The American School System is Broken and Detrimental
Debate Rounds (4)
It is my argument that the American school system and education policies suck. It is mandatory that you learn information that has a probability of being useless later in life and over teaches/emphasizes unnecessary things.
1) ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHALLENGE ONLY
2) First Arguments
3) Rebuttals/New Arguments
4) Rebuttals to the Rebuttals/New Arguments
I accept. You may state your case.
That's completely fine. I was busy before so I'll post this in the last minute so to give you time.
Since you're busy, I'll just have something light and easy.
US Education spending
US spends with an average of 1.1 trillion on all federal, state and local(1.http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). Its expenditure far outweigh other nations as US spends more than the average developed country(2.http://www.cbsnews.com...).
The enormous amount of money dumped into education ensures the quality it deserves. Unless it is under funded like the NHS, of which doctors have serious complaints, but the system is well funded and this ensures all the necessary needs of teachers and students.
Standardized tests helps raise standards
State governments mandate standardized tests as one of its requirements(3.http://en.wikipedia.org...). The advantage of this is that it allows weaker schools to compete more successfully. Teachers are not expected to be heavy weight thinkers like professors, they are expected to follow standard procedures. This allows poor teachers to pick up the pace and be student- centred as they don't have to research endless into the subject. Education isn't about the teachers, its about the students, and standardisation does just that.
Standardisation allows easy classification and proffers an easy simplified system which teachers, of all background, can rely on.
That would be all. I have waited as long as I could till the last 5 hours. Till then, I await your reply.
FYI - I am not talking about College, I am primarily talking about High School and some other things before it.
1) *In High School, we are not taught any information that is relevant or will benefit us in our current lives, and we are taught a lot of utterly useless information that we will forget.* Prior to about 10th grade, we are given a lot of good tools for a lot of jobs we could get in High School and even adulthood. After that point, we are taught insanely complex math, little details about science, and other things that we will only forget later on unless we pick a career in which we actually use that specific info. I think that's it good to have a general understanding about the world, but a lot of the tiny details from science, history, mathematics, etc are neither immediately useful, nor will they be used later on. Not all of us are going to go into chemical engineering or some other insanely complex field of science. In fact, the reason some of those positions pay so highly is because not many people do them; the quantity is scarce because of how much effort, memory, and understanding of complex math, chemistry, and physics is required to do them. People don't want to do them, so they pay others high amounts to do it for them.
2) *Hardly any of the information we learn around the High School time is immediately useful in our lives.* We should be given a fair amount of exposure to all sorts of subjects, not just the four core subjects that are required. While some of the childhood development in the USA is based around academics so that we can get a good job in the future, hardly any of it is actually useful in childhood or teenhood. SOME of it is, don't get me wrong; we need good grammar/communication skills, math for money purposes, and an accurate understanding of science for health reasons as teens. The thing is, after we've learned all we can that will actually be useful in our current stage of life, we are continued to be exposed to more information which we aren't using regularly. You know what they say, "If you don't use it, you lose it." I could tell you all about quadratic formulas, algebra, and electronegativity, but I can't tell you a lot of basic things that I learned in say, 4th or 5th grade. I really can't tell you much about history either, because it won't help me personally, nor will it help me in a realistic situation. It *MIGHT* (notice I said MIGHT) help me in a future job, but there's no way to know for sure. In addition to having a relatively diverse amount of exposure to some good future-job material, *we need to know information that will help us in our teen years of life.* We need to learn about how our minds work and how we develop as people; so many teenagers are so obviously struggling because they don't know how to resolve issues. We also aren't taught a lot of other good things.
I saw a tumblr post awhile ago, that said:
"Things I Never Learned In High School
*How to do taxes
*What taxes are
*How to vote
*What political parties are
*How to write a check/balance a check book
*Anything to do with banking
*How to do loans for college
*How to jump start a car or any basic emergency things
*How to buy a car or house
but I'm so glad I know the f**king Pythagorean theorem
Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about this information, it will become of no use to me and I will COMPLETELY forget it when I actually have a paying job. In the words of Peter Griffin: https://www.youtube.com...
3) *We are given too much exposure to a very small range of subjects.* We aren't given a diverse enough range of things to learn about, and things we are given to learn about, we get so specific in and we get to such a difficult level, that really, we should be asking: "Why DON'T most teens hate school?" INSTEAD of, "Why do most teens hate school?" We're being forced to learn useless things. (Useless to us, not those who actually want to go into those sort of fields.) Quite frankly, it sucks.
4) *This point addresses people who say "We need to expose kids and teens to these subjects so that they'll know whether they want to have a job in that kind of field or not."* Ladies and gentlemen, there are far better methods of teaching teens about these fields without exposing them to mind-numbingly complex equations and facts that we could forget later on. We should give teens and kids MODERATE exposure to those fields, rather than making them go so deep that it causes stress to remember and do some of the content. Additionally, they should CHOOSE what they want to delve into further. There should be a minimum requirement for the amount of things they must delve into, but after they've learned about a certain subject, highly dislike it, and don't want to have a job involving said subject, there should be no reason to force them to further investigate that subject. *HOWEVER, IF THEY WANT TO, they SHOULD be allowed to revisit the subject* once they get a little further into school and say, "Hey, this is hard, but I might be able to make a great living off of it.
5) *We are taught one thing in High School; how to pass the standardized tests.* We're not taught how to build a life, or get a good job; think about how many college graduates are unemployed. Once we pass the tests, there usually isn't a reason to remember the info, because it won't always be relevant later on. Granted, I'm not talking about BASIC information, I'm talking about insanely complex things. Once we pass, we're free to forget the information, and it makes no mark on our lives other than boring us to death.
6) I'd like to send you this clip for Sherlock, and the people who wrote the script make a great point: https://www.youtube.com...
1) Spending large amounts of money on something, *IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY*, implies any quality whatsoever. There are so many things that people have spent tons of money on but don't really have much quality whatsoever; take, for example, much of the modern movies and music being pumped out to the masses today. Considering how broken I've shown the system to be, something tells me that they're *overspending*. However, overspending by our government leaders is nothing new.
2) Standardization is harmful, like how I stated in point five of my arguments section above. It's a standardized set of highly useless information, that's all. The purpose of school is supposed to help us support ourselves financially and build a life, and it fails tremendously in doing so.
Peter Griffin. Nice link LOL
Thanks. Let's jump straight into arguments
Rebuttal: Oversimplification argument
Pro makes a blatant oversimplified view of society. He contested that physical science and maths are useless, and asserted that not everyone will appreciate science as different individuals have different interest.
An Appreciation is required, Science is meant to ease overall life styles, it comprises everything around us. It is more sensible for us to learn all of it at general assessment. What you're saying is that we should ignore everything and rely on our self-centred interest.
In addition to that, Knowledge is power. It acts as a draw bridge for everyone to pursue their own interest. Through this system, people may express what they like and dislike. Not everything has to come up to our liking. Standardization is just, it helps weak teachers to stick to procedures and therefore increases the chance of people succeeding because they need not possess Krauss or Nietzsche type brains.
Furthermore, The youth are unsure of what to choose. They can't just leave an empty field and choose a career. This primae Facie Case is just blind and holds no substantive merit. They ought to live and learn to arrive at such an ambitious conclusion and the only way through this is through the system. It is in no way broken, of course it has disadvantages but it is in no way BROKEN.
Your argument of pay is irrelevant, if society revolves around meritocracy, what does it matter anyway. You work hard, you'll succeed according to your respective efforts. Education is about meritocracy, and in that, the system succeeds.
Rebuttal: Usefulness of the Education system
Pro's self interpreted everything by looking at his argument. Your argument is like a sponge, full of holes due to its subjective nature. You've also conceded half of your premise.
Pro asserts "don't get me wrong; we need good grammar/communication skills, math for money purposes, and an accurate understanding of science for health reasons as teens"
You've essentially acknowledged my position. Health is part of Biology which makes it an essential component of physical science. It has multiple uses, such as information on Sickle cell anaemia(4.http://en.wikipedia.org...), sex linkage. How does this benefit us? We may assess sex linkage characteristics, what can be brought down to our children, whether our alleles affect our children's health. Whether our alleles are genuine enough or whether a defect is masked. It has its uses. Moreover,We may assess what happens if we consume too much fats et cetera.
These are general knowledge, it is needed for us to survive in this world. Plus, Pro is making these outrageous claims based on his subjective merit, all of which holds 0 substantiation.
In addition to that, Pro's argument of quadratic formulas and history is weak. History is there to teach us a lesson, a lesson which we all need to learn before casting our votes. If history was to be discarded we wouldn't know the devastative effects of assuming the laws of nature into society, take the 3rd Reich for example. We need it more than you think, especially at the time when politicians appeal to our emotion. Hitler ironically won in a legitimate election (5.http://en.wikipedia.org...). If we did learn history, we would stop, pause and think of the consequences before the votes are cast. Our past is our experience, Our past is our future.
History is then useful and in no way implies that the education is broken. Again, my opponent is very subjective in his claim. He claim that maths are useless because it is ACCORDING to him. We need maths to assess the grocery store, we need maths to even calculate the tiniest of prices. It certainly benefits society as cars, bridges rest on the principle of maths. How does this imply that the system is broken?
Rebuttal: Tumblr post
Selective bias. The person is perceiving what he or she wants to perceive. The person is shifting the goal post, as he/she is arguing out of hand. This is about the system, you're supposed to criticize how maths is useless, how biology is useless, not how taxes indirectly have a causal correlation with the system.
Diversity isn't an option. We need quality teachers to cater to those needs. You are actually dwindling down professors to the status of normal 'teachers'. This is not possible. The pay would be too large to maintain. Essentially, my opponent is favoring for another system that is already broken in theory.
We are struck by world poverty and the US has about 16% living in poverty(6. http://en.wikipedia.org...).Education is fixed on meritocracy, ask any left or right, they agree that education should be meritocratic. The system did exactly that, by establishing standard subjects. From this, it again allows poor schools to compete more effectively. If you want more choice, it will strain poor schools in that they experience a lack of specialized teachers. The youth can work its own way in time, they cannot arrive at a conclusion so early in their life.
Even if it has disadvantages, it is in no way broken. It has its own uses, of which endorses the premise of lifting poverty and establishing a meritocratic system.
Sherlock video was funny haha thanks, but it is nevertheless unrepresentative.
Defense: The US Education Spending
In that case, where does the money go then, in MP's pockets, congressmen's bank a/c?. The money ensures textbooks, libraries to be well supplied with up to date books. It allows kids to read other fields independently rather than what you mention. This still serves as a point for the system, that it acts in nullifying your argument because the system legislates this aspect based on the spending
In addition to that, Movie analogy is fallacious, we are arguing education at hand. Overspending is barely an issue, the same can be said about US's military spending (7.http://www.globalissues.org...) which is the highest in the world. Does that mean it is as weak as the reservist that serve under Slovakia?
Defense: Standardized tests help raise standards
Pro links back to his additional arguments which I have provided a lengthy critique of it. Standardization is effective in applying the concept of meritocracy and lifting the world out of poverty. Useless information is blatant misassertion of a weak stereotypical argument, all I had to do was to look deeper and that argument, which I already proved, is fallacious.
Thank you :)
FYI, I've cut out some of your posts so I can fit my rebuttals in here while still retaining your quotes. I put down the original quote, responded to it, and then removed part of it.
QUOTE: "Pro makes a blatant oversimplified view of society. He contested that physical science and maths are useless, and asserted that not everyone will appreciate science as different individuals have different interest."
REBUTTAL: I am not asserting that they are TOTALLY useless, I am asserting that they are *useless to certain parties, and despite that, they are still taught past the extent that they need to be taught.* Science, chemistry, math, engineering, etc, are some of the most useful fields in the regards of technology, electrical stuff, and science. HOWEVER, by FORCING many of those subjects to be taught, the Schools are ignoring the fact that not EVERYONE is going to go into a job with those fields. We should have a *GENERAL* understanding of the world around us, but not to the extent of understanding how to do equations that "make our brains hurt" as some people like to say.
QUOTE: "An Appreciation is required, Science is meant to ease overall life styles, it comprises everything around us. It is more sensible for us to learn all of it at general assessment. What you're saying is that we should ignore everything..."
REBUTTAL: That's not what I'm saying; like I said, WE DO NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD, *BUT NOT PAST A CERTAIN EXTENT*. Not to the extent of tiny details that will likely NEVER come up again.
QUOTE: "In addition to that, Knowledge is power. It acts as a draw bridge for everyone to pursue their own interest. Through this system, people may express what they like and dislike. Not everything has to come up to our liking..."
REBUTTAL: Once again, what I said before. The school system pushes the knowledge past a necessary extent. The school system should give us knowledge that EVERYONE in the US needs to know, and then let us build knowledge that can work to a certain set of careers, rather than teaching us all information which a large portion thereof will be forgotten. You're right that not everything has to come up to our liking, because a lot of people don't like school at all, and they don't realize how useful some of it us. (Once again, SOME; not all.)
QUOTE: "Furthermore, The youth are unsure of what to choose. They can't just leave an empty field and choose a career. This primae Facie Case is just blind and holds no substantive merit. They ought to live and learn to arrive..."
REBUTTAL: I'm talking more about High School, and if I wanted to get more specific, Junior and Senior years of High School. High School is *around the time that people are deciding what they want to do.* I'm talking about WHEN we reach that point. We won't just "leave an empty field." We obtain a general field of knowledge, NOT PUSHED TO AN UNNECESSARILY ADVANCED POINT LIKE IT IS NOW (which is my big problem with the School System), and THEN choose where to work from. Once again, past a certain extent of knowledge, there's a lot we're going to forget and not use.
"Your argument of pay is irrelevant, if society revolves around meritocracy, what does it matter anyway. You work hard, you'll succeed according to your respective efforts. Education is about meritocracy, and in that, the system succeeds. "
REBUTTAL: Never heard the word meritocary before, but I'll use the Oxford definition, which is "Government or the holding of power by people selected according to merit."
Isn't the whole purpose of going to school is that we can build off of that knowledge and get a college degree, or perhaps even stop at High School, and *have the proper merits to get a job and support ourselves*? Isn't that why school is a LEGAL requirement?
QUOTE: "Pro's self interpreted everything by looking at his argument. Your argument is like a sponge, full of holes due to its subjective nature. You've also conceded half of your premise.
Pro asserts 'don't get me wrong; we need good grammar/communication skills, math for money purposes, and an accurate understanding of science for health reasons as teens'
You've essentially acknowledged my position. Health is part of Biology which makes it an essential component of physical science. It has multiple uses, such as information on Sickle cell anemia (4.http://en.wikipedia.org......), sex linkage. How does this benefit us? We may assess sex linkage characteristics, what can be brought down to our children...
These are general knowledge, it is needed for us to survive in this world. Plus, Pro..."
REBUTTAL: YES! You've hit the nail on the head! THAT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE IS the knowledge EVERYONE needs to know; my primary concern is cutting out information that WE DON'T NEED to know UNLESS we are curious or want some sort of career knowledge in that direction. Health, a BASIC to MODERATE understanding of our world, advanced grammar/communication, MODERATE mathematics, and a MODERATE understanding of various sciences. I didn't CONCEDE my point, I re-stated *again* that those things are useless *PAST A CERTAIN EXTENT.*
I don't know what outrageous claims you're talking about. I admit, communicating my point was a little difficult the first time, so you may have misinterpreted what I said or something. I know NUMEROUS people who have NEVER read a book for pleasure purposes since being in college who've also forgotten MASSIVE amounts of info they learned in High School. Yet, they're getting paychecks of $500-$2k two or four times a month.
QUOTE: "In addition to that, Pro's argument of quadratic formulas and history is weak. History is there to teach us a lesson, a lesson which we all need to learn before casting our votes. If history was to be discarded we wouldn't know the devastative effects of assuming the laws of nature into society, take the 3rd Reich for example. We need it more than you think, especially at the time when politicians appeal to our emotion....
History is then useful and in no way implies that the education is broken. Again, my opponent is very subjective in his claim. He claim that maths are useless because it is ACCORDING to him. We need maths..."
REBUTTAL: My history argument was a little badly presented, and for that, I'm sorry. LOL. Anyway, we don't always need to know CERTAIN parts of history to get what's going on, we just need a GENERAL UNDERSTANDING of many of those stories. A lot of it is just details. "In what year did so and so get re-elected for the 3rd time?" "Who was the ump-teenth president of the United States?" etc.
Because it is ACCORDING TO ME! EXACTLY! You understand what my point is! We need information that will be useful TO ALL OF US, *AND THEN* give EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US SPECIFIC TOOLS for a general field. *All of us* need SOME math; NOT say, advanced geometry, or what equation makes Pi. (Though, I am personally a fan of Pi. :P)
QUOTE: "Rebuttal: Tumblr post
Selective bias. The person is perceiving what he or she wants to perceive. The person is shifting the goal post, as he/she is arguing out of hand. This is about the system..."
REBUTTAL: That was slightly off topic, but it was to emphasize that sometimes, school DOES leave out a lot of good things and adds trivial details. That's what I meant by that Tumblr post. I believe it could be partially a selective bias, but it still holds the merit that sometimes, we are fed irrelevant details, and not given practical skills.
QUOTE: "Diversity isn't an option. We need quality teachers to cater to those needs. You are actually dwindling down professors to the status of normal 'teachers'. This is not possible. The pay..."
REBUTTAL: Right, I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't necessarily be required to take ALL of those classes because, once again, past a certain extent... you know what I'm gonna say now, LOL.
QUOTE: "We are struck by world poverty and the US has about 16% living in poverty(6. http://en.wikipedia.org......).Education is fixed on meritocracy..."
REBUTTAL: Right, it should be on 'meritocracy' as you said, and that's why a lot of education systems in places like third-world countries fail, is due to the lack of that. I get what you mean about standardization now, and thanks for elaborating on it, I agree partially. I don't think it would require SPECIALIZED teachers, actually, I think all the teachers teaching in the US right now could keep their jobs. What I'm saying is we'd *cut out POTENTIALLY useless info/details* and fill it with more practical kinds of things. You know, they could have more freedom in the class that they choose while *STILL requiring a minimum amount of knowledge in each field.*
Let me focus specifically on this: "The youth can work its own way in time, they cannot arrive at a conclusion so early in their life." Again I'm talking about MID-TO-LATE HIGH SCHOOL; by this time, we ARE deciding what we want to go to college for, and considering what skills we have that qualify as job or practical making-a-living skills.
Sherlock video furthered what I said about "filling our heads with all kinds of rubbish." Primarily focus on that, not the universe part. I think we should know a fair amount about the universe...
QUOTE: "Defense: The US Education Spending..."
REBUTTAL: I don't know where *specifically* money is being spent in the regards of education. The only thing I really implied with that argument was that spending lots of money doesn't mean anything good will happen. That's all I meant, more or less. Money does not always equal quality.
QUOTE: "Defense: Standardized tests help raise standards."
Again, I actually agree with you now, partially. Thanks for elaborating on your point.
GOOD LUCK NEXT ROUND BRAH! >:3 I'ma kick you bu-I MEANNNN have a good formal debate, you know? LOL
"GOOD LUCK NEXT ROUND BRAH! >:3 I'ma kick you bu-I MEANNNN have a good formal debate, you know? LOL"
Thanks for the kind closing remarks, I was smiling as I read lol. Also, as to your question about bolds and italics, when you type your argument, on your upper left corner, there is 'rich text', clicking it enables you to use normal word format, you may also post pictures, though you need an album on the debate website to facilitate that.
I hope that clears your question, if you have more please don't hesitate to ask, provided that I know how though, lol.
Before I begin, I'd like a little clarification. Pro is arguing for the motion that the US education/school system is broken and made contentions based on the usefulness of the education prospects. He put forth the argument, that the subjects learned in school are useless to certain parties. I thank him for his response but however I will point out that the majority of my argument(particularly R3) is straw manned and my opponent was busy rebutting my case that he failed to defend his original arguments rendering the argument invalid. This is in addition to changing the status quo to imply that the 'system' is BROKEN.
He failed to upheld his role in defending his argument and substantiating his 'system is broken' motion. In fact he even conceded some of my main points.
Rebuttal: Oversimplification Argument
Pro, I have made the premise of 'physical science' of which you contested to be useless, I did not say humanities for that matter. I said it was under the umbrella of 'science and calculation'. You've essentially said that mathematical equations are useless, as such my argument is contesting that. You are riling a reassertion of which is already brought down by my argument along with misrepresentation of my case.
Moreover, You can't expect a system to be perfect, standardization is easier with physical science due to its narrow choice of answers. It helps weak teachers to keep up with elite schools to ensure students with poor backgrounds may compete neck to neck with elite students. Not all of it is useful, obviously but it does not imply that the system is broken. Most parts of it arguably are useful because engineering is the second most popular course (8.http://www.browndailyherald.com...). The majority will find the system useful and not 'useless'.
Pro made numerous rebuttals, but most of it is 'past an extent'. Past what sort of extent? your argument hinged on a generalized subjective claim because you failed to show how, thus making me rely on your subjective interpretation. Subjectivism holds no substantiative merit, this argument is dropped. There is no point in quibbling with opinions.
Rebuttal: Usefulness of the education system
Pro here makes a conceptualized view of the education hierarchy, where the point of the school is to facilitate the future.
What is the point if there is inequality? your idea is admirable but if the system legitimizes inequality, then whatever point you're bringing is useless. Standardization is meant to curb inequality, take the west minister schools where most rich kids go to, the income gap between the rich and the poor are still widening due to the presence of this school because the poor can't afford it(9.http://www.yesscotland.net...).
The only way to cater meritocracy(which is judging students based on merit, not because he or she is 'rich' or came from a noble family of some sort) is by using the current US education system. Its use of standardization and of physical science helps prevent inequality.
I ask again? what is the point of facilitating the future when essentially, that alternate proposal legitimize inequality?. The current system is better.
Furthermore, he acknowledge my position on health. Well, this is a clear concession, sex linkage is a deep water topic to go by, how does this subject suddenly come to the light of general knowledge? and how does 'moderate' equate with'past the extent' . Pro failed to elaborate his point, his clear concession of accepting sex linkage is one such evidence.
You need an understanding of the Mendelian theory (of which is very complicated) to grasp sex linkage. Moreover the subject concerned here is health as such it is under the umbrella of 'physical science'. Pro expressed a dislike for physical science because it is useless, yet contradicts himself in accepting my premise.
Coupled with college student observation, I like your argument but it is nevertheless full of holes. Making an absolutist claim that college students forgets everything is in no way substantiative. Moreover, Pro did not elaborate, so I assume learning A,B,C,D,E,F,G was useless, clearly there is some application there. This along with sex linkage, bolsters and solidifies my argument in nullifying the resolution.
Lastly, your point on history. I agree, it was bad lol as it was meant to be impromptu. Though Learning how Richard Nixon was involved in the Watergate scandal is useful, even if it were to guess unpopular presidents like Gerald Ford is useful. It actually acts as a bridge for students. From this, we may separate those who are uninterested in politics and those who are interested. How? Well obviously the students themselves will learn politics out of curiousity.
Hence, this proves to be cost effective and a drive towards meritocracy. The system succeeds and it isn't in any way, broken.
Rebuttal: Tumblr Post
That's fine, but careful with generalized claims. You failed to elaborate it. I cannot rest on your subjective interpretation.
Pro "Right, I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't necessarily be required to take ALL of those classes because, once again, past a certain extent... you know what I'm gonna say now, LOL."
HAHAHAHA you've read my mind. Thanks for the laugh, Let's begin with the others
Pro's rebuttal is essentially 'Leave out unnecessary details'. How so? Pro's argument have one weakness which ran almost entirely in his argument. That weakness is failure to elaborate how he will prove the motion that the system is broken. How do you leave unnecessary details when those 'unnecessary details' are useful? I.e sex linkage.
Finally, on youth. Youth is between childhood and adulthood (10.http://en.wikipedia.org...) . There is no such thing as arriving at a conclusion so early in your life. Even in mid to late high school, there are those who are unable to make their own choices. The only way is to go back to standard subjects that was offered and move on from there.
Sherlock video is just rhetorical, an appeal to excite the audience. So your point is to allow people to acknowledge in ignorance that the earth is flat?
Defense: The US education spending
'Money does not always equal quality'. Same weakness, pro failed to elaborate and resorted to 'I don't know but I do know that it is wrong'. So whatever expensive is wrong, very well, then we should eviscerate the unions, reduce expenditure, reduce teachers' salaries in order to do that just to suit that 'I don't know' budget mentality. This argument of reducing spending is just ridiculous.
Defense: Standardized tests help raise standards
"Again, I actually agree with you now, partially. Thanks for elaborating on your point."
Thanks for the concession =D
Pro failed to elaborate the majority of his points all of which are backed by 0 sources with only his subjective merit to rely on. The resolution is negated. The system is not broken.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by nikidavis 2 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: Conduct goes to Con because Pro missed an argument. Spelling and grammar is a tie because I didn't see any mistakes. Convincing arguments is a tie because you both had good points. Reliable sources is a tie because Pro missed a few.
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.