The Instigator
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Shield
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

Self-Determination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,343 times Debate No: 61268
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (10)

 

kasmic

Con

Topic: Self-Determination

Pro will argue the merits of Self-Determination
Con will argue the issues of Self-Determination

Burden of proof shared. Simply try to convince voters to be for or against Self-Determination on a global level.

Definition of terms:

Self-Determination: "The fundamental right of a nation or people of a given area to freely determine its own political status or form of government and to freely pursue its own cultural, economic, and social development without outside influence;independence."

Definition of Nation: "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own."(1)

Definitions as agreed upon prior to the debate.

Format of the debate.
Round one: acceptance
Round two: Opening arguments
Round three: Rebuttals and new arguments
Round four: Rebuttals and closing arguments.

Thank you Shield for accepting this debate and good luck to you.

(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Shield

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Con

Issues of Self-Determination

1: Identity
2: Borders
3: The Numbers/authority

1:Identity: "the qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from others."(1)

Identity can be effective at binding a group of people that share a territory, language, culture, and/or customs. It can also tightly tie together groups of people that share economic, political, and/or religious history. Self-Determination exemplifies the principle of identity as a group of people collectively decide together the type of government they will establish. While Identity binds a group together cohesively, it also often demonizes and alienates those who do not fit the identity.

I contend that if Self-Determination happened on a global scale we would see the emergence of several smaller nations that are built on identities of race and/or religion. Countries that would demonize and alienate other countries based on race and religion. Historically India and Pakistan are empirical evidence of this. When "home rule" was finally realized from the British, they separated from each other. Even though they share geographic and cultural roots, they were/are divided religiously. As a result, there has been little peace in this region of the world and tensions are typically high.

Identity is traditionally how the nations of the world began. Egypt, Israel, China, etc. The ancient world is empirical proof of the dangers involved. Many wars in the history of the world were fought based on race or religion. Even in Modern history, the Nazi"s identified as a supposed "pure" nation, and demonized and attempted to eliminate an entire race of people. Imagine if modern groups like ISIS or the KKK self-determined themselves a nation.

While we do still have these issues today, if self-determination happened globally, then these problems would exponentially get worse as they would happen all over the world.

2:Borders: "A line separating one country or state from another."(2)

Imagine if even just those nations currently pushing for self-determination were granted as they wished. Where would their boundaries be? Can current Sovereign nations be forced to give up their sovereign land to make room for these self-determined nations? The best example I can think of for this is Israel. The world took land from other sovereign nations and created a separate sovereign nation. Since the creation of Israel war has raged almost perpetually. Aside from whether or not this was a good thing, it certainly has resulted in war.

If self-determination happened on a global scale, then the deciding of boarders would present a huge problem and almost certainly start several wars.

3: The numbers/authority

Another issue with Self-determination on a global scale is numbers. How many people would be necessary to make a declaration of Independence from the country that they are separating from? What percentage of the people in that region would have to agree in order to separate? Who has the authority to answer those questions?

If self-determination happened on a global scale then determining legitimate breakoffs vs non legitimate break offs poses consistency issues. Self-determination on a global scale would require some type of global initiative or world government that would keep nations from not allowing groups to split off from them. This is not plausible.

Concluding opening arguments

Self-determination relies heavily on the principle of identity. This does unite strongly, however, it also divides just has strongly. Boarders pose a huge problem for self-determination on a global scale. Both of these reasons would likely result in continuous wars. Due to the numbers/authority global self-determination is not plausible.

Over to Pro.

(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Shield

Pro

Well said and thank you Con.

Pro Self-Determination:

1 - Self-Sovereignty and Association
2 - Peaceful Independence
3 - Escape from Oppression
4 - Alliances and Cooperation

Self-sovereignty: "the quality of living in accordance with one's inner nature or genius." (1)

1 - Every person is the sovereign of their own fate. At the root of self-sovereignty is the natural right of self-determination. Every person has the right to choose how they wish to live; every person has the right to associate with whomever they choose. And so the right to self-determination extends to groups of people. As persons choose whom to associate with, then an association of people may as well choose how it wishes to live, as well as with what other associations to associate itself with.

2 - It must be noted that self-determination of a group requires that the group reside within the area of the group, and that the group must then be a certain majority of the population of that area. In a world where self-determination would be applicable to any area, the people of each nation would decide the majority that any of its areas must internally attain in order to gain independence. In such a system, the majority would not be unattainably high nor would it be too easily attainable. This is because no person would want to limit themselves from possibly gaining independence with a group in a particular area, nor would any person want to make it too easy for their area to become independent without their support. Nations could as well merge with other nations by much the same method.

3 - Self-determination being the root of self-sovereignty, an area may become independent even without the express permission of the larger nation. If the larger nation becomes despotic or ignorant of the needs of an area in particular, then that area has a duty to throw off the chains of that larger government which bind them so as to provide the area with a more respectable government for its people. With self-determination, people choose how to live; that means they may choose whom to hate, whom to love, whom to shake hands with, and whom to shun. However, no person has any right to preemptively harm another person. If a nation were to internally oppress minorities of their own, the areas in which those minorities live would likely self-determine independence from the oppressive nation and optionally even join another consenting country entirely. As stated of an oppressed people in the United States Declaration of Independence, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (2) Thus, nations would need to be tolerant of their minorities or risk losing area, and thus international influence.

4 - On a Global level, as areas gradually gained independence, merged, gained independence, etc. the countries of the world would gradually become more internally peaceful through tolerance of belief or through unity in belief. In a Global system of self-determination, countries would be wary in neglecting people of other countries, because an equal reaction would likely reach them in return. Such reactions would hinder the neglectful nation's competition with other countries via sanctions, prevention of movement, etc. Thus, while some countries would inevitably become hateful, they would be wary to risk their own futures by acting on such hatefulness into neglect. This would all be due, of course, to the existence of alliances, the basic exercise of self-determination between nations, the choice of nations to associate with other nations in order to pursue national happiness. Alliances would as well impede the ability of authoritarian conquerors to unrightfully gain areas or peoples, authoritarianism being the forced determination of the fates of others, the direct opposite of self-determination.

Authoritarianism: "a form of social organization...opposed to individualism..." (3)

Back to you Con.

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://www.archives.gov...
(3) https://www.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Con

Rebuttals
1: - Self-Sovereignty and Association:

My opponent says
"At the root of self-sovereignty is the natural right of self-determination."
"every person has the right to associate with whomever they choose."

This is a nice sentiment, however not a truth empirically evident or plausible applicable in society. Consider, I was born in the United States; I did not choose to be born here. The Constitution, or in other words "social contract," that I am bound to, I did not sign. I did not negotiate the terms by which I am governed. I also am without the means to leave the society in which I was born. So here I am, trapped in a society I did not choose, subject to a contract I did not negotiate. I am seemingly powerless to change my circumstance much less choose it. That does not sound like sovereignty or self determination to me.

(I am happy to have been born in the USA and have no desire to leave... just to clarify. =514;)

2: Escape from Oppression

My opponent says

"- Self-determination being the root of self-sovereignty, an area may become independent even without the express permission of the larger nation. If the larger nation becomes despotic or ignorant of the needs of an area in particular, then that area has a duty to throw off the chains of that larger government which bind them so as to provide the area with a more respectable government for its people."

These words reflect the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. Again, this would seem ideal, and the United States did exercise self-determination to a degree at this time. However almost one Hundred years later when the South Seceded from the Union, they were denied the so called "right" to secede. The very nation that perhaps would serve as empirical evidence of the benefits of self-determination, no longer seems to trumpet that right. It does not seem plausible to believe that larger nations would willingly allow groups to become independent from them as empirical evidence has shown otherwise.

I would also point out that the U.S. was largely successful due to outside help from France. I am not currently aware of a case where the "oppressed" have been able to "throw off the chains" without outside help.

Pro goes on to say

"If a nation were to internally oppress minorities of their own, the areas in which those minorities live would likely self-determine independence from the oppressive nation and optionally even join another consenting country entirely."
Repeatedly the United States has served as empirical evidence that this is not the case. Did African slaves self-determine? Did women self-determine? Historically these groups have eventually received suffrage after generations of pushing for it. This route, while it takes generations to work, has proven effective comparatively to self-determination.

3: Alliances and Cooperation

Pro states;

"On a Global level, as areas gradually gained independence, merged, gained independence, etc. the countries of the world would gradually become more internally peaceful through tolerance of belief or through unity in belief. In a Global system of self-determination, countries would be wary in neglecting people of other countries, because an equal reaction would likely reach them in return."

These words reflect the idea of Reciprocity, which is defined as a "mutual exchange."(1)

Reciprocity is in fact a principle of international relations. This is evident as theories like, Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) have become prevalent. However it is also evident that the fear of reciprocal actions, do not consistently deter States actions. Take the current condition of Russia, the Ukraine, and the West collectively. Sanctions have been the reciprocal reaction to Russia"s involvement in Crimea, and yet Russia has not backed down. Likewise in this Utopia Pro has created; reciprocity, while a vital part on IR, is not consistently effective on its own and many nations would not be deterred by the threat of retaliation or trade embargo's.

Concluding rebuttal

While Pro"s argument for Self-determination seems ideal, it is unreasonable, and unrealistic. This is empirically evident through the numerous examples through history and the modern world.

I have no new arguments to present at this time, though am interested to see Pro"s contention to my opening arguments and refute my contentions to his argument.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Shield

Pro

Refutations [...]

of Round 2, Identity:

Identity can as well define a diverse group united in tolerance of belief. A group may be bound together cohesively in diversity. In the case of India and Pakistan, after those two nations gained independence, they could have then, if self-determination were to be respected at all levels, exercised further self-determination. The people united in tolerance of belief could associate into a nation of counterbalance to the people united in unity of belief. At all points in the process, each person would live in the nation they wished to live in, and all persons could move freely, in order to fulfill their liberty of personal self-determination. Such would be a long line of peaceful revolutions of nations.

The same goes for Nazi Germany and the Islamic State. If self-determination existed at the scale of areas of groups, then I contend that such societies would never have flourished because of the risk of loss of power by losing land and population. Thus, such instances of history would not repeat in increased density of time because such repetitions would be unfavorable to those wishing to repeat them. The Islamic State it is authoritarian because it is exercising determination of the lives and fates of unwilling individuals. Self-determination does not justify authoritarianism, as all liberties are meant to be respected unless they abridge the liberties of others, according to the Harm Principle. (1)

of Round 2, Borders:

If self-determination were to be respected at all levels, then borders would be defined by the independence, so long as they directly bordered the edges of the group's area.

of Round 2, The Numbers/Authority:

Each nation would, in a generalized fashion, determine the majority that would be needed in any of their areas if any such area were to attempt to secede. The people would not make the majority so high as to weaken their own chances of future independence, nor would they make it so low as for it to be too easy for their areas to secede without their support.

of Round 2, Conclusions:

Self-determination does not specifically rely on the permission of any government, though it is only easier if with permission.

of Round 3, Self-Sovereignty and Association:

The liberties of people are held as self-evident, in the empirical fact that we are beings of conscious thoughts and desires.
In a world where self-determination is respected, you could attempt to find a group in your specific area to attempt to secede from the original nation by attaining the required majority or by declaration of despotism and oppression.

of Round 3, Escape from Oppression:

The current authoritarian governments of the world are irrelevant to the right of self-determination in a yet-to-be free world. Also, if a nation is despotic to its minorities, then of that despotism the minorities may declare independence, without permission of the despotic nation, and is thus independent regardless, and thus fully able to form alliances with supportive foreign nations to further solidify that independence from the original despotism (such as with the US and France against the UK during the US War of Independence.)

of Round 3, Alliances and Cooperation:

Regarding Crimea, contrary to what anti-Russian propaganda would have us believe, Crimea exercised self-sovereignty from a, in their view, despotic government in Kiev, and, just as the US did with France in the US War of Independence, allied themselves with Russia which then helped solidify Crimea"s independence from the rest of the Ukraine. Simultaneously, Crimea also self-determined itself to be part of the nation of Russia, and the nation of Russia then began to defend its newly reformed border. The sanctions inflicted upon Russia for doing these things are a result of a despotic alliance of nations, the reverse of counteraction against an oppressive nation. I concede that Crimea's secession was not so great, for only 30% turned out to vote and only a simple majority of those voting caused the secession. (2) But we live not in the world that we could.

of Round 3, Conclusions:

The Pro's conclusions hinge on the idea that history will inevitably repeat itself and that such a universal acceptance of self-sovereignty cannot come to be; I contend that it may come to be based on the self-evident truths of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I also have no other arguments to put forward in this round, though I look forward to the next.

(1) https://www.princeton.edu...
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Con

Kudos to my opponent for a well thought out debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

Rebuttals

My opponent said "In the case of India and Pakistan, after those two nations gained independence, they could have then, if self-determination were to be respected at all levels, exercised further self-determination". At all points in the process, each person would live in the nation they wished to live in, and all persons could move freely, in order to fulfill their liberty of personal self-determination. Such would be a long line of peaceful revolutions of nations."

As I said in round three, "While Pro"s argument for Self-determination seems ideal, it is unreasonable, and unrealistic." In the specific case of India and Pakistan, people did migrate to the nation with which they would identify with more. "More than 5 million Hindus and Sikhs were forced to move from present-day Pakistan into present-day India, and the same number of Muslims, moved in the other direction. A large number of people (more than a million by some estimates) died in the accompanying violence. "(1)

Next my opponent applies the Harm principle. (I found this highly amusing as this principle is presented by John Stuart Mill, who"s likeness is my picture on this website.)

According to the link that Pro provided, the harm principle is summarized as "each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself."(2) However Mill goes on to argue "that individuals are prevented from doing lasting, serious harm to themselves or their property by the harm principle. Because no-one exists in isolation, harm done to oneself also harms others, and destroying property deprives the community as well as oneself."(2)

Pro concludes that argument by saying "Self-determination does not justify authoritarianism, as all liberties are meant to be respected unless they abridge the liberties of others, according to the Harm Principle."

Self-determination can devastatingly "harm" individuals and nations effected by it, as is clearly evident by the examples I have provided. Thus the "harm" principle is weak support for self-determination.

In response to my contention to self-determination by way of boarders pro states "If self-determination were to be respected at all levels, then borders would be defined by the independence, so long as they directly bordered the edges of the group's area." This does not resolve the issue I presented that "If self-determination happened on a global scale, then the deciding of boarders would present a huge problem and almost certainly start several wars."(empirically evident by India and Pakistan)

Likewise in response to my argument on Authority/numbers pro does not resolve the issue I present. He says "Each nation would, in a generalized fashion, determine the majority that would be needed in any of their areas if any such area were to attempt to secede. The people would not make the majority so high as to weaken their own chances of future independence, nor would they make it so low as for it to be too easy for their areas to secede without their support." I argued that this type of response is obviously not plausible.

Pro states "In a world where self-determination is respected you could attempt to find a group in your specific area to attempt to secede from the original nation by attaining the required majority or by declaration of despotism and oppression." No such world has ever or will ever exist where "self-determination is respected."

Conclusion

A world of self-determination on a global scale is a world that does not exist. Due to issues with Identity, boarders, and authority/numbers, such a world is not likely to exist. While the notion seems ideal, it is unrealistic and unreasonable. Pro contends that such a world "may come to be based on the self-evident truths of liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This too is mythology, as is evident from history.

Vote Con! Thanks Pro for a great debate.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)https://www.princeton.edu...
Shield

Pro

I affirm my contention that the Harm Principle does rightfully apply to the topic of self-determination because it prevents authoritarianism and thus protects the exercise of self-determination itself. I also affirm that just because the world is not how it could be, this doesn't mean that the world can't become what it could be. The history books show us how far mankind has progressed, and to assume that we will not enter a new era of enlightenment whereupon we more fully, as a world, embrace the sovereignty of the individual and thus the individual's absolute peaceful liberty, is unfounded and preposterous. And hence, to assume that the world's nations will never accept the idea of peaceful secession and agreed-upon independence from within, is as well unfounded and preposterous. The present example of the UK allowing a referendum on Scottish Independence is proof that such a world of peaceful transformations of nations may truly come to be. (1) I thus conclude that the Con's arguments are founded in the past, while my own are founded in the future, of which I believe not to inevitably be mere repetition of the past.

I believe both Con and myself have provided sufficient arguments for our separate stances on the matter of Self-Determination at the highest levels of society. I believe that the users, the sovereign people of this website, are free and ready to exercise their most serene liberty of self-determination, so as to support that very liberty. So, vote with your hearts; vote for Pro. And remember, as a nation of free people, you all will decide the matter, by your individual votes, as a nation of users on this website.

Great debate, Con! It was a very interesting and thoughtful debate. I appreciate the kindness.

(1) http://scotreferendum.com...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
An interesting debate.

Con brought up some very good problems with the notion of self-determination on a global scale, and Pro tried his best to defend it on liberty grounds and also to rebut with what were, honestly, kind of pie-in-the-sky ideas that went against Con's history (india/pakistan).

But where Pro lost is, he never attacked the status quo on the same grounds he defended self-determination. Because Con never really outlined, specifically, what he was suggesting in lieu of self-determination. Pinning him down on THAT could have brought the debate more into the realm of weighing pros and cons, both philosophically and practically, of competing positions. Instead, the status quo is the implied position of Con, but what the implications of that are weren't explored in any real depth and Pro spend the whole debate scrambling to defend self-determinism.

Fundamentally, any political system or way of creating borders is likely to have problems--that's not bias, I think that's just an acknowledgement that there are few perfect solutions in the world. What Pro, I think, needed to do to score a win in this debate was show that self-determination would cause less problems than the alternatives (if he could), and he never did that. As such, Con's attacks on self-determinism seem largely to stand. Pro's notes on liberty were good, but not enough to overcome the practical problems that Con noted. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

This debate could have done with a little more clarity on the topic itself by the end and on the burdens of each debater in order to win. Much as there was a clear definition at the start of the debate of self-determination, I think that by the end there is at least some uncertainty as to how I should be examining the outcomes of applying self-determination globally. Maybe it's due to the varied tones presented by the two debaters, as well as the very different foci of each of your arguments, but I wasn't even sure you were both arguing on the same topic by the end of the debate, despite the fact that self-determination was still involved that far in.

That aside, there seems to be a number of issues at play, so I'll go through them briefly.

1. Identity/oppression

Self-determination is effectively viewed here as being used as a method of oppression or alienation, utilizing secession as an opportunity to focus on the wants of certain subsets of the population while ignoring those of the minorities. Con offers several examples of this, and I believe those stand by the end of the debate, as does much of his analysis here.

Much of Pro's responses here don't establish a solid benefit to self-determination. Both sides agree that identity can be a good thing, but it's up to Pro to state why it's beneficial, and I don't see that argument. I see a point about self-sovereignty, which I agree with Pro isn't effectively linked to self-determination, but more importantly still lacks those fundamental links to a definitive impact. It sounds all well and good, but I don't see any portion of this argument that actually states why they are important.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

The point that self-determinism creates routes to escape oppressive regimes is a decent argument, but it lacks any evidence beyond, possibly, that of Crimea, which is an example that ends up managing to at least confuse the issue of what is and is not considered an oppressive government and therefore what suffices as justification enough to secede. It sounds all well and good, but it also seems to be an easily exploitable method. I also fail to see how oppression suffices as any more than a reason for secession, as the problem of seceding and actually getting land and resources in the process is something that most countries don't readily allow.

All told, I buy that the physical realities support Con's case best here, as minorities, irrespective of their size, are placed in the distinctly awful position of being excluded as those around them build a unified identity.

2. Borders

This is probably Con's best link story in the debate, and it makes sense. A group seceding from a given country is going to take a certain amount of land. That group may be diffuse in the population, and as such, may want to call quite a bit of that land home. Should they be denied access to that land, or should the country itself be denied in favor of self-determination? Pro provides no response to this problem. Admittedly, Con doesn't put a solid link between that and the impact he cites from Israel (the infighting that's lasted so long is mainly the result of Palestinian desires to return to their homes, and Israeli views that the whole of the country is their home), but it still makes sense that this would lead to some level of discontent and anger, and the result of that may be violence.

3. Numbers/authority

This presents another good question, but has no real impact. A lack of consistency might matter a great deal, but that harm should have been stated. A global initiative might have a problem as well by setting things in stone, but that requires explanation.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

4. Peaceful Independence

I really don't understand how this argument is supposed to function. The fact that peaceful independence can occur doesn't mean that it's beneficial for it to occur in place of status quo unity with disagreements. Yes, this can lead to a number of different outcomes, but none of what's stated here showcases any sort of benefit. In fact, this argument seems just to be an effort to mitigate cases of violent independence, which never seemed to be a major part of Pro's case anyway.

5. Alliances and Cooperation

The links here are just incredibly weak. It seems as though there are two points being made here: 1) that these alliances prevent instances of oppression, and 2) that as such more self-determination leads to less oppression. In both cases, I just don't see it. The idea that oppression is stopped as a result of pressure put on by other nations is effectively countered by Con's example of Russia, and Pro's response to that misses the point. The idea that self-determination will somehow erase oppression seems even to be countered by Pro's own point that oppression is on the way out anyway. If I buy that, why should I buy any of your points about how it will be reduced by these means as well?

Conclusion:

Overall, I found that much of Con's points were extremely limited in their scope and seemed to simply ask questions instead of providing answers for how badly things would actually go. Nonetheless, I get a sufficient story from him to believe that harms would come from this kind of system. Pro's case has a larger scope and more answers, but fails to address much of Con's case, and worse yet, is itself built upon a shaky link structure with little or no impacts to float on. Ergo, I vote Con.
Posted by Shield 3 years ago
Shield
I was wondering that too.
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
kasmic
@blackkid what were the "holes" in my arguments?
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I'll vote on this when I get off work.
Posted by Shield 3 years ago
Shield
And Sam, in regard to the nazis, I covered that with the fact that we were debating self-determination of a global level, thus if another nazi germany were to arise, then areas could declare independence and thus take away area and power from that new nazi germany. i think there is confusion as to the topic that was actually being debated here.
Posted by Shield 3 years ago
Shield
Then it is up to the nation to deal with that issue. I have no answer for you, as there are many possible solutions.
Posted by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
"Every person is the sovereign of their own fate. At the root of self-sovereignty is the natural right of self-determination. Every person has the right to choose how they wish to live; every person has the right to associate with whomever they choose. And so the right to self-determination extends to groups of people. As persons choose whom to associate with, then an association of people may as well choose how it wishes to live, as well as with what other associations to associate itself with."

What happens when the person chooses to discriminate against a minority? For instance, the people who run a bakery have the right to live the way they want to live and associate with whom they want to associate with. What happens when they don't want to be associated with the minority in the region and choose to discriminate against them?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
kasmicShieldTied
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: Con's arguments never really seem fully addressed by pro. Con showed several problems with self determinism and pro seemed to be ducking the arguments by barely mitigating con's points. The benefits of self determinism seem very idealistic and not practical as con pointed out as well.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 3 years ago
mishapqueen
kasmicShieldTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's stated voting criteria was "Simply try to convince voters to be for or against Self-Determination on a global level." So, I will vote accordingly. Pro convinced me throughout the debate that self-determination is probable, and exists in the world today. Con was close, but he wasn't quite as convincing to me.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
kasmicShieldTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
kasmicShieldTied
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
kasmicShieldTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: When I started reading this debate, I knew little to nothing about the topic. Therefore it was very difficult for me to figure out who to vote for after I read this debate through. Both sides gave valid examples, both historical and modern. I feel that this debate was too close for me to vote fairly. Good job to both sides.
Vote Placed by Hlinnerooth 3 years ago
Hlinnerooth
kasmicShieldTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything is pretty much tied, but Pro had more convincing arguments, even if they did sound a bit Utopian...
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Mister_Man
kasmicShieldTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I give arguments to Pro as he formed great arguments and disputed Con's arguments for the most part, except for his historical example, whereas Con was unable to dispute Pro's arguments as well and had a couple flaws in his own. I give sources to Con though as he provided a couple that Pro was unable to dispute, or did a poor job trying. Great debate, and a good read!
Vote Placed by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
kasmicShieldTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pretty good debate. Pro did not fully refute the historical example of the Nazis which is an extreme case of self determination and shows the dangers when a large group of people can freely follow/push their cultural/social customs. Other than that, it is pretty much equal.
Vote Placed by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
kasmicShieldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I did not agree with and found holes in Con's reasoning that resulted in questions of structural integrity in the arguments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
kasmicShieldTied
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: con's strongest points with the historical examples were largely irrefuted. Good try tho, pro.