating me or even giving me a run for my money so kudos to that) lets begin

Contention 1 Violation of Contract

Now my opponent has been saying according to John Locke this and according to John Locke that well i say who cares what John Locke says

John lock lived in the 1600's and simply because an old man writes a book saying how democracy should be, and saying how governments should function doesnt mean everyone has to fallow his rules. In the scope of equality John Locke is no better than me or you, or the felons. So because John Locke thinks they broke a social contract doesnt mean the people of the nation necesarily think so. and it doesnt mean the felons think so. YOU CAN'T PUNISH PEOPLE BECAUSE OF YOU PERSONAL BELIEFS. If that were true i would grab my shackles and make you my slave because by arguing with me your breaking the social contract that we has our own community share (according to me of course) So i (according to you and John Locke) can march on over to your house and throw you in shackles and reinstitute American Slavery because you broke the contract that i have with you. Of coursew (thank god) this kind of nonsense isn't common beleif. Also by ensinuating that you can take away somones GOD given right you must think that you are of equal or higher authority than thebig man himself. People who are readin this picture everyone in you freshman class i dont care who or how many people just make a picture. Now ask yourself who deserves the most amount of rights. Just from the picture of them, and the qualities they posses tell me or yourself what they are worthy of in life.

Wait! they just might all be equal as people. And you just might not have the authority to strip these people of thier rights because you say so. As my opponent implies if majority ruled all anyone has to do is get a partner an tell thier worst enemy to kill themselves because 2 people want them dead and as only one person themselves wants them alive they need to die as of immediatly. The fabric of society would fall apart if this was practiced.

Second contention Double standard.

OK my opponenet seems to beleive that law breakers can't be law makers because (once again) of who they are. Whye do i say this? Since my opponent doesnt want felons to vote and the only thing he knows about people is that they are felons he obviously doesnt want people to vote because of thier attributes. Fortunantly as exclaimed so many times earlier you cannot strip people of a god given right no matter who you are unless your god (and trust me if you unsure, or even if your sure. YOUR NOT GOD) These citizens who pay taxes and are members of this society deserve to have a say in thier government just like you and me. And if you don't like it then a Democracy is not the type of gvernment for you.

now to solidify my own aguments

Contention 1. False assumption

My opponent still argues a republic is a democratic society, and it is. However a democratic society is not a republic. Please do not allow the folly of Man breach the integrity of this debate. the Resolution says Democratic societies, thus meaning societes whose government or community or whatever the heck you want to call it, allows everyone to vote. Also as the Affirmitive i set the perameters and definitions for the debate in my oppening. Simply because the definition doesnt agree with you resolution doesnt mean you can go out and releive of my affirmational responsibility. Thus we will keep my definitions of the words So my contention still hold true.

Contention 2 Ill keep this one short my opponent says being a felony is a choice, so it is not an quality well i have this to say. Is bieng gay a choice? Yes are gay people not referred to as gay people? They are Is bieng a felon a choice? Yes, Are felons not Felons? Yes, Felons are felons. Is the word felon an adjective describing a person? Yes is black an adjective describing a person? Yes So is bieng gay or black an attribute? yes is being a felon an attribute? Yes is not allowing someone to vote because they are black oppressionistic against black people, thus punishing because of who they are? Yes Is not allowing a felon to vote because they are a felon oppresionistic, thus punishing them because of who they are? Yes. Ask yourselves these questions after you do that read my opponents argument and see if it makes sense hopefully you will use logic and see that it does not.

Third Contention: If a democratic society doesn't allow anyone within it's ranks to vote then it is no longer a democratic society

(Now this is the grand poobah liek the president of rebuttals r u ready good im excited SHAAAAAZAMMMMMM)

For example you want pizza 10 say yes 2 say no. O well 9 of the ten of you who want pizza dont count because u all went to jail once making you felons and felons don't vote I guess we don't get pizza then huh

see discriminating against people in the society allows the minority to rule the majority So you dont have a democracy any more buddy you have an Oligarchy

That is all i have to say an Oligarchy is a government ruled by a minority or a powerful few. While you may say well who says that felons are the majority of the society, well i say who says they aren't Since the resolution doesnt specify the Attributes of this Society it is safe to assume one way or the other, and in this case we will assume that they are a majority of felons.

Value and contentions now im grouping you criterean in with your first contention as i have been the whole time so i dint drop you criterean sorry i i forgot to mention, and your value of Justice supposrts my resolution more that yours. Were as you support Justice for only some i Support Justice for all so whether you wanna use your value or my value my resolution is still on top.

well thatraps it up congrats to my opponent you did a hella good job, and im kind nervous u might beat me and when i say you did hella good i mean u did hella good i wanna talk debate with you someday in the near future tomm night maybe on aim if u want im ugotzserved88

Thanks to the people for reading this whole thing i no how tedious it is i myself hate doin it. to anyone debating out and abraod please don't take my ideas, (well i guess you can but dont go against me with em hows that sound for fair eh lol) lastly

Ok people hugs and kisses LD out

P.S dont hodl the grammer against me pleases its late and i gotta get some sleeps no time to checks thnx
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
I don't doubt you are a good debater, but maybe your experience in real life made you a little over confident on the internet...?

I did not participate in debate in High School so I'd love to see you apply that Varsity LD experience! :)
Posted by varsityLD 8 years ago
varsityLD
thanks magani although i wouldnt have said "all that" i take your critisicism constructivly maybe you can read a couple of my speeches in the future (i lost BTW most of my battles) it seems you know a good argument when you see one.
Posted by xxelainexx0 8 years ago
xxelainexx0
I loved the 2AR. I'm definitely considering using his argument against the social contract, becase I have been looking for a good way to refute the social contract. I like the oligarchy argument as well.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Before/After debate: Pro
I firmly believe that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain (or at least regain) the right to vote after fulfillment of their debt to society.

Conduct: Con
Pro was amazingly condescending to both his opponent and the readers. Pro was neither tactful, nor courteous, and was also quite arrogant.

Spelling and Grammar: Con
Though both had a plethora of mistakes, Con's seemed more like typos, and Pro seemed to disregard all formalities including proper spelling and grammar.

Convincing Arguments: Con
Though I was not convinced, based on the merits of the debate Con won overwhelmingly. Pro presented arguments that would have definitely needed some sources, and provided none. He also deemed the resolution moot at one point, in essence conceding the debate. He chose to concentrate on another debate topic- whether or not a republic is a democracy, and failed to prove his point. Con, on the other hand, was very systematic. His sources- though not cited as a url link, are fairly known in this topic, ie. John Locke. He also skillfully presented a counter-source to the definition of democracy which should be common sense to the readers- a common sense that Pro dismissed as ignorance.

Sources: Con
Addressed above.

I really thought this was going to be a much better debate than it turned out to be in the end. Pro claims to be a veteran debater, but had no courtesy or humility. His treatment of his opponent and the readers was condescending... I don't know how he has survived in LD as "undefeated" as he proudly proclaimed...
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I love the oligarchy argument...

If you need ideas for an Aff/Neg case Tell me cause I have a ton of flows for this topic and have a TON of ideas
Posted by varsityLD 8 years ago
varsityLD
hey bud all im saying is that a democratic society can't discriminate against who people are being a commiting a felony makes you a felon the word felon is an adjective, thus a qality no different than bieng gay, or black or white, what i am trying to say is that not allowing someone to vote just because of who they are is wrong and discriminatory thus breaching the integrity of a democratic society.

For example you want pizza 10 say yes 2 say no. O well 9 of the ten of you who want pizza dont count because u all went to jail once making you felons and felons don't vote I guess we don't get pizza then huh

see discriminating against people in the society allows the minority to rule the majority So you dont have a democracy any more buddy you have an Oligarchy
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
I don't think Pro fully understands what a society is. A society is not necessarily a government or a country. A society could be a group of people. Democratic simply means that you vote and majority rule wins. For example, "Hey guys, what kind of pizza do you want?" "I want cheese" runs for four of the ten. "I want pepperoni" runs for five of the ten. The last person is exiled for ordering pepperoni last time...
In any case, this is an interesting debate. In both LD and debate.org.
Posted by Tinkerbell 8 years ago
Tinkerbell
I love this debate because I will be going to a debate tournament and this is our topic. I am pro because like the Pro said you can't just take someone's rights away. God made us all equal and we all make bad decisions.
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
wow mets good job at attacking his case. I liked yuor attack on his third contention the best. Just because they have a bad "trait" doesn't make it right. allowing them to vote won't make that "trait" go away. their technically like children like metz pointed out
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I would suggest maybe switching core value criterion... the point of a Criterion is to establish you core value essentially. Justice is a broad term so is very hard to prove without a criterion. Now you could use your criterion of fairness to prove the core value of justice. Also is this an Aff or a NEg case you are talking about??
Write the contentions to prove how they fit into your core value therefore proving your side of the resolution.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
MetzvarsityLDTied
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 erickishott 8 years ago
erickishott
MetzvarsityLDTied
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 
Vote Placed by slayer_b17 8 years ago
slayer_b17
MetzvarsityLDTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by varsityLD 8 years ago
varsityLD
MetzvarsityLDTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
MetzvarsityLDTied
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 toovogueforyou 8 years ago
toovogueforyou
MetzvarsityLDTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by sgtsledge 8 years ago
sgtsledge
MetzvarsityLDTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32