The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

best method to prevent the racial and cultural extinction of the white ethnic groups

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,198 times Debate No: 11755
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)




the purpose of this debate is to discuss the best nonviolent methods to prevent the ethnic and cultural extinctions of the white ethnic groups of the world

My order of priorities would be

1) promotion of healthy religions like Paganism. Christianity is too universalist, and can be used as a tool to support liberal policies like open borders and socialism.

On the other hand, paganism is more rooted in the natural essence of the every ethnic group, it is not an alien belief that was forced onto us unlike Christianity

2) rejection of feminism: what now we call feminism is no other thing that extreme communism. It is not about making women proud to be women, it is about turning women into men. Women are thought that being "women" is a social construct, and that they shall behave like men. This silly concept ignores obvious natural differences, like hormone levels, womb, reproductive organs, breasts, muscular mass, that makes women unfit for some masculine roles just like men are unfit for many femenine roles.

You will find very few women if any at all working as construction workers, just like the profession of teacher is overwhelming feminine (there are nearly three times as many female as male teachers.

The classic example is how the greatest joy that a woman could feel, that is, being mother, is rejected, and anti-natural aberrations like abortion are supported.

The result has been a sharp fall of the birth rates for white children. Across, Europe, there is an average of only one child per women. america is around 1.8 for white women. No population can sustain itself with birth rates below 2.1, that is replacement level

IMO, once Christianity and feminism are rejected by the bulk of our people, our birthrates will go back to normal and our particular civilization will be saved


Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that there is no real threat to the white race so this debate is based entirely on hypotheticals. Character limits in this debate will be a huge burden, so in R1 I will dismantle Pro's arguments (rebuttal) and in R2 I will make my own arguments. So without further adieu...

[ Rebuttal ]

1. Promoting Paganism

Essentially paganism has been used as a term to refer to one who is religious or spiritual but not monotheistic. Also, "In the strictest sense, paganism refers to the authentic religions of ancient Greece and Rome as well as surrounding areas" [1]. Pro contends that Christianity is "too universalist" which in fact makes no sense. Both [2] and any Google search you do will explain how the term universalist is used to describe one who adheres to universalism; it is a principle that asserts that all people are under the consideration and Love of God [3]. So right away we notice 2 major flaws with Pro's argument. First, he says that Christianity is "too universalist" which really translates to... too accepting? Too open-minded? Too inclusive? Indeed that is what universalism means or encompasses.

Second, Pro says that Christianity can be used as a tool to support liberal policies such as open borders and socialism. However, Christianity can also be used as a tool to support conservative policies like pro-life sentiments [4] and the death penalty [5]. Therefore this point is really moot anyway. Nevertheless, Pro writes that paganism is a "healthy" religion but does not explain why it is any healthier or superior to Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). He also says that it is not an alien belief that was forced unto people like Christianity is. I disagree. This "force" he speaks of probably refers to the Roman times when Constantine ordered everyone to turn from pagan to Christian. However, that type of force is not implemented today therefore this is irrelevant. Similarly, paganism is NOT rooted in the "natural essence of every ethnic group" which Pro has not supported, and furthermore, if anything it would be universalism (which Pro does not like) that embodies all of these various beliefs. After all, paganism refers to non-monotheism but universalism incorporates both monotheism, polytheism, all kinds of paganism, etc. So as you can see, Pro's points here are completely non-sensical and irrelevant.

2. Rejecting Feminism

Almost every single thing Pro says about feminism is false. Feminism is not correlated to communism. Feminism is not about making women ashamed to be women, or trying to turn them into men. In fact, he straw mans feminism entirely and then provides a completely sexist argument that has nothing to do with feminism, thereby making his contention useless. The truth about feminism can be found here [6]. Pro also provides baseless statistics, such as a population being unable to sustain itself with low birth rates. In fact, the population has a worse chance at being able to sustain itself due to OVER-population [7].

3. Final Notes

Boo - character limits! I'll quickly re-cap why Pro's assertion that the rejection of Christianity and feminism will somehow preserve white people. First, Christians are PRO LIFE and ANTI CONTRACEPTION. That means if everyone deferred from Christianity, there would actually be MORE BIRTHS so Pro's point entirely fails. Second, many feminists want to have traditional families. Feminism does not correlate to negative attitudes about childbearing [8].

Debate Round No. 1


The contender obviously did not research, and its very first assumption, that the whites are not disappearing, is false

can you deny that whites are quickly becoming minority in most of the countries that they inhabit ?

No. You cant. The fact is very much known by everyone, and widely sourced even by leftist newspaper like the guardian

1) Christianity IS universalist. You just gotta read the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus to see that, yes, Christianity is open-minded AND inclusive. Christ taught that we all are brothers, that we must all love each other and if someone hurts you, you should not fight back, in fact, you should offer your other cheek. He was against the jewish traditionalism, that is why pharisees attacked him so much, he even ate with prostitutes and other sinners much to the indignation of many jewish leaders. Now if you deny that is being open minded, you are just been absurd

Now, please prove me that Christ said anything at all that would support the Death penalty. Come on, you are just making it up. Christ always said forgive and forget, and he even asked God to please forgive his killers when he was crucified. You have obviously never read the New Testament

now, Christ recommended his followers to sell everything and give it to the poor. I would go so far to say that in fact Christ was the first socialist. anyways, we are not discussing if Christianity can be used to support conservative politics, we are talking about racial preservation, and the fact that Christianity can be used to support open borders (i.e. catholic churches are being used as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants) eliminates any favorable effect that Christianity could have,

Now, Paganism is NOT Universalist. Every ethnic group has its own mythologies with its own gods that are created to their own images. Its is deeply rooted in its culture, it is the direct result of the natural accumulation of legends and stories of the ancestors of every ethnic group, directly linked to the origin of that ethnic group, to its gene.

When a person rediscovers the original religion of his ancestors, his ethnic pride can bloom once more, because he discovers he has not come from nowhere, he has a story, a past, a culture to defend and preserve.

The perfect example is the nordic ethnic group, as most active white nationalist of nordic ancestry are Odinists. Many of them have interested in the vikings and their religion

unlike Christianity, these are not pacifist religions, these are religions of warriors and struggle, Odin, Thor, of battles and blood. they dont talk about compassion and peace, they talk about victory, only the warriors will reach Valhalla, and that is exactly what we need: Warriors, to make us great once more

2.. about feminism: just to remind you that it is debate about "best method to prevent the racial and cultural extinction of the white ethnic groups", the fact that feminism is communism is besides the point.

The facts are:
1) if both man and woman work, there is no time for procreation
2) abortion is being used as a method of artificial contraception, keeping our populations low

Unless we ban abortion and establish a system that makes possible to women to take care of children, we are pretty much toast


[ Rebuttal ]

1. The sources my opponent has provided merely pointed out that whites will become a MINORITY - not extinct - therefore these sources are irrelevant.

2. Pro saying that I am not familiar with the New Testament is false. I attended Catholic school for most of my life and consider myself very familiar with Christian teachings. Pro is conveniently forgetting (ignoring) the reality that Christianity not only encompasses the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, which preaches not only about forgiveness and tolerance but absolutely does support things like the DP [1]. Additionally, even the New Testament contains support for the death penalty [2]!

Furthermore, Pro's definition and usage of the word universalism/universalist is wrong and I have explained why in R1. The term is used to suggest accepting ALL religious beliefs whereas Christianity only accepts monotheism and even more specifically Christ. Therefore, it is the furtherst thing from universalism which I have cited and sourced in R1 and Pro should probably feel free to check out those links and see his mistake. Anyway, Pro's last round did absolutely nothing to explain why paganism would protect whites better than Christianity OR explain how eliminating Christianity would preserve whites. He merely suggests that whites need "warriors" to fight for their culture; however, no religion has fought more for the preservation of their culture than Christians themselves [3]. Perhaps the biggest reason why this point fails is that not all pagans are or will be white. Therefore, even if Christianity is eliminated and everybody became pagan (or didn't), this in no way ensures the survival of white people.

3. Regarding feminism, Pro says that if both men and women work, there will be no time for pro-creation. You'll notice that he completely ignored all of my points from the last round which showed that people are more likely to cease from over-population than under. Moreover, the population is at an all-time high today in a time where more people (men and women) work therefore this argument fails. And finally, Pro argues that abortions are being used to keep population rates down. Obviously he completely ignored my point from the last round where I explained that Christians are AGAINST contraception.

[ Arguments ]

Again, I am stifled by awful character-limits but fortunately I have several rounds to make my case. Basically my argument is that Pro's contentions absolutely do not support the resolution, so you have no reason to find the resolution affirmed. Since I have proven that his arguments do not hold and would not be effective (because they're not only misrepresented but totally irrelevant), you should consider the arguments negated and vote Con.

As far as alternative methods of preserving the white race, I find that the resolution does not call for me to provide a better solution and in fact just calls for me to disprove Pro's theory which I have done. I acknowledge that white people will become a minority in the future; however, that in no way equivocates to white people being extinct. If I was forced to come up with a way to ensure that white people are not completely wiped off the face of the earth (which is silly), I propose that a more effective way to ensure that - well, much better than Pro's silly suggestions - is simply to bar (outlaw?) other races from procreating, or encourage white people to mate through fear.

Regarding white culture, there are plenty of cultures who have found ways to preserve their identity and assimilate despite moving and becoming a part of a new culture [4]. Just because some ethnic groups merge in no way ensures or mandates that a culture will be lost.

Debate Round No. 2


The sources are relevant because they show a diminishing trend, caused by with the fact that the birthrates of white women is the lower among all the ethnic groups of the world. With birthrates of only one kid per woman, no ethnic group can survive.

let me explain, guess that you have a population of 100 white men and 100 white women,with a birthrate of only one kid per women.

Next generation will consist of 100 kids (one kid per woman). The population is only one half of first generation!!!!

From these 100 kids, 50 will be male, and 50 will be female.

These 50 girls will become the 50 women that shall bear the next generation. If the birthrate remains the same, next generation will consist of ONLY 50 kids, 25 of them female.

and these 25 female will bear only 12 kids. The 6 girls of that generation will be 3 boys and 3 girls, and these 3 girls will bear only 3 kids. The population is dead

Germany is dying that way

The same in Russia, England, America, wherever you look, we are dying, and you cant deny that

We need a birthrate of 2.1 to keep a population stable. Anything below 2.1 means progressive extinction

Now, about the Old Testament, Jesus pretty much abrogated the laws of that book, that was the reason behind of his execution. He did not rest in Saturday, he did not wash his hands before dinner, etc...

The best examples of Jesus abrogating the Old Testament concern a number of statements recorded in the gospel according to Matthew. The most prominent of them would be the Law concerning Divorce. In the Old Testament we find the following law concerning divorce:

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man" (Deutronomy 24:1-2)

Now without going into the minute of this particular law of divorce, one thing becomes immediately clear. Not only is divorce permitted by God, it is legal for her to remarry.

Now, what Jesus said about that law:

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

Here Jesus abrogated the former permission to divorce according to the husband's displeasure and strictly allowed it under one condition - adultery. He even went so far as to legislate that divorcees were not permitted to remarry, clearly abrogating the former permission.

Now, about Death Penalty, check John 8

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

It is obvious Jesus rejected the Law of Moses and the Death Penalty. I hope it is enough proof that Christianity is Liberal. Now the bit about universalism, from wikipedia entry:

"A church or community that calls itself Universalist may emphasize the universal principles of most religions and accept other religions in an inclusive manner, believing in a universal reconciliation.. For example Judaism and Christianity claim a universal value of their doctrine and moral principles because they feel they are inclusive"

Now you will notice the overpopulation is concentrated in the third world. Many White countries have negative growth


Thanks, Pro.

Before we go any further in this debate - and because I still have 3 rounds to go, so this is not bad conduct - you'll notice that Pro never explains why population reduction in an over-populated world is a bad thing. If we can agree that maybe it isn't, then the need for Pro's 2 suggestions goes away all-together. Anyway...

Pro begins by noting that sources indicate white women having less than 2.1 kids on average means that no ethnic group can survive. However, Pro conveniently ignores that it's not just the white population that are having less than 2.1 births/woman. For example, the European Union's TFR (total fertility rates) is 1.5 and no EU member state has a TFR at replacement or above. Even high population developing countries have seen steep declines in fertility. Since 1970, China's TFR fell from 5.8 to 1.6; Japan's from 2.0 to 1.3, etc. [1]. So, we can assume that this is not just a white cultural phenomena but rather one that affects many groups - and not just because of Christianity and paganism.

The book 'Demographic Winter' asserts that "every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness." Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Daniel Gilbert notes that the more children a person has, the less happy they are. Researchers have found that people derive more satisfaction from eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television than being with their kids [1]. Additionally, many families have chosen to not have kids due to declining economic circumstances [2]. Other factors include sociodemographic ones, such as limited access to health care [3]. Even still there are other factors mentioned, such as the growing usage of contraception by whites causing them to have less children.

As you can see, religion and feminism are mentioned nowhere in those causes/reasons for the decline of white births. The real factors include modern culture at large; happiness; limited resources; the use of contraception, etc. Now clearly Pro should not be advocating that women start using LESS contraception. Not only should women who don't want to have kids not have them, but contraception is also extremely useful in helping to prevent the spread of STDs. Similarly, people should not be having kids if they cannot afford to take care of them.

Moving on, Pro begins talking about the Bible and verses from the OT vs. verses from the NT. To be clear, whatever the Bible says about divorce and the death penalty are entirely irrelevant to this debate. However, for purposes of clarification, I think it is important for Pro to understand that what the Bible READS is not necessarily what it SAYS. Due to a lot of factors including multiple translations several times over, cultural differences, etc. you cannot always accept the Bible how it reads at face value. You have to look deeper.

The whole point of Pro's rant here was to prove that Christianity is "liberal." You'll note that he conveniently excluded abortion from the example, because the Christian stance on that is conservative. He also ignores anti-gay (non-liberal) sentiments from the NT, and the fact that Christianity still calls for you to keep holy the sabbath day, except it's on Sunday instead of Saturday. Also, Pro says that Christianity claims a universal value; however, a UNIVERSALIST is all-inclusive in that it accepts ALL FAITHS and does not promote one truth over another like Christianity does. No more characters for now, but there's nothing left to say in this round - GL!

[3] Taffel SM. Prenatal care -- United States, 1969-75. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, NCHS, 1978. (Vital and health statistics; series 21, no. 33).
Debate Round No. 3


Okay, lets analyze that point.

"Since 1970, China's TFR fell from 5.8 to 1.6; Japan's from 2.0 to 1.3, etc"

Agreed, but neither Chinese and Japanese people are facing a future where mass immigration will eventually turn them into minorities in China and Japan.

I dont oppose population control, that is what they are doing in China, in fact, I actually agree with it, but we are not seeing the same conditions of China and Japan in our own nations, we are seeing a different phenomenon: planned population replacement.

The population of our countries will continue increasing even though the whites are decreasing, making population reduction completely irrelevant and besides the point.

lets take Great Britain as example:

the population of Britain is expected to reach 70 million due to mass immigration and the very high rates of new immigrants

The quality of life is already starting to decrease, the island cant sustain such population, but you have to wonder, why? why cant then just close the doors?

Well, sorrowly, it is for political reason, they want it to be so, politicians want whites to be minorities and eventually disappear, to satisfy some crazy ideologies that they learned from their marxist teachers in Harvard

and now tell me if it is justified, is it justified to condemn a population to fade away in their our country in the name of so-called "Multicuturism"???

It has gone to the point that the English people are scared of being english because it is classified as racist

Now the same is happening in all of our countries, we are being demonized, aculturalised, neutralized, is that fair?

what about our right for self-determination, ethnic and cultural preservation? That was the argument used to make the european nations renounce to their empires in africa and asia... but it seems like whites need not to apply!!

The Chinese, the Japanese, will never go extinct, if their populations become too low, it can naturally bounce back and expand once more with no problems of infrastructure

whites are facing a different situation, if their populations become too low, there will not be way for them to bounce back, because the space available for population growth and the resources that it requires will have been consumed and overrun by the endless flow of immigrants that requires constant welfare

I never ignore the risk of outright genocide and elimination of white people once we are minority, like some africans jews and muslims have suggested!!!

Now I think my point about the Bible was made clear, it is a bunch of contradictions that can be used against the white cause, the worst example, in fact, the one that made me write this "rant", is support of "sanctuary" cities for illegal immigrants by the Catholic Church and many evangelist associations

It does not matter if Christianity prevents white women from aborting if they are going to end up raped and killed by illegal immigrants, and we cant do anything, because, you know, Christ says that we must always forgive and offer the other cheek

Now the other point, I dont have anything about homosexuals, so any argument in the Bible against gays is besides the point too

The reason I suport paganism is because it does not contain that nonsense, and actually requires its members to fight back!!!!


Thanks, Pro, for the response.

1. Pro begins by noting that Chinese and Japanese people are not "facing a future where mass immigration will eventually turn them into minorities in China and Japan." While that may be true, how is it relevant to my argument? My point was to show that white Americans/Europeans were not the only ones to see a decline in their fertility rates. As I said in the last round, we can assume that this is not just a white cultural phenomena but rather one that affects many groups - and not just because of Christianity and paganism. This disproves the theory that Christianity is relevant to the population decline of whites, and also shows how if other populations are decreasing, that white people aren't in danger of going extinct; instead all cultural groups are on the decline together.

2. Next Pro talks about population control / reduction. Pro - where was this a factor in the last round? I don't remember mentioning it. My second point, in fact, was about the book "Demographic Winter" and how it explained various cultural trends including a smaller household (women having less children and why). Pro has ignored this point and all of my other points in favor of talking about the population in America and Britain being swarmed by non-whites. Once again, non-whites entering Europe and America does not indicate the eradication of the white race. Further, Pro has still yet to explain why that would be a bad thing anyway (if it was not forced or antagonized through something horrible like genocide). People should be free to procreate with whomever they want regardless of their race. Anyway, I'd like to extend my arguments about all of the monetary and socio-demographical reasons women have been having less children. Once again, neither Christianity nor feminism is really relevant.

3. Pro continues talking about how politicians want white people to disappear: a claim I feel has no backing whatsoever. The article Pro sites mentions a mass migration surge to Britain; a change politicians welcomed to enrich London's culture, and create a bigger labor market to help England's economy. Indeed the article he sites concludes with, "The British people can be confident that immigration is under control." Nevertheless this 'point' faces the same problem as Pro's others -- It does not mention anything about white people dying off. Becoming a minority is not dying off, therefore Pro's dramatic question of whether or not it's justified is not relevant. Pro says English people are "scared of being English because it's racist" though this is not true -- Pro again straw mans the article. The article was about English FLAGS; not being English in general. Regardless, being English has nothing to do with race anyway! You can be English and white or English and black, etc.

4. Pro just rants. He doesn't prove that WHITE people are being demonized, etc. He has not proven that Christianity and the population of white people is related in any way whatsoever. He's ignored all of my arguments and hasn't proven that paganism in any way will preserve white people. All he says is that paganism encourages people to "fight back" though this type of defense is promoted in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran and other holy books too. He seemingly concedes the point about utilitarianism and doesn't even mention feminism at all in the last round. This is probably because feminism like Christianity doesn't have much to do with the eradication of white people. As I've been saying, many feminists support the traditional household model Pro calls for, as can be seen by this feminist website called Feminist Housewives [1]. In short, Pro has ignored many of my arguments and hasn't really strengthened his. Please extend all of my points. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4


PrinceOfTheFire forfeited this round.


Thanks, Pro, for the debate.

Since my opponent has not responded in the last round, I'd like to extend all of my arguments from the previous round. In conclusion, I'd like to wrap up this debate by pointing out a few things. Pro's proposed solutions to prevent the cultural extinction of whites is to eliminate Christianity and feminism. Throughout this debate I have explained why doing neither would affect the population. For one thing, Christians are opposed to contraception meaning they're more likely to get pregnant (thereby CONTRIBUTING to the population; not eliminating it). For another, many feminists are serious about women having the option to stay at home and raise a family meaning feminism is not directly responsible for birth rates being reduced. In fact, I have explained throughout the debate all of the fiscal, social and other reasons why the population of many societies is decreasing. Again, Christianity and feminism have nothing to do with it therefore Pro's proposed solutions have been negated, and you should vote CON.

I have also proven that whites in particular are not going to be eliminated by the evidence; all Pro has done is prove that non-whites will become the majority in several countries. While I don't deny that reality, I don't see how that translates to the extinction of the white race as a whole. As I've said in a previous round of the debate ----> I find that the resolution does not call for me to provide a better solution and in fact just calls for me to disprove Pro's theory which I have done... If I was forced to come up with a way to ensure that white people are not completely wiped off the face of the earth (which is silly), I propose that a more effective way to ensure that - well, much better than Pro's silly suggestions - is simply to bar (outlaw?) other races from procreating, or encourage white people to mate through fear. Regarding white culture, there are plenty of cultures who have found ways to preserve their identity and assimilate despite moving and becoming a part of a new culture Just because some ethnic groups merge in no way ensures or mandates that a culture will be lost.

Again, it's silly to think that one could force other races not to have children; however, at least that would directly affect the population in a way that Pro wants. His proposals would not yield any results. So again, please extend all of my arguments and vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 13 records.
Posted by PrinceOfTheFire 8 years ago
lol,troll why? My question is serious=)
Posted by Koopin 8 years ago
White supremacist...Same thing.
I feel sorry for him.
Posted by Volkov 8 years ago
Are you a troll or what?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never even proves that whites are going to be extinct. Pro actually had me when he pointed out that the white population is decreasing in many countries. Con accurately attacks the premise that only white people and not other ethnicities have lower birth rates. With the premise negated, the resolution is meaningless. Clear Con win.
Vote Placed by PuneRider 8 years ago
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 Danielle 8 years ago
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