The Instigator
Rayze
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
stepeters
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was unjustified.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Rayze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,361 times Debate No: 31837
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Rayze

Pro

Like I said before I'd debate this topic again since I still feel that I didn't do the previous A-bomb justification debate justice, and I'll keep on debating this topic until I do feel as though I gave it justice. (When I say justice I do not mean a win, I mean a coherent, understandable, strong argument.)

Rules:


(1) First round is for acceptance.

(2) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(3) No trolling, or semantics.
(4) No new arguments in the final round.
(5) Lets keep this mature and courteous (I lost some points myself for calling my previous opponent ignorant which was a big mistake).

The Burden of Proof is shared.

stepeters

Con

I accept this debate, and look forward to an enlightening discussion.
I would like to note that this is my first debate on this website, and any tips/feedback that anyone could give me would be appreciated.
That being said, it's my understanding that I will be arguing that the use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II WAS justified.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
Rayze

Pro

Before I start my contentions, I would like to welcome you into DDO Stepeters, and may the better debater win. (sources will be underlined)

Contentions:

1. The Atomic bombings were state sanctioned acts of terrorism
Since the definition for terrorism is broad, the following definition will be used for this debate. Terrorism; violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).


2. Militarily unnecessary
The use of the Atom bomb was opposed by high ranking military officers.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." -Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." -Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953–1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. 312–313.


"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." -Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.


3. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both War Crimes and Immoral

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalled Gen. Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan, said: " 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

"I think it made it very difficult for us to take the position after the war that we wanted to get rid of atomic bombs because it would be immoral to use them against the civilian population. We lost the moral argument with which, right after the war, we might have perhaps gotten rid of the bomb.

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" -Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand (http://members.peak.org......)



stepeters

Con

Since no strict format was laid out I will list my contentions, and then proceed to refute in the next round as I assume that is what you are doing.

Contentions:

1. Above all it is the duty of the United States Government to defend its citizens.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As outlined in the preamble of the United States Constitution, this government was founded on the principle that it would provide for the common defense of the country.

I would like to define the common defense as the defense from any threat to the American people, Foreign or domestic.

The staff for admiral Chester Nimitz calculated the potential death rate during the first thirty days of the first operation alone (Olympic) would result in 49,000 deaths. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had estimated that Olympic would have cost 109,000 lives (1).

To put this into perspective on D-Day, and the invasion of Normandy the U.S. has lost an estimated 2499 troops (2). The total estimated amount of American military deaths in the whole war was around 400,000 (3).

The first campaign of an invasion of Japan would have cost drastically more lives then what the U.S. lost on D-Day, and about " of what we lost in the entire war. Note that this is for the first campaign only.

Surely such a loss of American life would not be in the best interests of the preamble of the united stated. "To provide for the common defense" This is the common defense of all American people including the Military. On these grounds the government had an obligation to use the best method available to them in the interest of defending their soldiers. In this case that method was the atomic bomb. The bombs brought a prompt end to the war via Japanese surrender resulting in no further loss of U.S lives.

The U.S was faced with two scenarios: costly invasion of Japan, or dropping atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were justified in using the bomb to fulfill their obligation to "provide for the common defense" of the American people. The alternative of invasion which would have cost countless American lives is surely the opposite.

2. War is War
I would like to state that the Allies were in a state of total war with the Axis during World War II

Furthermore, I would like to define total war with dictionary.com definition: "a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation"s full financial resources are devoted" (4).

The Japanese were throwing every available weapon they had at us including the fearful kamikaze pilots. This was a very strong weapon because the emotional toll fighting an enemy that isn't afraid of death is huge.

In a war in which the enemy was using every weapon they had against us we had the right to retaliate in similar manner. Thus is war.

The Japanese government is to blame completely for what happened to them. It was they who initiated the unprovoked attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, and it was their government that didn"t surrender when given the chance.
By definition of total war the U.S had every right to use the Atomic bombs as they were our best available means to end the war.

3. The Japanese had a choice
Had the Japanese been serious about ending the war they would have surrendered when the allies submitted the Potsdam Declaration.

The 13th point in the declaration states: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction" (5).

The whole notion that Japan was looking for peace was just a misleading myth. The US gave them every chance to surrender, and save the life of their people. There was nothing else the US could have done to force Japan to surrender to quickly as they were determined to fight.

Not only did we warn them of utter destruction, but we also dropped leaflets on their cities with all sorts of information pertaining to our use of the Atomic bomb. They outlined the power of the bomb, and our intent to use them again to militarily cripple the Japanese. On top of that, the leaflets also told the Japanese citizens to evacuate their cities (6). The fate of Japan was in the hands of their government and to an extent their citizens.

(1)http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... (para 9 and 10)
(2)http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk... (para 13)
(3)http://warchronicle.com...
(4)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(5)http://www.atomicarchive.com...
(6)http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Rayze

Pro

Rebuttals to opponents contentions

1. Common defense
My opponent's case shows a false dilemma, that only a land invasion or atom bomb would force the Empire of Japan to surrender.
He also uses an unusual justification by using the preamble to the Constitution and by comparing D-Day to the hypothetical operation Olympic. Contrary to that false dilemma the Empire of Japan was already teetering as a result of heavy aerial bombardment and the suffocating blockade that prevented supplies from entering the resource poor nation."The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." -Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. In addition the Soviet offensive, that occurred in August 9th exactly three months after Nazi Germany's defeat, would have rendered the use of the atom bomb unnecessary as the Soviet offensive shattered the Kwantung army, took the 4 northern islands (part of the Kuril island chains) and pushed the IJA from Korea past the 38th parallel.(http://en.wikipedia.org......(1945)) (The Wikipedia reference has most of the sources that I used)

2. War is war
First point Tit-for-tat.
My opponent believes that the compensation of numbers for tenacity justifies state terrorism.
It is true as my opponent states that, "The Japanese were throwing every available weapon they had at us including the fearful kamikaze pilots. This was a very strong weapon because the emotional toll fighting an enemy that isn't afraid of death is huge." However, this was all to realize the conditional surrender of Japan. The Empire was not naive to think that it would win a prolonged war against the allies. Instead it sought conditional surrender to protect the institution of the Emperor. The defensive operation of the Military Junta in the case of an American invasion, the Ketsugo-Sakusen, was designed to force so many American casualties to force the American people to allow an armistice with which the Empire could avoid humiliation for the military and avoid a Versaille style disarmament. (Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-674-01693-4)


Second point Pearl Harbor, a slight digression.
Thank you for stating that Pearl Harbor was deliberate surprise attack and that the only the Imperial Military Junta was to blame when in reality it wasn't.
When the Second Sino-Japanese war erupted in 1937 the actions of the Empire turned the West sharply against the Empire of Japan, leading the US to freezing all war time assets of the Empire which were crucial to supplying the Imperial war machine. The Empire tried to negotiate until late November. However by then negotiations were deemed futile by Hideki Tojo, and the 14 part message was sent to the Washington Embassy to deliver a veiled declaration of war. Unfortunately, due to IJA interference or the incompetence of the Embassy staff, the veiled message of war was never transcribed prior to the attack. Which lead to the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor. In truth Pearl Harbor was not a true surprise attack but a break down of military intelligence combined with the audacity of Admiral Yamamoto, but I digress.

3. The Empire had a choice
My opponent states, "The 13th point in the declaration states: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction".
However, I doubt that my opponent understands
what unconditional surrender meant to the Imperial Japanese military. Unconditional Surrender to the Empire of Japan meant that the US could force its brand of Victor's Justice on the Imperial Military (they feared a Treaty of Versaille's style of disarmament), depose the Showa Emperor, and force the Empire of Japan to be exploited by the US. None of which could be accepted by the Imperial Military regime. In addition the wording of the Potsdam declaration was a rehash of the Cairo Declaration, which states the same points stated in the Potsdam declaration and was rejected by the previous regime. Considering how none of the concerns of the Empire of Japan was alleviated in the declaration it is logical that the declaration be rejected by the Junta and that the Empire of Japan plan to implement two policies, 1. the Ketsugo Sakusen to force the allies to make favorable conditions for an armistice, or 2. Try to get the USSR, the only Allied power who was not a signatory of the Potsdam declaration to mediate the war between Japan and the Allies. (Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-674-01693-4)

Before I turn it back to my opponent let me quote Leo Szilard the man who helped start the Manhattan project, "Great power imposes the obligation of exercising restraint, and we did not live up to this obligation. I think this affected many of the scientists in a subtle sense, and it diminished their desire to continue to work on the bomb."
stepeters

Con

Counter Rebuttals:

“The Empire of Japan was already teetering as a result of heavy aerial bombardment and the suffocating blockade that prevented supplies from entering the resource poor nation.

While the Japanese were “teetering” from intense bombing and blockades, this in no way shows that they were going to surrender to the allies. In fact, prior to Hiroshima the leadership of Japan had never proposed any terms or circumstances where they would surrender. Following that, even after the war none of the top 8 leaders of Japan* claimed that there was any set of terms of circumstances that would have prompted Japan to surrender prior to Hiroshima (1).

The “heavy aerial bombardment and suffocating blockade” were not going to force the Japanese to surrender.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa –a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara- had drawn the conclusion that Japan was not poised to surrender before Hiroshima, nor was it ready to surrender immediately after the atomic bomb (2).

My opponent quotes several high ranking officials in the U.S. Military all of whom think that Japan was going to surrender without the dropping of the Atomic bomb. I have provided two pieces of evidence that directly contradicts that notion.

Japan didn’t surrender because the soviets had joined the fight. They surrendered to the allies because they feared the soviet style occupation that would have happened had the war dragged on. The Atomic bomb gave Japan the best means out of the war.

Also, the use of the bomb was a show of American force towards the Soviets who most people predicted would be trouble when they didn’t remove their troops from Eastern Europe at the end of the European Theatre. So, the Soviet invasion didn’t render the mob unnecessary, but rather encouraged its use to curb Soviet aggression.

“My opponent believes that the compensation of numbers for tenacity justifies state terrorism.” This is a straw man. I simply say that in a war either side is obligated to use the best available weapons to them, as is the nature of war.

My opponent’s second rebuttal tries to justify Japan using all of their weapons to obtain a conditional surrender. I fail to see how Japan seeking any kind of conditional surrender (which FDR would not allow) in any way refutes the using of the Atomic Bomb. If anything it deepened the need to use the bomb as the Japanese will was not about to break.

I am not going to refute the Pearl Harbor point because it would not help to further my point. I would like to say though that the fact that the US freezes war time assets to a warmongering nation does not constitute an attack on our country as we have the right to restrict our trade.

“I doubt that my opponent understands what unconditional surrender meant to the Imperial Japanese military.” I am fully aware of what unconditional surrender meant to Japan. I would, however, like to state the ego of Japan doesn’t change the fact that they were still warned of mass destruction. The fate of the Japanese was still in their hands. They had every opportunity to avoid the atomic bomb. There was nothing more the US could have done to warn them.

I will now refute my opponents main points

"The Atomic bombings were state sanctioned acts of terrorism"
I would like to break down your definition of terrorism:
"violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

"violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) in the general public"- the purpose of the bombs was not to strike fear in the Japanese population, but rather to display the hoplesness of contuning the war effort. Furthermore, the US has seen through kamikazee pilots and Banzai attacks that Japan was using, and the citizens who were willing to use shaprened bamboo to repel invaders had shown the US that the Japanese had no fear.

"a group of persons or particular persons, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal" - You could say that the goal of ending the war is a political goal, but in the defense of your country I would highly discount that as terror.

"deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."- Hiroshima was targeted not because of its civilians, but for its military significance. "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army which commanded the defense of all southern Japan"(4).

"Militarily unnecessary"
I already refuted this earlier

"The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both War Crimes and Immoral"
First, I would like to note that my opponent uses a series of hypotheticals in which the bombings would have been deemed war crimes.

It is ironic that my opponent claims the bombings as war crimes immoral because the combined death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less than the standard B-29 bombing of Tokyo. "Estimates of the number killed range between 80,000 and 200,000, a higher death toll than that produced by the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki six months later" (5). The conventional bombing alone had already clamied more lives than both of the Atomic Bombs combined as they had only claimed around 150,000 casualties (6).

Before I pass it over to my opponent I would like to note that he did not provide a rebuttal for the justification coming from the "common defense" of the preamble, and that he merely calls it "unusual"

He also fails to adress how the atomic bombs would have saved more lives than the most likely option of invading Japan.

*The top officials being Emperor Tojo and his highest advisers.

(1) http://www.fpri.org... (para 15)

(2) http://www.boston.com...

(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(4)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

(5) http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...;

(6) http://www.atomicarchive.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Rayze

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate thus far although he has misinterpreted some of his sources including that of Mr. Hasegawa's. With the accusation of a strawman I haven’t committed a straw man yet by saying, "My opponent believes that the compensation of numbers for tenacity justifies state terrorism." This sentence was required to clarify your response, which I slightly disagree with. I also thank Pro for using evidence 1 and 2 to establish that the Imperial Japanese Military was still politically savvy and pressing its own terms like I said in the previous round.



Counter rebuttals
1. Common Defense
By putting a warmongering nation like the Empire of Japan (EoJ) between a rock and a hard place, the US shouldered a direct risk of an attack. The use of the common defense doesn’t apply in a scenario where the US purposefully baits a warmongering regime.

2. "I fail to see how Japan seeking any kind of conditional surrender (which FDR would not allow) in any way refutes the using of the Atomic Bomb. If anything it deepened the need to use the bomb as the Japanese will was not about to break."

While the creation of the atom bomb was during FDR's administration, ultimately the decision to drop the Atom bomb rested with the Truman administration, and it was the Truman administration that would not allow an armistice or conditional surrender. If FDR was still alive when the EoJ was suing for peace he would have accepted the "One Condition" as he would have read Leo Szilard's memorandum arguing against the use of the Atom bomb. The memorandum by Mr. Szilard warned that the use of the bomb against the cities of the EoJ would start an atomic-arms race with Russia, and raised the question of whether avoiding such an arms race might not be more important than the short-term goal of knocking the EoJ out of the war. (http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu...)

The fact that the EoJ was suing for peace shows that the Atom bomb was unnecessary as a political tool.The US could've ended the war earlier had it shown a willingness to negotiate. Instead it issued the Potsdam Ultimatum which failed to clarify the position of the Emperor and did not alleviate the concerns of the EoJ.

3. "The Atomic bombings were state sanctioned acts of terrorism"
To refute Pro's counter contention let us refer to Richard A. Falk, who has written in detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He writes, "Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender.... But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhattan Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer puts it, the United States owed the Japanese people 'an experiment in negotiation,' but even if such an initiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets." ("State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45)

4. Militarily Unnecessary
Pro still has not refuted the contention that it was militarily unnecessary.
General MacArthur also stated that the bombs were unnecessary from a military perspective. General MacArthur seemed to understand what the Empire of Japan was trying to accomplish through attempts at conditional surrender when Norman Cousins, author of the Pathology of Power, wrote, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

5. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both War Crimes and Immoral
"During November 1944 American B-29's began their first incendiary bomb raids on Tokyo, and on 9 March 1945, wave upon wave dropped masses of small incendiaries containing an early version of napalm on the city's population—for they directed this assault against civilians. Soon small fires spread, connected, grew into a vast firestorm that sucked the oxygen out of the lower atmosphere. The bomb raid was a 'success' for the Americans; they killed 125,000 Japanese in one attack. The Allies bombed Hamburg and Dresden in the same manner, and Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, and Tokyo again on May 24. The basic moral decision that the Americans had to make during the war was whether or not they would violate international law by indiscriminately attacking and destroying civilians, and they resolved that dilemma within the context of conventional weapons. Neither fanfare nor hesitation accompanied their choice, and in fact the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima was less lethal than massive fire bombing. The war had so brutalized the American leaders that burning vast numbers of civilians no longer posed a real predicament by the spring of 1945. Given the anticipated power of the atomic bomb, which was far less than that of fire bombing, no one expected small quantities of it to end the war. Only its technique was novel—nothing more. By June 1945 the mass destruction of civilians via strategic bombing did impress Stimson as something of a moral problem, but the thought no sooner arose than he forgot it, and in no appreciable manner did it shape American use of conventional or atomic bombs. 'I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities,' he noted telling the President on June 6. There was another difficulty posed by mass conventional bombing, and that was its very success, a success that made the two modes of human destruction qualitatively identical in fact and in the minds of the American military. 'I was a little fearful,' Stimson told Truman, 'that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength.' To this the President 'laughed and said he understood. (Kolko, Gabriel (1990) [1968]. The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943–1945. pp. 539–40.)

Warcrimes
The ruling of the Japanese court case Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State, which declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, found that the, "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war". (http://www.icrc.org...)

stepeters

Con

stepeters forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Rayze

Pro

It is unfortunate that Stepeters had to forfeit in the 4th round, and ended a good debate prematurely.

Therefore I urge a Pro vote due to Con's forfeit
stepeters

Con

stepeters forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
RayzestepetersTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
RayzestepetersTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
RayzestepetersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.