USGF should substantially reduce its military presence in Kuwait, Afghanistan, South Korea, Turkey
Debate Rounds (4)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
A. 90 useless B61 bombs remain without any deterrent or defense effect.
Turkey has been a quiet custodian of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons... But as the Cold War waned, so, too, did the weapons' strategic value... However, no permanent nuclear-capable U.S. fighter wing is based at Incirlik, and... Today, Turkey hosts an estimated 90 B61 gravity bombs... is reportedly not certified for NATO nuclear missions... the readiness of NATO's nuclear forces now is measured in months as opposed to hours or days... a perception the nuclear bombs deployed in Turkey cannot significantly add to because they are unable to be rapidly launched
THUS THE PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE ITS MILITARY PRESENCE BY REMOVING ITS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM TURKEY.
-I reserve the right to clarify.
ADVANTAGE ONE - PROLIFERATION
A. Sub-point – NPT Credibility
1. It's on the brink – the global order is threatened by multiple scenarios for proliferation. Now is the key time to strengthen international regimes.
The global nuclear order today could be as fragile as the global financial order was two years ago... We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the nonproliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation... and the three most urgent challenges to it are North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan... The collapse of the existing nuclear order would constitute just such a change -- and the consequences would make nuclear terrorism and nuclear war so imminent that prudent statesmen must do everything feasible to prevent.
2. Removing TNWs from Turkey solves NPT credibility.
The strongest argument for the removal of US tactical nuclear weapons... is the threatened collapse of the NPT... US nuclear weapons... violates the spirit, and probably also the letter... nothing in the NPT [says] that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances... If... Obama... wishes to save the NPT - a logical first step would be to remove US tactical nuclear weapons.
3. NPT collapse causes proliferation –conflicts will escalate to nuclear use and great power wars
Muller 2008 (Harold, Director of the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt in Germany and a professor of IR @ Frankfurt U, The Future of Nuclear Weapons in an Interdependent World, Spring, The Washington Quarterly • 31:2 pp. 63–75)
The NPT is the cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime... there is now the strong impression that the NPT's... is dead... With the bargain shattered, the iron law of armament would apply: the most powerful weapon of an era is inevitably either had by none or by all. The present state of the nuclear nonproliferation regime... seems to be a dangerous precondition for rampant proliferation... Regional conflicts could escalate to the nuclear level. The optimistic expectation of a universal law according to which nuclear deterrence prevents all wars15 rests on scant historical evidence and is dangerously naive. Nuclear uses in one part of the world could trigger "catalytic war" between greater powers, drawing them into smaller regional conflicts, particularly if tensions are high... the more states that possess nuclear weapons and related facilities, the more points of access are available to terrorists.
B. Sub-point – Preemption
1. The existence of TNWs in Turkey independently encourage preemptive strikes against NATO and deck Turkey's ability to mediate conflict in the region.
There is a rising sentiment amongst the population for the removal of US nuclear weapons from Turkish territory... Turkey's location has added an element of... risk... such as Iran and Syria... stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Turkey might provoke a pre-emptive strike upon NATO bases... the difficulty of explaining the continued presence... to Muslim and Arab neighbors... undermine Turkey's clear diplomatic objectives to act as a mediator within the region. Turkey has a unique opportunity to play a positive role in promoting non-proliferation. Ending nuclear sharing and fully complying with the NPT would act as a powerful example to neighboring states and strengthen Turkey's legitimacy.
2. TNWs encourage a use it or lose it mentality, risking nuclear war.
Such forward deployed weapons could provide incentives (or pressure) for an adversary to strike these weapons early in a conflict... The U.S.... could correspondingly feel pressure to use these weapons rather than risk losing them. This would simultaneously exacerbate crisis instability and... weaken deterrence of escalation. The greater the incentives to target such nuclear weapons and/or to use them rather than lose them, the greater the risks of nuclear conflict... removal of... nuclear weapons could contribute to broader improvements in security relations, including arms control and confidence- building measures...
3. That causes global nuclear war.
Utgoff 02 (Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses., Survival, vol. 44, no. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 85–102 "Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions")
Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible... Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West... With... nuclear ‘six-shooters'... we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
1. The plan must happen now, failure to do so in the next 12 months will lead to the destruction of the nonproliferation regime http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...
The next 12 months could be pivotal in determining whether [the nonproliferation regime] will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve... The international community has crucial choices to make, and the stakes could not be higher. Having failed to heed repeated warning signs of rot in the U.S.-led global financial system, the world dare not wait for a catastrophic collapse of the nonproliferation regime. From the consequences of such an event, there is no feasible bailout.
2. Withdrawing TNWs from Turkey would play a key role in non-proliferation.
M�tzenich, Vankrunklesven, Kolesnikov '08 (Dr. Rolf M�tzenich MdB, Patrik Vankrunklesven, Sergei Kolesnikov, "Time to remove tactical nuclear weapons from Europe?," PNND Notes, Vol. 3)
Turkey has a unique opportunity to play a positive role in promoting non-proliferation. Ending nuclear sharing and fully complying with the NPT would act as a powerful example to neighboring states and strengthen Turkey's legitimacy. Moreover, efforts by the Turkish government to play a leading role in the elimination of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction would receive overwhelming public support.
I wish my opponent luck and look forward to his next post!
A. Interp- Aff must specify an agent
B. Violation- extend the plan text he didn't.
C. Voters issue key to ground, and education, and he has no solvency doesn't specify who what and where.
A. Interp- The Aff must specify who will fund the plan.
B. Violation- The doesn't extend the plan text.
C. Voters issue key to limits, and education.
T- Military presence
A. Interp- Military Presence= Non Combat troops Thompson '02
B. Violation- Eliminates TNW's
C. Voters for fairness.
A. Interp- reduce does not equal eliminate. Words and Phrases '07
B. Violation- Eliminates all weapons
C. Voters for Neg. Ground
US-Turkey relations building now and cooperation is up
Today's Zaman 6-24-10 (Turkey-US intel sharing against PKK working fine, says Armitage, Retrieved June 26, 2010 from http://www.todayszaman.com...)
Intelligence sharing in northern Iraq, where the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party's (PKK) main camps are based, is working smoothly, according to the chairman of the American-Turkish Council (ATC), Ambassador Richard Armitage. Armitage, who is leading a delegation of visiting ATC members in Turkey, expressed his condolences to the Turkish nation for the victims of the recent terrorist attacks. Speaking about the level of cooperation between Turkey and the US against terrorist activity, he said, "When an ally is in trouble, we are troubled," and added that intelligence sharing between the US and Turkey against the PKK is working, the cooperation between the two countries regarding Iraq and Afghanistan is going well and economic relations are improving, too. In related developments, US Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley also made a statement in a press conference yesterday on a PKK attack on Tuesday that killed five people in İstanbul and another PKK attack over the weekend that left 11 soldiers dead. He offered condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and said: "There has been no change in the level of US-Turkey cooperation in confronting the PKK. The PKK, as you know, is a Foreign Terrorist Organization and presents a joint common threat to Turkey, to Iraq and to the United States. They are a threat to the stability of the region and we support efforts by our Turkish allies and our Iraqi allies to deal with the challenge posed by the PKK."
Continued military presence is vital for close US-Turkey relations
Walker 08 (Joshua W. Walker, a graduate fellow and Ph.D. candidate in politics and public policy at Princeton University, formerly worked at the Turkey desk at the Department of State, "Reexamining the U.S.-Turkish Alliance, The Washington Quarterly, Winter 2007/2008, http://www.twq.com...)
Finally, the particular sensitivities of the AKP must be understood by U.S. leaders to rebuild a stronger working relationship with Turkey. Close security ties between the United States and Turkey have always been the strategic glue guiding the relationship. Military and intelligence services have been effectively integrated through a common NATO framework, but U.S.-Turkish security relations have always been exceptionally close because of shared common threats and a continued U.S. military presence in Turkey.
US-Turkey relations key to secure the Middle East and Persian Gulf
Rand 10 (Improved U.S.-Turkish Relations Are Vital to Better Security in the Persian Gulf and Middle East, February 3, 2010, Retrieved June 25, 2010 from http://www.rand.org...)
The United States can take a major step in improving the security environment in the Middle East and Persian Gulf by giving new impetus to revitalizing its security partnership with Turkey, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today. The study finds that Turkey plays a critical role in four areas of increasing strategic importance to the United States: the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Europe, and the Caucasus and Central Asia region. Turkey's cooperation in each area is needed to achieve U.S. policy goals. As a result, revitalizing the U.S.-Turkish security partnership should be a top U.S. foreign policy goal, said study author F. Stephen Larrabee, who holds the Distinguished Chair in European Security at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. The study notes that Turkish foreign policy has undergone an important evolution since the end of the Cold War, as the end of the Soviet threat reduced Turkey's dependence on the United States. It also opened new opportunities in areas that previously had been neglected or were off-limits to Turkish policy, particularly the Middle East and the Caucasus/Central Asia. Turkish leaders have sought to make use of this diplomatic flexibility and room for maneuverability by establishing new relationships in these areas. This has resulted in a gradual broadening and diversification of Turkish foreign policy, Larrabee says.
The impact is super-power conflict
Mead 08 (Walter Russell, sr. fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, January 1, pg. http://opinionjournal.com...)
The end of America's ability to safeguard the Gulf and the trade routes around it would be enormously damaging--and not just to us. Defense budgets would grow dramatically in every major power center, and Middle Eastern politics would be further destabilized, as every country sought political influence in Middle Eastern countries to ensure access to oil in the resulting free for all. The potential for conflict and chaos is real. A world of insecure and suspicious great powers engaged in military competition over vital interests would not be a safe or happy place. Every ship that China builds to protect the increasing numbers of supertankers needed to bring oil from the Middle East to China in years ahead would also be a threat to Japan's oil security--as well as to the oil security of India and Taiwan. European cooperation would likely be undermined as well, as countries sought to make their best deals with Russia, the Gulf states and other oil rich neighbors like Algeria. America's Persian Gulf policy is one of the chief ways through which the U.S. is trying to build a peaceful world and where the exercise of American power, while driven ultimately by domestic concerns and by the American national interest, provides vital public goods to the global community. The next American president, regardless of party and regardless of his or her views about the wisdom of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, will necessarily make the security of the Persian Gulf states one of America's very highest international priorities.
US TNWs aren't key to Turkey prolif
Van de Zwaan and Sauer 09
Today, the political climate is starkly different. NATO currently includes every Central European country plus the three Baltic states that previously were part of the Warsaw Pact. Furthermore, Russia is now a strategic NATO partner--at least officially. Additionally, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are committed non-nuclear weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with little interest in building nuclear programs of their own. The same applies for Turkey--more or less. (Its case is a bit more complicated because some experts claim that Turkish hard-liners might push for a domestic nuclear arsenal if Iran develops a nuclear weapons capability; that said, the hard-line position probably won't be change by the absence, or the presence for that matter, of U.S. nuclear weapons.)
It'll take a long time, they don't have the tech, and it'll be transparent
Barkey 09 (Dr. Henry J. Barkey, Visiting
*I Claim Mulitiple worlds until 2nR
1. We meet - I specified the U.S. Federal Government as the agent. It works as a singular body especially when dealing with international issues.
2. If a specific arm of the government was specified, NEG would scream abuse with an OSPEC. This gives AFF no ground in the plan text. Cross apply this against his voting issues.
3. I meet the education standard. The quantity of education lies within the withdraw of TNW's... Not of who is doing the action.
4. Immediately after my plan text, I reserved the right to clarify. I now shall use that right in clarifying that fiat will remove these troops by Congress. Prefer my first arguments first.
1. We meet - The U.S. Federal Government is the one doing the action and therefore pays for it.2. The USFG has a specific fund for military actions. Once again, specifying the defense budget for payment would call for NEG to run an OSPEC. This takes my ground completely away and destroys his standard.
3. Once again education has to do with the TNW's, not who's funding the plan.
4. STANDARD: Predictability... It is obvious who funds the plan.
5. Right to clarify: Any money needed to do the plan will come from the defense budget. Prefer my other arguments first.
MILITARY PRESENCE T
1. Voters and Standards are independent requirements for T. NEG groups them together and calls it good.
2. A name is not a dictionary.
3. A full definition is required. Interpretation off of that definition should be fair ground to both teams.
4. I meet fairness due to the fact that he has a legitimate DA.
5. COUNTER-INTERPRETATION: Military Presence means the posturing of military capability.
"Power projections... has two components: warfighting and presence. Warfighting is the direct application of military force to compel an adversary. Presence is the posturing of military capability, including nonbelligerent applications, and/or the leveraging of information to deter or compel an actor or affect a situation."
---Therefore, even if you accept his definition of military presence, I still meet a legitimate interpretation of his T.
1. There is still military presence in Turkey. My plan only eliminates TNW's, it does not eliminate military presence.
2. Against the violation, there are still U.S. owned weapons in Turkey.
3. You have legitimate ground. In fact, if I did eliminate U.S. presence in Turkey, there are probably even more DA/K/CP possibilities. Also, you ran a legitimate DA.
4. Voters/Standards are two separate T requirements. Grouping them together is bad for debate.
REVERSE VOTING ISSUE: The 2 SPEC's and the 2 T's were clearly for time skew abuse. Covering them always requires more characters than running them. Allowing this to go unpunished is bad for debate and should not be allowed. A ballot for AFF for this reason alone is therefore justified.
FOR CLARIFICATION, I AM GOING TO CALL THE FIRST FOUR CARDS A DISADVANTAGE AND THE FIFTH ON CASE.
1. The 2nd card cites 2 reasons why US/Turkey relations are currently standing. The first is continued military presence. The second is common enemy threats. As clarified before, there is still military presence in Turkey. Passing the affirmative plan doesn't trigger any sort of international conflict that wasn't already there. We still have military presence in Turkey and we still have common enemy threats. Therefore, our relations still stand.
2. Due to the plan not causing any worsening relations, the link falls. Particularly the link the the 3rd piece of evidence that says that US/Turkey relations are key to middle east stability. Therefore there is no link to the impact
3. Even if there was a link to the impact, it would not pass the brink. If pulling out TNW's weakened relations (which there is no evidence suggesting such), it would only be when relations were completely non-existant until the impact actually took serious effect. The evidence specifically says "The end of America's ability to safeguard the Gulf"... However, America can still safeguard the gulf without Turkey AND this doesn't specifically result from US/Turkey relations. Essentially he says US/Turkey relations fall, therefore the impact. But the impact specifies that in order for this to happen, it is up to the US to be unable to protect the gulf.
4. The 1AC Advantage outweighs the Disadvantage. Nuclear proliferation causing nuclear extinction is the greatest problem that we need to avoid. The only one avoiding it is the affirmative case.
5. The impact evidence is cited from the "opinion journal"... Meaning that this is someone's opinion and is not factual. Judges: Prefer factual evidence.
6. US/Turkey relations will surivive
---Turkey Analyst at Chatham House think tank; 2010; Dr. Katerina, Fadi, CNN, 3/5, LexisNexis, SLE
"Turkey is militarily important to the U.S... It has a military base at Incirlik... US/Turkey relations have been going through a relative low in the last few years... there is less warmth in the relationship, but the relationship has been strong for a decade and is very strong on a variety of issues."
-This shows that even if there is low relations, that the relationship as a whole will survive.
-It also shows that there will be military presence even after passing the plan... Further destroying the reduce T.
-Not to mention that one of his pieces of evidence demanded that US presence was key to relations. This proves that presence will still exist meaning the link is further dead.
-It also shows how NEG will actually have to prove that relations need to be directly impacted in order to trigger the DA. As of now, he doesn't have a single piece of evidence that even mentions TNW's... Meaning he has no evidence showing how adopting the plan would harm any relations.
His only card is that "US TNW'S aren't key to Turkey prolif."
1. The card only specifies that Turkey is "more or less" not interested in proliferating but it doesn't ONCE cite that removing TNW's has anything to do with that. The tag is completely wrong in summarizing the evidence. All the evidence does is list some countries not interesting in nuclear weapons. It doesn't even mention TNW's
2. My evidence, on the other hand, specifies that it isn't Turkey proliferation that reducing TNW's solves. Rather, it is countries like "North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan." He has totally missed the point of my case.
-This leaves the only option at the end of this round to adopt the affirmative plan.
I look forward to your next post.
BlackNovice forfeited this round.
1) This doesn't address any of my 2AR claims. He drops all of my points in what could quite possibly be the worst Neg. Block ever.
2) Flow through all of my points.
3) Take note of his 1NC. Those are the only points that he can use to win the debate.
A/T- Counter Interp
1.Not real world—no policy is implemented by all three branches at the same time.
2.Not an answer—Even if their interpretation is correct that the USFG is all three branches it doesn't change that fact that immigration policy is not implemented by the judiciary. Instead they have to prove that their use of a particular branch is key to solvency of the plan
3.Crushes CP grd—Lack of specification crushes out ability to use on of those agents that is critical neg ground
4.Crushes DA ground—means we can't run judicial activism, court stripping, congressional stripping or any other branch specific DA
1. Turn: Increase PIC grd— over-specification ensures an increase PIC ground and PIC grd is key to negative ground
2. Over-spec is better than under specification—even if we force you to spec the agency and other parts of your aff it only increase your chance of solvency and gives us all a chance at a unique form of debate education—the process of implementation.
3.Over-spec is inevitable—K's prove that when you read the aff there every word you say is a form of specification. No unique offense.
Doesn't meet education
1.Key to education—critical to policy making education because it allows policy makers to map and navigate organizations
Richard Elmore, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 601-616
Defining implementation analysis as a choice between market and nonmarket structures diverts attention from, and trivializes, an important problem: how to use the structure and process of organizations to elaborate, specify, and define policies. Most policy analysts, economists or not, are trained to regard complex organizations as barriers to the implementation of public policy, not as in-struments to be capitalized upon and modified in the pursuit of policy objec-tives. In fact, organizations can be remarkably effective devices for working out difficult public problems, but their use requires an understanding of the reciprocal nature of authority relations. Formal authority travels from top to bottom in organizations, but the informal authority that derives from expertise, skill, and proximity to the essential tasks that an organization performs travels in the opposite direction. Delegated discretion is a way of capitalizing on this reciprocal relationship; responsibilities that require special expertise and proximity to a problem are pushed down in the organization, leaving more generalized responsibilities at the top. For purposes of implementation, this means that formal authority, in the form of policy statements, is heavily dependent upon specialized problem-solving capabilities further down the chain of authority. Except in cases where a policy requires strict performance of a highly structured routine (for example, airline safety inspections), strong hierarchical controls work against this principle of reciprocity. To use organizations effec-tively as instruments of policy, analysts and policymakers have to understand where in the complex network of organizational relationships certain tasks should be performed, what resources are necessary for their performance, and whether the performance of the task has some tangible effect on the problem that the policy is designed to solve. Analysts and policymakers do not need to know how to perform the task, or even whether the task is performed uniform-ly; in fact, diversity in the performance of the task is an important source of knowledge about how to do it better.
Plan text doesn't specify the agent the abuse begins then.
1.Strategy skew—lack of specification has already jacked the 1nc—it forced us to run this argument instead of our sick agency tradeoff DA's
2.Also crushes CP grd
3.Finally its not about what you do—its what you justify—which is vague plan writing and death of policy debate
Extend the voters and you can not win a round bc you follow the rules RVI doesn't apply.
1. Doesn't specify who in the USFG will fund it. He has two options 1. Concede that he doesn't specify funding in the 1AC or 2 he raises taxes to fund his plan each of them are bad. He must specify who is going to fund the plan and how much it'll most failure to do this is a voters issue. No one in the real world would vote for a plan that doesn't have funding, or raises taxes and neither should you.
GROUP ALL OF IT: I specified Congress as my agent as I legitimately reserved the right to do in my 1AC. He never addressed this claim. Therefore, regardless of how much you may agree with his claim, he failed to address how I link to non of the debate harms he claims.
A/T COUNTER INTERP
Group 1 and 2-->
a. For judges who accept ASPEC I did provide analysis that congress shall pass the plan (point 4 in 2AC)
b. New Argument: Cross-apply my 1AR analysis that was cold-dropped that demanded only 1NC argumentation. (from here on out, I'll cross-apply it as CANAA)
c. His only analysis specifies immigration policy which has nothing to do with the topic.
Group 3 and 4-->
a. He over-exaggerates the claim of ground lost. In fact, most agent CP's have nothing to do with the specific branch of government and all DA's still have legitimate ground to my plan text. For example, even if Congress passed the plan, Obama's image would still be hurt making legitimate ground for DA's (and vice versa)
c. Even if you don't buy any of these arguments, I did specify Congress as the agent. He could have reacted to this but instead forfeited the Negative Block. Don't punish me for his mistake.
Group 1 and 2-->
b. He still has legitimate ground. There is legitimate PIC's that can be run (consult NATO PIC for example)... I may have taken one or two PIC's but over-specification (such as specifying Congress) would have taken away the NATO PIC because congress can't consult people (like Obama might be able to do).
c. He has hundreds of negative positions he could have taken (with each of the off-case positions having legitimate ground)... Rather than taking them as an option, he decides to scream abuse over the couple of arguments that I may take. EVEN though specification would have taken just as many.
a. Spec arguments only can link to the plan text or clarification of the plan text. Evidence before and after that is irrelevant due to the fact that it only discusses the effects of the plan. Sure the evidence specifies information, but it does not specify what the plan is doing which is the point of SPEC's in the first place.
a. CANAA (seriously, this is completely new in the 2nd rebuttal)
b. This piece of evidence doesn't address my claim that education is derived from the TNW's being removed from Turkey, NOT of who is doing it. This shows that I am educational and therefore the standard falls. Even if you buy the violation and the voter, you still vote for me because I am indeed educational.
c. The most educationally detrimental side in this debate is the negative who has educated the judges about irrelevant claims of unhelpful claims as to why certain specification is or isn't necessary. Whereas, the legitimate ground to the TNW removal debate was completely ignored.
GROUP ALL: CANAA
1--> You had legitimate strategies.
2--> Already addressed
3--> He says I kill policy debate. However, he is the one who isn't addressing policy-related debate. Sorry you can't run every DA ever written, but make no mistake, policy debate was weakened from your use of abusive SPEC arguments.
a. I specify in the 1AC that I can clarify intent. That was never argued. I specified that any money necessary would be taken from the defense budget.
b. He drops the fact that a defense related issue would CERTAINLY come from the defense budget. Specifying this would therefore link to OSPEC and be a big waste of time.
2--> The two things that can happen from not specifying the fund the plan comes from don't even come close to outweighing my case advantages.
GROUP: He drops my articulation of meeting the standard education. He also drops my additional standard of predictability. That means that even if you agree with the rest, you vote AFF because I am fair (he needs all of them to win the SPEC argument)
1) He grants my advantages. Meaning the best policy option is clear.
2) "I reserve the right to clarify" being dropped means that I don't link to any of the SPEC arguments.
3) Flow through my reverse voting issue
---Quote from my 1NC
"REVERSE VOTING ISSUE: The 2 SPEC's and the 2 T's were clearly for time skew abuse. Covering them always requires more characters than running them. Allowing this to go unpunished is bad for debate and should not be allowed. A ballot for AFF for this reason alone is therefore justified."
-Regardless of your ideological feelings toward such a theory argument, it was only addressed as not being legitimate because he followed the rules. However the argument was not that he didn't follow the rules but that it was:
1. Bad for debate and
2. Extremely abusive. He therefore did not address the core of the argument meaning it stands.
4) CANAA: Almost every single argument of his was new. Don't allow his mistake to go unpunished. Voting for him would be more abusive than SPEC arguments could ever articulate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by statedebater 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Vote Placed by Johnicle 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.