The Instigator
untitled_entity
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
ToastOfDestiny
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

The United States Should Submit to the ICC to prosecute crimes against humanity

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 7 votes the winner is...
ToastOfDestiny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,272 times Debate No: 8340
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

untitled_entity

Con

I'll let aff go first if they choose to accept it.
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

I would like to thank untitled_entity for offering me this challenge, and look forward to this debate.

I affirm the resolution, resolved: the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. My value for this round will be Global Interest. When the U.S. makes decisions that impact the international community, we need to act in the benefit of it. We extend aid to ailing countries and promote peace throughout the world. When making a decision like submitting to an international court, we need to make sure we act in the interest of the world. My value criterion will be Maximization of Global Security. The best way to act in the interest of the global community is to maximize the security of the world, in doing so maintaining peace and human rights.

Definitions:
Submit – to yield or surrender oneself to the will or authority of another (American Heritage)

Jurisdiction – authority or control (American Heritage)

International Court – (based on writing by Hans Kelsen, Naval War College)
An independent authority that can make legal decisions that supersede the national laws of participant nations

Crime Against Humanity - Inhumane acts committed against any civilian population (London Charter of the International Military Tribunal)

Prosecute: to initiate civil or criminal court against (American Heritage)

Contention One: International Justice Provides Security
A) This strengthening of the international justice system is crucial in establishing global human rights standards that can prevent future genocides. National sovereignty must be made submissive to international justice. As Michael Ignatieff, member of the independent international commission on Kosovo, said in a lecture at Princeton University:
"We know from historical experience that when human beings have defensible rights—when their agency as individuals is protected and enhanced—they are less likely to be abused and oppressed. On these grounds, we count the diffusion of human rights instruments as progress. The Universal Declaration represented a return by the European tradition to its natural law heritage, a return intended to restore agency, to give individuals the juridical resources to stand up when the state ordered them to do wrong. Historically speaking, the Universal Declaration is part of a wider reordering of the normative order of postwar international relations, designed to create fire-walls against barbarism. The juridical revolution included the UN Charter of 1945, outlawing aggressive war between states; the Genocide Convention of 1948, protecting religious, racial, and ethnic groups against extermination; the revision of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, strengthening noncombatant immunity; and finally the international convention on asylum of 1951 to protect the rights of refugees. Before the Second World War, only states had rights in international law. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the rights of individuals received international legal recognition. For the first time, individuals—regardless of race, creed, gender, age, or any other status—were granted rights that they could use to challenge unjust state law or oppressive customary practice.

B) International law and international systems apply rules which prevent countries from acting in an unjust manner. The only power that can properly check the actions of a nation is that of the world. When international law is established and carried out, people of the world have a method of protecting themselves.

Contention Two: International Courts Prevent Genocide.
A) Many atrocities are committed by government heads because they do not fear punishment. Because no overhanging power exists to punish them, they are not discouraged from heinous acts. If the U.S. were to abolish its laws defining crimes, acts which we consider crimes would skyrocket, as there would be no judicial power waiting to try offenders.

B) Sharon Williams, Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School writes:
"Would a real threat of prosecution together with enforcement capability have made a difference to the course of history? In all likelihood the answer is yes. In 1936, in a speech made at a Nuremberg rally, Adolf Hitler addressed the perceived ineptitude on the part of states collectively to take effective action against governments or individuals for committing international crimes. Had strong, united, international cooperation existed, perhaps Hitler in Germany and elsewhere in Eastern and Western Europe, Idi Amin in Uganda, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Kuwait, Foday Sankoh in Sierra Leone [and many more] may have been deterred from perpetrating the widespread and systematic atrocities that the world has witnessed. "

Contention Three: International Courts Strengthen Multilateralism
A) International Courts encourage countries to work together for the common good of mankind. This kind of collaboration enhances multilateralism and shares the burden of justice around the world. Andrew Walker, Galveston District Attorney writes:
"The existence of a strong [international court] is in the United States' best interest. On a primary basis, while the United States cannot rely on most states to carry out their international obligations and must be able to protect itself from international outlaws, it cannot be required to take on all of the world's burdens. An effective international criminal court is capable of alleviating this burden by maintaining security abroad where the United States cannot or should not act. Ideally, it can force the elites of a country to respect the severity of the consequences to be imposed by political risks of international criminal acts. Furthermore, it can compel national leaders to recognize the need for an international system of multilateral accountability to replace the former bipolar political status of the Cold War. "

B) When countries collaborate on international courts, there are many positive results. No one country has to shoulder a great burden in peacekeeping and incapacitating international outlaws. It can deter officials from criminal acts. Finally, it compels national leaders to work together, fostering international relationships, exchange of ideas and global interdependence.

For these reasons I urge an affirmative ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
untitled_entity

Con

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

•Submit - verb – to defer to another's judgment , opinion, decision etc.
•Jurisdiction – noun – the right, power or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.
•Prosecute – verb – to institute legal proceedings against (a person)
•Ought - verb – used to indicate moral obligation or duty
•Crime Against Humanity - Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
( Nuremberg Trials)
The treaty that established the International Criminal Court, or the ICC runs counter to the values on which the United States was founded and should not be supported. This treaty threatens the idea of self – government which leads to my value premise.

My value premise is national sovereignty or the right of the government to uphold itself. In the resolution, the definition of submit blatantly defies the premise of national sovereignty. By submitting to the International Criminal Court, countries under the jurisdiction of the ICC are defying their own national sovereignty.

My first contention is that the ICC's powers are open to abuse. The crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC are broadly defined and could subject individuals to penalties of up to life imprisonment for actions that never were thought punishable on the international level before. Cases could be brought before the court based upon the complaint of any country that ratifies the ICC or the initiative of the court's prosecutor – an international independent counsel. Once indicted , individual defendants would be tried by a bench of judges chosen by the ICC States Parties. As an institution the ICC would act as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer prohibiting the ability of a fair trial. All of these functions would be performed by its staff or under its supervision with only bureaucratic divisions of authority. The court would be the sole judge of its own power and there would be no process to appeal its decisions, however irrational or unjust those might be. Unfortunately, merely refusing to join the Rome Treaty will not protect Americans from the ICC's reach. In an astonishing break with the accepted norms of international law, the Rome Treaty would extend the ICC's jurisdiction to the citizens of countries that have not signed and ratified the treaty. Therefore having no benefits when submitted to such jurisdiction.

My second contention is that the ICC violates the Constitution. The ICC violates constitutional principles. The failure of the ICC treaty to adopt the minimum guarantees of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is , in fact, one of the principal reasons as to why the United States has not joined the ICC treaty regime. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently suggested in the United States v. Balsys the United States cannot participate in or facilitate a criminal trial under its own authority even in part unless the Constitution's guarantees are preserved. If , however, the United States were to join the ICC treaty regime, the prosecutions undertaken by the court, whether involving the actions of Americans in the United States or overseas, would be "as much on behalf of the United States as of" any other State Part. Since the guarantees of the bill of rights would not be available in the ICC, the United States could not participate in, or facilitate any such court. United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of American citizens for crimes committed on American soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses. The Supreme Court made this clear in the landmark Civil War case of Ex parte Milligan. In that case, the court reversed a civilian's conviction in a military tribunal, which did not provide the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, holding that every trial involves the exercise of judicial power and that the military court in question could exercise no part of the judicial power of the country. This reasoning is equally applicable to the ICC.

My third and final contention is that the ICC contradicts American principles. The declaration of independence, which h articulates the principles that justify the American Republic's very existence, listed the offenses of the king and parliament that required separation from England, revolution and war. Prominent among those offenses were accusations that Britain had (1) subjected Americans to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws (2) deprived us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury and (3) transported us beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences. These provisions referred to the British practice of prosecuting Americans in vice admiralty courts for criminal violations of the navigation and trade laws. Like the ICC, these courts followed the civil law, inquisitorial system. Convictions of course, could be obtained far more easily from these tribunals than from uncooperative colonial juries. The U.S. Constitution's Framers sought to eliminate forever the danger that Americans might again be surrendered to a foreign power for trial by specifically requiring that criminal trials be by jury and conducted in the same state and district in which the crime was perpetrated. In addition, trying to rule on a person outside of the nation of where they committed the crime is irrational. It is irrational to try a criminal who commited a crime in one country to be tried in a panel that have laws dissimilar to each other. Take for example petty larceny. If I were to steal a loaf of bread in the U.S I might not even get caught – if I were to do the same in India, I could have my hand cut off. In addition, when the individual countries pick punishments on their societal norms that is personal, individual justice in their eyes. I hold this same criterion and value as you can see if the individual country picks the punishment, justice can be sought. The armies of this country can protect these freedoms, and the US and the ICC combined cannot, thus upholding my value premise that the resolution clearly violates the terms of national sovereignty a key basis of democratic nations.

I look forward to my opponents critique of my argument and rebuttal of theirs. Urge a con vote.
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

Alright, I'll start with the Neg case, then move back to my own.

We can go ahead and accept Neg's definitions. Now look to her definition ought. Under that definition we must show the United States to have a moral obligation. Unfortunately for Neg, morality stands with me.

Let's first look at Utilitarianism. If I want the greatest good for the greatest number, I immediately discard the notion of looking to the benefit of only the U.S. Therefore, I must act to benefit the world. By vouching for the ICC, I can prevent genocide, establish standards to protect all humans, and enhance multilateralism.

Now let's use Kant's Categorical Imperative. Its first maxim states "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". If we go Neg, and all countries act in the interest of their national sovereignty, we lose international law. As you can see in my first contention, international law is important in protecting humans. If we go Aff, and all countries join an international court, then we have strong protection system in the world.

Now let us examine her Value. Neg upholds the value of National Sovereignty. However, she fails to show her value is superior to mine. Maximization of Global Security definitely trumps Sovereignty. She states that the ICC violates National Sovereignty. However, not submitting to the court reduces security. This isn't an argument, just where our values clash.

If countries wish to maintain their national sovereignty, then international institutions fail. Any institution joined by multiple countries will bind them in some ways. The Kyoto Protocol removes the national sovereignty of the countries that join it in some ways. But the Kyoto Protocol is a beneficial entity, as it betters the environment. It is perfectly fine to lose some sovereignty by submitting to an international entity. Also, submitting to the ICC does not mean the U.S. loses all decision-making power. It just means that any bad decisions it makes, in this case, possible crimes against humanity, can be punished. This is actually beneficial, as it makes the U.S. accountable for all its actions. Regular courts do not rob people of their right to self-determination. I can still make whatever decision I want, but if I act criminally I am punished. My sovereignty over myself is not violated by the judicial system unless I act unlawfully.

Let's move on to Neg's first contention.

"My first contention is that the ICC's powers...could subject individuals to penalties...that were never though punishable on the international level before."
Basically, this is saying that there are acts which we consider criminal now. That is, our concept of justice is changing. Perhaps if Neg can cite an act which has recently been defined as criminal, can result in a life sentence, but should not be criminal or merit such a punishment, this argument will be salient. Until then, it is meaningless.

"As an institution the ICC would act as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer prohibiting the ability of a fair trial..."
The U.S. government does much the same - it runs jails, the police force,and can prosecute and judge defendants. This still does not remove right to an impartial judge and jury.

"the Rome Treaty would extend the ICC's jurisdiction to the citizens of countries that have not signed..."
This is yet another reason to join. By joining the ICC, the U.S. can make its opinion heard on the international scale. U.S. citizens are open to prosecution, so we may as well have our say in things as well.

"The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses..."
Let's run through the Amendments.
1st (speech) - ICC doesn't prohibit freedom of speech
4th (search/seizure) - ICC will only investigate under sufficient suspicion, not under a mere 'complaint'.
5th-6th (rights of accused) - The ICC will try an defendant as speedily as possible while maintaining fairness.
8th - The ICC will hand out just as fair a verdict as any other court.
Irrelevant Amendments: 2,3,7,9-27

On the topic of ICC protections, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Assistant Professor at Stanford writes:

"Consider, for example, the right to counsel, the presumption of innocence, and the privilege against self-incrimination. All ICC defendants "shall be entitled to have legal assistance assigned by the court where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it." The Rome Statute provides that every person "shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty before the Court." The presumption of innocence is given substance by requiring that the Pre-Trial Chamber approve a prosecutor-initiated investigation, at which time the accused may object, challenge the evidence, or present her own evidence. Moreover, persons suspected of committing a crime under ICC jurisdiction have the right to remain silent "without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence." Indeed the Rome Statute provides more of a privilege than the Miranda rule, which requires warnings only when a suspect is in police custody. In contrast, the Rome Statute requires a warning whenever the prosecution has grounds to believe that the person being questioned has committed a crime."

Finally, let's move to Neg's third contention.

"(1) subjected Americans to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws"
As I have shown, the ICC provides Constitutional protections.

"(2) deprived us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury"
Neg herself admits that the ICC provides a jury.

"(3) transported us beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences."
This was in an era in which naval transport was long and arduous. Now, a flight from, say Chicago to Amsterdam takes about 8 hours. I do not see this as a major problem faced by any defendant. There is also nothing stopping the ICC from having seats on each of the continents, making transportation much easier. As we see in my source cited above, defendants can protest their indictment if there is not sufficient evidence. Pretended offenses will not be brought to court.

"..when the individual countries pick punishments on their societal norms that is personal, individual justice in their eyes..."
That isn't to say we can't have over-arching norms. Remember, we're talking crimes against humanity here, not petty larceny. This is, under Neg's definition, murder, extermination, enslavement, etc. of a civilian population. I think the global community can agree that these are serious crimes and merit serious punishments.

Now let's move back to the Pro case. It would seem that my opponent forgot to rebut my case. I shall extend my all my arguments.

1) International justice provides security for the world, by giving every human, regardless of their government, certain protections.
2) International courts can prevent genocide and atrocities by making national leaders accountable.
3) International courts encourage countries to work together for the benefit of all mankind.
Debate Round No. 2
untitled_entity

Con

untitled_entity forfeited this round.
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

It seems my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I will just summarize my arguments.

Pro Case (Neg has not argued against any of my points)
1) International justice provides security by giving humans rights which they can exercise.
2) International courts can prevent genocide and other crimes against humanity by making national leaders accountable for their actions.
3) International courts strengthen global bonds and encourage nations to work together for the good of mankind.

Neg Case (My Rebuttals)
1) First, Neg never says why National Sovereignty is desirable. Why is it bad to lose some sovereignty over yourself? Based on Neg's definition of 'ought', National Sovereignty is not moral. If it is viewed either through Utilitarianism or Kant's Categorical Imperative, it is undesirable. We should look to Maximization of Global Security. Even then, submitting to an international court does not remove a country's sovereignty - an international court would only step in if a country failed to try a leader. Sovereignty is only reduced if a leader performs a crime against humanity. Such a court wouldn't dictate how countries act or become a dictating body. Finally, National Sovereignty asks us to dissolve international treaties and organizations, as their rules reduce the power of nations.

2) Concerning abuse of the ICC - Neg claims that the ICC could send people away for life for crimes which did not result in such a punishment before. First, this just means our context of justice is changing. Justice is a value that changes with time, so this is not a problem. Second, Neg fails to show that such a change is undesirable, i.e. a petty crime resulting in a life sentence. Remember, we are looking at crimes against humanity, which probably should result in life sentences. Also, just because the ICC selects those involved in a trial does not mean an impartial trial cannot exist. There is an appeals process, as I show in my source.

3) Concerning Constitutionality - Neg claims the ICC doesn't provide Constitutional protections. I show, in my source, that the protections it provides meet those given to U.S. citizens in the Constitution.

4) Concerning the ICC violation American principles - Neg cites the Declaration of Independence, stating that the ICC would violate U.S. citizens' rights just like the British government in the 1700s. The laws upheld by the ICC are generally desirable, and reflect the basic human concept of justice. The jurisdiction of the ICC is global, as it is an international court. This does not make the ICC foreign - rather, it makes it 'local' everywhere. It is a court for humankind. Neg then claims it removes the right to a trial by jury, and transports people overseas on false charges. The ICC, however, does provide a jury, and any false charges that somehow slip through the system can be appealed. Overseas travel these days is not a qualm. A flight from Chicago to Frankfurt can take all of 8 hours, not a trip of many weeks like in the 1700s.

5) Neg then makes some arguments about how laws are different throughout the world. I will grant her this: laws do vary throughout the world. Sure, fines and jail time will differ when it comes to small crimes, but this debate is about crimes against humanity. These are large crimes committed against large populations. Not embezzlement, not shoplifting, not disturbing the peace.

6) Neg closes out by saying that as long as individual countries pick punishments, those punishments are just because they adhere to local norms. I contend that crimes against humanity should be tried by humanity. It is alright to have different laws in different places, but that is not to say that we cannot have overarching standards of justice.

Just as a refresher, here's the card I used in the last speech concerning ICC rights. You can skip reading a second time if you wish.

"Consider, for example, the right to counsel, the presumption of innocence, and the privilege against self-incrimination. All ICC defendants "shall be entitled to have legal assistance assigned by the court where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it." The Rome Statute provides that every person "shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty before the Court." The presumption of innocence is given substance by requiring that the Pre-Trial Chamber approve a prosecutor-initiated investigation, at which time the accused may object, challenge the evidence, or present her own evidence. Moreover, persons suspected of committing a crime under ICC jurisdiction have the right to remain silent "without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence." Indeed the Rome Statute provides more of a privilege than the Miranda rule, which requires warnings only when a suspect is in police custody. In contrast, the Rome Statute requires a warning whenever the prosecution has grounds to believe that the person being questioned has committed a crime." - Assistant
Professor Cuellar, Stanford.
Debate Round No. 3
untitled_entity

Con

untitled_entity forfeited this round.
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds, I shall briefly (really quickly this time, I promise) restate my points.

Aff Case:
1) International law gives people rights.
2) International courts can deter crimes against humanity by making global leaders accountable.
3) International courts encourage countries to work together.

Neg Case (My Rebuttals)
1) Neg neither shows that National Sovereignty is desirable, nor refutes my claim that it is sometimes necessary to lose sovereignty.
2) Neg never shows her side to be the moral side (based on her definition of 'ought'), whereas I show that Aff is moral.
3) International courts do not completely remove national sovereignty; this only occurs if a national leader performs a crime against humanity and the nation fails to prosecute him.
4) The ICC contains an appeals process, and just because it selects those participating in the trial does not mean they are biased. Biased judges/juries can be appealed.
5) Neg's claims that international law is inconsistent with local standards fail. We are talking about big crimes, which we can all agree on a penalty for. We are not talking about petty theft.
6) The ICC offers protections similar to the US Constitution.
7) The ICC does not violate the American principles. The ICC's laws agree with the basic human concept of justice. The qualms that the U.S. had with the British government in the 1700s are not present in the ICC. Actually, the ICC is for the American (and global) principle of justice.
8) While laws may vary from place to place, it is important to establish international norms of justice.

Thank you for reading, and please vote Aff!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Toast, I felt your pain, but more permanently.
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
I agree toastofdestiny
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
This is also clearly an abusive vote - 14 points to Con in two votes for no reason!
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
How am I losing?
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Don't forget to post your argument!
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Sounds good.
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
Well there are 6 days to accept so after wednesday would be fine, if it expires I'll just resend
:)
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I'd love to take this debate, but unfortunately I can't right now. I'm already involved in one, and I have CFLs coming up this weekend. I'd be glad to debate you sometime after next Wednesday =).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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 Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by SKEPTICISM 8 years ago
SKEPTICISM
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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 untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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 ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
untitled_entityToastOfDestinyTied
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