it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes
Debate Rounds (3)
I will begin seeing as I am Aff.
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
Terms: morally permissible- permitted by one's beliefs of right and wrong.
1.Victim- person who suffers from adverse circumstances
2.Deadly force- force which under certain circumstances can be deadly.
3.Deliberate response- response marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects.
4.Repeated- happen or occur again
5.Domestic violence- a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain control or power over a spouse
Value premise: Self Defense
-Self defense= Defense of oneself when physically attacked
Value Criterion: It is important that you use self defense as a matter of protecting yourself, and looking out for your own personal interests which are living.
Personal account of domestic violence.
"In most cases people say it started in a regular pattern, not with me. I would be sitting on the sofa and for no reason be smashed across the face from nowhere, no reason, no answers, just left to deal with my tears. The most common time would be after he finished work. He would have a bad day and me the one who done nothing wrong would get the abuse. He would start with sarcastic comments, silly little name calling and belittling me, telling me no other person loved me or liked me, telling me my family and which friends I had left all didn't like me. I had no self confidence and still struggle to have any, but I am slowly getting there. When someone tells you you are ugly or stupid every day of your life it is hard to find that you are no other than that.
He would choke me, punch me, kick me, slap me, I was even burned, slashed and stapled in my five years of abuse."
It is best to use the value of self defense. In cases of this matter there is a high possibility a person could face death. It a person has any interest in their life they should value self defense. Using self defense is one of the main reasons people survive many situations. And in order to have life you must value self defense.
Deadly force is morally permissible, after what I stated, you can see that deadly force would be lawful, you notice that her husband abuses her both physically and verbally, after being physically abused you cant help but to believe threats your spouse is telling you. Seeing as they've already proved they will do whatever threats they are telling you. This is why you should value self defense.
The doctrine of double effect
Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in theSumma Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one's assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him. Aquinas observes that "Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. ���‚��� Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor." As Aquinas's discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: "Therefore, this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible." However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: "And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful."
According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline in abusive relationships abuse ranges from verbal to physical abuse. Typically it will be both and will happen repeatedly. Therefore, it is lawful to use deadly force as a deliberate response to domestic violence. Seeing as it would be considered self defense. In order to have life you must value self defense.
The victim in an abusive relationship can easily be compared to a slave. And in order to get out of slavery you must use self defense. This is why as people we should highly value self defense. We should value self defense because, without this we cannot have life in the circumstance of an abusive relationship.
Slave- a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them
According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. The following things are likely to happen to a victim of an abusive relationship: the abuser doesn't trust you, they try to isolate you from your family and your friends, monitors where you go, doesn't allow you to work, threatens to kill you, etc. Also, there are many physical things that may happen to a victim of an abusive relationship such as: punches you, slaps you, kicks you, chokes you. The abuser may also take you to an unknown place and leave you there. They may threaten you with weapons. And the list goes on.
A victim of an abusive relationship is in comparison with a slave because, for example, the victim is forced to obey their abuser or they could die. This is why the value of self defense is higher than any other value.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE VOTE AFFIRMATIVE (:
So is the ordering of the rounds?
1. Pro Construct, Con Construct/CX
2. Pro Response, CX and Rebuttal, Con Response/Rebuttal
3. Pro Conclusion, Neg Conclusion
Now for the definitions.
1. Morally Permissible-accepted
3. Deliberate Response-accept
4. Deadly Force-I cannot agree with this definition because deadly force is force that in all situations would be deadly, it's an action with the intent to cause death.
6. Domestic Violence-accept the definition
Now onto my arguments.
I value a persons natural, human, inalienable rights according to natural law.
Inalienable Rights are defined as a right which according to natural law cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred. Inalienable fundamental are the rights stated by the United Nations especially the ones of Article 3. (http://www.un.org...)
Natural Law is defined as "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society."
Ethics are defined as "a system of moral principles."
My value criterion is the social contract according to John Locke and Robert Grant, they state that all people have inalienable human rights. John Locke theorized that all people have inalienable rights which cannot be changed. Robert Grant came to the exact same conclusion a couple hundred years later ("these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged"). These "social contracts" hold that a persons natural rights are inalienable and can never be taken away in any circumstance.
The Social Contract is defined as such: a political theory trying to explain the relationship between individuals and the government. This theory asserts that individuals unite into political societies, by mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules. Political philosophers use this definition and the starting point of political order, in other words, before society formed every person acted as judge, jury and executioner, called the "state of nature". Using this starting point political philosophers then go on to attempt to explain why man would give up natural freedoms in order to form a ordered society a.k.a. set up a government. Thoughts about the social contract are only theories explaining why people come together to create a government. A government is legitimate since the people delegate to the government their right of self-preservation, thus, allowing the government to act as an impartial agent of self-preservation rather then all persons acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The government preserves people through laws. The two parties involved in the contract are the people and the government.
Contention 1: Everybody has the basic right to live; no matter their actions.
In 1948, the United Nations wrote a document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3, of this document, is as follows, "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." These rights are universal, limitless and applied to everybody, whether the person is murderer, or the victim; a wife beater, or the wife. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." There is no compromising in this regard. So here is question presented, is it morally permissible for one person to take away an inalienable right of another person? No it is not. Furthermore, Robert Grant asserts that, "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." No person can morally take away another person's inalienable rights which includes the right to life. A person cannot morally take away a person's right to live.
Contention 2. Laws are based upon morality.
Society is nothing more than a community of shared ideas. "without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist" if there is no agreement on what is good and evil society WILL collapse. Laws are nothing more than the consensus of what is good and evil. It is evil to kill. It is evil to cause abuse. Society is not physically held together it is held together by "invisible bonds of common thought...a common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is a price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price (The Philosophy of a Law R.M. Dworkin)." The government is the one empowered to create laws which are morale. There are laws preventing men from beating their wives, let society deal with those who transgress these laws. But, natural rights and natural law supersedes those made by man.
Contention 3: The government is the protector of rights.
According to the Social Contract theorized upon by Robert Grant, a person is "entitled to the enforcement of these rights by the government against offending members of that society." What Mr. Grant says here is clear, a society's government is the protector of natural rights. Not individuals. In this case, the women is taking societies laws and ethics into her own hands and killing her husband. This is why there are laws within society, to protect people from abuse. Therefore, it cannot be morally permissible to kill in any circumstance.
Contention 4: Using violence to stop violence logically does not make sense.
This entire resolution is based upon using violence to solve violence. This resolution uses the single thing which it wants to prevent to try and prevent what it wants to prevent. This is circular reasoning, therefore it is null and void. All morale law must abide to the laws of logic. If logically the resolution is null, then morally it must be null to.
Contention 5. There are better options then death.
The women does not have to kill her husband. She can first, let society deal with the problem of abuse. Second, she could use a non-lethal method of self-defense. Furthermore, if society does not have the laws meant to protect the women from domestic abuse (I cannot think of a country which does not) then it is not morally permissible for her to kill as by being in that society she is accepting societies beliefs of right and wrong. Since this is true, she is accepting societies morale beliefs therefore, it is morally wrong to kill her husband who is both protected by the absence of such man made law and natural law.
1. Are wife beaters people? If you answer yes to this question, then they have the right to life and therefore, it is morally unacceptable to kill them. If you answer no, then what other species are they?
2. Do members of society have a moral obligation to kill a killer? If yes, then how can the Catholic Church morally oppose the death penalty?
3. Can unalienable rights be taken away? If so how are they unalienable? If not then women cannot morally kill their abusive spouse.
4. Is the world just?
5. What psychological implications result from a women killing her husband? (If we are discussing the morality of it the after affects are just as important because what happens to the women is just as important as what happens to the man.)
6. How should a women kill her husband? If you provide no plan then the resolution is irrelevant because they would not be able to act.
1.This question is irrelevant, I haven't stated anything about "wife beaters" in my case. For me to come up with an answer to this would be a waste of our time.
2.You asked if members of society have a moral obligation to kill a killer. I will say people have a moral obligation to protect their personal interests which should be an interest to live. And in order to do this you must value self defense under certain circumstances.
3.You asked about unalienable rights. There is a right for the victim to want to survive and fulfill their self interest of living, they may have to use self defense.
4.You asked if the world is just. This is irrelevant to our debate so I am not going to waste your time by answering this.
5.You asked what psychological implications result from a women killing her husband. If you are trying to get at the victim will go to jail this is my reply to that question: "There is another bill that is being enacted into the legislature called the "Stand Your Ground" bill. This was brought into Florida in 2005 and is also being considered by 21 other states also. This allows people who are in public to meet force with force in order to defend themselves. This conduct will protect victims against prosecution. As long as the person is defending themselves they will not go to jail. " according to www.yourgreatestprotection.com
6.Your question about how will a victim kill the abuser is irrelevant. You stated that if I cannot answer this then the resolution is irrelevant, although, the resolution is not irrelevant unless you are trying to do something with the resolution which is simply what we are debating about. We aren't trying to prove the resolution wrong we are trying to go with or against this resolution. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
My questions to you:
1.You value peoples rights correct? Do you value their right to defend themselves? If you state no, then, you must not value peoples right to live.
2.You stated in contention 1 that everyone has the right to life no matter their actions? Well, in this case, does the victim not have the right to survive? Because, it is likely the victim could die.
3.in your second and third contention you stated basically that it is the governments job to defend people. But, as I stated in my third contention the victim can be compared to a slave, well, in this case is it not likely that a person wouldn't have the chance to tell anyone. Should the victim allow the abuser to continuously abuse them and possibly kill them if they don't do anything about it?
4.Your fourth contention states using violence to stop violence isn't logical. So, if someone hits you multiple times in a row your going to simply allow them to beat you up?
5.In your fifth contention you stated that there are better options than death. Isn't this why a victim would use deadly force on an abuser because their personal interest is living?
I would like to first begin with my opponents value, I would like to state simply that you can not have unalienable rights without life therefore self defense is a higher value than my opponents. Now, I would like to move onto my opponents value criterion. I would like to state that in this debate we aren't talking about peoples relationship with the government, we are talking about if it morally permissible for a victim to repeatedly take abuse from an abuser or if they should simply sit there and take the abuse. Therefore, my opponents value criterion is incorrect.
Moving onto my opponents first contention, which is "basic right to live no matter the actions" the victim has the right to live also, not just the abuser. The abuser was immoral in the beginning for the abuse of the victim.
My opponents second contention, states "laws preventing men from beating their wives, let society deal with those who transgress these laws." The main problem with this statement is simply that in this debate we are not talking about the government. We are talking about if it is morally permissible for a person to use deadly force against their abuser. This resolution states nothing about the government. Also in my opponents second contention they state "but natural rights and natural law supersedes these made by man" and, my opponent gives no definition of the term "supersedes" therefore, I will go with the definition of "takes place of" , although, by my opponent stating this he defeats his whole purpose of his first two contentions.
Moving onto my opponents third contention, which is "The government is the protector of rights." Although, obviously if the government hasn't done anything about a persons rights to the point that it becomes as it states in the resolution "repeated" then most likely they won't. my opponent also states in his third contention that "it is under no circumstance morally permissible to kill." But, the problem in this is for instance, the abuser attempts to kill the victim. Then the victim would die.
Continuing to my opponents fourth contention, my opponent states "the resolution is null". Although, my opponent didn't give a definition of null so I'm going with "incorrect" as the definition to this. My opponent obviously does not understand the rules in Lincoln Douglas debate. You can't simply say that the resolution is incorrect. That is the whole point in debating about it. My opponent also states that using violence to stop violence is not logical. Well, obviously by my opponent stating this my opponent believes life isn't logical. Because, under certain circumstances you have to use self defense to survive. And having life should be in a persons interest. If not then a person obviously doesn't value their life or any aspect of their life.
My opponents fifth contention states "better options than death", this is exactly why it is morally permissible for a victim of domestic violence to use deadly force as a deliberate response. So they can continue living. Also, my opponent states that he cannot think of any countries in which do not have laws against domestic violence. But, again we are not debating about the government. Or laws we are debating about morality and values. What people ought to do not what is already being done.
With all of this being stated I would like to move on to say that in my opponents constructive speech he didn't touch my case or any of my arguments. So, I at this point my opponent agrees with all of my points and my value.
As for question 5, What I was getting at was if you kill someone there would be obvious psychological implications to their actions, besides the obvious going to jail.
The entire resolution is irrelevant if you refuse to answer the question because without a definitive plan of how someone would bring about the deadly force the question of whether someone can use deadly force is null.
1. Yes, I value people's rights. But, a person does not have the right to defend themselves any longer because according to the Social Contract Theory, which I defined above and you have not refuted as being false, a person gives up the right of self-preservation (self-defense) to the government in order to form society. People no longer have the right of self-defense.
2. You state it is LIKELY that the victim of abuse could die. In this case, the abuser WILL die it is definitive. If everyone made decisions off of unprovable hunches that would be the downfall of society, aka anarchy, which would be worse.
3. In most cases of abuse, society can see what has happened and yet the women does not tell anyone or testify their husband has done anything wrong, they have the chance to act but, do not. (Not that the abuse is in any way the women's or in the small percentage of cases man's fault)
4. Morally I would be no better off than my attacker if I used deadly force against them.
5. There are better options than killing their abuser. Using non-deadly force for example would accomplish the same goal. Informing the police, letting someone outside of the household know, the list goes on and on.
The Social Contract explains a persons relationship with the government. My definition, in Round 1, explains this in greater detail. As such, a persons inalienable rights cannot be morally taken away by an individual because they do not have the right to do so, even in self-defense as their right to self-defense has been delegated to a government. Therefore, my opponents value is null because a person does not have the right to self-defense; the government holds the right of individual self-preservation.
1) My first contention still stands as the right of self-defense has been delegated to the government and is not held by the people. Self-defense is not an inalienable right. Life is. Therefore, an abuse victim cannot morally kill her abuser. Furthermore, domestic abuse does not ALWAYS end in death. Deadly Force does.
2) Once again, my opponents objection is that I am bring society into play. But, once again, an abuse victim does not have the right of self-preservation it is held by the government. Even if natural law takes the place of the laws of man, the Social Contract is an application of natural law applied to society, in which people give up rights such as the right of self-preservation to form a stable society.
3) Repeat just means more than once according to the definition. The government has not done anything about it because the government has not been informed about the occurrences. The government is not omniscient. It is not morally permissible for the abuser to kill the victim. Just as it is not morally permissible for the victim to kill the abuser. This delicate balance is what holds society together.
4) I can state a resolution is incorrect because it is not morally correct to kill. And once again, I will bring us back to the social contract theory which has already been explained. Self-defense is not a right held by individuals.
5) Morality and Values are inherently seen within laws. Laws are based upon morality and values therefore, laws and society can be brought into play. I'll refer back to my first round, "shared ideas on politics morals and ethics" expresses itself through laws. Laws are based upon natural law, morality, and ethics. The government is based upon laws. Therefore, the government is based upon natural law, morality, and ethics. The social contract theory explains why and how people created governments and laws. We are debating an aspect of morality. And we are debating what people morally ought to do so morally they should not kill, morally there are other options.
Now for my rebuttal:
My opponent has not proven that self-defense is a right guaranteed to individuals. Since she has not done so, and according to the Social Contract Theory the government holds all people's rights to self-defense, a person's inalienable rights are more important than self-defense. Furthermore, since a person does not hold the right of self-defense, they cannot morally take another person's inalienable rights away. Therefore, my opponents entire value is invalid.
Contention 1, utilizes an extremely emotional story. But, this story holds no weight in whether something is morale or not. Furthermore, this story does not support the right of self-defense and therefore, is invalid. It tells of abuse but, nowhere does it tell of imminent death to the women in question, she obviously actually survived. Abuse is not equal to deadly force.
Contention 2 utilizes the Doctrine of Double Effect developed by Thomas Aquinas. Violence is defined as my opponent as "a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain control or power over a spouse" as my opponent stated the "National Domestic Violence Hotline in abusive relationships abuse ranges from verbal to physical abuse" so, in some cases, verbal abuse can be used to gain control over a spouse. Since it fits the definition of domestic violence my opponent now is arguing it is right to kill even in cases when the abuser is just saying something mean. Or in other words, murder can be correct. Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas stated "if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful" this basically means if there is another way that you can defend yourself without killing. Do it. I have stated several, non-lethal, possibilities. Therefore, my opponent holds my 5th contention to be true.
Contention 3. An abuse victim is not the legal property of the abuser. Furthermore, getting out of slavery does not require self-defense. In the United States history, slaves escaped from their owners by running away, through things such as the Underground Railroad, not killing. Slaves realized it would be morally wrong to kill their masters and they did not want to sink to the level of their owners. Furthermore, my opponents source states "The following things are LIKELY to happen" so basically the list of following things might not happen. Furthermore, you cannot completely isolate someone from society. And if "the abuser may also take you to an unknown place and leave you there" would that not be a good thing? They are away from the abuse. They could easily find the closest populated area and ask for help. Furthermore, my opponent has not stated why the abuse victim would die if they run away from their abuser and get help.
I will first begin with talking about what has happened in the round. I would first like to state that my opponent stated during their rebuttal "My opponent has not proven that self-defense is a right guaranteed to individuals." Although, I most defiantly have when I stated my Value Criterion multiple times in the debate. My value criterion which is "it is important that you use self defense as a matter of protecting yourself, and looking out for your own personal interests which are living." Id like to state that yes, I have shown how individuals have a right to use self defense, when I state my criterion. My opponent also stated people have a right to live and in order to survive you must value self defense.
Also, I would like to point out that my opponent states in the first paragraph of his rebuttal that since I supposedly haven't proved my value of self defense is higher than his value of unalienable rights, although. As people we should all know the government cant defend everyone. We must take it into our own hands to defend ourselves. My opponent also didn't touch my argument of the abuser will do both physical and verbal abuse. Therefore I would like to extend my argument about this therefore, deadly force would be lawful according to Thomas Aquinas
My opponent stated my emotional story is invalid. Although, it is not invalid. It shows that domestic violence does range from verbal to physical it shows that domestic violence will always be repeated. So, therefore I would like to say my story in contention one is valid. My opponent has not opposed the fact that you must have self defense In order to have life therefore I would like to extend my criterion.
My opponent doesn't touch my argument about "since ones intention is to save their own life this is not unlawful" and that is why you use self defense to save your own life. I would like to extend this argument also. My opponent states I hold his 5th contention to be true. But, if I held his 5th contention to be true I wouldn't have refuted it during my 3rd and 4th paragraph in my rebuttal.
my opponent does not refute my argument about how an abuser threatens to kill their victim, and a threat would be taken seriously after all the stuff the victim has been through with their abuser. Therefore, this proves my 3rd contention correct.
Now moving onto my opponents case. My opponent is still refuting the fact the that you have to have self defense in order to survive. Although, my opponent thinks their value of inalienable rights will help a person survive. You cant do that if you cant defend yourself.
My opponent argues the government will protect you, he argues this continually. He also states it is a moral debate. And government is not how a person will achieve morality. A person cant have life and continuously depend upon the government. We must fend for ourselves. We must not allow someone to be around you continuously and hurt you. Physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. this is why it is moral to use self defense. It allows you to have life. My opponent stating that self defense is immoral would be like stating life is immoral.
Now, in the world of my opponent you are basically allowing someone to abuse you. Waiting on someone from the government to help you. Suffering. This is why the value of self defense is better than my opponents. It is true It isn't just some theory. You do it yourself. You are independent.
Thank you for your time and please vote AFFIRMATIVE (:
P stands for pro
C for con
P1. This describes a personal account of domestic violence. But, it does not prove that domestic violence will repeat in EVERY case. It does not prove that in EVERY case the violence will progress from verbal to physical. Furthermore, as I have stated above, my opponent has not touched my statement that "my opponent now is arguing it is right to kill even in cases when the abuser is just saying something mean" because it fits the definition of domestic violence. Pro is arguing that murder is morally correct. This story is one isolated case and for that reason alone it is invalid when discussing societal morals.
P2. This utilizes the Doctrine of Double Effects credited to Thomas Aquinas. But, while he does make a case for self-defense, Aquinas also states that "if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful." Meaning, as I have stated above, that if there are non-lethal means to defend yourself it is morally incorrect to use lethal means. Thomas Aquinas did not approve of killing when there are other possibilities. Above I stated (sub point 5,round 2) several non-lethal possibilities, which my opponent has not refuted. Since "you cannot completely isolate someone from society" it is immoral to use lethal means when there are other options. My opponents use of this doctrine goes completely against her argument. Since my opponent has not refuted this fact, my opponent accepts it.
P3. In my opponents third contention, she compares victims of abuse to slaves and that to get out of slavery a person should use self-defense. She also lists several things that MAY, as in not definite, happen in an abusive relationship. My opponent has not refuted that getting out of slavery does not require self-defense and that it would be sinking to the level of their "master." Therefore, she accepts this as true, sinking her own argument in the process because she then believes that self-defense is not necessary and if it is not necessary to kill, why kill?
My opponents premise for the debate, self-defense, is unjustified.
In a recap, my opponents 4 core beliefs:
1. Murder is morally correct.
2. If there are other options, as there are, self-defense is not morally correct.
3. Self-defense is not necessary.
4. Self-defense is a perquisite to life, therefore, life is not necessary.
Now onto my own arguments.
C1. Everyone has the right to live. My opponent agrees with me here. Both the abuser and victim are equal in this regard.
C2. Laws are based upon morality. My opponent dropped this in her final focus and therefore, agrees.
C3. The government is the protector of rights. It is this contention that has brought the most debate. My opponent holds throughout the debate that the government cannot protect everyone. I hold that the women interacts with society, my opponent agree here by dropping this statement, and that she does not reach out and ask for help, my opponent also drops this statement in her final focus. Since the women does not reach out for help the government has no reason to intervene in her life and therefore, cannot help.
C4. My opponent dropped this point in her final focus and therefore, agrees with me on this aspect. So I declare the resolution null and void.
C5. Once again my opponent has not argued against this, even in here 3d and 4th paragraphs which address my 3d and 4th contentions, there are better options than killing. Therefore, according to the Doctrine of Double Effects, deadly force in this context is not moral.
My core beliefs:
1. Everyone has the inalienable right of life.
2. The government is the protector of the inalienable right to life as they hold the right for our self-defense
3. Violence does not solve violence.
4. There are better, non-lethal, options than killing so it is immoral to kill.
Now onto our values.
My opponent values self-defense as a means of protection.
I value inalienable rights according to natural law because the social contract explains society has been set up to value inalienable rights.
Which is more important? What the society, that she and I live in, which has existed on this premise for thousands of years deems as being superior? Or what she herself on her sole word deems as being superior? Furthermore, without life...you cannot defend yourself. Life, for obvious reasons, is the prerequisite for everything, protection of ALL life no matter their actions therefore, supersedes everything.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 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:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
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.