Should The NSA Be Allowed To Spy On Legal Law Abiding Citizens?
Debate Rounds (2)
I would like to clarify that I am playing Devils Advocate here. Hard. I won't post an argument in R1 because my opponent didn't either.
Bray5234 forfeited this round.
Oi... Vote 4 me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I placed a vote before, but it was removed for a violation of the rules. This is a slightly edited version that follows the rules, and with one adjustment to how I voted. Before the debate, I agreed with Con that the NSA should not be allowed to spy on legal law-abiding citizens. After the debate, I still agree with Con, since neither side made any arguments, which I will discuss shortly. (To be more accurate, I agreed with what Con was arguing, since Pro was playing devil's advocate. I don't know if Con was or not.) Pro had better conduct, because Con forfeited 1 round, but Pro didn't forfeit any rounds. I was able to read both Pro's and Con's statements with ease, so they tie for spelling and grammar. Con and Pro tie for both convincing arguments and reliable sources, because neither of them made any arguments, nor did either of them use any sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.