The Instigator
Sniperjake1994
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
LaLaLa
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

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...
LaLaLa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,533 times Debate No: 12211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Sniperjake1994

Pro

The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

Definitions:
child labor = children working regularly in unsafe environments often underpaid.
third world countries = developing nations.
aid = medical aid, schooling, and basic comforts of life such as: beds, clothes, and hygienic items.

Observations:
The use of forced child labor in third world countries basically forces children to work in adult environments. If a limb is cut off then the child is fired without pay or medical care.

Contention 1: Child labor demands a impossible quotas that children cannot reach and are thus deducted pay. This in turn demands children to work harder to exhaustion. Many of these children live in slums with only the bare necessities while the factory owners live in a comfortable lifestyle. These owners are living at the cost of the children's sweat and effort. Many of these children are living in filthy environments with disease. By sending aid these children are living in an improved lifestyle and thus the poverty is slightly relieved. In turn

Contention 2: Education is the key to success. Sending teachers and basic educational items will educate the children and thus giving them a thirst for learning more. This gives hope to the poor and with hardships most children develop an ambitious personality to do better, and eventually impact society.
For example Marina Silva de Souza, a rubber tapper in the Amazon in Brazil, worked day after day tapping trees with her father. They were part of a group of rubber tappers. She was usually sick and her father sent her to learn how to measure and to arithmetic to make sure the contracters do not cheat them at age 15. After this brief expereince and her weak health condition, her father deciced she should move to the city and begin a formal education at age 16. There she worked hard and mastered elemntray, junior high, high school, and a college degree by age 20. Only 4 years! Education opened her eyes to the situation of Amazon forest where her father worked. A group of ranchers are planning to raze the forest for farm land. She allied herself with a another rubbertapper named Chico Mendes. From there the rubber tappers set up peaceful demontrations and set up roadblocks. The world was watching and one day Mendes was murdered. This did not stop Silva from acheiving her goal. Her personality and determination ralllied the tappers and went on with the demontrations while the ranchers harrassed the tappers. Soon the ranchers backed off. Marina Silva ran for poltics and won, she continued to voice the rights of the tappers and laborers in Brazil.
Another example is Cesar Chavez, living in poverty and working in the fields he only recieved 8th grade education. What he ended up doing was founding and leading the La Causa in a strike grape pickers and other farm owners using unfair labor.
So as you can see education the children will make an impact on and improve society.

Overall in the end the U.S should send aid to child laborers in third world countries because they will impact and improve society.
LaLaLa

Con

Ok so lets first look at the resolution:

1st it specifies the United States, meaning that the aid must come from a government entity, not a private organization that operates separately from the government. This means that aid would be provide by USAID as it is the current government entity that provides foreign aid. My opponent cannot say that we will use a hypothetical organization or one that has not yet been created (but should be), because there is no way for me to know how it will function or what disadvantages and flaws it will have.

2nd it asks what the United States "should" do. What one should do is what is morally obligated. As the negative, I have to show that there is no moral obligation for the US to send foreign aid to forced child laborers in third world countries. No obligation can be seen in two instances: 1) The act is neither moral right nor morally wrong. For example if a glass of water is in front of me, i am not morally obligated to drink it or to not drink it. So I can choose either option and not act immoral. 2) There is a greater obligation to not send aid than there is to send aid. An example of this would be if I have only enough money to either pay back a friend or pay my taxes. My obligation to pay my taxes outweighs my obligation to pay back my friend.

My arguments will prove that the United States does not have a moral obligation to send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

1) A governments only obligation is to protect its citizens. In order for a country to exist and a government to have a purpose, it must have citizens. A government has no obligation to protect people in other countries. If this were false , it would imply that if country A and country B were at war, then country C would have the obligation to protect the citizens of A and B. So at the least, the United states would not be morally wrong if it chose either to send aid or not to send aid. However, sending aid will harm US citizens. 1) In order to meet the financial burden of sending the kind of aid my opponent talks about taxes will have to be raised. This will financially hurt the US economy as the tax payers will have less money to spend. Thus Americans will cut back on spending an the economy will start to suffer. And, as seen in recent events when the economy starts to suffer companies start cutting jobs. This only further hurts the economy as even less money is being spent if people aren't getting paid. 2) Natives perceive USAID as stealing local jobs. (Stone and Clad) "Congress and the executive branch have burdened USAID Labor union complaints that USAID provokes domestic job losses also served to crimp the agency. The impact abroad of this programmatic jumble, tightfistedness and runaway conditionality has been one of incredulity. " When the natives see Americans as stealing their jobs instead of trying, the country gains hostility against the United States. This increases the chance of terrorist attacks and/or a declaration of war. So, because the US governments greatest obligation is to protect its citizens, it is obligated to not send aid for their protection.

2) In the past USAID has been ineffective.

a) USAID lacks leadership, resources, knowledge, and is an ineffective bureaucracy—that lacks a coherent purpose. (Stone and Clad) "USAID has become a dispirited bureaucracy lacking leadership, resources and rationale. Periodic electoral changes have resulted in ideologically inspired shifts in aid policy, as in the abrupt tilt toward free-market development after 1981 and the beginning of the Reagan years. Couple this with USAID's long subservience to Cold War calculations, particularly to anti-Soviet strategies that compelled support for authoritarian regimes, and the result is a jumble of activities without coherent purpose."

b) USAID lacks knowledge of local conditions, which undermines effectiveness, wastes money, and only exacerbates the problem by wasting time. (Bate) "Western consultants are often ineffective because they lack the requisite knowledge of local conditions. During a $5 million malaria effort the local health staff ran into major problems because USAID's consultants never actually visited the program area. The project subsequently failed to meet the bulk of its objectives, wasting not only money, but also the efforts of those taking part in the program and undermining the hope of those who may have benefited from it."

C)USAID is an inadequate bureaucracy which is plagued with insider corruption, and formation of insidious alliances. (Bate ) "Other problems as chronic corruption among officials involving state expenses, creating very close alliances with favored contractors and terminating contracts with organizations which complain or criticize the Agency's practices"

Therefore, even if the United Stated had an obligation to send aid, the aid would not help the situation and would only serve as a waste of money that could be put toward helping the people of the US. As such, the US would be more obligated to not send aid than it is to send the aid.

Now on to my opponent's case.

Contention 1) Here, my opponent tries to explain that the condition that the children are in is a reason for the US to send aid. He does not give a warrant as to why the United States has to send aid. Further he provides no warrant that states that US aid will actually help, he only claims that it will. So all we can take away from this contention is that the children live in poor conditions, which we already knew and provides no offense for my opponent.

Contention 2) While the general idea of this contention is good, it has one crucial flaw: The example provided does not mention the US, it shows someone BRAZIL going to school in BRAZIL and receiving the education required to stop the ranchers from destroying the forest. What this proves is that other countries do not need the help of the United states in order to make a change (The Cesar Chavez example follows the same logic). Thus you can turn this argument as it provides a reason for the US to not send aid. Further this contention lacks warrants as to the effectiveness of the US sending educational help.

It is clear that my opponent has not actually provide any evidence that the US should send aid, he has only provided a description of work conditions and proof that education is beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1
Sniperjake1994

Pro

I'll like to thank LaLaLa for accepting this debate.

Due to the fact I have not stated (I apologize) any style of debate we will go with the more traditional debate style using one's critical thinking and logic rather stating someone else's opinion.

Road Map:
Clarify. Pro's case. Con's Case.

Clarifications:
1st paragraph: Private relief aids programs in the U.S are also included. Basically any relief programs stationed in the U.S are included. Even the USAID. We will discuss this in a general sense.

2nd paragraph: Everyone knows great power comes with great responsibility. It is our moral obligation to help those in need. Example: Without the aid of philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie the U.S would have not been what it is today and the world too (he founded many educational facilities around the world though education). Many negative drastic changes would have occurred without such aids such as an increasing amount of uneducated. As the major superpower we ought to be doing for the greater good.

My case:

Contention 1: I do apologize for not finishing the contention. In turn the U.S has helped relieve the impacts of poverty and we can learn and apply it to our system.
Anyway: Yes we both agree that children are working under such stressed labor. In a hypothetical situation sending civilian aid to children is less costly than sending military troops to neutralize rebellions. This will also influence them into democracy. Children are more prone to change than adults, so this is a great opportunity to reform third world countries without using much military might/cost. It's a form of soft influential power and thus makes it more humane and reasonable.

Contention 2: Marina Silva de Souza was educated in a missionary school. Usually missionary schools are funded by foreign religious branches, so technically she was not educated through the Brazilian government. Cesar Chavez was educated in the U.S, lived in the U.S, and worked in the U.S. http://clnet.ucla.edu... Thus this doesn't follow my opponent's argument.
Elaborating: Sending educational aid will educate them about democracy and once they come to age they will be able to reform their government without our military intervention. Thus relieving our image as a butcher and allow the next generation to govern how they see fit.

So thus my arguments stand.

Opponent's case:

1) As the major superpower we have too much power and with power come great responsibility. It is our obligation to help others.
Country C will still have to protect citizens A & B because citizens from A & B will immigrate to C and C has more resources than A & B thus the economy of C is stronger. Proven example: U.S in WW1 and WW2.
His 1st point: We do not exactly have to send money. In the U.S we obviously have too much of some things. An example is food: U.S farmers produce a surplus after a harvest, usually these cannot be consumed within the given timeframe. Selling them would be an option, but foreign natives prefer to consume what they grow; and others have genetic engineering technology so they also produce enough to feed so they won't need to import food. So that really not an option. But what we can do is send the surplus to third world countries. We don't waste food in this sense and we are exercising soft power. Neither do we have to to this until they are dependent but enough to keep them alive and prosperous.
2nd point: How so? USAID are not stealing jobs. We could just share the technology if you like.

2) Again there are other alternatives besides USAID for sending aid to third world countries.
a-c) Well, reform they system and make it effective or replace it with a better system.

Overall in response U.S should sending aid to child laborers in third world countries. It is a moral obligation as a superpower to do so.

Thank you and I await your response LaLaLa.
LaLaLa

Con

Roadmap: Observations (clarifications), con's case, pro case

1) The resolution states that the US is the actor. Merriam-Webster defines United States as a "country North America bordering on Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic oceans; a federal republic." Notice the last part signifies that the Untied States is a government. Thus, the aid must come from the a government entity as per the text of the resolution. As stated before USAID is the current entity for providing aid and as such will be the source of the aid in this debate. Private relief aids don't satisfy the US condition of the resolution (This would not be the case for "American's should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries). Also, hypothetical organizations are impossible to debate as every organization will have advantages and disadvantages. I can't know these for an organization that doesn't exist.

2)My opponent doesn't mention my interpretation of should so it still stands. He also claims that it is the US's moral obligation to help those in need because it is a great power. He's warrant for this is that we need to be doing what is the best for the greatest good. This type of morality is known as Utilitarianism and basically states that the end justifies the means.

Utilitarianism is flawed; prefer deontology (morality based on the means not the ends)
1)Morality is binary. This means that an action can only be moral or immoral. No action can be somewhat moral. Deontology gives a clear view as to what is and isn't moral, and thus serves as an effective guide to action.
2)Ends based morality eventually becomes Deontology. All ends based morality requires that all people are equal, yet they all conclude that some can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. However, the fact that people can be sacrificed means that those people's rights don't matter, therefore making everybody unequal. The only way to ensure that all people are equal is to use deontology.
3)Ends based morality usually focuses on maximizing life, however this serves no purpose if nobody has any rights. Keeping innocent people in cages and providing necessities keeps them alive, but it is definitely not a moral action.
4)Ends based morality establishes that actions and omissions are morally equivalent. For example lets say person A kills person B, and Person C is a bystander. Under Ends based morality he is responsible for person Bs death. However this cannot be true. If Person A were not there than the murder would not have happened, and if Person C were not there than it would have. Thus Person A is the only one responsible for the murder.

Opponent's case:

C1) My opponent still lacks warrants to support his claims that the US can help or has helped. He merely claims that it does. He also claims without warrant that sending aid will lead to reform. I understand that my opponent wants a debate based on logic not the opinion of someone else, but that is no excuse to not provide empirical evidence that supports one's argument. In order for for this contention to have an value in this debate my opponent needs to provide empirical evidence that USAID has worked in the past and lead to reform. Insofar as he has not done this, you cannot look to this contention.

C2) Even if Silva had not been educated by the Brazilian government, she was not educated by the US government. There is a major difference between a "private" school funded in another country and a country sending education to third world countries. She still goes to a school in Brazil that was not set up by the US government in order to educate a poor community. Instead the school was set up by a church to teach Christianity to Brazilians. As for Chavez, I said the example follows the same logic: He was an American Educated in America, his education was not provided by another country's aid. Thus as I said before you can turn this argument as it provides a reason for the US to not send aid.

Now on to my case:

C1) "Country C will still have to protect citizens A & B because citizens from A & B will immigrate to C and C has more resources than A & B thus the economy of C is stronger. Proven example: U.S in WW1 and WW2." If the citizens immigrate, that is a different story and would be the same as if the child laborers come to the US. In this case, we aren't sending aid to them. My argument claims that C does not morally have to go into A and B and provide protection to the citizens of those countries. If it chooses to do so, it would not violate morality unless this act will result in harm to the citizens of A. So at the least the US can send aid and you can still vote con (based of my analysis of the word should). However, there is harm to the US when we send aid. Extend Stone and Clad, who explain that the natives see the United States as stealing local jobs. This increases the chance of terrorist attacks and/or a declaration of war. All my opponent says to this is that USAID doesn't steal jobs. I never claim that it does, the card states that the locals see it as stealing jobs. Insofar as sending USAID can result in harm to US citizens, the US has a moral obligation to not send aid.

As for my opponent's suggestion of sending things such as food, if US farmers want to send food they can that is there choice. However, this isn't the US sending aid, it is AMERICANS sending aid and that makes the difference in this debate. So, there is no reason why farmers can't send food, while the US doesn't send aid. This way we gain the advantage of soft power and avoid the harms of sending USAID.

C2) I have already explained why USAID is the only option for this debate as it is the only organization that stays true to the resolution and allows for a fair debate. If we change USAID, that is the same as creating a new organization. There is no way to know what new problems what would occur after the changes are made. So the point that USAID is ineffective is still valid.

For these reasons I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
Sniperjake1994

Pro

Roadmap: According to Con's R2 paragraph by paragraph.

Good luck and since you absolutely demanded warrants and will not continue if I don't, here you go.

Observations:

1) Alright I will agree and we will not be using private relief programs but there are other government run/funded programs other than the USAID. Examples are UNICEF, Peace Corps. All of these are reasonably reliable. For my point of view I will not be using USAID.
UNICEF:
http://www.unicefusa.org...
http://www.unicefusa.org...

Peace Corps (Years of experience since the Kennedy administration):
http://www.peacecorps.gov...

2) My argument there is a direct attack. It is our moral obligation to do so. As the major superpower it is our responsibility to aid others in need. And yes it is utilitarianism. Like all political ideals they have their pros and cons. Deontology is also flawed. Let's use an example, political corruption: by doing all these goody acts and acting all sincere and stuff to the people promising a better life you gain all this power and put everyone else in poverty. Is that morally justified, to help the majority? Basically you gain power for yourself and how you achieved it is morally wrong because only you are benefiting not the majority.
"In the case of Jim and his Indians, if Jim decides that the good demands that life be protected in the world - or at least as much right as is possible - then killing one to save nineteen is right. But for a deontologist, the preservation of our own goodness is the only thing that matters. It is more important than saving the lives of others. Thus, it is a very self-focussed (not selfish ) way of thinking. It is also absolute. This means that a deontologist should follow the rules even if doing so would bring about personal harm." -http://www3.sympatico.ca...

1) Taking action in this case is moral. Not taking action will simply allow this system to continue. I'm advocating that the U.S should take a solid stand and fight child labor. (http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...)
Con's main argument here: Deontology is the key.
Deontology is very ineffective because the means will often led astray from the goal. How can you judge something in the process, it's like saying you wish to build a 10 story complex and financially speaking only have barely enough. You will run into problems like a unstable foundation (like Petronas Towers causing you to pour more concrete), accidents, material damage, etc. Overall in the end it is a 8 story complex. Can you say I reached my goal of building a 10 story complex? No, and similarly here it the way you judge the end through the means is simply/majorly flawed.

2) Question: How and the process? Ends justify the means. How you achieve it is not utilitarianism. In the end everyone is equal. For deontology basically everyone is equal at first, then slowly it becomes that one person who has the most power.
"Deontology talks about how you morally need to do certain things. this is about you being obligated to do what is "morally" correct. As if it is a duty for you to do... in doing this you can disrupt and deprive happiness and things from other people or most people, making this not smart and immoral at times I would say" & "Utilitarianism is a communism while Deontology is more of a dictatorship, in the hypothetical sense."-Joseph Harris, master degree in philosophy.
So tell me which one promotes equality for all and brings peace?

3) Wrong idea to attack my position. The purpose of this is sending aid to child laborers will relieve them from labor to become educated. After receiving education will have basic knowledge and be able to reform their governments to how they see fit for the majority.
Well, everyone has equal natural rights. The goal is to maximize the largest amounts of rights/life as possible. The more people the more ideas. Two heads are better than one.

4) Wrong idea, end based establishes that the means are justified though the end. Not relevant with omission. This has nothing to do with utilitarianism. Otherwise please elaborate, you have a 8000 characters limit.

Pro's case:
1) U.S has helped in the past, refer to points above. My opponent is weak to rebuttal my reasoning. He has no logical argument to directly refute this and thus has ignored and dropped this case. If he was to refute it he would have done so like the 2nd contention. Did he? No.
If you insist:
"It has led to significant law reforms to criminalize such crimes against children and safeguard the rights of child victims, and has also become the source of international agreements to fight impunity within and across borders." -(http://www.unicefusa.org...)
http://www.unicefusa.org...
Stands had been taken to end child labor and refer to next argument.

2) I will withdraw my examples, but not my case.
Warrents:
http://www.fightpoverty.mmbrico.com...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...
Essentially education is crucial to reforms for a better life and peace.

Con's case:
A point to be made:
Stone and Clad source doesn't exist. I've already googled it and all the results are tile companies.

1) "If it chooses to do so, it would not violate morality" " So at the least the US can send aid"
Con conceded to my point. Otherwise his rebuttal is not really an argument. And again Stone and Clad doesn't exist so his terror attacks, war, and natives are all false. Country C is obligated to aid citizens in A & B because it is the humanitarian action to do. Why it should do it I've already explained in R2. And with his immigration rebuttal we are still aiding them by providing necessary needs such as jobs and housing, so thus we are aiding them.

Americans are run by the U.S and the U.S is made up of Americans, what's the difference if it's all the same thing / dependent? Government regulates the Americans and if the Americans make up the government and if the American farmers want to send food then it is considered that the government is sending food. Besides there are other alternatives to the USAID as stated above.

2) Refer to my arguments at the very top. There are other US programs.

And the point of this debate, I hope, is to bring awareness and the need to send aid to children in third world countries so they can be inspired to reform their countries to how they see fit and justified.

Voting issues:
1) Failed to attack my Contention 1. He only demanded warrants.
2) I've attacked all cases, so has he.
3) Failed to attack my impact both rounds: The U.S has tried attempts to reform third world countries, instead sending aids and education to children in 3rd world countries will inspire them to reform their countries to how they see fit and needed.
4) My arguments are for the good of the majority (utilitarianism) and my opponents is for deontology (selfishness). So you be the judge.
5) Con used a warrant that doesn't exist/made it up/fraud.

Thank you LaLaLa for this interesting and challenging debate! Thank you for any voters/readers and for the reasons above vote Pro.

And if I made any Pro/Con mistakes...I apologize ahead of time, I'm in a rush.
LaLaLa

Con

Ok so this debate is going to come down to my two observations.

Let's start with 2) morality. Right here, in my opponents response he makes a fatal error. Extend where he states that Deontology is flawed. Remember I gave four reasons why utilitarianism is flawed

1. Morality is binary. This means that an action can only be moral or immoral. No action can be somewhat moral. Deontology gives a clear view as to what is and isn't moral, and thus serves as an effective guide to action. My opponent doesn't respond to this argument, he only states that Taking action will be moral. However, this argument is that we can't use utilitarianism because we wouldn't say that killing 6 people is more moral than killing seven. With deontology we can say that neither act is moral, because the act of killing is immoral.
2. Ends based morality eventually becomes Deontology. All ends based morality requires that all people are equal, yet they all conclude that some can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. However, the fact that people can be sacrificed means that those people's rights don't matter, therefore making everybody unequal. The only way to ensure that all people are equal is to use deontology. Ok so lets think about it we have an option to kill one to save many. Utilitarianism says everyone has to be equal and that it would be ok to kill the one. However, this means that the one had a lesser right to life than the many. Also, you can't say that the group had a combined right to life that was greater. If the whole group had minor headaches, we wouldn't say the group is having a migraine. So, we can't add up individual rights or situations and say that the total is that of the groups. So to make sure that everyone is equal we have to say that killing is always wrong.

But wait by not acting, aren't we killing the many? No lets look at reason 4 (I'll come back to three, doing 4 first for logical reasons). Under utilitarianism we would say we are killing the many because it makes no distinction between act and omission. However, this is obviously false. Consider my previous example, person A kills person B, and Person C is a bystander. Under Ends based morality he (person C) is responsible for person Bs death. However this cannot be true. If Person A were not there than the murder would not have happened, and if Person C were not there than it would have. Thus Person A is the only one responsible for the murder. My opponent's form of morality says that both person B and C are responsible, which clearly isn't the case. So by not acting we would not be killing the many.

3) Again, this is an attack on Utilitarianism not a direct attack on opponents case. Basically, Utilitarianism says that it would be moral to put people in cages and provide necessities to keep them alive. This can never be considered moral so don't look at Utilitarianism.

But now we have a problem right? We can't use utilitarianism because it's flawed and we can't use deontology because it's flawed. Yet, these are the only ways to test if an action is moral or immoral (we either look at the action and determine if it is moral regardless of the end result (deontology) or we look at the end result to determine if an action is moral (Utilitarianism)). So we can never know when an action is moral or immoral as we can't use a flawed system of morality. Recall my analysis on should, which is dropped yet again. If there is no moral obligation to send aid, then you vote con (even if it is permissible or beneficial to send aid), because my opponent had a burden to prove a moral obligation. Because we can't prove anything as far as morality is concerned, then he can never meet this burden, and I win the round.

Ok so now I am clearly wining the round from a moral standpoint.

On to my observation 1. my opponent waits till the end of the round to provide another government agency other than USAID. However this is highly abusive as I've spent the last two rounds attacking USAID (because my opponent provided no other alternative to my suggestion or even his own agency in his original case), and now at the end of the round he provides agencies that link out of all disadvantages I've provided. So either vote him down (aka vote con) for being unfair and making it impossible for me to make adequate arguments/ allowing me to spend a lot of time making an argument that doesn't matter (but only at the end) or don't use his new examples as they have been provided too late in the round. If this is the case, then he will loose as it is very clear that USAID is ineffective. As for Stone and Clad being real: James C. Clad is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Roger D. Stone is a Senior Fellow at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington. (Google is good, except when it comes to debate research, you have to dig a little bit deeper). So there is no reason to send ineffective Aid.

Also, remember Aid will hurt US citizens as a result of the natives interpreting the help as americans taking their jobs, which leads to hostility towards the US. This was dropped.

Voters:
1) My opponent has failed to prove a moral obligation, a burden established in my first case.
2) My opponent is being abusive by bringing up crucial information too late in the round
3) USAID is ineffective and there is no reason to send ineffective aid
4) It will backfire and hurt the United states, which even if i am wrong when I say that we don't have to help other countries. It is still logical to say that the government shouldn't harm its own people to help people in a foreign nation because it needs its people to exist.
5) My opponent has given up in actually trying to make logical arguments and has resorted to appealing to ethos (aka calling deontology selfish- how could something that protects individual's rights be selfish?).
6) My opponent did only inadequate research in trying to find my source of Stone and Clad and used his inability to research as a reason to vote for him. http://www.jstor.org...- This is from Jstor, anything on this site is credible and full access is usually obtained through a college, I got the cards from another site but they are from this book.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Perhaps I should have extended 4 rounds, my mistake. And after the R2 you insisted on warrants so there you go, I was studying for hs finals and had to do some last minute research; so I apologize for the last minute posts. And you had 8000 characters, that's plenty for a full on debate, I had 600 char left. So don't go around and claim them as abusive.
Oh and your clad and stone source was posted at the last minute. So perhaps in your next debate add the website, I'm pretty sure others will appreciate it.
Otherwise it was a very interesting debate (though it swayed away from child laborers).
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Thank you, but I've already posted my arguments.
Posted by LaLaLa 6 years ago
LaLaLa
Just giving you another heads up, you got about two hours.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Posted by LaLaLa 6 years ago
LaLaLa
Sniperjake1994, you have an argument due in an hour and a half. Just thought I'd give you a heads up so that you don't forfeit the round.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Sniperjake1994LaLaLaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by DylanDraper1993 6 years ago
DylanDraper1993
Sniperjake1994LaLaLaTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by rb 6 years ago
rb
Sniperjake1994LaLaLaTied
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 zenlander 6 years ago
zenlander
Sniperjake1994LaLaLaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Sniperjake1994LaLaLaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50