The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Southern Libya Is A Nice Vacation Destination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,768 times Debate No: 16967
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

MasturDbtor

Con

Rules:
1. Pro has burden of proof.
2. Pro must convincingly argue that southern Libya as it is right now is a nice vacation destination.
thett3

Pro

The situation regarding Libya is indeed a serious one, however it does not mean that Libya is, in every case, no longer a good vacation destination.

Before I give my definitions and contentions, I have a few observations to make.

Observation one: This resolution is subjective, and not specific. It does not specify to whom Libya would be a good vacation destination for. It does not state "in general" or "on balance", it merely states that Southern Libya is indeed a nice vacation destination. If I, as the pro can prove that Southern Libya is a nice vacation destination for anyone in any situation, than this resolution must be affirmed. The Con must show that Southern Libya, in all cases, is not a nice vacation destination and refute the example I give.

Observation two: The resolution states Southern Libya. The Southern area of Libya is know as the Fezzan[1]. All of the areas where fighting is currently taking place between the coalition supported rebels and the pro-Gaddafi forces are located in Northern Libya [2] so any arguments based on the civil war are not topical. (especially since the Con specified in the rules that we are speaking of southern Libya as it is right now, so any arguments about the war reaching the Fezzan in the future are also non topical.)

Definitions:

Vacation: An extended period of recreation, esp. one spent away from home or in traveling. (merriam webster)
Nice: Pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory (merriam webster)
Recreation: an activity or pastime (the freedictionary)
Home: the place where one lives (dictionary.com)

Contention one: There are many people who's current homes are in a worse situation than Southern Libya is currently.

Sub-point A: People living under genocidal or failed governments.
Take for example the Genocide going on in Darfur. According to the United Human Rights Council [3] the Darfur region of Sudan is currently experiencing a genocide in which "More than one hundred people continue to die each day; five thousand die every month" and the genocide has taken a total of "400,000 lives". The entire Libyan Civil war (almost all of which is taking place in the north) has claimed 10,000 lives according to Libya's National Transitional Council[4] (and this is the highest estimate of lost lives I could find.) In Darfur 10,000 people are killed in a mere 2 months! Surely the people who make Darfur their home would find it agreeable to Vacation to Libya, where few deaths by comparison are taking place, especially in the South which, as I've previously mentioned, has no fighting currently taking place in it.

Another example can be found in Somalia where the central government has failed and has not had total control of the country "since 1991"[5]. Somalia is an extremely poor country, with 43% of the population living on less than a dollar a day, and the per capita GDP being $600. Libya, in contrast, enjoys a "low rate of absolute and relative poverty"[1] and has a per capita GDP of $11,314. Clearly, Libya is a better place currently than Somalia so surely Somalians would find it pleasant to visit Libya, a better place even if only for a short time.

Sub-point B: Prisoners
It is estimated that 9.25 million people world-wide are imprisoned[6]. Seeing as the purpose of imprisonment is to confine and punish individuals for their crimes, it's logical to assume that the vast majority of these prisoners would want to be free from their prison, even if for a very short time. Since prisons are considered the homes of the prisoners (since they live there) any agreeable or pleasant travel to Southern Libya by prisoners would be considered, by definition, a "nice vacation".

Contention two: Supporters of Gaddafi trapped in the Northern part of Libya (controlled by the rebels).
The Southern Part of Libya is still controlled by Gaddafi's forces. [2] so any supporters of him, who are now being ruled by hostile rebels would surely want to link up with their comrades in the south. It's clear that there are supporters of Gaddafi living in the North[7] so I'm sure a vacation to Southern Libya that their allies still control would be most agreeable.

In conclusion because of the wording of the resolution, the Pro only has to prove how Southern Libya would be a nice vacation destination in ANY case, not in general. In order to win this round the Con must refute all of my examples and show how Southern Libya is never, in any circumstance, a nice vacation destination. Since I have proven that to some people, it would be nice, I strongly urge you to affirm.

I look forward to my opponents response.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.unitedhumanrights.org...
4. http://www.presstv.ir...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.kcl.ac.uk...
7. http://www.deccanchronicle.com...
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.

=The Social Context of the Words In The Resolution=

I disagree with Pro's contention that because of the wording of the resolution that he only has to prove it is a nice vacation destination in ANY case. This completely ignores the social context of the words. "Nice" has social meaning as does "vacation". Put together it also impacts their meaning. Even if was a nice place to do business or a nice place to flee a problem that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about a place that is amenable to enjoying time "vacationing". The concept people have of vacation is relaxing and having fun. In this sense "nice" is relative to the places in the world to vacation at and the ability for people to experience "vacation" at them. There is also a relative dimension within the social meaning. Even if something is marginally enjoyable that doesn't make it "nice" according to social convention. People only call it "nice" if they would consider going there(finances not considered) and won't consider going there if there are other places to vacation at that are way better and would not be refering to it as "nice" in that case.

=Civil War Is Still Topical=

Just because the Civil War isn't there yet and just because I am speaking of "Right now" does not mean it is not topical. It is still topical as it relates to those things in the resolution that are topical and it does relate. The potential for it to move south impacts whether or not southern Libya is a nice vacation destination right now. The mere fact that the Civil War could spread there DURING the duration of the vacation is enough to make it not a nice place to vacation.

In a state of civil war either side would find foreign tourists suspicious, but with the world largely siding with the rebels Gaddafi's side would find the tourists especially suspicious. Tourists could be arrested, imprisoned, or even killed based on these suspicions. That's not a nice way to end a vacation.

And no matter whether you are in rebel territory or Gaddafi territory the fighting is ongoing and it's possible you could be attacked at any moment. The pro-Gaddafi forces are especially ruthless and in the heat of battle are unlikely to care that you are a mere tourist.

Even if nothing bad happens having to spend your whole vacation with the looming possibility of these things is not a very nice location for vacation. It's hard to relax when whereever you are staying the civil war might come and turn itself towards you, and when all the people you run into are anxious about the civil war and too distracted by it to do anything fun.

Addressing Subpoints:
Considering the perspectives of the people in the prisons, failed states, or areas of genocide while they would likely latch on to a chance to escape to southern Libya it would be unlikely they would be going there thinking of the "nice vacation" they are going to have. In particular from the perspective of prisoners they'd be too busy figuring out the best way to conceal their identities. For the others and maybe also for the prisoners they would be focused more on figuring out how to 1. survive the new situation and/or 2. Get out of Libya. Even if they are greatful to have escaped an even worse life they're not going to start "vacationing". They will have too much work cut out for them. For them it would not be a vacation.

Gaddafi's supporters if they escaped to Southern Libya would not be vacationing either they would be joining up with their "comrades" to help them fight the rebels.
thett3

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate!

Now I will refute the formidable objections raised by my opponent.

Rebuttal:

1. On the Social Context of the Words In The Resolution.

While I agree with my Opponent that "nice" and "vacation" both have social context, I contend that the context is impossible to truly define, and that we could argue all day about the social context behind these words. The fact of the matter is that I have clearly defined the words "vacation" and "nice" from a reputable dictionary, and my Opponent has not. Vacation is clearly defined as "An extended period of recreation, esp. one spent away from home or in traveling", recreation is clearly defined as "an activity or pastime" and nice is clearly defined as "Pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory" so all of my examples still are, by definition, examples of "nice vacations". My Opponent does not provide any source, evidence, or definition of the social context of these words, only his personal opinion and thus his claim is invalid.

2. On the topicality of the civil war.

My Opponent clearly stated in the first round that "Pro must convincingly argue that southern Libya as it is right now is a nice vacation destination". Since I, as the Pro, must argue that Southern Libya is a good vacation spot "right now" than any arguments based on the future or past from either myself or my opponent are invalid. My Opponent also states that "The potential for it to move south impacts whether or not southern Libya is a nice vacation destination right now". That is not a topical argument, because as he stated in the very beginning we are discussing Southern Libya as it is RIGHT NOW. We are NOT discussing the future of Southern Libya by any means.

3. Danger to tourists during the civil war

Firstly I contend that Gaddafi's power in the South is largely gone, he no longer has the soldiers to spare to "arrest, imprison or even kill tourists". Indeed, one of Gaddafi's generals who has defected, General Melud Massoud Halassa stated "Thousands of members of the armed forces have defected or deserted, especially over the past two weeks. There are defections every day. Everyone who gets an opportunity grabs it," and Gaddafi's army is estimated to only be 1/5th of it's original size.[1]. Gaddafi does not have enough soldiers to spare to arrest and guard prisoners. The Con might state that Gaddafi could still kill the tourists, and I say it's true that that's a possibility but it is unlikely. Indeed, Gaddafis forces captured and later released three Dutch marines.[2] These men were enemy combatants, and they were not killed, so why would Gaddafi waste time, ammunition, and harm the morale of his troops just to kill innocent tourists? I would also ask my Opponent to explain why Gaddafi would kill innocent tourists (thus committing war crimes) when many (such as Senator John McCain) are already calling for him to be tried for war crimes.[3].

My Opponent attacked my first contention, stating "Considering the perspectives of the people in the prisons, failed states, or areas of genocide while they would likely latch on to a chance to escape to southern Libya it would be unlikely they would be going there thinking of the "nice vacation" they are going to have." With this attack he is using his personal definition of vacation. But since all of my examples match up with the criteria given in my definitions to be "nice vacations" they are still valid, even if my Opponent (or you judges) don't see it that way.

He attacked my Contention two stating "Gaddafi's supporters if they escaped to Southern Libya would not be vacationing either they would be joining up with their "comrades" to help them fight the rebels."

Again, vacation is specifically defined as "An extended period of recreation, esp. one spent away from home or in traveling", and nice is defined as "Pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory". So here's an example: a Gaddafi supporter who's home is in Northern Libya travels to the South voluntarily to escape persecution from the rebels. Since it is an agreeable journey away from ones home it is, by definition a nice vacation for these people. And even if we accept my opponents argument that Gaddafi supporters would go south to help fight the rebels, it is irrelevant because recreation is defined as "an activity or pastime", and fighting is an activity.

In conclusion: My Opponent was not careful with the wording of the resolution when he instigated this debate. It states "Southern Libya is a nice vacation destination". It does not (nor does he state in the opening round) to whom it is nice, how often it is nice, or "in general" or "on balance" it is nice. The Pros job is to show examples where Southern Libya can be considered a Nice Vacation destination. If the Pro can do that, than this resolution must be affirmed. I ask the judges not to vote on whether or not they personally would vacation to Southern Libya, but rather vote on if I have provided specific, valid examples of times where Libya could be considered "nice". Thank you, and please affirm.

Sources:
1. http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Con

I remind Pro he has the burden of proof and must adequately refute all of my objections.

Counter-Rebuttals:

1. Everyday Speech Is More Authoritative Than the Dictionary & "Nice Vacation" As A Social Concept Can Only be Objectively Understood According to Its Meaning in Common Parlance

A dictionary is jut a reference book. Dictionaries do not decide what things mean they record how people in a society use words. When making a dictionary the writers aim to capture the way words are actually used. If they fall short that does not mean the meaning of the word has been changed by the dictionary, it means the dictionary got it wrong. Common parlance is more authoritative than a dictionary, since even dictionary writers recognize its authority by trying to translate common parlance into written definitions of words.

Since "vacation" and "nice" and hence "nice vacation" are essentially social concepts it only makes sense to define them according to their social context, that is to say according to the way people use these words in common parlance.

Pro contends the context is impossible to truly define. I disagree. Pro claims that this is only my personal opinion. Again, I disagree.

Pro is relying on a false dichotomy between the material world and the social world. Human beings are made up of matter, making all social things we come up with material. Social things just like other things can be observed, measured, and quantified. That's why we have social science. If only one person uses a word a certain way and everybody else a different way we can still say that from a social standpoint it is objectively true that the word means what the vast majority uses it for.

Although an individual may use "nice vacation" in a different way that would be a subjective meaning of "nice vacation". It is potentially plausible to say that something is a "nice vacation" objectively in relation to how our society has created these concepts. Since a debate about something subjective wouldn't make sense it stands to reason to anyone participating in a debate to assume it is centered around the term used in an objective context. "Nice vacation" can only have an objective meaning if we are talking about its meaning according to how it has been defined by society, that is to say it is objectively true that something is a "nice vacation" according to how people in society use the phrase.

http://www.articlesharer.com...

Vacations were taken mostly by elitists in the early 19th century and took off from there. It's definition has evolved and has been shaped. While it is possible that "Vacation" will acquire new meanings in the future society as a whole has one objective meaning for it right now. Social meanings are tricky, because it can be hard to put them into precise words, but they still carry objectivity.

A Gaddafi supporter running away to southern Libya can choose to call it a "vacation". However, this is only possible if the Gaddafi supporter is personally defining the word "vacation" in a way other than the common usuage. Most people would not consider "going away to hide" or "fighting" to be a "vacation". It doesn't matter if people who wrote a dictionary thought that was good enough to define as "vacation". The fact remains that the vast majority of people do not and since "vacation" is a social concept the meaning given to it by society weighs more than the meaning given by the dictionary writers.

As for "nice", a word overused loses its meaning and human beings are acutely aware of this. Hence even if you went on vacation everywhere in the world before that one and found all of them enjoyable it would be unlikely for you to call everyone of them a "nice vacation", since then there would be no point in using the word "nice". If you said "nice vacation" for any of them it would be to distinguish it in comparison to your other vacations.

This has nothing to do with "personal definitions". Whether or not "Southern Libya is a nice vacation destination" for a given person depends on whether or not they experience it as a "nice vacation" according to the socially objective meaning of "nice vacation". A person may call it "nice vacation" based on a more personal meaning but the question is whether the person would call it that if they were using the same definition that is used in everyday speech. As an example, fun is clearly part of the social definition of a "nice vacation", so if a person goes somewhere has absolutely no fun and then calls it "nice vacation" it does not make it a "nice vacation" any more than it would make it a "banana" if they called it a "banana".

2. Pro is making a false dichotomy fallacy.

Just because are talking about the present doesn't make everything about the future is non-topical. It means that it must pertain to the present in order to be topical. Just because something is about the future does not mean it can not also be about the present.

To illustrate what I'm saying:

If you are vacationing somewhere and there's no civil war there but there is elsewhere in the country that fact alone would make you worried. The people there would also be worried and anxious and talking about how it could potentially spread. It doesn't matter if the civil war actually is there now or not. You can't have a nice vacation while you and everyone around you is worried that any moment the civil war could come to them.

To put it another way:
A civil war does not have to be present at the same time and place that you are present in order to effect your psychology and your psychology is part of the present.

3.

Pro contends that Gaddafi no longer has the soldiers to spare to "arrest, imprison or even kill tourists".

Even if that's true do the tourists know that? If you didn't know that the anxiety would ruin your vacation.

Furthermore while Pro does make a strong case that Gaddafi would have no reason to target tourists the possibility of accidentally harming tourists exists. What if you look similar to a rebel spy or military leader? Or what if Gaddafi thinks the hotel you are staying at is secretly being used to store weapons for the rebels and bombs it?
thett3

Pro

To conclude this debate, I will answer all of my Opponents objections and show who they are invalid, but before I do that there are some things I must point out about this debate.

I. As the Pro, I only have to show a single example where Southern Libya could be considered a nice vacation. My Opponent challenged this in his second speech, and I refuted his objection. In his final speech he said nothing against it, thus dropping my argument that I only have to give one example of a nice vacation in Southern Libya to affirm this resolution. Since my Opponent agrees with me on this (shown by how he dropped it) then even if you, judges, do not personally agree with my observation about the wording of the resolution since my Opponent agrees with me, for the purposes of this round my observation is valid.

II. In debate rounds, dictionary definitions are more important than the social context behind words. This becomes obvious through experience, I'm sure we've all experienced a round we either we or our Opponent did not give a definition and that seriously harmed their case. Even if they claim to accurately represent the "social context" behind words, without a proper source proving their claim it is invalid! My Opponent has not backed up his claim of the social context of resolutions with any evidence and so, for the purpose of this debate, it must be considered invalid.

III. This resolution is subjective. If you look at other debate resolutions, they are never subjective. Countless examples of this exist such as "the United states SHOULD..." "Cyberbullying SHOULD..." "Capital Punishment SHOULD..." ect. They all have an action involved, thus both sides can have ground to state why this action should or should not be done. The few that don't have phrases such as "on balance" or "in general" in front of them (to prevent what is happening in this debate from happening, that is, if they did not have those phrases which this resolution does not the affirmative would only have to give one example where the resolved is true.) one example is "On balance violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.". No true resolution is worded like this one is, again like I've stated (and my Opponent agreed with) I must only prove ONE example where Southern Libya can be considered a nice vacation destination and thus this resolution cannot be negated.

IV. While I understand that one of the terms of accepting this debate was that I had the burden of proof, I still feel the need to point out that in all three rounds my Opponent has only given a single source, as opposed to my 10.

Now, to my Opponents objections.

1. The Context of the words "vacation" and "nice".

My Opponent contends that the everyday use of words and the dictionary definition can be different. I completely agree. He also contends that the social context is more important. On this, I completely disagree. I believe that we could argue all day about the importance social context v. definition of words, however in a debate round the dictionary definition is by far more important. Indeed in this Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas debate[1] is states "take a look through some dictionaries and define the words or phrases in the resolution". Notice, it explicitly mentions DICTIONARIES for definitions, saying nothing about the social context. Another example can be found in this Guide to Public Forum debate[2] "If the topic were "Resolved: Free Trade benefits all nations." it would be vital to understand the concept of free trade. A definition from an economics or legal dictionary, or an encyclopedia would be preferable to a standard definition." notice, again NO mention of social context. Thus in a debate round the dictionary definition of words is supreme. Since all of my examples of "nice vacations" fit with my definitions, and definitions from dictionaries outweigh social context in debate rounds, they still stand and I win this round.

2. The topicality of the civil war.

In the rules stated in the first round, my Opponent stated "Pro must convincingly argue that southern Libya as it is right now is a nice vacation destination." The keyword in this is "right now". This means that the civil war (which has not yet reached the South) is non-topical. My Opponent contends that "If you are vacationing somewhere and there's no civil war there but there is elsewhere in the country that fact alone would make you worried." In reality, yes but since we are debating about Southern Libya "right now" that means that the future does not have any relevance in this round. Since we're debating about Southern Libya "right now" it would be as if the condition stabilized to as it was when this resolution was created. Thus my Opponents objections about the civil war are invalid.

3. Gaddafi has no motivation to harm tourists.

I've stated before (and my Opponent even agreed that it was a strong case) that Gaddafi has no motivation to harm tourists. Indeed he doesn't have the soldiers or supplies to target innocents, nor the credibility. Already there's a strong possibility that he will be tried for war crimes if he loses the war (which is very likely) and in killing innocents he is just writing the Prosecutions case against him! And as my Opponent has stated, the world remains strongly in favor of the rebels, however if Gaddafi treats tourists kindly he could possibly weaken that favor, and even weaken the Coalition efforts against him!

In Conclusion:

The Pro side has won this round because I have shown many specific examples of where a trip to Southern Libya could be considered, by definition, a "nice vacation". My Opponents main objections to this revolved around the social context of the words in the resolution, and I have adequately refute this argument. In judging this round, please take into consideration my Observation I made in the first round (that my Opponent dropped, showing his agreement)I only have to prove that Southern Libya can be a "nice vacation" in ANY situation. If even one of my examples still stands, then the Pro side wins. Please do not vote on this round based on whether you personally would vacation to Southern Libya.

I'd like to thank my Opponent for instigating this round (and I'm not saying that for "conduct" points, this was by far the most enjoyable debate I've done on this website so far, so thanks) and thank the judges for ruling in whoever truly won this debate.

Sources:
1. http://debate.uvm.edu...(NFL).pdf
2. http://debate.uvm.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SeventhProfessor// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: In comments section

[*Reason for removal*] No RFD posted.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ShabShoral// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments section

[*Reason for removal*] No RFD posted.
************************************************************************
Posted by ShabShoral 4 months ago
ShabShoral
RFD in vote section
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Skepsikyma// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro.. Reasons for voting decision: Thett made me believe in Sudan.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
***********************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SeventhProfessor// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments section

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Merely restating the decision is insufficient. ************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ShabShoral// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: it's not tho

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to use semantics

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. If the voter feels that the usage of semantics warrants the awarding of points, particularly arguments, then the voter should explain why.
************************************************************************
Posted by SeventhProfessor 7 months ago
SeventhProfessor
RFD (1/1)

con did better
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
I was actually on vacation in Lankha during the civil war and had an excellent time. The only thing I kept in mind was not to advertize that I was an Atomic Physicist.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
You want to go on vacation at Libya while theres war out there? O_O
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
MasturDbtorthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I tend to agree with cliff. "I. As the Pro, I only have to show a single example where Southern Libya could be considered a nice vacation. " - excellent work by Pro to exploit the resolution, and respect for Con for not sheathing his daggers and remaining in the debate, however he could not overcome the simply but effect contention from Pro. 4:3 and excellent debate.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
MasturDbtorthett3Tied
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: After reading first round, I had sinking feeling of yet another definition massacre. However, Con recovered smartly. If terms have not been defined in resolution, that means terms can be debated and Con's explanation is more natural.
Vote Placed by JacobHession 5 years ago
JacobHession
MasturDbtorthett3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that the Pro team did a good job of exploiting weaknesses in both the resolution and the Con team's opening round. While the Con may be correct in his usage of the terms "nice" and "vacation" there is nothing in the resolution or in definitions brought by the Con side to support it. The Con team made a vital mistake in the wording of the resolution and the Pro team took advantage of it. The Con team spent the majority of the debate trying to cover this mistake. Good showing by the Pro.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
MasturDbtorthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to win by exploiting a semantics argument. That cost the conduct. Con's opening round, it was very clear what Con wanted to debate, so I judged the aguments based on that, rather than the semantics.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
MasturDbtorthett3Tied
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: Pro didn't prove a single case where a person could take a "nice vacation" in Southern Libya. Con did provide a source that explained the history and use of the word vacation, and like he said, none of Pro's examples fit the historical use of vacation.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MasturDbtorthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: "I. As the Pro, I only have to show a single example where Southern Libya could be considered a nice vacation. " - excellent work by Pro to exploit the resolution, and respect for Con for not sheathing his daggers and remaining in the debate, however he could not overcome the simply but effect contention from Pro. 4:3 and excellent debate.