The Instigator
Yoguy-107
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,828 times Debate No: 9835
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Yoguy-107

Con

i am looking for an LD debate so if you could pls format it as such. i appreciate anyone taking this debate, i really need critiques on my case as of now my coach is insanely busy.

"In order to control the future one must control the present. How can one control the present? By controlling the past. Control the past and you control the present and the future. Freedom is the ability to say two plus to equals four. Should one control the past two plus two equals five." To avoid this example of Orwell's control of society I stand to negate the resolution: public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

To clarify the round I offer the following observations
1: Though medical personal and or institutions give immunizations, they are paid for by governmental agencies and therefore controlled by those governmental agencies.
2: Being controlled by governmental agencies, allows them to make any decision on where these immunizations are allocated and how they are used.

Because I support the freedom to say two plus two equals four I value individual liberty. We must look at liberty for a few reasons: First, Individual Liberty is the basis of all free societies: the founding premise of all free and just societies is individual liberty, where the state exists to protect the inalienable rights of the individuals that compose society. Next Individual Liberty ensures the protection of other rights: Only through individual liberty can individuals be ensure their due rights. Without guaranteed protection for individual liberty, all rights go by the wayside for other lesser values, and last, Individual Liberty is key to quality of life: Without access to the guaranteed and inalienable freedoms, individuals can never attain a genuine quality of life.

Now, to fulfill individual liberty I offer the value criterion of upholding LOCKE'S SOCIAL CONTRACT. According to Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government: Freedom of Men under Government is, to have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; a Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man: as Freedom of Nature is, to be under no other restraint but the Law of Nature. Locke emphasizes the importance of personal property and freedom to do with that property what the owner pleases. No property is more personal and more essential than ones own body. Without freedom and control over one's body, one can never attain true individual liberty or freedom. The role of government in Locke's social contract is to protect individual liberty. The government therefore should not mandate individuals take certain actions with regard to their own property.

I contend that the US government uses language alteration to manipulate the way people feel.

George Orwell in 1984 explains that a party can control the ways in which people feel and act through the use of language alteration.

Mark Moyers explains
VOLUNTARYIST, "Philosophy of Immunization", 12.1992, accessed 10.10.2009: http://www.voluntaryist.com......

By the time that the year 1984 came and went, the powers that be had convinced the "masses" that George Orwell's prediction of "Big Brother" had been nothing but fantasy. Orwell had said that the State would control people by controlling their thoughts-by way of language destruction, language pollution, and word-meaning reversals. Orwell painted the future with definition changes such as "Ignorance is strength," and "Freedom is slavery." I don't believe he ever focused on the contradictions inherent in compulsory immunization, so I would like to do so now. The word "immunization" is used to describe an injection of a substance, which is intended to make a person free from the necessity of fighting a disease. "Immune" was borrowed by the scientific community from the political community. A Latin word derived some 4000 years ago, immune meant "free from obligation or duty to the city or public". "Immune" was a political word used to describe a particular status of an individual. When the scientific community began to use it, it had a similar basis with regard to disease, yet no thought of a political reference was apparent. Within a hundred years after the development of immunizations, they became compulsory (as a matter of law) for all children attending public schools. Here was "compulsory freedom" long before Orwell ever thought of mind control.

The original meaning of the word meant free from the obligation of duty to the city or public. Now it means something completely different. The government manipulated the meaning of this word to alter out thoughts on it. The government here has denied our individual liberty even if unintentionally this way. By not giving us our individual liberty they have effectively told us what to do with our property or bodies as the case may be. So overall a language alteration denies us individual liberty by controlling the way we see certain things. So two plus two equals five.

Secondly I contend the use of language to manipulate people is unjust

There are a few words that the media uses to manipulate the thoughts on immunizations and viruses. Here is a short list: chronic, cure, violent, and grow. Here are even a few article titles from natural health news.com: Vaccine Revolt! Swine flu vaccine support crumbles as flimsy rational becomes apparent, and Traditional Plant Medicine Could Cure H1N1 Flu Virus, Chinese Scientists Find. Here are a few facts; viruses cannot be cured; only treated. Second, the average US citizen reads on a sixth grade reading level as according to informatics review.org. And because of this low level of comprehension the media intentionally takes advantage of people to sway opinions in one way or another. This is stripping one of individual liberty and inappropriate in a society as according to John Locke because the media is intentionally manipulating our opinions to receive immunizations or not.
In conclusion, a government manipulating its people through the alteration of language is denying individual liberty because whoever is in control is implicitly telling us what to do with our bodies. By controlling this aspect, a society can be manipulated to believe virtually anything; even something as obscure as two plus two equals five. So to avoid this fact I urge the negative ballot.
Nails

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. I will certainly keep to LD format.

One thing to note quickly: My opponent's case only covers the scope of the US. ("I contend that the US government uses language alteration to manipulate the way people feel.")

=======
Definitions
=======

WebMD defines Public Health Concerns as
Society's interest in assuring conditions in which people can be healthy

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines
Compulsory as Mandatory; and
Immunization as a process that increases the ability to resist or overcome infection

=======
Framework
=======

I agree with my opponent that we should look to Locke's Social Contract. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Let's just be clear of what Locke says the duty of government actually is in social contract.

"Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good."

"[Man] has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it."
---
Now my opponent says: Locke emphasizes the importance of personal property and freedom to do with that property what the owner pleases.

However, this is not what his quote proves. Locke said "a LIBERTY to follow my own Will in all things, WHERE THE RULE PRESCRIBES NOT."

As the political theorist Hanna Fenichel Pitkin has observed, liberty implies a system of rules, a "network of restraint and order," hence the word's close association with political life. (http://www.wehaitians.com...)

As Locke says, we have liberty, freedom where the rule prescribes not. We can do whatever we want so long as we follow the law. Creating laws does not restrict liberty, as people can still do whatever they choose under the law; creating laws restricts freedom.

=======
Contention
=======

My only contention is that compulsory immunization is justified under Locke's Social Contract.
Social Contract gives the government power to act in society's general interest. Compulsory immunizations are in society's general interest.

A. Parens Patriae

Parens Patriae is Latin for "father of the nation." In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The government can step in to protect the general interest of children and this is no exception. Most vaccinations are given to children, and a parent who refuses to give vaccines to their children is certainly endangering them. There is no reason why the government couldn't step in and compel the child to be vaccinated if the parent refuses.

B. Biological Warfare & Bioterrorism

Let's say that Chicago is hit with an Anthrax bomb. It is spread through Chicago and many people inside are infected. The government, to protect the rest of America, ought to be able to isolate the vaccine. This would require all people in and around Chicago to be immune. Those few who would exempt the vaccine could transmit the disease to another city and start the epidemic all over again. Compulsory vaccination is necessary in such instances to stop the spread of these biological agents.

C. Disease Extinction

This is seen with multiple diseases, such as smallpox and polio, the vaccines for which have been made mandatory. Polio killed 30,000 per year in the US prior to the mandated vaccination in 1984. Shortly afterwards, the disease was all but eradicated in the US and confined to 2-3,000 cases worldwide. Scientists have posited that removing all exemptions could exterminate it completely. This is the benefit of compulsory immunization. 1-2 generations with 99.9% vaccination rates is enough to kill these diseases permanently.

Compulsory immunizations are clearly for the overall public good. Read the 1st quote under 'Framework'. I win the debate right here because Locke's Social Contract allows the government to justify action in the name of the public good.

======
His Case
======

A. 'Manipulating language' doesn't do what he says it does. Simply using a word with a positive connotation isn't unjust. At the point 'immunization' means the same thing as 'vaccination', just has a more positive tone, there is nothing unjust about using 1 over the other, because the same message is being conveyed. I don't think we can call democracy just and still assume that people are too stupid to reason for themselves.

B.
"There are a few words that the media uses to manipulate the thoughts on immunizations and viruses"
"the media intentionally takes advantage of people"
"the media is intentionally manipulating our opinions"
His Conclusion:
"a government manipulating its people through the alteration of language is denying individual liberty"

You see the problem? He consistently blames the media, privately owned companies, for skewing data on immunization among other things with their sugar-coated language. He then somehow concludes that the government is denying us individual liberty. The government shouldn't be able to control the media (freedom of speech), so anything the media says can't be attributed to governmental injustice.

C. "viruses cannot be cured; only treated."
We are not debating a 'cure' for anything. We are debating 'immunization' from disease. Viruses CAN be prevented with 99-100% effectiveness in many cases.

D. "[Immunization] is intended to make a person free from the necessity of fighting a disease"
He continuously contends that immunity somehow means, or meant, freedom. That's not quite the right word. Immunity is protection, not freedom. I am protected from disease with an immunization. I am protected from the law if I have diplomatic immunity. If I am immune, I am protected, not free. Therefore his idea of the government contradicting itself by saying "compulsory freedom" is unfounded. Compulsory immunization is "compulsory protection."

E. There is no link!
Even if he proves that governments are abusing us by feeding us misinformation (I have no idea how he would), what does it have to do with this resolution?
Is having compulsory immunizations going to increase the amount of propaganda? Will propaganda decrease?
I don't see why him choosing an issue unrelated to immunizations and ranting about it constitutes and argument. He has to prove that compulsory immunization is not justified, and simply stating 'the government abuses us through language' doesn't prove anything of the sort!

======
Summary
======

He sets a standard in this round of John Locke's Social Contract. He then misinterprets it and fails to meet that misinterpreted standard anyway. He rants on and on about an issue that doesn't even exist, that the government has no control over, and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Rather, you look to my case. I clearly meet the standard that he sets of abiding by social contract. Locke clearly outlines that the government must act in favor of societal good. I have certainly proved that immunization being made compulsory would certainly benefit society.

This is a clear PRO vote.
Debate Round No. 1
Yoguy-107

Con

ok thank you nails, will just argue the point he made and uphold my case as i do it.

lest start with his attack on my value criterion of John Lockes social contract. he only claims that i misinterpret the understanding by claiming that freedom and liberty are two different things. when John Locke talks about liberty he is referring to freedom. according to his second treatise of civil government he quite frequently refers to these concepts as the same thing. SO freedom is liberty and my argument still stands being that the government is restricting freedom and liberty by imposing a compulsory immunization law.
- my opponent makes no mention to the fact that the human body is the most essential property is ones own body and that this immunization law infringes upon what we are able to do with our own bodies. so i extend this as offense being that my opponent has made no attack on the fact that if we can not control what is going on in our bodies we dont have a basic essential of individual liberty.

next my opponent argues that the government is obligated to act in the best interest of its people.
- yes it does i agree with this point BUT as i have shown above, if this infringes on the individual liberty of ones body then the government has no right to act.
his sub point a is claiming that the government should step in if the parents arent immunizing children
-first, as stated before this is infringing on the individual liberty of ones body and therefore the government has no right to act
-second, the government also has no right to act on parents choice being that they may see religious or moral conflict with the immunization of their children.
his sub point b about bio terrorism and other issues
-this is non-unique in that i can acheive his impact without compulsion. if chicago was bombed the government would just have to announce it and everyone would rush to get the vaccine.
-also, the probablity (tho i do admit i dont know the stats) are quite low for any attempt at an anthrax or other bio weapon terror attack due to terrorists limited reasources and funding
his sub point c is claiming that the extinction of viruses is over all good
-ok so getting rid of polio was a good thing. BUT viruses are ever changing and adapting. As according to MSNBC most diseases are caused by viruses and therefore are a major concern because viruses are known to adapt to environments and their changes. Freeing someone from the necessity of fighting a disease is bad because it will eventually make us dependant on immunizations to help prevent adapting viruses.
College of UCLA explains on viral adaptation
http://www.college.ucla.edu...
Since viruses have such high mutation and reproductive rates, they can adapt to changing environments quite well. The viruses, for example, change their surface proteins so they can attach to the changed cell surface receptors.
With constantly evolving viruses, ridding people of the necessity of fighting a virus seems disadvantageous being that we will constantly need to come up with new vaccines to combat the new strand of virus we were able to prevent earlier. This presents us with a miss allocation of resources, which over all cannot positively effect the community.

moving on to more of his attacks
his argument a
-he is completely missing the point of my argument. if the government uses language manipulation to change a persons views on a particular subject in this case immunizations that is unjust because the government is using that as a means to infringe on a persons individual liberty of the body. that is completely unjust and because of that we should negate.
his argument b
- everything the media gets on immunizations is from the government. if we look to my observations we can see how this is true. because the media interviews doctors nurses or patients of the immunizations but the immunizations and research funding comes from the government. my argument on the media still stands
his argument c
-he says that pretty much we should affirm because we are achieving 99 to 100% extinction of viruses. and that we arent trying to cure anything. ok like i said the fact we cant cure a virus was a media term used to manipulate peoples thoughts on the issue (making it unjust as explained earlier) next this is non-unique in that i can achieve his impact without the compulsion. the government just needs to announce to the media that a new vaccine will help eliminate virus symptoms and people will be all over it.
his argument d
-look to my card in my first contention that gives us the real meaning of the word immunize and i feel this needs to be the definition because it means to be free from public duty or the city, NOT protected from them. therefore this change in meaning is founded in that the government is limiting freedom rather with compulsion and not protection.
his argument e
- again misinterpreting my argument. the government using language manipulation LIKE THE CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD IMMUNIZE to change our views on how we view immunizations then they are infringing upon our individual liberty because we are accepting the loss of control of what is going into our bodies.

voters
-i am upholding my entire case
-my opponent has made several non-unique arguments and i have put down all the rest of his case
- i am actually upholding the social contract better because freedom and liberty are the same thing according to locke and the fact that my opponent made no argument about how the body is the most essential part of individual liberty.
-i did not see a value in my opponents case and seeing as how he is lacking in that i should win right there being that i am the only one with a way to weigh the arguments of this round.

good luck (is it just me nails or does this resolution bite?)
Nails

Pro

=======
Framework
=======

"Freedom of Men under Government is... a Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not"
"John Locke talks about liberty he is referring to freedom"

These are both quotes of my opponent and they are clearly contradictory. In his orginal case, my opponent gives a quote from John Locke which distinctly outlines the difference of liberty and freedom: the law. As John Locke says, "Freedom of men UNDER GOVERNMENT" and "where the Rule prescribes not." There is absolutely no way that my opponent can justify that freedom (to do whatever you choose) is the same as liberty (to do whatever you choose under the law.)

"if [acting in the best interest of the people] infringes on the individual liberty of ones body then the government has no right to act."

This is an absurd distortion of the Social Contract. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I posted (the only source, my opponent has none) in which John Locke clearly says the opposite of what my opponent claims.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: My opponent uses this faulty definition of social contract to justify almost all of his points. Right here you take his case out from the top down. If we were discussing my opponent's personal view of the social contract, this might be viable. We are, however, discussing Locke's Social Contract, which justifies acting in the best interest of the people in all cases.

=========
My Contention
=========

His 'second' argument is crazy!
"second, the government also has no right to act on parents choice being that they may see religious or moral conflict with the immunization of their children."

If my parents said, "we've raised our son to believe it is religious duty not to wear clothes; we've also taught him that the only way into heaven is to kill as often as possible", would that justify my going around naked killing everybody? I should hope not! We practice a strict separation of church and state, meaning that religion doesn't affect laws, and congress has ruled multiple times against parents exempting for religious reasons. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

---

"this is non-unique in that i can acheive his impact without compulsion. if chicago was bombed the government would just have to announce it and everyone would rush to get the vaccine."

CON is just grasping at straws now! If this were true, as he states, then the even larger issues of small pox and polio in the past wouldn't have happened. While small pox, measles, polio, tuberculosis, etc. were all pandemics at one point, people weren't rushing to get the vaccine; they were protesting it!

There is absolutely nothing to support this outlandish claim, and every historical example rebuts it.

---

"the probablity (tho i do admit i dont know the stats) are quite low for any attempt at an anthrax or other bio weapon terror attack due to terrorists limited reasources and funding"

I suppose it is also unlikely that they would have necessary funding to plan the hijacking of American planes or attempt to fly them into 2 of America's largest buildings. This is made even worse by the fact that they are only being funded by the oil-rich member countries of OPEC who have very little money to spare!

---

"Freeing someone from the necessity of fighting a disease is bad because it will eventually make us dependant on immunizations to help prevent adapting viruses."

My opponent says vaccines in general are bad, but advocates voluntary vaccination in his other points, eg. "I can solve this because people will rush to get the vaccine"

He is shifting advocacy multiple times in his speech, so I've got no idea what I am debating now. Compulsory immunization vs. Voluntary immunization? Compulsory immunization vs. No immunization?

=====
His Case
=====

A.
Extend my argument; he doesn't address it, just beats around the bush. Read his last rebuttal and try to find where he actually addresses that changing a word's connotation is OK. He doesn't!

Attaching positive or negative connotations to words is fine, so long as the facts aren't skewed. We know the facts from independent non-governmental studies, so what he is saying, not only is irrelevant, but isn't even happening.

B.
"everything the media gets on immunizations is from the government"
This isn't true. The government contracts private companies to create vaccines. The vaccines' effectiveness generally comes from these companies. My opponent is just making some crazy, unwarranted assertion here!

"the media interviews doctors nurses or patients"
1. Many hospitals are private
2. Interviews aren't statistics
3. CON gives no reason why doctors or nurses would maliciously alter data, anyway
4. Patients = average citizens, certainly not government employees!

C.
"the fact we cant cure a virus was a media term used to manipulate peoples thoughts on the issue"
No it isn't, it's a scientific fact. Ask any biologist.

---

"the government just needs to announce to the media that a new vaccine will help eliminate virus symptoms and people will be all over it."

HOW? WHY? WHEN? WHERE?
We have many multitudes of vaccines and this hasn't happened yet!!!!
I'm pretty irritated at my opponent's blatant disregard for any facts or common sense.
His unwarranted claim has been disproven by the fact that we have issued hundreds of vaccines and what my opponent says would happen never has.

D.
"i feel this needs to be the definition because it means to be free from public duty or the city"
or, in short "I feel this needs to be the definition because this is the definition"

That's completely circular logic, and it's also completely unfounded. Ask any person what a vaccine/immunization/whatever you may call it, is.

Is an immunization:
A. Freedom from disease
B. Protection from disease

Use Common sense

E.
Even if it were true (it clearly isn't) you've got no link to impacts. Never once do you mention why having or not having this immunization would change whether the government manipulates language.

=======
His "voters"
=======

"i am upholding my entire case"
...when pigs fly. Read any argument above.

"my opponent has made several non-unique arguments"
His definition of non-unique is, "hypothetically, if 100% of people agreed to get the vaccination, the same thing would happen." Pragmatically, this is just idiotic.

"i am actually upholding the social contract better because freedom and liberty are the same thing according to locke"
It's pretty clear that they aren't when the quote you provided in your original cases is actually John Locke distinguishing between them...

"i did not see a value in my opponents case and seeing as how he is lacking in that i should win right there being that i am the only one with a way to weigh the arguments of this round."
Why do I need my own value? You claimed yours first, therefore I can't use it? That's nonsensical.

My opponent laid down a clear framework: whoever better upholds Locke's Social Contract wins.
I have clearly proven that I better uphold it, so I certainly win. It makes no difference that it was my opponent and not me that said "Social Contract is good", just that it was said. I don't think my opponent understands LD debate very well if he thinks it's impossible to agree on a value and criterion.

"is it just me nails or does this resolution bite?"
(This isn't related to the argument at hand)
No, I love this resolution. People are always hyper-critical when the resolutions 1st come out.

========
Real Voters
========

1. Attack E on his case
Having compulsory immunizations won't change whether language is manipulated. There is no impact to his case.

2. I'm the only one who benefits society. Read my contention. It clearly outlines benefits, therefore affirming is justified under social contract.
Debate Round No. 2
Yoguy-107

Con

sry nails will be unable to continue our debate, for two reasons
-going to the regional cross country championship and will have not computer access for long amounts of time
-attacking whether or not i know LD debate is an attack of character fallacy of which i have no patience for.

but i do offer at least some rebuttal
-you dont understand my argument. a government is unjust in forcing a compulsory law if it has the ability to alter or manipulate language (see my card in the original case).
-yes people run to a vaccine if the government announces there is one PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE H1N1 VIRUS VACCINE.
Nails

Pro

"sry nails will be unable to continue our debate, for two reasons
-going to the regional cross country championship and will have not computer access for long amounts of time"

Good luck. I did track for 3 years and enjoyed it. I can appreciate the skill and dedication takes to be a good runner.

---

"-attacking whether or not i know LD debate is an attack of character fallacy of which i have no patience for."

It's not an attack on your character, but your logic.
I'm not saying something like "You're a stupid red-headed black asian mexican fat anorexic [insert ad hominem] etc. etc." That has nothing to do with debate, and that certainly isn't what I am saying.

You make arguments about the value and criterion framework of LD that don't fit.
"i did not see a value in my opponents case and seeing as how he is lacking in that i should win right there being that i am the only one with a way to weigh the arguments of this round."
Accepting your value doesn't force me to lose the round, it just forces me to debate by your standards (your value and criterion.) Attacking your misconception of debate is entirely relevant in this debate; it isn't a personal attack at you.

I would suggest both of the resources. Our debate team has a coach who knows nothing about competitive debate, as such I've had to learn most of what I know from sources, like these:
http://circuitdebater.blogspot.com...
http://victorybriefsdaily.com...
They both have multiple videos of LD debate at the TOC (Tournament of Champions) in separate years. This is the highest level LD debate tournament in the country and many of the debates have 1 or both debaters not providing a value/criterion framework at all. The videos are found along the right side of the webpage.

---

"but i do offer at least some rebuttal
-you dont understand my argument. a government is unjust in forcing a compulsory law if it has the ability to alter or manipulate language (see my card in the original case)."

But you don't understand my argument either. According to you, the government is going to manipulate language no matter what. This means that the government can't be just by your standards no matter if we affirm or negate. I prove that there are atleast benefits to affirming that there aren't to negating.

---
"yes people run to a vaccine if the government announces there is one PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE H1N1 VIRUS VACCINE."

You're more than a little bit off.
Read here: http://www.naturalnews.com...

"Recent polls conducted by the mainstream media indicate that more than fifty percent of moms are refusing to expose their children to the swine flu vaccine, and nurses and health practitioners across the US and UK are going vocal with their opposition to the vaccine."

Your so called 'prime example' proves my point. In the face of a disease recognized globally as 'pandemic', millions are still refusing vaccination.

=======
Conclusion
=======

It's very unfortunate that my opponent hasn't had time to respond with a fully fleshed out rebuttal. Most of my arguments went unaddressed. You can extend them as justifications why to vote PRO. I still wish my opponent good luck at his Cross Country meet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Pity 107 had to leave...

C: unsure. Con kinda forfeited a round, but wrote a truncated version; letting it slide...
SP/G: Pro. For the sake of those reading later, 107, PLEASE use capitalization and punctuation. Your R2 was pretty much block text, and accordingly harder to follow or be interested in reading.
A: Pro. Although my own opinion remains unchanged on this, Nails made the better arguments; especially concerning the difference between Locke's definition of liberty and of freedom.
S: Tied.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Yoguy-107NailsTied
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 Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Yoguy-107NailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04