The Instigator
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,440 times Debate No: 21222
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (82)
Votes (8)

 

xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Pro

Our first contention is that Birthright Citizenship Hurts The Economy
Sub point a) Children of illegal aliens massively increase social service costs
Natalie Smith, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Winter, 2006, CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: BILL CHALLENGES BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, p. 472
The sheer number of these children alone dictate that the monetary costs and the unfunded mandates that they bring with them are immense. Each year, some 16 percent of all births in California are to illegal alien mothers, with the numbers of these children reaching approximately 100,000 annually in California alone. This number imposes a heavy cost on the state since the parents of these children are likely in dire economic straits. While constituting 16 percent of the births in California, a significant number in its own right, children of illegal aliens make up 40 percent of Medi-Cal births, California's system of healthcare for the poor, at a resultant cost to the state of over $ 230 million a year. The costs to the state of these children do not end at their birth. They continue to incur further Medi-Cal costs and AFDC costs until they reach majority, or until their family becomes financially independent. The education of these children likewise imposes a tremendous cost to the state, as the education of the 355,000 such children is estimated to be $ 1.7 billion each year. The cost of these children on the welfare rolls is equally burdensome, as children born to illegal alien mothers constitute the largest case load increase in welfare applicants in counties across California. In fact, where welfare rolls are declining due to welfare reform, benefits for citizen children of illegal alien mothers are on the increase. The costs of these children has not gone unnoticed. Popular cries for immigration and welfare reform have been heard for quite some time. The most public may have been California's Proposition 187, which attempted to stop any welfare, education or health benefits from being diverted to illegal aliens. However, there have been other measures that have been more on point for the purposes of this note, including advocating a constitutional amendment preventing children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship and stamping "NON-CITIZEN" on the birth certificate of such children. Popular support for the most extreme of these measures has been widespread. For the first time, legislation has been introduced to mandate a correct interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, so that the children of illegal aliens will no longer be considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and thus not be granted citizenship at birth. Though not likely to be successful, this is the correct and prudent policy that the United States should be following.
BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE ILLEGAL IMMAGRANTS MAKING MORE CHILDREN IN THE U.S., THE U.S.'S ECONOMY IS NOT FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND ALL OF THESE COSTS THAT ARE THEIR RESPOSIBILITY TO HANDLE. ALSO, BECAUSE THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE HAVING CHILDREN HERE, BUT ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, IT LEAVES THE U.S. TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE, IF YOU ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT SO THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCED TO PAY FOR THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BABY.
Sub point b) Illegal aliens are expensive
Christine J. Hsieh, Associate, Baker & McKenzie, Houston; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1998; B.A., Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Spring 2008, p. 511, American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal, p. 522-4
As illegal immigration has expensive ramifications, another justification for the Birthright Amendment is reducing the burden on United States taxpayers. In fiscal year 1995-96, the cost of educating the 355,000 citizen children of illegal aliens for California taxpayers reached $ 1.7 billion. The estimated public cost in California for citizen-children of illegal aliens' health and welfare benefits was $ 542 million for one year. Our present health, education, and welfare state makes the rewards of unconsented membership too alluring to aliens and too costly to the nation. A state may not deny welfare benefits to citizen children even if their parents are illegal aliens. Therefore, American-born children of illegal aliens are equally privy to welfare benefits as other citizen children. Under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a state can declare that only citizens are privy (Sharing in the knowledge of something secret or private) to welfare assistance
THE U.S. IS TOO UNSTABLE TO HOLD TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TAKING THE PLACE OF ALL OF THE COSTS THAT WE COULD BE SPENDING IT ON SUCH AS FIXING THE ECONOMY.
Our second contention is that birthright citizenship is generally flawed
Citizenship by birth lacks legitimacy because the person did nothing to earn the citizenship
Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore, American University Law Review, December 2010, p. 334-5
The intellectual framework of this critique of the current law derives from Citizenship Without Consent by Peter Schuck and Rogers M. Smith, a book that outlines two conceptions of citizenship, "ascriptive" and "consensual." In this analysis, citizenship that attaches by birth raises questions of legitimacy, for it involves no act of assent by the new citizen, and (if the citizen is born to a citizen of a different country) by her parents either. This concept is seen as medieval in origin and as contravening the trend of contemporary political theory about citizenship.
IF THE PERSON HAS DONE NOTHING TO EARN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, WHY SHOULD WE JUST GIVE IT TO THEM BECAUSE AS IT STATES IN OUR FIRST CONTENTION, IT JUST HURTS OUR ECONOMY.
Also, many nations do not provide birthright citizenship
Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore, American University Law Review, December 2010, p. 335
Advocates of abolishing or modifying birthright citizenship note also that many contemporary nations do not provide it, suggesting by implication that the Clause is an antiquated remnant of a former time without relevance to present demographic issues.

My fourth contention is that birthright citizenship promotes racism.
Because these people are coming here to have children, their neighbors for example, may engage in racist activities and stereotypical activities, which promotes racism and does nothing good.
imabench

Con

I know the Pro's wall of text may look scary, let me summarize it
- 1 - Illegal babies are harmful to the economy
- 2 - Its hypocritical
- 3 - Other countries dont have this right
- 4 - It promotes racism.

1) The economy
The Pro is placing his entire economical argument only on the basis that illegal children drag down the economy, however he has not taken into account that the parents of those children do pay taxes, often for services they dont even use, and that those children do grow up to be taxpayers since they are legal citizens because of the birthright citizenship.

" Yet the consensus among most economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy. Immigrants provide cheap labor, lower the prices of everything from produce to new homes, and leave consumers with a little more money in their pockets"
http://www.thedailybeast.com...

"The money that illegal immigrants spend on goods and services in their local communities and around the state "reverberates throughout the whole economy, creates more jobs, more spending and more revenue," he said. "The scale of economic benefit far outweighs any costs on the fiscal side." "
http://www.southcoasttoday.com...

"Since they pay payroll taxes, they're helping to bankroll Social Security and Medicare but won't get to participate in the programs because of their immigration status."
http://www.ggu.edu...

"All undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes, and—contrary to popular belief—most pay federal and state income taxes as well, even though they're not eligible for Social Security, Medicare, or the many other programs their tax dollars help fund"
http://teacher.scholastic.com...

"even Sum would concede that the U.S. economy is larger, and growing faster, due to the supply of illegal immigrants, and that most Americans with higher job skills are better off for their presence"
http://money.cnn.com...

"Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration"
http://www.nytimes.com...

"There is little doubt that unauthorized -- that is, illegal -- immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy,’’
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com...

"The contributions by unauthorized immigrants to Social Security -- essentially, to the retirement income of everyday Americans -- are much larger than previously known, raising questions about the efforts in many states and among Republicans in Congress to force these workers out."
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

"That finding... suggests that neither side of the immigration issue has a strong economic argument to make..."
http://immigration.procon.org...

" Some believe that undocumented immigrants benefit from federal programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIP, and welfare. In fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive these benefits; anyone seeking to obtain them must provide proof of legal status"
http://mediamattersaction.org...

"A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes"
http://reason.org...

"Here’s what you get when you get the Mexicans to leave: Rotting crops, businesses closing, concerned police, children missing school. And, of course, families torn apart. This is what we’re seeing in Alabama, which this month began enforcing the most rigorous immigration law in the country"
http://obsprimary.blogspot.com...

The truth of the matter is, it is not entirely proven that illegal immigrants harm the economy since the complete economic influence illegal immigrants have on the economy is very complex. However, economic experts do argue that illegal immigrants do provide enough of a benefit to the economy to have a rather neutral impact on it overall. That being said we should not abolish a long treasured birthright citizenship on the grounds that anchor babies drag down the economy when after years and years of studies experts mostly agree that illegal immigration does NOT harm the economy overall....

On another note, nations that do abolish birthright citizenship have seen economic setbacks almost immediately, including Germany, Japan, and Israel. Abolishing birthright citizenship would really hurt the economy.
http://articles.latimes.com...

2) Hypocritical
"Citizenship by birth lacks legitimacy because the person did nothing to earn the citizenship"
When did we have to earn our rights? Our forefathers and ancestors fought tooth and nail to give us these rights that you and I take for granted right now, why should we make it so that every generation has to fight for the same thing over and over and over??? If we have to earn citizenship maybe we should all have to earn all of our other rights too, maybe the Pro thinks we should have to earn our right to free speech or earn the right to bear arms or earn something that our ancestors already sacrificed to give us.

The Declaration of Independence itself states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"..... It certainly does not say anything about people having to earn their right to life, to have to earn their right to liberty, or to earn their right to pursue happiness.
http://www.ushistory.org...

3) Other countries dont have birthright citizenship
Just because other countries dont do something, it doesnt mean the US shouldnt do it either. Countries that dont have birthright citizenship include most of socialist Europe, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. Do we want to abolish rights that have been around since the Civil War just because Iran and North Korea doesnt honor those rights either? Hell no.

Other countries dont have freedom of speech or the right to protest, should we as a country also abolish our beloved rights just to blend in with the rest of the world? (most of which is in pretty bad shape too)

http://worldimmigrationguide.net...

We shouldnt get rid of our rights just to blend in to society, it is our rights that make us unique.

4) Racism
This one doesn't even make sense, the Pro is blaming racism on the people who are just living their normal lives rather than on the people who are being racist and treating people bad. Thats like blaming racism on a Mexican for being Mexican instead of blaming the guy whose being racist towards the Mexican who did nothing wrong to begin with...
Debate Round No. 1
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Pro

xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx forfeited this round.
imabench

Con

Weird, he had 3 days to do this yet he was online 16 hours ago....

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 2
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Pro

I apologize for not being able to say anything in the last round i was having a busy schedule which included debating at Harvard between Friday-Monday, and then having school and debate on Tuesday, which brought us to today. I would also like to just ask my opponent why he knows i was on here 16 hours ago, just asking. Please read the rest of this message, it is very important and is a HUGE voting issue in this round.

Extend all of MY arguments because he never answered them, all of his arguments are invalid because i have proven that nothing is wrong with birthright citizenship.

AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT:

IT SEEMS MY OPPONENT CAN NOT READ, HE IS ON THE CON SIDE OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE FOR THE PRO, BECAUSE OF THIS, I OBVIOUSLY WIN BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH ME.

THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT:

I WANTED TO BE NICE AND TELL HIM THIS NOW, BUT IMAGINE IF I DIDN'T, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WITH BOTH OF US ARGUING FOR THE SAME SIDE, WHICH IS MINE, HE IS LUCKY I BROUGHT THIS UP.

THIS COULD BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT:

YOU SHOULD STILL NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT FEW SPEECHES BECAUSE IF HE BRINGS UP ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FOR HIS SIDE, THAT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE I WILL ONLY HAVE 2 ROUNDS TO ANSWER IS ARGUMENTS AND HE HAS 4 TO ANSWER MINE SO OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN ONLY VOTE FOR THE PRO, THANK YOU.
imabench

Con

" I would also like to just ask my opponent why he knows i was on here 16 hours ago, just asking"
I was online when the forfeited round alerted me. I went to your profile to see when the last time you were online was. It was listed at 16 hours after you forfeited the round you had 3 days to submit........

"Extend all of MY arguments because he never answered them, all of his arguments are invalid because i have proven that nothing is wrong with birthright citizenship."
All my arguments completely debunked yours since mine were actually backed by facts and common sense....

"IT SEEMS MY OPPONENT CAN NOT READ, HE IS ON THE CON SIDE OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE FOR THE PRO"
#1, take your finger off the shift key
#2, my arguments most certainly are against the abolition of birthright citizenship

First argument: Illegal immigrants benefit society so abolishing birthright citizenship on the grounds that they harm the economy is irrational
Second argument: Rights are literally things that all people are entitled to and dont have to earn them to enjoy them. Repealing birthright citizenship because people should have to earn their rights goes against centuries of how US citizens have come to enjoy and appreciate the rights their ancestors fought to give them.
Third Argument: Just because other countries dont have it doesnt mean America should automatically try to be more like them, especially since it is shown that countries that did abolish birthright citizenship suffered economic setbacks.
Fourth Argument: Birthright Citizenship doesnt promote racism since racism is caused by racists, not birthright citizenship

"I WANTED TO BE NICE AND TELL HIM THIS NOW, BUT IMAGINE IF I DIDN'T, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WITH BOTH OF US ARGUING FOR THE SAME SIDE, WHICH IS MINE, HE IS LUCKY I BROUGHT THIS UP."
This is why weed shouldnt be legalized....

"YOU SHOULD STILL NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT FEW SPEECHES BECAUSE IF HE BRINGS UP ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FOR HIS SIDE, THAT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE I WILL ONLY HAVE 2 ROUNDS TO ANSWER IS ARGUMENTS AND HE HAS 4 TO ANSWER MINE"

Now wait a second, you forfeited a round you had 3 days to complete, and you were online 16 hours before that round expired so that was your own fault. Dont use your own laziness to try to cry for a sympathy vote when you could have just as easily submitted arguments this round like any normal person who actually knows how to debate....

" i was having a busy schedule which included debating at Harvard between Friday-Monday, and then having school and debate on Tuesday"
If you spend so much time debating how come your record for debating on here is 0 for 3, your grammar is dreadful, and you dont cite any evidence at all?

I apologize to voters for the actions of the Pro, I extend all my arguments which went unrefuted....
Debate Round No. 3
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Pro

i do not think that my opponent understands that his arguments are FOR the abolition of birthright citizenship, that is why i have not answered them, if you do not agree, i will explain.

1. Illegal babies are harmful to the economy-
this is a Pro point because this is saying that yes birthright citizenship hurts the economy so we should abolish it.

2. its hypocritical, basically that it should be earned-
also a Pro point, it proves that we should not have birthright citizenship and that it should be earned.

3. other countries don't have this right-
exactly, other countries dont have this right, so why should we have it?

4. it promotes racism-
this contention is not well enough explained, so i believe i know what my opponent is saying, and yes, you guessed it, its a Pro argument. This shows that when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point.

I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution? you are saying that it shouldn't be abolished not that it should. Now, read your case, obviously, you are arguing for the Pro, so my opponent agrees with me so i have to win because he even agrees with me.

Thank you.
imabench

Con

1) Illegal babies are harmful to the economy
This argument was that illegal immigrants harm the economy by having babies in the US and then using birthright citizenship for the illegals to keep their kids in the US thus having them consume US services. I provided abundant proof showing that illegal immigrants do offset their own burden they put on the economy.

Since illegal immigrants do not have a negative impact on the economy, birthright citizenship should not be abolished since it does not harm the economy.

2) Hypocritical
My entire arguments have been that all men are born with rights and that rights are not earned from generation to generation. Making people have to earn birthright citizenship and earn other rights is completely contrary to how we as a nation have gotten our rights in the first place. People shouldnt have to earn their rights and I never said that people should have to earn their rights, which is a reason why birthright citizenship shouldnt be abolished sicne rights are not something one has to earn.

3) Other countries dont have birth right citizenship
The point of this argument is that there is no valid reason why just because other nations dont honor certain rights the US shouldnt honor them either. There is also the argument that countries that do abolish birthright citizenship suffer economic backlash immediately afterwards, giving another reason why birthright citizenship should not be abolished. The Pro hasnt even addressed this point.

4) Birthright citizenship and racism
"Because these people are coming here to have children, their neighbors for example, may engage in racist activities and stereotypical activities, which promotes racism and does nothing good."

You're arguing that birthright citizenship causes racism, I have pointed out that racists cause racism. Then you completely misinterpret what I said by saying

"when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point."

So not only does my argument that birthright citizenship doesnt cause racism stand, but the Pro has single handedly admitted that abolishing birthright citizenship hurts people, which is a reason why it should NOT be abolished...

"I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution?"
To answer your question, yes I do. I am CON abolishing birthright citizenship, you are PRO abolish birthright citizenship. However all you have done is claim that my arguments help your case and that I do not understand the resolution even though my arguments go against abolishing birthright citizenship
Debate Round No. 4
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Pro

In answer to my question of "do you understand the resolution" my opponents stated clearly "I am con abolishing birthright citizenship, you are pro abolish birthright citizenship..." exactly my point, my opponent obviously does not understand the resolution.

Next when he talks about how I said that abolishing it harms the welfare of people, I simply mispoke, we are human, mistakes happen, and that is what happened here.

Also, I do not believe it is fair for my opponent to explain his arguments now leaving me just one round to rebut them in whil he had 4 ROUNDS to rebut my arguments, and DID NOT say ANYTHING about them, so you can extend my points, so I win on them.

In my opponents first contention, he states that there are so many things that are bad because of illegal immigrants, then he says that they make up for it and do not Harry the economy, but since my opponent has not been able provide any reason of why they do not harm the economy, the point still stands that they do.

Also, you can not let him bring up ANYTHING new in this debate in his last speech, I have only extended my arguments, and my answers to his, if he brings up ANYTHING new about anything in this entire debate, you can not vote on it because it would be unfair to me. Just put you in my position. Your debating, and you finish your last speech, but then your opponent says something that wins them the debate since they spoke last and you never got the chance to answer it, how would you feel?

Because he has never answered any of my arguments AT ALL, and I have obviously refuted is arguments, or turned them to be my point, you have to vote for me. And remember, anything he says in his last speech can not be taken into consideration because that would be unfair. I have obviously proven that the pro side has won this debate in every aspect.

Thank you, and vote pro!
imabench

Con

"Also, you can not let him bring up ANYTHING new in this debate in his last speech"

Ok, I will not bring up anything NEW, I will bring up old stuff though you had the chance to rebuttle against but declined not to.

- 1 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants do pay taxes which boosts the economy
- 2 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants provide cheap labor which boosts the economy
- 3 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants consume goods in the US and the subsequent cash flow benefits the economy
- 4 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes which benefits the economy
- 5 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants pay sales tax and property taxes which benefit the economy
- 6 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants contribute vastly to Social Security
- 7 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants also pay taxes to fund Medicare
- 8 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants CANNOT apply for food stamps, Medicare, or welfare
- 9 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants benefit the economy in many ways
- 10 - The Pro forfeits that rights do not have to be earned
- 11 - The Pro forfeits that the US does not have to give up rights just because other countries dont honor those rights
- 12 - The Pro forfeits that countries that have abolished birthright citizenship have suffered immediate economic setbacks
- 13 - The Pro forfeits that Birthright citizenship does not cause racism

- 14 - The Pro forfeited round 3 and accused me of not being able to read several times, the Pro forfeits conduct points
- 15 - The Pro has not used a single source in this whole debate, the Pro forfeits Sources points

Lastly, browse the Comments section and you will find something rather interesting,

Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 hours ago
"round 3 is the round that i won in."
Posted by imabench 4 hours ago
"You really are brainless huh"
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 3 hours ago
"look at your arguments, i just won Harvard on this topic i think i know what im doing"
Posted by imabench 3 hours ago
"Wanna bet on it?"
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 3 hours ago
"yes"
Posted by imabench 3 hours ago
"loser has to leave DDO forever"
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 3 hours ago
"deal"

I thank the Voters for reading this debate :D
Debate Round No. 5
82 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 years ago
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
IM BACk!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Lol hey ginger, you should prove to us that you have 17 TOC bids :).

Virtually every tournament with a bid I've ever heard of keeps results on joyoftournaments. Lets see them (:
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
No ive seen your debates, you suck pretty bad
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 years ago
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
cuz theyre stupid
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
from this debate and the 3 others, judges say you suck
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 years ago
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
judges suck dont they?
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
you lost 36-3...
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 years ago
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
What was that?
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
OH NO!!!! :o
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job Imabench, extended arguments and not refuted. Pro, judging from the way you debated, i highly doubt you have even 1 TOC bid, much less 17... so sorry.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: If this is counted as a VB, then you have issues. Read the debate! Take that johnnyboy! Counter that!
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 5 years ago
Guitar_Guru
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: So Pro loses the conduct point because he often came at Con and as we say in debate "Attacked the debater not the argument" S and G obviously goes to Con... Pro needs to work on his grammar.. Sources goes to Con because he used many more and much more effectively than Pro. Arguments obviously go to Con... He won after round 3 where Pro REFUSED to respond to all of Con's arguments.. Total win by Con.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
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: Countering johnnyboy's counter vote bomb, which was unnecessary as Pro crashed and burned hard in this debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made absolutely no attempt to attack his opponent's arguments. He basically copied and pasted someone else's arguments and then was unable to come up with any rebuttals. The fact that he thought imabench was arguing for the wrong side tells me that he did not even bother to read the debate. This is disheartening. Arguments obviously go Con. Conduct goest to Con because Pro wasted his time and also forfeited an entire round.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro dropped so many points I eventually lost count. And he has to leave.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 5 years ago
johnnyboy54
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter 16kadams
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxximabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is one of those debaters who thinks he's really good, when in all actuality he isn't. Pro accuses Con of arguing against BC, but that isn't true. Also, I'll be addressing his claim that he "won Harvard" in the comments section.