The Instigator
resolutionsmasher
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

The US ought to submit to jurisdiction of a world court designed to prosecute CAH.

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...
resolutionsmasher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,766 times Debate No: 7067
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

resolutionsmasher

Pro

this debate needs to be executed in a traditional LD style in this order:
Round 1: AFF gives case, NEG gives case and attacks aff case
Round 2: AFF attacks neg case and rebuild own case, NEG rebuilds case and gives final observations
Round 3: AFF gives final observations and key voting issues, NEG gives key voting issues

"The interests of any truly and perfectly just and humane nation should not be the exaltation of themselves but in reality it is to be the furtherance of the fight against inhumanity and injustice." Because I agree with the following statement from John Fitzgerald Kennedy I stand affirmative on the following resolution.

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I will offer the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary to clarify in today's debate.
Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation.
To submit: to yield oneself to the authority or will of another.
Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

The affirmative's value in today's debate is international justice. International justice is the cooperation between countries to hold individuals responsible accused of dangerous human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. International justice acts as a safety net to ensure that perpetrators cannot escape justice by crossing borders i.e. Sadam Hussein. Thus my criterion will be protecting human rights. Human rights are freedoms, immunities, and benefits that all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right. International justice is best upheld by providing basic rights to every human being. Without dignity and respect for humanity there can be no justice.

The affirmative will offer the following two contentions in today's debate:
Contention 1: Crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice.
Contention 2: Not submitting to an international court would undermine U.S. values.

Now back to my first contention. Crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice. According to philosopher John Stuart Mill, "Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect to their rights." Thus only when each individual is given the same respect and treatment under the law can justice be obtained. Because the United States is a high-powered democracy of the people, my burden is to prove that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court, such as the ICC, whereas the negative's burden is to prove the opposite.

Sub Point A: According to the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, "From 1950 to 1990 there were seventeen genocides, with two that resulted in the death of over a million people. In 1994, 80,000 Tutsis died during a three-month genocide in Rwanda. Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are not only something that occurred in the distant past; sadly they remain a vivid reality. If there is ever hope to end such crimes, they must be addressed by the law on an international scale." Thus because there are so many acts of crimes against humanity internationally, which are a threat to international justice, the only way to stop it is to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court system, such as the ICC.

Sub Point B: Justice is an essential instrument for deterring crimes against humanity. Jenny Lin explains how justice will deter these heinous crimes: Justice is essential to human rights. It provides a measure of respect for the victims of serious abuse and punishes those who commit atrocities. Justice helps societies come to grips with the past and move forward. It promises to save lives by deterring at least some of tomorrow's torturers. Justice for yesterday's crimes supplies the legal foundation needed to deter atrocities tomorrow.

Sub Point C: The US public has indicated to more strongly support the ICC than the government does. A March 2000 poll run by the Program for International Policy Attitudes shows that 71% of Americans "strongly approve" of the idea that "top leaders, such as heads of state could be arrested …for certain serious crimes and then tried by an International Criminal Court, and if judged guilty would be punished." The serious crimes mentioned include, violating human rights and making war on ethnic and other groups in that leader's country.
Thus I achieve my burden because I've proven that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court.

Now on to my final contention. Not submitting to an international court would undermine U.S. values. An international court must be placed in a larger context of a world shaped by law. U.S. foreign policy has consistently highlighted the value of international law, in constructing a world more similar to U.S. interests. Sarah Sewall and Carly Kaysen articulate, "Throughout the past decades, the United States has played a leading role in strengthening international law in order to protect U.S. interests. Every new international legal instrument or institution has entailed obligations and required concessions of some form. The price of the accommodation has been outweighed by the benefits of both the specific institution and the expansion of a legal framework is the idea of equality under law. Seeking an exemption from that principle strikes a heavy blow against the international rule of law. Sewall and Kaysen further by explaining how an International Criminal Court would actually be consistent with U.S. values: Of course, the Court will prosecute and ultimately imprison some perpetrators of massive crimes who might otherwise enjoy impunity, and the ICC also may prompt national prosecutions where they might otherwise have been forgone. In helping establish the historical record and holding criminals accountable where states could not, the ICC may help end cycles of violence in particular conflicts. By reinforcing norms against the most egregious crimes, the ICC will have some deterrent value. And by helping to bridge the gap between promise and practice, the ICC strengthens norms of state and individual behavior that the United States has long supported, and it lends credence to the proposition that international laws matter, including laws that protect Americans overseas. Thus not remaining consistent with strengthening international law is a danger to the U.S. because it undermines important United States international values.

This is why the affirmative choice is the correct solution to this issue
rougeagent21

Con

I will first state my own case, and then move on to attack my opponent's.

Resolved: "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." As I will show you, the idea of an international court would not be beneficial to the United States. Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court, I must negate.

As a quick observation before I enter my case: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first.

In order to offer clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions:
Ought – Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Submit – TO GIVE IN: To yield oneself to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Jurisdiction – The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary)
International Court – A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary)
My value for this round will be that of justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US should uphold justice, as it is what we strive for.

My value criterion will be upholding a moral obligation to our citizens. This is just because a country must first establish rights for its own citizens, before trying to help others. This brings me to my first contention.

Contention 1: US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court.
The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. This is unconstitutional, and hypocritical. This hypocrisy is unjust, and does not uphold our moral obligation. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen.
US citizens have a right to a public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, the standard time leading to a hearing is 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a fair and speedy trial. Again, this would be hypocritical, and unconstitutional.

Contention 2: Counter plan. The Alien Torts Claims Act is a piece of legislation passed in the US that allows for citizens of the US to be tried in the US, domestically, under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This means that a citizen who commits a crime against humanity will be able to be tried on US soil, with all their rights, but under international law, so that they will still be held accountable for their actions. ATCA is a much better alternative to the ICC, since we still protect our citizens, and we don't lose vital fundamental rights given to the citizens. It holds ALL benefits of an international court, but while still adhering to our constitution and protecting our citizen's rights. There are NO benefits of the ICC, or any other international court, that are not exercised in the ATCA.
As I have shown, an international court would not fare well for the United States. We must uphold justice, protect our citizen's rights, and adhere to our constitution. Because an international court in unconstitutional, I stand in absolute negation of today's resolution. Now to my opponent's case.

--HIS VALUE AND CRITERION--
My opponent values international justice. While this can be important, it misses the mark for this resolution. The resolution speaks specifically about the United States. If it said: "that a democratic society ought to submit..." or something to that effect, then international justice would be fine. This is not the case, and we must look to uphold the UNITED STATE'S citizens' justice. His criterion does the same thing. It is too broad for this debate. Protecting human rights, great. For this topic, we must protect US citizens' rights first.

--HIS CONTENTION 1--
My opponent goes to great lengths to tell you something very obvious, that crimes against humanity are not just. I cannot argue against this, as it is an obvious statement. Of course they are wrong. The aim of this debate, is to show how to JUSTLY punish these crimes, not provide a broad statement about them.

--HIS CONTENTION 2--
He says here that not submitting would undermine US values. This is faulty logic. How would we be upholding our values if we contradict the very document that our country was based on? How is that sticking to our values? How is that just? WE MUST stay true to our values, my opponent simply misunderstands them.

So, my opponent's value and criterion have proved faulty. Therefore, you must look to which case better upholds my value, justice, and my criterion, the rights of our citizens. Whichever side does this the best should win the debate. The affirmative offers to contradict American values, and forfeit the rights of our citizens. Is that just? Is that protecting the citizens' rights? The negative offers strong values, and protection of our rights. Is that just? Is that protecting our rights? Leaving you with those thoughts, I conclude my portion of this round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
resolutionsmasher

Pro

In this round I will first attack my opponent's case and then defend my own.

My opponent began with a quick observation. While not a part of his case It is still necessary that I refute it so as to provide a clear and concise argument. He stated, "The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world." By isolating the priority of one nation over that of the rest my opponent denies the remainder of the citizens of the world their HUMAN RIGHT to the benefits that America could provide by submitting to a world court. This is better refuted using the idea of cosmopolitanism which states that any and all capable entities in the world share the top priority of protecting humanity as a whole rather than their isolated group. I will further incorporate this ideology into my debate as I go.

My opponents value criterion was that of moral obligation and I negate it using the above argument against his observation.

My opponents first contention was this, "US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court." I refute it using two arguments.
1. If the US were to join the ICC or any other International Court, the US, as its most powerful member, would be able to change the negative attributes of said court so as to provide for a fair trial by jury. (ie: the UN, if the US leaves the UN then UN fails, therefore US has most political leverage in international situations)
2. My opponent says that a fair and speedy trial is not provided by the ICC as dictated by the US Constitution, but since when has the US perfected its own court system. A federal offence trial will take at most 25 years to play out by the time the appeals circuit has been exhausted. If the US can't provide a trial that fits its own legal parameters then a new court system needs to be sought out.

My opponent's second contention was that of a "counter plan", referring to the Alien Torts Claims Act. While this allows international criminals to be tried in the US under international law, it is obviously ineffective. The US refuses to abide by international law and prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in our own nation. This is seen in the treatment of prisoners at The Guantanamo Bay prison facility at which the prisoners are not being given their promised fair and speedy trial. Because the US cannot abide by international law without submitting to the ICC or any other court then the US must submit so as to ensure the protection of human rights.

I will now begin defending my own case.

He attacked my value and criterion by saying that because they address the issue on an international scale that they do not apply to this debate. He is dead wrong. He says, "The resolution speaks specifically about the United States. If it said: "that a democratic society ought to submit..." or something to that effect, then international justice would be fine. This is not the case, and we must look to uphold the UNITED STATE'S citizens' justice. His criterion does the same thing. It is too broad for this debate. Protecting human rights, great. For this topic, we must protect US citizens' rights first." By excluding the US from said "democratic societies" then my opponent must then be convinced that the United States is not a democratic society which is a very fool-hardy thing to believe. The US founders themselves upheld the idea that all humanity was more important than the citizens of a single nation and this is seen in their backing of Lockian theory which states that "ALL men are created EQUAL and are endowed by their creator with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So my opponent is incorrect to say that the US government has a responsibility to its citizens over the rest of humanity.

He attacked my first contention by saying that it didn't further my debate but only expounded upon a pre-established fact: that crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice. To further imbue this argument with relevance so as to discard my opponent's attack I will simply offer a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers. "No man or group of people is just who sits by as the destruction of justice plays out in a nation different than their own. If there is only justice anywhere if there is first justice everywhere." This means that until we submit to a world court and join the fight against crimes against humanity we might as well be committing those very crimes, even if we must purge ourselves of those very crimes. My first contention establishes that crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice everywhere, including America, where, as my opponent agrees, we have a responsibility to preserve justice.

My opponent attacked my second contention by saying that joining the international court would undermine US Constitutional values. In response I bring up that I have provided substantial evidence that this is not true. Furthermore I have proved in the same arguments that refusing to join said court would undermine our US Constitutional values.

My opponent ends his attack by saying that the case that upholds "his" value and "his" criterion more is the victor. While I disagree, I offer the following observation: I have in my rebuttal and attack shown how my case upholds both his value and criterion and my value and criterion better than his. Thus by his own established standards my case is the clear cut winner of today's debate. Thank you.
rougeagent21

Con

I will quickly defend my own case, and then move on to attack my opponent's.

--MY OBSERVATION--
He attacks this by saying that if we go by my observation that we would be denying the citizens of the rest of the world their rights. First of all, I was only stating the facts, where is the document saying we will protect the world? There is none. Where is the document saying we will protect our citizens? Oops, its in our constitution. So you see, this point cannot be argued, for it is fact.

--MY VALUE--
My opponent does not attack my value. Therefore, he agrees that the value for the debate will be justice. You must now look to which case better upholds justice, as we both agree upon it.

--MY VALUE CRITERION--
As he attacked my value using the attack on my observation, I will defend my value using my defense on my observation.

--MY FIRST CONTENTION--
He tries to attack this by saying that the US could change the ICC so that it would be just. This simply does not fly. Since when have our enemies agreed to our standards? Since when have countries like Iran, Syria, and Libya agreed with the United States? (Yes, all of these countries are a part of the ICC) http://www.iccnow.org... This idea that we could change it is not only unlikely, but impossible.
He also attacks contention one with the statement :"...but since when has the US perfected its own court system?" Did you catch the contradiction there? First he says that the US could change the court to our standards, and then goes on to say that our standards are flawed! I cannot refute his attacks since they contradict each other, making no sense.

--MY SECOND CONTENTION--
He attacks this by saying: "The US refuses to abide by international law and prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in our own nation. This is seen in the treatment of prisoners at The Guantanamo Bay prison facility at which the prisoners are not being given their promised fair and speedy trial. "
There are two problems with this attack. First off, we recently shut down GITMO, if you haven't noticed. Second, there is no evidence that GITMO actually violated any laws. Lets talk about my opponent's "prisoners." The prisoners happen to be radical terrorists, thought to have been associated with the 9/11 attacks, and others. BY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, they are not entitled to traditional rights. These rights apply to a regular, uniformed militia, NOT radical terrorists, who are NOT uniformed, and who do NOT abide by the rules of war. His attack here clearly falls. With my case still upright, I will now further attack my opponent's.

--HIS VALUE AND CRITERION--
We have already established that we must go by my value for this debate. However, for you skeptics out there, I will further attack his value/criterion. He makes his defense simply by saying that I do not include the United States as a democratic society. He is "dead wrong." I never said this. The whole point of my previous attack was to show just how specific this resolution is. "United States" is specific, while "democratic society" is not. See the difference? My opponent fails to actually defend against my attacks, but merely points out what he thought to be an error in my grammar. Please see my previous attacks on his value/criterion.

--HIS FIRST CONTENTION--
I don't see why my opponent insists upon this argument. YES, crimes against humanity are a threat to justice. We get it. This does not actually further your case, but states a well known fact.

--HIS SECOND CONTENTION--
My attacks on this still stand, as I have defended my evidence. (Please see my previous defenses on my case) His contention two also falls.

In conclusion, you must realize that my case better provides for justice, and protecting our citizens. My entire case still stands, while my opponent's has fallen. I offer a final challenge that my opponent MUST answer in order to win this debate. (In addition to attacking my case and defending his own)

1-Prove why submitting to the ICC would not violate our citizens' rights, and would not violate our constitution.

Please tell me how. I await your answer. Ending on that note, I conclude round two of the debate. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
resolutionsmasher

Pro

I will first reattack my opponent's case and then rebuild my own.

His observation: He states that there is no document saying that the US has no duty to help protect the world against CAH. This is incorrect. The US is a charter member of the United Nations and the UN was instituted to protect the world against such crimes. Its constitution therefore becomes that document that my opponent references.
As a pre rebuild to a possible attack on this point is that the UN cannot replace an international court. The UN acts as an international legislative & executive branch. The ICC would stand as the judicial branch in that scheme. Therefore to fulfill our obligations given by the UN we must submit to an International Court designed to prosecute CAH. Another document would be the resolution. Let me prove this by saying that the resolution states "Crimes Against Humanity", since US citizens are a part of humanity these crimes are against them. As my opponents states, the US has an overwhelming responsibility to protect its people and therefore must fight CAH. The best way to do so is as I have shown: submitting to an international court.

Forgive me for not seeing his value. It was not separated from his definitions and I missed it completely. I will now address it. I agree with his value, but only with how I define it in my case.

Now for his value/criterion. He defended it using the defence on his observation so I therefore attack it as such.

He defended his first contention with two points and I will attack in the same way:
1. The US enemies in the ICC (roughly 11.5%) are far outnumbered by our allies (98.5%). Information for this statistic was provided by a phone call to the office of the US Secretary of State and is therefore legitimate.
2. He stated that I contradicted myself on this point. I stated that the COURT SYSTEM was illegitimate. The executive and legislative systems are the ones who handle foreign policy (such as ICC relations), NOT the COURT SYSTEM. Therefore I did not contradict myself.

He defended his second contention with two points. I will attack as such:
1. GITMO has not been shutdown and the bill to do such a thing has not even entered Congress. The so called prisoners of war are not being released. Try asking the federal government for your info rather than simply contradicting me.
2. My opponent references a certain human rights law that allows the treatment of the prisoners at GITMO, but does not provide his typical hyperlink to such law. This is because the human rights law that he mentions are those created by the Geneva Convention and those laws are openly violated by GITMO because they make no exception for nationless, lawless, terrorists who are therefore protected from such treatment.

Now on to his attacks against my case.

He attacked my my Value/Criterion by saying,"The whole point of my previous attack was to show just how specific this resolution is. "United States" is specific, while "democratic society" is not." To this I say that as I have proven in my most recent attack on his observation ("...the resolution states "Crimes Against Humanity", since US citizens are a part of humanity these crimes are against them. As my opponents states, the US has an overwhelming responsibility to protect its people and therefore must fight CAH. The best way to do so is as I have shown: submitting to an international court.") when applied to only the US, it is the responsibility of the US to provide for justice in and out side the US. I have shown how this can be done and that by upholding my value/criterion and submitting to an international court designed to prosecute CAH and my opponent has not addressed this in my value/criterion but has instead attempted to argue petty issues.

He attacked my First Contention by saying that it doesn't further my case and by saying that he agrees with it. If my opponent agrees with it then he agrees with the evidence that I provided concerning the typical American agreement with joining the ICC. By agreeing with my sub-point C then he must agree with my case under his own stipulations of putting the US citizens first.

He did not provide a new attack on my Second Contention and refuses to negate the evidence that I provided when I rebuilt that, "My opponent attacked my second contention by saying that joining the international court would undermine US Constitutional values. In response I bring up that I have provided substantial evidence that this is not true. Furthermore I have proved in the same arguments that refusing to join said court would undermine our US Constitutional values." Since my opponent didn't address this then his attacks fall through and my second contention stands.

As for the sole burden of proof that he provided me with at the end of ROUND 2, I respond by saying this:
1. I have provided solid statistical evidence in my attacks against his case that prove that his said detriments to the Constitution do not in fact exist.
2. I have provided evidence in my case which I have successfully defended that submitting to said court would actually endeavor to protect the constitutional rights of Americans plus the HUMAN RIGHTS of the people of the world given to them by nature and ensured by US approved international law.
Thus I have achieved my opponents burden of proof and by his own stipulations win this debate. I further this idea and place a burden of proof on my opponent that he must be able to prove in order to win this debate (along with successfully arguing against and for mine and his case respectively):
Prove: My opponent must provide tangible evidence how it is not selfish and discriminatory of the US to put its citizens above those of the rest of the world.
Prove: Prove crimes against humanity can be prevented/punished when the whole world (including the US) is not willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the only institution able to prevent/punish them.

My opponent cannot win this debate unless he is able to uphold these two stipulations.

This concludes my input for this round. I strongly encourage voters to vote for my side of the case.
rougeagent21

Con

As I have only a limited amount of time, I will address the core of the debate, the nitty-gritty so to speak. What does this all mean, and what does it mean to me?

First, we must establish what value we are going by today. My opponent values international justice, while I simply value justice. International justice is all well and good, but simply cannot be achieved. We can try, and possibly even succeed in some small degree, but can never achieve it. What we can achieve is justice for those within our borders. A country must first establish rights for others before it can even think of trying to do the same for the rest of the globe. As I will show you later, by submitting to an international court, we would forfeit our own rights. Therefore, we cannot go by international justice since it is implausible, as well as contradictory to its meaning.

My opponent's criterion is human rights, while mine is the rights of our own citizens. Here is the thing: its one or the other. If we submit to an international court, we may try to protect others' rights, but we forfeit our own at the same time. Are we going to protect our rights, or the rights of the world? One or the other.

My opponent's only real point is that by submitting to an international court, we would be upholding US values, and vice versa. This is certainly not the case. How are we upholding our values if we give up our constitutional rights so easily? How is that sticking to our values? I agree with his saying that crimes against humanity are unjust, so I only need attack this point. Since it is contradictory, it falls.

I uphold my case with the fact that submitting would undermine our constitution, and the fact that there are other ways to accomplish what an international court would try to do. (Without the forfeiture of rights) So we must now look to which case provides for justice? For protection of our citizens' rights? I will leave that decision to you, the voter.

The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Negated.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Thanks dude.
Send a friend request to us if you want to keep in touch and possibly debate me.
Posted by NItEMArE129 7 years ago
NItEMArE129
good debate
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Well, good luck! I have regionals in two days, so it should be fun.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Most debaters here don't have as great of cases because we don't debate and improve them as much as your state does, but I've been working on this one since the resolution was posted in December and I expect it to do well at tournament tomorrow.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
wow. ya we can go as many times as we want! winning is always important though. i dont like this topic as much as the last few. voting and death penalty were great.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Here in Oklahoma we are only allowed five regular season tournaments a year, not including regionals, districts, state, and nationals. That's why winning is so imortant and vital.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
just ld. i go to pretty much EVERY tournament, which kills my weekends. but hey, its all worth it in the end...right?
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
What about you?
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Yes, but not with this argument. I did the One for many debate and the felon's right to vote. I'm also a qualified DEX person. I do poetry, humorous interps, and humorous duets on the side.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
have you been to any tournaments yet?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by cool_dude 7 years ago
cool_dude
resolutionsmasherrougeagent21Tied
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 TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
resolutionsmasherrougeagent21Tied
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 beccanixx 7 years ago
beccanixx
resolutionsmasherrougeagent21Tied
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 resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
resolutionsmasherrougeagent21Tied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
resolutionsmasherrougeagent21Tied
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