The Instigator
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Losing
77 Points
The Contender
DrAlexander
Con (against)
Winning
81 Points

Steps should be taken to preserve dying languages.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,169 times Debate No: 3716
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (38)

 

Vi_Veri

Pro

I will make the introduction to this debate simple:

I believe we should preserve dying languages for the following reasons:

1. Archaeological aid.

2. Anthropological aid.

3. Communication with cultures already in existence in an easier fashion.

I will leave it up to my opponent to determine why this is not enough and will expand on it in my second argument.
DrAlexander

Con

Congrats Vi_Veri on your tournament success thus far. Hopefully this debate will offer intellectual insight on the preservation of dying languages in today's society. Thanks and Good Luck!

First, I'd like to point something out to the judges.

My opponent didn't leave me with a resolution analysis nor any observations. Meaning she now forfeits the right to bring up an new observations, because if she does that would be an abusive argumentation, I'll elaborate on this point later, when it comes to the actual impact this makes.

Anyways, I'd like to offer 2 observations.

1st: The Resolution doesn't specify whom "carries out" this preservation.

Since my opponent doesn't offer an actor I'd like to take advantage of this opportunity.
The actor, for overall simplicity of today's debate, will be the U.S. for many reasons

First, because we seem to like poking our noses around where it doesn't need to be. (*cough*IRAQ*cough*).

Second, because we both live in the United States.

Third, because the United States is a place known for having the most experience with languages, considering the U.S is the MOST diverse country in the world..

Fourth, because we NEED an actor for the resolution so we don't spend three rounds arguing theoretical "Well what if's".

2nd: Since the resolution is set up to weigh the possible benefits of the outcome of preservation, CON, must prove that the negatives outweigh the benefits..

Definitions:

Preserve-to keep alive or in existence; make lasting

Dying- ceasing to live; approaching death; expiring

So that leaves me to my actual contentions.

My opponent advocates the preservation of dying languages for the following reasons:

1. Archaeological aid.

2. Anthropological aid.

3.Communication with cultures already in existence in an easier fashion.

TURN: I couldn't agree more. But I'll show you how the CON actually aids these three causes far more significantly than PRO.

To the first point..

1.By preserving dying languages this would lead to an increase in work and traveling for U.S. Archaeologist.
Meaning more archaeologists would leave there homes and families to work on a language that's dying. Is it the archaeologist's fault the natives can't revive their own language? No.

2. Not only does this mean archaeologist leaving home, but now the U.S. would have to use tax dollars to preserve a language that more than likely has no direct impact upon the success of the United States.

These two points can be said for Anthropologists as well.

Now the last point is easily refuted with proper logic.(TURN)

1. Reread the last point in my opponents case it. It is saying that preserving dying languages would offer the U.S. easier communication with cultures already in existence. NO. Rather the opposite is true. Instead of the U.S. preserving an older language they should teach the people English. So then communication with this foreign cultures would truly become a lot more easier, considering the national language of the U.S. is English.

CON case:

I negate this topic because it lacks proper assertion to the problem of segregation. The more languages in a specific community, or this case world, the more segregation between people. We all know that segregation leads to nothing but tension between different social groups. Therefore my advocacy is the opposite of the PRO. I say instead of us preserving dying languages, steps should be taken to create a global language. A global language would be a step closer to world peace and unity, because everyone in the world would be able to communicate with each other. O joy the peace on Earth. Why create more unnecessary segregation?

I really intended for this to be a little shorter..
Looking forward to your responses Vi.

Esteemed,
DrAlexander
Debate Round No. 1
Vi_Veri

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his first comment. I congratulate him as well on his last win. Good luck to him as well.

Now let me start out with some corrections:

1. Papua New Guinea is the most linguistically diverse country in the world. "Linguistically, it is the world's most diverse country, with more than 700 native tongues." (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)

2. "First, because we seem to like poking our noses around where it doesn't need to be. (*cough*IRAQ*cough*)."

Opinion. Some people think that Iraq is a place we need to stick our noses in for our own preservation. This is an assumption that the U.S. does things outside of its own preservation, and has no place in this debate. Language, of course, has a lot to do with America's preservation in science and communications. It is in no way connected to "sticking our noses in places like Iraq." (I must also add that Iraq is a huge archaeological gold mine, and is rich in Babylonian language, Akkadian, which is now dead.)

3.** "Fourth, because we NEED an actor for the resolution so we don't spend three rounds arguing theoretical "Well what if's"."

I would consider this a world effort. Every country needs to help preserve its own language. Actors, being those in the US, have to communicate with globally located actors. Therefore this entails them as well. Languages are not only a U.S. commodity, and archaeology, anthropology, and communications between countries with different languages is NOT only an American venture. This is an obvious fact and connection.

And now for the argument:

***"1.By preserving dying languages this would lead to an increase in work and traveling for U.S. Archaeologist.
Meaning more archaeologists would leave there homes and families to work on a language that's dying. Is it the archaeologist's fault the natives can't revive their own language? No."

This has nothing to do with archaeological aid. By archeological aid, I meant that a living knowledge in languages would help them read and decipher artifacts they uncover. It will be so much harder for them to do so if they have no living translators (sometimes even almost impossible with some languages.)

As for archaeologists being away from home… Most archaeologists are (or bring their spouse along with them) as most archaeological work is outside the United States (and I hope my opponent isn't assuming all archaeologists are American.)

***"2. Not only does this mean archaeologist leaving home, but now the U.S. would have to use tax dollars to preserve a language that more than likely has no direct impact upon the success of the United States.

These two points can be said for Anthropologists as well."

Museums, councils, and Universities fund most Anthropological research and Archaeological excavations. A lot of private funding takes place as well.

You can think of it as almost a scholarship sort of system where these scientists apply for funding, and receive it if their venture is worth the money of the institution. They need to receive a planning application and once they do (if they do receive it and the institution thinks they will find something worthwhile) they have a set time limit to do so.

My above point on Archaeology and family can be applied to anthropology as well (mostly due to the fact that human excavation is not commonly done in North America, and primatologists do most of their work in South America and Africa.)

***"1. Reread the last point in my opponents case it. It is saying that preserving dying languages would offer the U.S. easier communication with cultures already in existence. NO. Rather the opposite is true. Instead of the U.S. preserving an older language they should teach the people English. So then communication with this foreign cultures would truly become a lot more easier, considering the national language of the U.S. is English."

It would cost less money to preserve a language as older citizens already know it and can pass it on to their children while English needs to have a new program instated to teach them a completely new language. Also, this would hinder my two points above, because it would help vanish the language and vanish the aid the citizens in the area can do for scientists doing studies of their culture and history. There is no logic error here.

***As for con's last statement, it sounds a bit utopian. We know that hurting culture hurts nationalism and is one step closer to a "global government" which none of us are looking forward to. But that would be a policy debate, which this argument is not intended for. So rather, I will look at it through a linguistic view point.

There already is an international language (this being English). Most countries learn to speak it as their second language, but their home language is rooted in culture, tradition, and rich history. Making them give up their language is like making them give up their tradition. Yes, I agree, everyone should learn as many languages as possible. But I do not agree that we should take someone's culture because we think that our culture is better or should be international. This could also dip into the issue of why America and Spanish (but different debate different time).

Also, we do not have a global language (nor would it work for every culture) simply because cultures have words that do not cross culturally translate due to the inherent cultural basis of them. Specific, I can state, culturally bound words like, for example, Japanese hierarchy of submission, Thailand's adolescent "rage" where teenagers express aggression, and Inuit "snow" language.

I hope I've defended my statements as to why we should preserve language well.

Regards,

Vi
DrAlexander

Con

Vi, my apologies if my responses aren't as detailed as you may want. Unfortunately im on a time crunch.

On to my opponents respones.
First Vi attempts to 'correct' my observations. I didn't even bother to check out whether or not her new information was accurate, simply because this makes NO difference. She may have attacked a few of my observations, quite nicely may i add, but let's look at the one she failed to mention.
My second observation is that we should look to the US because we both live here. The impact being, since we both live in the US we [should] know more about the United States and how it's works politically, economically as well as socially, in comparison to other countries.

Therefore since Vi failed to 'correct' this observation my premise of the US being the actor for the resolution is still accurate. And as i stated earlier during the round, my opponents dismissal of my observations is abusive one her behalf because she has already been given the opportunity to create an actor for the resolution. In her case she faled to even vaguely mention whom is carrying out the deed, leaving me, the CON, no choice other than to determine an actor so i could have something to argue. Basically my opponent cannot dismiss my observations UNLESS they are proven to be abusive, which she has failed to prove. All she has proven thus far is that the US is not the most linguistically diverse nation, assuming that's true, it has no IMPACT on the outcome of today's debate.

Okay that's my daily ramble.

Now that we have once again determined the actor is the US we can move onto the contentions.
First my opponent attacks my whole reasoning about us having to send out archaeologist by stating 'that has nothing to do with archaeological aid' I fail to see how we are going to do anything that involves archeology without the aid of archaeologist.
But despite that, my opponents case was not specific, leaving me to interpret it how ever i want as long as it's not abusive. Abusive means an argument that is completely unfair.

Unto the second point about how archaeologist have to leave home. Okay Vi accepts that yes they do leave home, but 'most bring their wives' not only do i deny this assumption BUT even if proven true it doesn't matter who they bring this doesn't dismiss the fact that the are leaving home or even leaving their kids (unless of course my opponent thinks they bring the kids along as well, or that archaeologist don't have children) and for the whole thing about me believing all the archaeologist are coming from America, of course they are, America is the actor of the resolution. So most, if not all, are going to come from the US.

Also, though colleges and funds may aid in the payment of these archaeologist, my opponent never dismisses the fact that the US will still have to invest money, all she says is, yes, but not that much. Taxes are meant to aid in the prosperity of the nation, not to preserve foreign languages that are dying.

In interest of time, like good Ole Yrealz puts it, learning a new language does not give up your cultural identity. I learned Spanish in High School ahora estoy bien a hablando y escribiendo en espa�ol (now i am good at speaking and writing in spanish) but i have not forgotten my roots and my culture. Most of you readers may agree.
And your whole this isn't policy argument is muted by the fact that it contradict your earlier statement about how costly it would bed to have a universal language, such as english, then you go back and say 'There already is an international language (this being english)' your inconsistency confuses me. Please clarify one your last arguments so i can argue them effectively.

Esteemed,
DrAlexander
Debate Round No. 2
Vi_Veri

Pro

1. "Therefore since Vi failed to 'correct' this observation my premise of the US being the actor for the resolution is still accurate..."

I didn't fail to mention this. My opponent just failed to observe my response. Here is response I made: "I would consider this a world effort. Every country needs to help preserve its own language. Actors, being those in the US, have to communicate with globally located actors. Therefore this entails them as well. Languages are not only a U.S. commodity, and archaeology, anthropology, and communications between countries with different languages is NOT only an American venture. This is an obvious fact and connection."

2. My opponent states: "All she has proven thus far is that the US is not the most linguistically diverse nation, assuming that's true, it has no IMPACT on the outcome of today's debate."

On the contrary, because the U.S. doesn't have 700 native tongues, a U.S. citizen doesn't understand the role languages and language translation plays. The U.S. is diverse, yes, but English is our common communication. Unless an American has had a personal experience with someone who couldn't speak English, they don't understand the need to be able to learn and translate different thoughts.

3. I don't think my opponent understands that archaeologists need to leave their family for work. Archaeological digs are made in countries that the information they are looking for is relevant. This is a rather irrational argument from my opponent, and an almost desperate reach. A lot of occupations require a worker to travel away from home because they choose to live in a country or state where their work is not needed as heavily.

4. Opponent states: "Also, though colleges and funds may aid in the payment of these archaeologist, my opponent never dismisses the fact that the US will still have to invest money, all she says is, yes, but not that much. Taxes are meant to aid in the prosperity of the nation, not to preserve foreign languages that are dying."

Again, I don't think my opponent understood that America aiding in preserving foreign languages is relevant to its prosperity. I will leave this to my former argument instead of repeating myself.

The government will not have to invest money in this, but private archaeology businesses and museums, universities etc. will. What my opponent doesn't realize is that the preservation of dying languages will help these archaeologists make new finds, and this will bring in the money that they invest. Archaeologists also sometimes resort to paying for a dig on their own because they know their outcome will give them their investment back.

5. Opponent states: "In interest of time, like good Ole Yrealz puts it, learning a new language does not give up your cultural identity. I learned Spanish in High School ahora estoy bien a hablando y escribiendo en espa�ol (now i am good at speaking and writing in spanish) but i have not forgotten my roots and my culture. Most of you readers may agree."

I grew up with two languages and two cultural identities (Grew up with Albanian, and learned English). My parents can tell you that I have lost who I am culturally because I never use my Albanian language any more. What my opponent must realize is that America is a mixed society, and doesn't have as old of a culture as some other countries (like Albania, which if has dialects that reflect your cultural traditions and defines who you are in their culture). So, yes, learning English has distanced me from my culture, and I have become American as opposed to un assimilated Albanian.

6. Opponent states: "And your whole this isn't policy argument is muted by the fact that it contradict your earlier statement about how costly it would bed to have a universal language, such as english, then you go back and say 'There already is an international language (this being english)' your inconsistency confuses me. Please clarify one your last arguments so i can argue them effectively."

What I am saying is that people already learn English, we don't need to throw away other languages for one central language. We can have multiple ones and survive like we are now. Another Universal language (especially in business) is German. My apologies for not mentioning there are more than one type. Another example is the universal language of Latin for medicine.

7. I hope I have established what are reasons for the world to start thinking up steps to preserve dying languages. I'd like to thank my opponent for the wonderful debate, and wish him good luck in his future ventures.

Regards,

Vi
DrAlexander

Con

As a road map, I will briefly address each of my opponent's responses. Then I will move on to tell you why you should vote CON.

1. In response to my opponent's first point..

My initial reasoning for as to why the U.S. is the actor is still upheld. This is b/c my opponent dropped the following argument.

"My second observation is that we should look to the US because we both live here. The impact being, since we both live in the US we [should] know more about the United States and how it's works politically, economically as well as socially, in comparison to other countries. "

No where during this round has she responded to this observation. Meaning we MUST accept this as true, and that my opponent agrees with me and the impact behind my reasoning as well. Now we see that I have sufficiently won the whole "actor" debate.

2. In response to my opponent's second point..

Look to Vi's second response. All she is doing here is elaborating on how the American citizens do not understand the role languages play. BUT all of this is based on her own opinion. Who is to say Americans cannot understand the significance of languages when ALL Americans are immigrants themselves, or at least decedents of immigrants. (With the exception of Native Americans, whom have their own unique cultural identity).

Whatismore my opponent continues, "Unless an American has had a personal experience with someone who couldn't speak English, they don't understand the need to be able to learn and translate different thoughts."

What my opponent fails to recognize is that in the CON world the need to translate in order to communicate wouldn't exist because we'd have a universal language. The rebuilding of more languages creates an even GREATER need of translation. So if anything this argument is one the CON should make. (TURN)

3. In response to my opponent's third point..

I'd like to respond by saying that I totally understand that multiple occupations call for their employees to undergo traveling. BUT like I said earlier, "Is it the archaeologist's fault the natives can't revive their own language? No."
Meaning this traveling does not achieve anything beneficial to either the U.S. nor the rest of the world as I will elaborate on in response to my opponent's 4th point. Moreover this is most definitely NOT a desperate attempt, rather I am simply pointing out an informal fallacy given by my opponent.

4 In response to my opponent's fourth point..

My opponent argues the point that, "the government will not have to invest money in this", though she completely dismisses the fact that government expenditures are a necessity in a movement in as large as a preservation of an entire language. Not only does she dismiss this fact, but she does so without upholding her burden of proof. Meaning she provide little to no evidence to the contrary of my initial contention. The "alternatives" that my opponent offers consists of "investors". Though this is inconsistent with the point that preserving dying languages does not led to an obvious profit. Therefore it would be an illogical assumption for her to say people would invest in a non-profitable movement. She attempts to show how profits may be made but she justifies this by stating, "archaeologists [will] make a new find". Please do not let her get away with this Judges. Saying archaeologist will make new finds is extra-topical, meaning it's stretching the meaning and intent of the resolution to meet some non-inherent benefit.. The archaeologists are going to preserve languages, not anything extra, like "mak[ing] new finds".

5 In response to my opponent's fifth point..

I am just going to expand on a point I made earlier to refute my opponent's Albanian example, through the eyes of logic this time considering we both used two opposing personal examples.

Learning a new language is just that, it is not depriving you of your traditional clothing, religious and cultural holidays, cultural foods nor traditions. Meaning seeing through the eyes of logical, it would be a stretch to say that learning a new language changes your cultural identity.

6 In response to my opponent's sixth point..

My opponent clearly misinterprets my entire contention. I am not saying throw away you other language and learn English. I am saying, and out of fairness I'll quote my previous argument from my case,

"I say instead of us preserving dying languages, steps should be taken to create a global language."

Latin and German do not qualify as what I call, "universal languages" what I mean by universal languages is a language that makes communication easier, as I stated earlier in my case. Latin is used strictly for naming diseases and other scientific ventures, not for day-to-day communication. Same can be said with German, a language used only by certain business professionals, and Germans of course.

Judges I urge you to vote in opposition to the resolution (CON) because of the arguments I have won during today's debate. Those arguments are the following...

I win on the bases of determining the actor for the resolution.

I win because I offer an alternative that provides easier communication worldwide.

I win b/c I showed how my opponent actually is not aiding archaeologist, anthropologist nor is she providing an easier avenue for communication with cultures already in existence.

I win because I properly showed how affirming the topic would lead to unnecessary spending.

Last and most importantly, I win b/c my opponent failed to argue the point that this would lead to further segregation in our world. And segregation has led to horrifying events such as slavery, as well as Holocausts such as that which existed in Nazi Germany.

I'll end off by quoting my initial case,

"A global language would be a step closer to world peace and unity, because everyone in the world would be able to communicate with each other. O joy the peace on Earth. "

Vote CON.

Esteemed,
DrAlexander
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Goodness Vi,
Your my only defeat so far...
:(
hah.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
They're REALLY conservative? Wow, I never heard that one before :D
In which ways?
Posted by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
dr. alexander, your views are really conservative for being a liberal democrat
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
I'll take that into consideration during my future debates.
Thanks!
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
READ THE ONE BEFORE THIS FIRST: Sorry Character Limit.

//"Both of you stop signing off like this,"//

Was to indicate what I was talking about. You explained this was personal preference. As a judge, I found this annoying. So I said, when you do *this* (and indicated what *this* was) it bothered me.

//"I don't care if they're material or not, it still rapes credibility. You sound lazy, pompous, and arrogant."//

I already explained how this does indeed reduce credibility in the eyes of the judge. I also apologized for my poor word choice - I was explaining that since the only thing the people reading this know about you is what you write, this is not a good impression to make on them.

I'm glad I could help.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Character Limit:

You're welcome for the RFD.

Now to address your concers: Perhaps you should post the whole quote :)

//"What a wasted first round. You could've pwned so much better if you had EXPANDED more than 100 characters in your Round 1. You're lucky this wasn't a hardcore round, or I'd drop you."//

This was addressed to Pro. He used less than 1000 characters, when 8000 was afforded to him. He could've done so much more, but chose not to. It was a waste. And the counters to the arguments were not excellent in ConR1. In my opinion, they were light, and did not touch on the intent I saw in ProR1. So I said, Be happy that Con didn't take this chance to pounce on you. Its not rude - its true.

//Just to make this clear, it wasn't a burden I was talking about it was about her bringing up new observations and changing the actor, after my entire case was already built upon the U.S. as the actor.//

That's STILL not abusive. Abusive is being unfair to the opponent by limiting the debate in an unfair way. IE: Defining Justice as "Pro wins the round" and saying lets achieve Justice. Or by Con bringing up points you cant respond to in R3. But arguing observations and the actor (neither of which are explicit in the resolution) is not abusive.

//
"You totally kill your credibility."

By saying stuff like that and if other people actually buy your critique, it makes me look like a dumba** who just ignores stuff in order to sway away from proper debating. BUT I urge you to read the rest of the round and you'll be convinced that I do argue legitimately.//

That was my point exactly: When people just skim these debates (very few go for a blow by blow) and they see things like that, they think youre a dumba**. I'm saying, since you do get some people that just skim and vote, try to avoid statements like that.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Thanks you for your RFD.
My only issue is that when you say things like,

"What a wasted first round...You're lucky this wasn't a hardcore round, or I'd DROP you."!?

Self-explanatory. It's just rude. It makes you come across as arrogant, NOT saying you ARE but that's how it sounds to the voters as well as the people you're critiquing.

"Its not abusive to contest a burden out of round 1"

Just to make this clear, it wasn't a burden I was talking about it was about her bringing up new observations and changing the actor, after my entire case was already built upon the U.S. as the actor.

"You totally kill your credibility."

By saying stuff like that and if other people actually buy your critique, it makes me look like a dumba** who just ignores stuff in order to sway away from proper debating. BUT I urge you to read the rest of the round and you'll be convinced that I do argue legitimately.

"Both of you stop signing off like this,"
Adds even more tension..

"I don't care if they're material or not, it still rapes credibility. You sound lazy, pompous, and arrogant."

Imagine if that's all people read. It would makes me look bad once again because of something that's not true.

But it's fine, I won't take anything personal. And I thank you for not only posting your opinion, but being able to back it up.
Seriously, I wish all of the other 12 voters would do the same.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Actually, thats what an RFD is: Things I saw that could be done better.

"You should not say this" or "You should say this" is not a personal attack, its how to improve debate skills. If you want to never improve, thats fine, but one of your peers who reviewed your case and found things that could be improved.

As for rudeness, please point out where? I re-read my post and don't see anything insulting. Please point it out.

Alright, let me requote the entire section, not just the sentence:

"

My opponent didn't leave me with a resolution analysis nor any observations. Meaning she now forfeits the right to bring up an new observations, because if she does that would be an abusive argumentation, I'll elaborate on this point later, when it comes to the actual impact this makes.

"

ok? It STILL is not a true claim. It is NOT abusive to talk about burdens in R2!

And most importantly, I read the first round fully, as I said, and skimmed the rest - this wasn't a blow-by-blow match. And your official judges agree.

And I'd like to explain: I wasn't calling YOU pompous and arrogant, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I meant that just dismissing your opponent's argument (even if its not that important) like you did comes off badly. I phrased my response badly there, and for that I am sorry.

As for the signing off thing: whatever. Its just annoying to me, but if you like it go for it.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
You comment was clearly not an RFD.
Your comment was full of personal attacks and critiques about how YOU would debate my case. No where do you give out constructive criticism or anything that could enhance our debating ability without you adding some rude remark.
Whatismore whenever you quote me, you paraphrase by leaving out CRITICAL information just to prove your point.
So please next time you paraphrase me, do the entire sentence. Your second 'quote' starts out with 'because'... you are missing everything before that.
More importantly YOU SKIMMED over the entire round and wrote a so.called RFD? Trust me I take your criticism very VERY lightly.

And to your last point if anyone here sounds pompous and arrogant, it would be yourself.
Once more I sign off like this out of pride in my work.

Esteemed,
DrAlexander
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I guess that despite your supposed knowledge of Debate terms, you're not familiar with that which is known as RFD?

Reason For Decision.

I don't vote randomly on these things, and so in fairness, I told you what I liked and didn't. And truthfully, after that lame first round, I got sick of wasting time, and skimmed the res..

I understand debate terms pretty well actually. If you had taken the time to read my comment, you used them wrong. It wasn't that you used them, it was that you used them badly.

IE

///Now the last point is easily refuted with proper logic.(TURN)//

No freaking duh.

///because if she does that would be an abusive argumentation///

No, thats not what abusive is...abusive is like defining justice as "me winning a round" and forcing my opponent to debate that.

And if you didn't realize, the sign off thing was sarcasm. What did I sign off with? "Stop signing off". It's what we who can do literary and logical analysis call 'irony'.

I don't care if they're material or not, it still rapes credibility. You sound lazy, pompous, and arrogant. Not saying you are, but those statements don't further your case, they take up space.
38 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO stick with arguments about the resolution itself. Although CON had a few good arguments, a lot of his arguments seems to be assumptions to what PRO stand by, because of "missing" rebuttals.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not vote any points for themselves while pro voted 7 for herself
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by theOverman 7 years ago
theOverman
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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 DrAlexander 7 years ago
DrAlexander
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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 numa 7 years ago
numa
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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 pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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 LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
Vi_VeriDrAlexanderTied
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