THBT dialect language classes should be taught in all schools in dialect provinces.
Debate Rounds (5)
Sources do not have to be cited for this debate.
I would like to thank my opponent in advance and look forward to a engaging, civilized debate.
On a personal note, this is my first debate on DDO (I believe the same is applicable for my opponent) and as such I would like to beg for a certain level of patience, both from my opponent and from the public.
I look forward to hearing the Opposition's case.
By a "dialect language", we will be referring to a language that fulfils two criteria. Firstly, it must be a living language historically based in a particular area or region, and not merely a language which is popular in the local area. For instance, under our proposition the teaching of Polish would not be compulsory in an area where Polish is not a historic language, regardless of how widely spoken it is. The second criteria is that the language must be sufficiently different from other languages for there to be worth to its study. For instance, the teaching of Cockney Rhyming Slang would not be compulsory in East London, whereas the teaching of Scottish Gaelic would be compulsory in Scotland. Therefore, a "dialect province" would be an area where a dialect is historically and culturally spoken.
The Proposition would like to propose that the teaching of regional dialects in schools be made compulsory up until the age of 13. We have chosen this age based on the educational system used in the UK: under this system pupils take their first major public exams at the age of 16 and start studying the courses for these at the age of 14. Therefore, regional languages would be judged on the same basis as subjects such as history and geography (i.e. that they must be taken up to the age of 13 but are not compulsory at examination level). The age would, of course, have to vary according to the educational and examination systems used in different countries but we suggest this as our ballpark figure.
We shall now move on to our first substantive argument, which is that we believe there is a right to learn the dialect of one"s homeland. The Proposition believes that the historic language of an area, provided it is still spoken, is part of the heritage and the identity of that area. History has shown that people are willing to fight hard in order to retain their language and retain its use in everyday life and its legal protection " the battle to protect the language of Catalan under the reign of General Franco being a case in point. As such, we believe that the dialect language is inextricably linked with the cultural identity of the region and measures should be taken to protect its use, and guarantee that (should they choose) the next generation can continue the language by using it in their own home. They could, however, also choose not to study the language at an examination level, much like many in the UK do with foreign languages such as French. We do, however, believe that local authorities have a responsibility to allow people the ability to continue their mother tongue.
At present, dialect languages in areas where dialect language classes are not taught can only survive by being spoken in the family and in the home. Let us imagine two hypothetical families living in Penzance, Cornwall. They both feel Cornish, as opposed to British; they support Cornish nationalism and would like to be Cornish. However, at present, these families may not have equal opportunities to access the Cornish language, as it is not compulsory for it to be taught in schools in the area. If Cornish is spoken in one of these family"s homes, whereas in the other the tradition of Cornish in the family died with Great Aunt Mildred, these families do not have equal access to something they consider to be part of their identity. We would like to challenge the Opposition to justify this inequality of access to one"s own identity.
Taking this further, let us take an American who lives in New York. The English language is a part of his identity, as it is the language spoken by his ancestors, spoken in his family home, and the language with which his inner monologue speaks. There is no question that, during the early stages of his development, he should be taught the language in school. We do not believe that a regional language should be treated any differently. If someone feels that they are Cornish, or Gaelic, or Welsh, or Catalan, or Basque, and they live in the right dialect province, they have a right to access this language. This inequality should be solved during primary education.
Our second point regards the potential benefits of teaching dialect languages in dialect areas. A major problem in the UK, and in the USA, is the lack of enthusiasm for learning languages. This is caused, in part, by the myth that learning a language is useless. "I live in London, why do I need to learn how to ask for a train ticket in French?", endless teenagers cry. In English-speaking nations this problem is particularly significant because "everybody speaks English anyway". But surely if we introduce the teaching of dialect languages in schools in dialect provinces, we will be able to do much to counter this illusion as students will be able to recognise and value the link between language and identity. An English-speaking person in Cornwall will be able to see that learning the language has unlocked a whole new part of their identity to them. They will see how valuable it is to learn a language, even though many people do speak English, and they will see that it is practical to learn a new language.
We believe that introducing the teaching of dialect languages in schools in dialect provinces will teach students the value of learning a new language and this in turn will help to resolve the crisis of falling levels of language takeup. Employers are increasingly looking for workers with even an intermediate level of a foreign language (such as French or German in particular). This proposal will involve some English-speakers who live in dialect provinces learning the dialect language against their will, but this is why we propose to make it optional after the age of 13 " like many other subjects they may have no interest in and wish to drop such as geography or religious studies.
To summarise these first arguments for the proposition: we believe that introducing dialect language classes in dialect provinces will create a greater level of equality with regards to learning a language as part of one"s identity, with every child in the province learning to a basic level of proficiency; and this will also increase interest in languages in schools as students will be able to see how languages can be useful in a practical context and it will show the link between a language and an identity.
I hand the debate over to the Opposition for them to introduce their case.
Firstly, our opponent did not clearly define what a "dialect language class" actually teaches to students. We would like to define it as classes focused on communicating fluently between those who speak the dialect (i.e. listening and speaking the dialect.)
Now their first substantive was that citizens of a certain province right to learn the dialect of one"s homeland. We believe that this is argument is implying the assumption that currently, citizens do not have the right to learn the dialect of their homeland, which is not the status quo in most countries. In most countries, there must be education/tutorial centers that provide education on such a widely known dialect as defined by side proposition, meaning that minorities who are not familiar with the dialect can go to these centers without wasting time on teaching those who are already familiar with the language.
Their second substantive was about how students will see how valuable it is to learn a language. However, they have not told us why this point is actually beneficial to the student in either long or short term. Even if proposition is correct in principal, they did not explain how such a dialect class would guarantee most of the students to develop such an enthusiasm for learning languages (especially those who aren"t, as pointed out by the other side).
Now I would like to elaborate on my arguments and substantives. Firstly, side opposition has been thinking in a utopian world where most students can learn effectively and that there will be no flaws in both the principal and feasibility aspect in implementing such an education policy. While we agree that certain people who want/need to communicate with citizen"s that speak a certain dialect, we believe that making such a lesson compulsory to those that are already fluent is a complete waste of resources and manpower. Instead of implementing lessons compulsory to all students, we propose to conduct optional extra curricular activities in schools (with a somewhat average amount of students that lack knowledge/fluency of a dialect, not all schools) for students who are interested in learning how to speak the dialect.
Side proposition seems to be focused on some language deterioration problems such as Cornish in the United Kingdom. However, that is only an isolated example. In many countries, there are so much a variety of dialects; do they have such an education policy? No. Are their languages dying? No. Moreover, our opponents have not proved (i.e. by using successful examples) how such a policy will work and effectively tackled a similar problem. This proves that such issues are not relevant to today"s topic and today"s motion cannot and will not solve such problems. Elaborating more on this point, if side proposition, is concerned about these parties whose language is dying, then this policy should be implemented in those countries only (even if it is practical), conducting lessons in dialect regions that are not in danger of losing the dialect culture/language is wasting student"s time, resources and manpower (qualified teachers).
Now let"s look on the practicality of setting such a motion. While side proposition have not explained clearly how and what would be taught exactly in a dialect language class, they have also raised a blind eye to students with different language/cultural backgrounds. Especially in international schools, where students may come from all around the world, some may be extremely fluent in the dialect, while others cannot even understand the basics. Giving these students assessments/tests in the subject would be unfair. Also, with such a tight schedule (especially for high form students which need to face examinations), it would be almost impossible for schools to insert such a lesson, and if they could, would there be enough time to teach all the details of such a dialect? (some dialects are much more difficult than others, e.g. Cantonese). Implementing this policy in ALL schools would mean all schools in the world must have qualified teachers to teach the certain dialects (which is a lot of people), where they could be better off at tutorial centers teaching those who really need to learn the language. The major practicality issues we have to consider simply outweigh the minimal need for such a policy.
So what has our side told you? We have rebutted successfully on their substantives, while expanding on how it is illogical in one perspective and elaborating on how it is impractical in another aspect.
According to the above-mentioned reasons, we are proud to oppose today"s motion.
I would like to invite side proposition to begin the second round of this debate.
We did not feel it necessary to issue a definition for the style of teaching used in a dialect language class, however we would like it to be noted that we are happy to accept those terms issued by the Opposition.
Moving into the rebuttal, the opposition said that we had implied that one does not currently have the right to learn the dialect of their homeland. This is utter hogwash. We used the clear comparative between the two hypothetical families in Cornwall and the American living in New York as an example as how what we seek to do will shore up the existing right to learn one's language and make it easier for anyone to learn the language with which their heritage identifies. Moreover, we wish to introduce the teaching of these dialects in schools specifically because this is the most effective way of facilitating language learning. The Opposition argued that anyone can learn a language at any point during their lives, and thus it is not necessary to do so at school level, but this ignores the basic (proven) scientific fact that children and teenagers are much more effective than adults at learning a new language. THAT is why we teach French to hordes of schoolchildren every year - not because there is some great diplomatic crisis requiring the entire nation to immediately speak French, but because childhood is the best opportunity to learn - hence our wish to introduce dialect teaching in schools. The Opposition also felt it necessary to challenge us to justify the long-term benefits of learning a language, despite the fact that we have already spoken of the increased employment opportunities for anyone with even semi-fluency in a given language. Most financial companies and diplomatic services across the developed world will give preference to a candidate who has learned a language, although the Opposition conveniently brushed over this. Learning a language has also been proven to improve one's memory faculties and the ability to switch between different tasks (as will be expanded upon in our third argument), and learning the grammar of another language assists one's grasp of their own. The Opposition later said that many dialects have survived without being taught in schools: I would like to challenge them to name one. The strongest surviving dialects in Western Europe are currently Basque and Catalan, however unlike what the Opposition would tell you these languages are strong because schools in the Basque Country and in Catalonia are ENTIRELY BILINGUAL - a step further than what we are proposing. The Opposition then proceeded to dispel some frankly ridiculous myths about the practicalities of introducing these lessons, which simply are not an issue. He said that in an area where a language is not dying then teaching it is a waste of manpower - but think of the implications of this principle set by the Opposition. Interest in History and Geography is not subsiding, therefore we should cut History and Geography classes from the curriculum? I hope that example will demonstrate why that argument simply does not stand up. Then, the Opposition criticised us for examining students in a language they may not grasp. For one thing we do not propose to do that - we clearly stated that no pupil will be made to sit public exams in the dialect language. And for another thing, if a pupil has a bad grasp of the language then that is not a reason for them not to sit an exam. Pupils in the UK are forced to sit GCSEs in English, Maths and Science REGARDLESS of proficiency. Adding dialect languages before this stage of the educational career is not going to have a disastrous effect on pupils' schedules. The Opposition also stated that teachers teaching dialect languages in schools would be wasted as not all pupils would be interested, but the Proposition fails to see how that is different to ANY other subject on the curriculum. Some people will always be disinterested in languages and - under our proposals - come the age of 13 they never have to touch them again. We'd also like to point out that our proposal is still creating new positions for language teachers, which brings economic and employment benefits.
Now that Proposition has regained its good name and pointed out why the practical objections (the only Opposition we have heard from side Opposition so far) are worthless, we would like to move onto our third key piece of substantive material, which will expand on the rebuttal we have already issued on the benefits of learning a second language. We have already spoken of how learning a language which is spoken in the home region will counter the idea that learning languages is pointless. There are numerous scientific benefits to learning a second language, and subsequent languages after this, which we would like to outline in support of our plans. Although the initiator has not required us to specify our sources in this debate, we have chosen to do so for this section in order to demonstrate that this argument has the upmost scientific merit and in order to defend it from any accusations that the science is dubious.
Learning a language and becoming more bilingual has been scientifically proven to boost your brain power. This is because one has to switch between languages and it can be considered to be a form of mental work-out.  It is thus in people's interest to become more proficient in a language, even reaching the point of being bilingual - but it is a myth that this takes a lifetime and fluency in a language can easily be achieved by the age of 17 under the UK's school system (the speaker for the Proposition is practically fluent in Spanish and semi-fluent in French). It has also been shown to make the brain more attentive to be bilingual .
We have thus demonstrated that there are major cognitive benefits to being bilingual, and our previous substantives have demonstrated the argument for one's first learning language being their regional dialect. We believe that we should do everything in our power to ENCOURAGE (not FORCE, as the Opposition would have you believe) people to reach the point of being bilingual, and we have demonstrated the practical and logical reasons to learn a dialect. When you combine this with the fact that Opposition's practical objections are more problems with education itself than the actual implications of our proposal, we believe the correct path in this debate is with the Proposition.
I pass you back to the capable hands of Opposition to continue the debate.
From the previous posted arguments by side proposition, they haven"t clear stated the problem
Firstly, side proposition has told us that there would not be any tests/examinations. We believe that without these tests/examinations, we cannot guarantee, nor can we provide a significant incentive for students, especially those who are unfamiliar/show distaste with the certain dialect. We also cannot effectively keep track of the student"s progress in learning how t communicate with the dialect, since they have not proposed a system or means of assessment to do so. While we do agree that it may be an optional subject or extra-curricular activity in schools, we believe that it should not be compulsory for all students in all schools and side proposition has failed to justify the reasons for this.
Secondly, side proposition also brought up a point about how people learn languages quicker at a younger age and students would learn the language more efficiently if they were exposed to it during their juvenile stage. While we cannot argue against the fact that this statement is proven and true, we do not see how this is actually relevant to our moot. What our side has said previously was just to say that if people at any age, including students, feel like they have the need of learning such a dialect, then they could go to a related extra curricular activity at school or go to a tutorial class and learn about it.
Thirdly, side opposition mentioned about increased employment opportunities and how large companies around the world will be more willing to give a preference to candidates who have learnt "a language". The main flaw in this argument is that companies, especially large, international ones, will be more willing to take candidates that can communicate effectively in well known languages around the world i.e. official languages of powerful, wealthy countries (e.g. Mandarin, English, Spanish etc.). Simply knowing how to communicate using a dialect does not help much in communication between people of other countries, since they will be unlikely to know the dialect of that person"s country. Even if their principle was true, which it isn"t, they have not given statistics of people who got good jobs as a result of learning their province"s dialect. Therefore, this argument is false.
Last but not least, side opposition has misunderstood our argument about students "having a bad grasp of the dialect", as they put it. We are simply saying that people with prior knowledge, or have grown up speaking the dialect, will have an unfair advantage to those that have recently moved to that province and lacks knowledge of the dialect. Unless we have different streams to group and teach students of the same ability, which side proposition has not proposed or mentioned, teaching these students with different language backgrounds using the same expectations are still unfair to them and they cannot learn neither effectively nor efficiently. If students cannot do the above, then how can side proposition even consider about the long-term benefits when they haven"t considered carefully what should be done presently?
Now I would move on to my third constructive argument. Apart from the 2 previously mentioned arguments that our opponents have been unable to refute successfully on, we believe that this education policy should be implemented because this is simply unnecessary for the dialect province"s citizens. Firstly, as we have defined what language lessons are (targeted on communicating in the dialect e.g. listening and speaking), native speakers of that dialect simply do not need to further learn how to speak the dialect in school. Take Hong Kong as an example; in all schools in Hong Kong, there was never a separate lesson that targets on Cantonese (Hong Kong"s dialect) communication. Yet, 97% of its citizens and residents are fluent in speaking Cantonese (according to Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department). This proves that in a dialect province, most of its inhabitants are fluent in the dialect, meaning that the lesson will be almost of no use in local schools (where almost all students there are from the local citizens). Since most schools in a dialect province are bound to be local schools, implementing this education policy in ALL schools (including international schools) will be a waste of manpower, resources, and most importantly time, which could be spent on more constructive uses. The only use of learning this dialect at this stage is to avoid miscommunications between the dialect province"s citizens and foreigners from the country, which, again, is clearly not worth spending so much resources, manpower and time for a certain dialect to be compulsorily taught to all students in dialect provinces.
According to the above-mentioned rebuttals and arguments, today"s debate falls to our side.
I now pass the debate to side proposition to summarize today"s debate. (No new constructive arguments should be mentioned in the fourth round)
Firstly, we have a significant amount of rebuttal. On the point of the examination of dialect language studies, the Opposition have blatantly contradicted themselves. At first they criticised us for examining dialect language studies, saying it was an unnecessary burden - we then pointed out that it was in the text of our proposition that these subjects would never be examined. In their second speech, however, they have now reneged and are now criticising us for NOT wishing to examine these subjects. We have two things to say in response to this. Firstly, we would like to invite the Opposition to actually form a policy on this issue, as opposed to throwing arguments in both directions at us. And secondly, we believe the point to be moot anyway because we have already explained that the aim of the proposed legislation is to ensure that all students have the OPPORTUNITY to learn the language, and we are not doing this anticipating that everyone who lives in a dialect province becomes fluent in the language. This is about ensuring that students can have a taste of the language in a structured background at the time which is neurologically best for them. It is exactly like a subject such as history or geography, which is taught not in anticipation of all pupils becoming experts but in anticipation of them having the opportunity to discover what they wish to study at a more advanced level. In this way, many of the Opposition's arguments are really arguments against the breadth of the current school curriculum which is not important to this motion. On this issue the Opposition also spoke of some pupils having an unfair advantage over others due to their background: this is a ridiculous argument because it is applicable to any other curriculum subject (a pupil from a house full of books will perform better in English, for example), and the issue of advantage is irrelevant as pupils will not be forcibly examined in these subjects anyway. The Opposition spoke of how, if students wished, they could learn languages outside of school. There is a major hole in this argument: this is the status quo and it is not working. Extra-curricular uptake of languages is horrifyingly low, simply because students cannot be bothered to put in the extra effort outside of class and do not want to be seen as 'nerdy'. This is a lovely utopian ideal, that people will go out and learn languages completely off their own bat, but it simply doesn't happen. And on the issue of companies looking for language skills we accept that there is low demand for many dialect languages but our point is that companies look for a proven ability to learn a language and we believe this can be demonstrated by having learnt a regional dialect - many of which (e.g. Cornish) are harder to learn than other major languages. When one considers the fact that diplomatic services will give skilled individuals six months to learn an entirely new language, for instance Croat, which requires a track record of language SKILL we believe this solidifies our point. The Opposition's final substantive argument was built entirely upon one, isolated example - which alone demonstrates that the point is weak. Unfortunately for the Opposition they chose the example of Hong Kong - an unfortunate example because Cantonese is so widespread that it is spoken on a par with English and therefore does not satisfy the criteria of being a minority language, therefore it does not count as a fully dialect language. This renders their 'proof' irrelevant as it is a situation which we are not covering. They again referred to this point of manpower, which we believe is a point they greatly exaggerate the effect of, and regardless of where the jobs are that we create and how effective they turn out to be we are still STIMULATING GROWTH with our proposal.
We believe there are two main points of clash in this debate and we will explain why they demonstrate that our side has won. The first point of clash is the benefits of learning a dialect language. The Opposition have argued that there are few tangible benefits to learning a minority language such as Welsh or Cornish, or indeed learning a second language at all, and also argued that these skills will not be needed in later life. We, however, argued the benefits of learning a language are immeasurable (greater employment opportunities, brain development, cultural awareness) and we have also pointed out the benefits to potential employers of someone who has learnt an (often complicated) dialect such as Cornish, as it demonstrates skill with languages and with new concepts and better abilities at functions such as task-switching. Therefore, we win this point.
The second point of clash is the practicalities of this proposal, which we have consistently proven are not the issue the Opposition would portray them to be. The Opposition have consistently changed their mind about their own opinions on whether or not to examine in these subjects - it is difficult to discern what their policy actually is but we have dismissed the issues raised with examining these subjects and have agreed with them on why they should not be examined. They argued that this proposal is illogical and not needed, whereas we have put forward our reasons why there are specific benefits to learning a language which is local to you and have explained that the decline of local heritage and interest in languages warrants this proposal. The Opposition argued that the teachers would go to waste in schools, but we proved that they would be no more wasted than a teacher of any other subject and that our proposal still creates jobs that do not currently exist. The Opposition has failed to present a coherent and unified practical case against these proposals, the fundamental point they sought to achieve in their first speech, and so we win this point as well.
In summary, the Opposition is in disarray - they are not even entirely sure what elements of our proposal they disagree with, let alone able to present a real case against it. This matches all opposition to our proposal: there is simply not a real practical argument against it. We propose a change from the status quo, but what we propose is not impractical. Moreover, we have presented to you an impregnable case for this proposition. For all these reasons, we feel that Proposition is the obvious choice for your votes.
I hand you back to Opposition to sum up his side of the debate.
I would like to thank side proposition for concluding his side of today’s debate.
Before I would like to continue onto my rebuttals and conclusions, I would like to point out the clashes in today’s debate.
The clashes in today’s debate was whether dialect language lessons are really necessary for students living in dialect provinces and whether it is actually practical to implement such an education system in all schools. I will elaborate why we have won both of these clashes and show why today’s debate falls towards our side of the house.
Firstly, we can see how side proposition fails to ignore how it is practically incorrect to implement such a class in a dialect province where the province may contain different people of different cultures and of different language backgrounds. Especially in international schools in a dialect province, there are bound to be some students who do not speak the dialect in the dialect province. The dialect language classes are going to be of no use if there cannot be an established standard or curriculum for implementing such a policy. As we all know, different countries run different curriculums, and these curriculums are spread into different international schools in different countries. In a dialect province, there will certainly have schools that run IB, GCSE or their government’s own proposed curriculum. We are not sure how such a dialect language class should be implemented in ALL schools in the dialect province while not affecting those particular school’s curriculum. Aside from the point about different curriculums, we also fail to see how it would be fair to students with different prior knowledge of such a language subject. While side proposition constantly argues and gives examples of subjects that some have prior knowledge of and some don’t, we must admit that having prior knowledge in a language, especially when a certain person has learnt it at a very early age, will be extremely beneficial in an unfair way to one that has had no knowledge of such a language in the past. As we can see, the difference between having prior knowledge of a language subject and other subjects is very large. Back to our point, the above reasoning proves that native speakers of a certain dialect will have an very unfair advantage over those who have no exposure to it at all. Even if the students do not take exams, the proposition has not developed any way to solve this problem, such as setting different streams according to the students ability etc.
Secondly, we can also see how side proposition fails to acknowledge that compulsory dialect language lessons are not necessary in most, if not all, provinces. In my previous speeches, I have explained how such a lesson is basically useless to those who already know how to communicate in the dialect in the dialect province. Since a dialect province must have and enormous percentage of people speaking a certain dialect, it would be silly to educate them in how to speak the dialect if they can learn it at home gradually by time. As mentioned before, there was no ‘Cantonese language’ class implemented in Hong Kong, yet almost all of the students in Hong Kong know how to speak it. This proves that such a dialect language lesson would be useless and unnecessary if it were to only teach students how to communicate in a certain dialect.
Now I will get back to my refutations.
Side proposition mentioned in their first speech about how there were examples of languages dying or fading out due to the minimal amount of people who speak it, and thus, propose to have these dialect lessons to promote dialects so it will not fade out from today’s society. What proposition fails to realize is that language gradually evolves in time. They showed us about how Cornish died out when many people were speaking English in the United Kingdom. As we can see, Cornish died out because everybody who recognized it thought that it was unnecessary to learn or speak in some way, and therefore gradually spoke English. As side opposition, we simply fail to see how this is actually a problem and why it is so important that we have to sacrifice so much (arguments that I will sum up later) to preserve a certain dialect.
Side proposition also mentioned how students learning new dialects will increase employment opportunities. As rebutted before, we don’t see how learning a dialect (especially a non-well-known one) will actually help communicate with people from across the world. We doubt that learning a dialect that is not known internationally will help in international companies since they will be looking for candidates who are fluent in internationally recognized languages, and very rarely a dialect.
Side proposition also made a grave mistake of asking us to form a POLICY on this issue. If we were to form a policy, then it would be proposition’s job to make it, not opposition, since they are the side of the house that wants to implement such a policy. This means that they have contradicted themselves because they admitted that they did not have a real policy that will actually work, meaning that they are only arguing in principle, but have not focused on making the motion actually WORK in realism.
After pointing out the major flaws on side opposition, I would like to briefly sum up our concrete arguments.
Firstly, we have successfully argued that such a proposal is illogical and impractical in our first round. We also proposed an alternative to those that really need to learn the dialect to go to tutorial centers whenever they feel like they need education and fluency in the dialect. Implementing this compulsory subject in ALL schools is just unnecessary and proposition has failed to refute effectively.
Secondly, we have also argued about how there were practicality issues that needed to be taken into account. As mentioned just now, side proposition just brushed away this point made a very basic mistake. So because they have been unable to rebut this, and even contradicted themselves by asking us to form a policy, this point is firm and strong and definitely stands.
So according to the above-mentioned reasons, it is clear why side proposition’s arguments collapse and the debate falls toward our side of the house.
For this reason, I would simply like to thank my opponent for suggesting this stimulating motion and wish him the best of luck in future debates. He's certainly given me a good first debate on DDO.
And now, I hand the debate over to you, the people. Who will win? Who will lose? Who will never want to do any form of debating ever again? YOU DECIDE!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to make a decent case. Some of Con's rebuttals were weak, and I don't think the "ineffective" point is a sound rebuttal. Still, all in all it was an interesting read, though a bit thick and on a subject I'm not super familiar with. At least everybody was polite, neh?
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.