The Instigator
funnybrad333
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Dnick94
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The Holocaust is justifiable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Dnick94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,173 times Debate No: 5734
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

funnybrad333

Pro

Definitions:
The Holocaust - the removal of non-nationalists from Hitler's controlled territory

Justifiable - allowable given the current circumstances

Opening Analysis:

1) The Holocaust was initiated by Hitler

Contentions:

I come with three contentions to prove my beliefs.

1) Utilitarianism - The greater good for the greater amount of people is what constitutes a moral action. Hitler was attempting to create a utopia. a place without war or conflict. While achieving this society, some peoples were not aligned with Hitler's views. For Hitler to achieve this utilitarian state, he had to subdue all opposition. The fact that the Jews constitute the majority of this internal opposition is merely a coincidence and a necessity for the greater good to be achieved.

2) The end justifies the means - This derives from my previous contention, because the greater good does justify the means to do so. For a more perfect society to be established and maintained, all negative opposition must be subdued. The Holocaust was merely a necessary action to insure the greater good.

3) All is Fair in [Love and] War - When in conflict, anything is moral. Hitler had one goal, to create utilitarian state. The people within his control that did not seek to assist or could assist his cause, or even worse, become a potential liability to his cause, had to be subdued. These actions are morally justified because in times of conflict, anything and everything possible should be at one's disposal to insure and victory and the greater good to his people be obtained.

Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Dnick94

Con

Thank you for creating this topic which I would love to argue about.

Definitions restated:

The Holocaust - the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews as part of a programme of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Justifiable - 1: the act, process, or state of being justified by God
2: the to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
3: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Rebuttals:

1. Utilitarian - idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The utopia Hitler tried to create were political utopias that are ones in which the government establishes a society that is striving toward perfection. He was trying to promote nationalism, antisemitism and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda. Indeed, Hitler's bid for territorial conquest and racial subjugation caused the deaths of 43 million people, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews as well as various additional "undesirable" populations in what is known as the Holocaust.

While achieving this society, SOME people were not aligned with Hitler's views?
More than the Jewish entire population were against Hitler's politics. In fact, World War II was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the world's nations, including all of the great powers organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. The reason that the war started was because in September 1939, the German invaded Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany occurred by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions. Germany annexed Austria, with little European response and as a result, Hitler was making claims on the Sudetenland and Danzig. Alarmed, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence. As you can see, Hitler was trying to take over Europe by force without permission from other countries. Moreover, there was more people outside of Germany than in Germany. So can you still claim that Hitler's actions of attempting to eliminate the Jews, and taking over the world is give supports toward working for the greater good?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1925), Hitler had been open about his hatred of Jews, and gave ample warning of his intention to drive them from Germany's political, intellectual, and cultural life. As a consequence, his racial hatred for Jews led to the Holocaust. "The fact that the Jews constitute the majority of this internal opposition is" NOT merely a coincidence. Hitler had hated them and wanted Germany to be cleansed out of Jews.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The assumption in antisemitism based on racial grounds is that there in fact exists a Jewish race. The proponents point to the perceived "distinctive" physical appearance of Eastern-European Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, there is no scientific evidence for the proposition that Jews constitute a "race", and even among Ashkenazi Jews, physical appearance varies greatly.

The particular problem with racial antisemitism is that the discrimination or hostility directed at Jews is based on ancestry and not beliefs or practices. Therefore, a certain Christian who may not even know of his or her Jewish background, may still be treated as a Jew and discriminated against (or worse) accordingly, as it was in the time of Nazi Germany and The Holocaust. Therefore, people who are not Jewish but have a Jewish background could be executed in the Holocaust.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I can even give you the list of many famous Holocaust survivors who survived the Nazi genocides in Europe and went on to achievements of great fame and notability: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Do you think that eliminating them in the Holocaust would beneficial to the world, and not just to Germany?

You would also like to know that Albert Einstein, best known for his theory of relativity and many other contributions to physics that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org..., left Germany before the Holocaust, essentially escaping its wrath. What would have happen if Albert Einstein was eliminated in the Holocaust too?

2. The end justifies the means - "For a more perfect society to be established and maintained, all negative opposition must be subdued."
Does that mean executing genocides would be the best way to subdue all negative opposition? Do you even consider human rights? Genocide is a crime against humanity and the policy that was adopted to prevent it was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Can you still say why the Holocaust was merely a necessary action to insure the greater good when more than 3/4 of the population doesn't agree?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

This relates to utilitarianism again: In order for utilitarianism to be justified, the justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to the victims. Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration; for example, general anxiety and fear might increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored.
Acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and little happiness. Utilitarianism has been criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, which many people also consider important. Can you still call the Holocaust justifiable?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. All's fair in love and war - something that you say which means behavior that is unpleasant or not fair is acceptable during an argument or competition.

Not anything is moral, Hitler had on goal, to take over the world for Germany, including cleansing it by eliminating the Jews. The idiom is only acceptable if the goal is morally acceptable UNLIKE creating the Holocaust. An action intended to cause harm but that inadvertently causes good results would be judged equal to the result from an action done with good intentions. Utilitarianism is not proven by science or logic to be the correct ethical system. Therefore it is not correct to say "all is fair in love and war" if the goal was morally and ethically wrong.
Source: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II
Hitler realized that Germany had lost the war, but allowed no retreats. Hitler's stubbornness and defiance of military realities also allowed the Holocaust to continue. He also ordered the complete destruction of all German industrial infrastructure before it could fall into Allied hands, saying that Germany's failure to win the war forfeited its right to survive. Rather, Hitler decided that the entire nation should go down with him. So did creating the Holocaust justifiable?
I disagree, because Hitler failed to win World War II and didn't care for his country anymore. Therefore the Holocaust was useless and was a result of Hitler stubbornness.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
funnybrad333

Pro

I will defend my own case before rebutting yours.

1. Utilitarianism

I hate coincidences. The fact that most criminals in America are black does not make our country racist, just as much as the fact that most people that opposed Hitler were Jews doesn't make him a racist. The internal cleansing was extremely over-exaggerated and was a necessary action to insure the greater good be achieved [1].

Albert Einstein would be better off dead, as he only stole other people's intellectual property. It is well known that while he was working in the patent office he assaulted and robbed the original theorist of relativity and patented the paperwork himself [2].

2. The end justifies the means

Genocide is moral. We must look at the beliefs laid out by the great philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on consequentialism [3]. The act of Genocide has great intentions. If an entire population opposes you and your views, and you have the ability to end their existence, then you ought to do so. It is your moral obligation to do so because if you do not internal strife will occur and the overall welfare of the people is at risk. Therefore, it is not only moral, but necessary, to incite genocide if the circumstances are permitting. Slavery and mass murder follow this same universal law.

3. All is fair in love and war

This phrase "All is fair in love and war" was not argued at all, so it still holds it value. You say that because the Holocaust is immoral it is inapplicable in this phrase's meaning. The Holocaust is moral, however. It was enacted in order to insure the overall welfare, safety, and prosperity of its own peoples. Because of this moral intention, it is allowable to do whatever needed as long as the greater good is still achieved [1/3]. This is why all is fair in love and war, because everyone and anyone should be allowed to do whatever possible that is at their disposal to insure the safety and prosperity of their respective peoples.

[I did not make this contention so I assume that it is your entire case]

4. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II

Hitler had lost the war due to several unpredictable actions. America was not expected to interfere, nor pose a threat, to the German War machine. Because this was false, Germany's demise ensued and at a rather fast pace. Hitler did not retreat because he believed there was a still a chance, and further establishes his care and compassion for his country [4]. This only strengthens his reasoning for inciting the Holocaust. He destroyed German industrial infrastructure before it could fall into Allied hands for that reason, so it would not fall into Allied hands. He did not want to give the Allies any spoils of war, for that would be foolish.

Conclusion: Hitler clearly had good, moral intentions for creating the Holocaust, and because of these good intentions the Holocaust itself is a moral action. The Holocaust insured the greater good for the greater amount of people.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Click the first Link Listed)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dnick94

Con

Counterarguments:

1. Utilitarianism

I never said that our country is racist, because it is not. However, people are more likely to be racist against African-Americans due to the fact the most criminals are black.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Racism - the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

All Jews opposed Hitler, because Hitler was trying to eliminate their whole population out. He believed in antisemitism and racial hygiene that the Jews were responsible for the Germany's loss in World War I and Nazi tried to cleanse Europe of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, the mentally retarded and insane.
You may argue that justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to the victims. First, utilitarians would agree that acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and little happiness. Second, human rights could be considered rules of thumb; although torture might be acceptable under some circumstances, as a rule it is immoral. Killing all Jews doesn't seem "extremely over-exaggerated and was a necessary action to insure the greater good be achieved." What greater good does killing all the Jews in Germany come out of it? None, because Germany still couldn't rule the world even if the Jews never existed in Germany.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are rumors that Albert Einstein stole other people's scientific papers and intellectual property. However, he is best known for his theory of relativity and specifically mass–energy equivalence, E = mc�. Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." Whether he stole the anything will never be disputed by me because it was well known that Einstein is "the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time", according to A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.webcitation.org...

It as also well known that during the 1930s and into World War II, Einstein wrote affidavits recommending United States visas for a huge number of Jews from Europe trying to flee persecution, raised money for Zionist organizations and was in part responsible for the formation, in 1933, of the International Rescue Committee. He wouldn't be better off dead unless you can get another person much more intelligent than him who can replace him.
Source: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

*Your second source only leads to an episode of Family Guy which contains no references to Albert Einstein. Therefore it can't be used as evidence.

2. The end doesn't justifies the means

Consequentialism - those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action

From a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.
Moral theories such as consequentialism are unable to adequately explain why a morally wrong action is morally wrong.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Moral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Therefore, the Holocaust is only justified if it is moral.
According to the 5th commandment: You shall not kill / You shall not murder, the Holocaust violates this rule.
The only exceptions is the rights of states to execute criminals, other methods of protecting society such as incarceration, rehabilitation, and war,once all peace efforts have failed , governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense.
According to the fifth commandment, the Holocaust does not fall under the exceptions. The Jews are not criminals, accused of nothing more guilty than being themselves, did nothing of treachery against Germany, didn't even try to take over Germany. Therefore, you can infer than the Jews have no threat to the society and the Holocaust was NOT moral.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if you're not a Christian, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide officially recognized genocide as a crime. Do you think still think that genocide is moral, even though most of the world agrees that it is not and that genocide is against mortality and humanity?

If an entire population opposes you and your views, then you shouldn't do so for these following reasons:
1. Waste of time
2. You will never succeed
3. It is against the fifth amendment of the ten commandments.
4. Genocide is a crime under international law
5. You will never benefit from destroying them especially if they hadn't commit any crimes against you
6. There are great and intelligent thinkers from every race.
7. Racial discrimination contradicts the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen issued during the French Revolution and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed after World War II, which all postulate equality between all human beings.
8. The Genocide is not moral that is contributing to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.
9. Genocide is against Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, and many other religions.
10. It is morally and ethically wrong.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. All is fair in love and war
The Holocaust is only moral if it was right and the only way to take a human life morally is capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. Unfortunately, no one except Hitler and the Nazi Party (and possibly you) thinks that the Holocaust was moral.

"Everyone and anyone should be allowed to do whatever possible that is at their disposal to insure the safety and prosperity of their respective peoples."

So were the Jewish people criminals, murderers, Satanist, evil, rapers, or as the childish term "bad people"? Did the Jews threatened the economy of Germany, created genocides against Hitler, or tried to kill Hitler, or even stop him from winning the war?

4. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II

"Hitler's stubbornness and defiance of military realities also allowed the Holocaust to continue." I hope you read that from http://en.wikipedia.org....

His intentions for creating the Holocaust was to eliminate the entire Jewish population. You call that a "good intention"?
He would still lost even if the Jewish population never existed in Germany. What if he made an alliance with the Jews to support Germany so the Jews can fight in World War II? Therefore, he wouldn't have to use money on worthless, time consuming, racial intentions. Then he would have a better chance of winning, in theory.

Conclusion: Hitler had worthless intentions that ultimately led to his downfall, and because of his actions, the Holocaust was not a moral action since it fell into the category of genocide.
Debate Round No. 2
funnybrad333

Pro

funnybrad333 forfeited this round.
Dnick94

Con

Extend all my arguments to this round.
Debate Round No. 3
funnybrad333

Pro

The Holocaust was a necessity for Germany during its administration.

That is all I can say without further endangering myself.

Vote Pro for freedom of practice.
Dnick94

Con

*You are only in danger if you are a Holocaust denier. I don't think you will be arrested for debating on the topic.

Extend my arguments to this round this round with this argument added.

A. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II

America wasn't supposed to interfere, nor pose a threat to World War II. In 1941 the American public wanted to stay out of war. However, The militarists in Tokyo, Japan attacked the United States, instead of letting the US hesitate and perhaps act in a limited way. Hitler decided to also declare war against America. This just ended America's hesitation about them and ensured their defeat too. In other words, if Hitler didn't decide to declare war against America, he could have possibly won World War II.
Source: http://www.2worldwar2.com...
Debate Round No. 4
funnybrad333

Pro

THE HOLOCAUST IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE IT WAS NECESSARY.

THE HOLOCAUST WAS IMMORAL.

THE HOLOCAUST WAS A NECESSARY ACTION AT THE TIME FOR HITLER AND THE THIRD REiCH.
Dnick94

Con

"*You are only in danger if you are a Holocaust denier. I don't think you will be arrested for debating on the topic."

Are you a Holocaust denier or you didn't read the above?

Did the Holocaust benefited Hitler and increased his chances of World War II?
Could Hitler ordered the deportation of Jews if he wanted to cleanse Germany?
Shouldn't Hitler NOT declare war against America so America wouldn't have to fight in World War II?
What are the benefits of killing the Jews?
Could Hitler used the Jews to fight in World War II?

I have added a video that I would like readers to see. Warning: Viewer discretion is advised.

So with that, I thank you for reading and highly urge you to vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tempus_erus 6 years ago
tempus_erus
why are we still teaching hitler is the mastermind of holocaost like mao is to china. hitler never order the extermination and never knew of it yes the camps he knew. like mao, hitler cohorts his underlyings lied about it to him for him.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
R_R,

No offence buddy, but I have to say that the term "justifiable" exists and has a meanining. It means "capable of being justified". Perhaps your meaning of "justify" is different to some of us.

American Heritage Dictionary: "To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances. "

Hence, if we take a view that a point is so legless that it could never be proven right or just or valid, the point is not capable of being justified. It is therefore unjustifiable.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Justifiable: Capable of being shown as reasonable according to the accepted standards.
"

The "accepted standards?" What numbskull lexicographer said that? Any standard can get accepted by someone.
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
Voting bombing is an infamous technique to win.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Seems like I missed voting on this one.

Interesting how all the comments went Con and Pro wins :s
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
"The attempt is not the deed. For something to be justifiable, that means you have to be able to demonstrate it is actually justified. Hitler's attempt to do so = EPIC FAIL."

Justifiable: Capable of being shown as reasonable according to the accepted standards.

(Those under Hitler's authority accepted his standards.
So when Hitler justified his actions, his subjects aligned with him.)

Justified: Acceptable or reasonable

(Not all actions are justified.)

---

Think of it this way. You can justify a conclusion with premises, but that doesn't make the conclusion right.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Well, everything is justifiable.

Hitler justified his actions. That's why people aligned with him.

"Justifiable" is different from "justified".

What Hitler did was deplorable, but he could justify what he did with his own twisted reasons.
"

The attempt is not the deed. For something to be justifiable, that means you have to be able to demonstrate it is actually justified. Hitler's attempt to do so = EPIC FAIL.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptin- Voting as a Cleaner

Conduct- CON. Con conducted himself well despite the strange actions of PRO later on in the debate. PRO also decided to forfeit a round and make repetitive, statements, ignoring CON's points. Very unprofessional at the end, when he decided to shout.

Spelling and Grammar- CON. Everything went well at the start, but there was an entire round for PRO where he decided to type in capitalized letters.

Argument- CON. PRO gave up in the last few rounds, and gave a pretty terrible argument from the very start. Ran entirely on semantics and poor data.

Sources- CON. CON's data was actually coherent, PRO actually listed a "Family Guy" skit as a reference.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Round 1: Con
- Pro's argument implies that Hitler's positions were rational. I do not believe they were. Con pointed out the Nazi invasion of foreign countries, which don't support Pro's nationalistic arguments.

Round 2: Con
-Pro makes irrational and misguided assertions that I disagree with. Mainly his view of black criminals, and Nazi anti-Semitism which is common knowledge. He claims genocide is moral- an argument those guilty of genocide have never made.

Round 3: Con
-Pro forfeited.

Round 4: Con
-Pro has not proved this argument. The Holocaust did not just take place in Germany nor just to German Jews, therefore his argument is untrue.

Round 5: Con
-Pro now states the Holocaust was immoral, but still wants us to believe it was necessary. If it was necessary to prove to the world that Hitler was a maniac, he would have a stronger argument. That is not his argument. His argument is that the Holocaust was somehow necessary for the survival of the German people, and the Aryan race. Hitler himself did not fit the mold of a perfect Aryan, therefore the argument is moot.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Conduct: Con
- Rewriting history without supporting evidence is poor conduct in my book. Slandering people (in this case Albet Einstein) without any evidence is also poor conduct.

Spelling/Grammar: Tie
- No major mistakes for either side. Neither side was particularly eloquent either.

Convincing Arguments: Con
- Pro did not back up most of his claims. He also ignored the very relevent source presented by Con (Mein Kaumpf).

Sources: Con
- Pro did not adequately incorporate his sources into his argument. In fact, the sources he provided were sometimes at odds with what he claimed.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
funnybrad333Dnick94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
funnybrad333Dnick94Tied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
funnybrad333Dnick94Tied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
funnybrad333Dnick94Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
funnybrad333Dnick94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06