The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,862 times Debate No: 9001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)




First off, I will address the format of this debate which will be LD.
Rules of LD apply......

Here is a link which may help anyone who accepts but has vague knowledge of LD debates.

I will proceed.

I affirm.

Resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law.


1. Black's Law Dictionary defines vigilantism as "the act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals of the law".

2. Justified implies justice. Something that is justified has been demonstrated or proven to be just or able to give each other due.

3. Failed is to have fallen short of obligation.

4. To enforce the law is to give force or effect to compel to.


1. By analyzing the resolution, it is taken to an understanding that the event of failure has taken place.

2. John Locke explains the relationship and social contract between any government and its people. The people give up certain rights to the government for example the right to kill. If, however the government fails its end of the compact or to pursue its duty, the people are given the right to take matters into their own hands.


B1: The negative must prove that vigilantism is not justified.

---------------------------------Values/Value Criterion----------------------------------

V: Justice, where justice is giving each their due. Justice is the paramount value because the wording of the resolution concerns justification.

VC: Maximum Protection of Human Rights.
All people are granted a series of unalienable rights. For example, the right of self defense. Any government that is legitimate should uphold and preserve these rights to be legitimate. They are a standard of justice.


1. People aren't obligated to recognize non-legitimacy. John Locke explains that "a government that fails to fulfill its responsibility to its citizens is not a legitimate government, thus citizens are not obligated to recognize its legitimacy". Because the government has failed to enforce the law, it has failed to preserve justice, making it a non-legitimate government. Therefore the people are not obligated to recognize it.

2. People have the human right to defend themselves. Elizabeth Ayyildiz explains:

social contract theory: "if the state fails its obligation to protect its citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection".

Because the government has failed to provide protection for the people, the government is dissolved. People have the human right to then defend themselves from anything that harms their well-being. Because the government cannot uphold justice and ensure peoples' security, the people have the right to defend themselves. It is ethical for any legitimate government to uphold this right.

3. Vigilantism spurs government reform which allows maximum protection for human rights. Suzette Heald explains:

"from the early 1980's onwards in central Tanzania, Sukuma and Nyamwesi villagers began to reorganize their own form of collective policing which became known throughout Tanzania as Sungusungu. Over time, these groups, which initially by-passed the official agents of state, far from being rejected, have become an integral part of the administrative structures of vast areas of rural Tanzania".

In this situation, vigilantes altered the state's nature and initiated long term reforms. Vigilantism is the first and best step to government reform, maximize human rights and therefore preserving justice.


Thank you to whom ever accepts the debate, you may proceed. Thank you!


I negate that Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

The value is Justice, defined by Plato as "doing one's own business in a certain way". This means that each person must perform their natural talent to its fullest potential. This value is paramount because with each person filling his or her natural place in society, Plato points out that this society would be functioning at its optimum level.

The criterion is the Synderesis. St. Thomas Aquinas says that the justice of an action comes from the intent, means and ends of that action. This criterion weighs the round based on whether or not the affirmative can meet all 3 of these burdens, and as such, my 3 contentions will focus on the 3 criteria of The Synderesis.

Contention I- The intents are biased.

Criminal Justice Manager Thomas R. O'Connor of Austin Peay State University states that "It is significant that one of the first things a vigilante does is stake out their target, stalk their victim, and engage in a whole lot of brooding and premeditation… Vengeance is an un-tempered emotion, like fear, lust, and anger. Justice and punishment should not be guided by banal, primitive, un-tempered emotions." If we allow vengeance and personal bias to get in the way of justice, our society will cease to function properly, because citizens will not be acting to fulfill their natural potential, but only to satisfy society's lust for blood.

Contention II- The means are unjust.

O'Connor continues, "Vigilante thinking is precisely the opposite of any notion of fairness, fair play, or chance for acquittal. Vigilantes do not care to wait for the police to finish their investigation, and they care less about any court's determination of proof." This presents two problems with vigilantism: one, affirming the resolution allows vigilantes to promote their own personal concept of justice, free of any safeguards; we would give them the power of judge, jury, and executioner. Second, "Vigilantism, Vigilante Justice, and Self-Help" explains, "Vigilante justice is sometimes too swift and too sure. Vicious beatings and on-the-spot executions do not fit the crime." It becomes painfully apparent that vigilantism often glorifies violence and erases any sense of proportional punishment for offenders. The extreme methods employed by vigilantes prevent suspected criminals from realizing their natural potential in society.

Contention III- The effects hurt both citizens and the government.

Ethics in Action, vol. 2, says that "By justifying the arming of civilians, the government has encouraged the blurring of responsibility. Whose job is it to enforce laws and maintain order? Who is to be held accountable when rights are violated, and under what mechanism? There are no clear answers to these questions, perpetuating a cycle of impunity." Two negative effects come from vigilantism; one, the dependence on vigilantism encourages the government to shirk its duties, second, justice is obstructed when the actions of citizens prevent the current or future government from performing its natural duty in society.

Now, flip the flow and look to the affirmative.

First, I'd like to make a special stipulation on the burden he outlines; understand that, by failing any of the 3 tests of the Synderesis, Vigilantism is automatically proven unjust; so the justice of the action depends solely upon the aff.

On Justice, 3 arguments:

1. We have to look to each person performing his natural duty to society; obviously, not everyone is meant to be a part of law enforcement; this, of course, is why we establish government to begin with; even assuming that said body has failed to enforce a single law, that doesn't mean that said government is now entirely helpless.

2. The aff never explains how people are being given their due; with his definition, we can see that a vigilante is merely some citizen taking the law into his/her own hands; thus, this person is operating on some personal code of morality and justice, meaning that he won't be able to objectively determine what each person is due; as I pointed out in my 1st contention, vigilantes act on their biases and a lust for vengeance (as they are apprehending AND punishing these criminals); they will merely be acting to avenge a crime as opposed to rendering the criminal and victim what they are respectively due (assuming the crime has a victim at all).

3. The aff also never explains to us exactly what everyone in this situation is due (the vigilantes, the common people, the criminal, the victim, the government, etc.); thus, we obviously can't allow my opponent to win value debate if he never proves the achievement of the value he set up.

On MPHR, 2 arguments:

1. He tries to say people are all due human rights, but as I explained, he doesn't detail what happens to each entity; the criminal's rights, for example, aren't being protected; affirming the resolution allows an unchecked vigilante to pursue vengeance and violence as opposed to impartial justice, and, as I point out in contention 2, "vicious beatings and on-the-spot executions do not fit the crime."

2. This is a very consequential, "ends justify means" criterion; look at the analysis under the Synderesis: the aff is ignoring the malicious, bias-fueled intentions of vigilantes, and the over-the-top violence employed; honestly, as much as my opponent would like you to believe rights are being protected, he establishes no causal link between vigilantism and MPHR, and, once you view the resolution through the Synderesis, you'll clearly vote neg.

On contention I, 2 arguments.

1. My opponent assumes that one failure to enforce one law is equivalent to illegitimacy; however, it would be a fallacy to assume that, because a government isn't entirely perfect, that it isn't legitimate, and that we revert to the state of nature; but, until my opponent proves that a single government failure is equivalent to the destabilization of the entire government structure, you certainly can't buy this argument.

2. Even if a government has dissolved as my opponent claims, look to Locke's 2nd Treatise, Sec. 220: "In these and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other, by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good." Thus, Locke grants citizens the right to reshape the government into a more capable, favorable form, but he NEVER grants them the right to take law into their own hands, as people have already come out of the state of nature.

On contention II, 1 argument:

Simply put, his argument is about self-defense, but the government already failed: In layman's terms, you can't defend yourself from an attack that has already transpired; look back to my 1st ctn: this is simply vengeance.

Also, contradiction: He claims that a legitimate government upholds the right to self-defense, even though first of all, the government, as he claims, is dissolved, and second of all, if there were a legitimate government, people would most likely not need to exercise this right to "self-defense". Clear contradiction.

On contention III, 2 arguments.

1. Look back to my own ctn 3, where I point out that vigilantes blur the line between citizen and state responsibility, making achievement of Plato's Justice impossible, and even encourages the government to shirk its obligations.

2. As I explained in ctns 2 and 3, society's utilization of vigilante vengean- I mean, "justice", not only forces society to rely on bias and excessive violence, but to actually "perpetuate a cycle of impunity".

It was a very close shave on characters, so I'll save the rest of my batch of arguments for Round 2, and with that, I'll turn it over to the aff.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his response.

I will respond to his arguments and counter arguments.

-------------------------------------------------responses to contentions 1, 2 & 3-------------------------------------------------

My opponent has stated that the mind or way of thinking of a vigilante is unjust and biased. Vigilantes punish criminals of the law in an unfair and irrational manner. Therefore, vigilantes fail to preserve justice and effect citizens and the government.

However, unfair punishment and irrational measurements spur through the police and law enforcement agencies as well. Historian Richard Marxwell Brown documented more than 5,400 deaths caused by organized law enforcement agencies between 1767 and 1951. There have also been well over 10,000 deaths due to irresponsible and unjust behavior of law enforcement. These agencies are part of the government and clearly fail to uphold human rights as well as justice. Like I have stated in contention 2, the people have the right of self defense. Vigilantism is the only moral method in order to defend against corruption within the government and anything that harms the people. Therefore they uphold human rights as well as justice.

May I also remind the audience of the Rodney King beating. Rodney King was a victim of police brutality which resulted with massive injuries and other medical conditions. These police officers, being part of the government, did not uphold justice and instead were biased and went about their actions according to their irrational way of thinking.

Vigilantism does not necessarily mean a civilian goes out and massacres criminals. Vigilantism can even be a group of civilians who formed their own government and pursue their duties to uphold human rights. For example, the colonial times in North America. Great Britain sent colonists to North America with a vision of it being New England. King George taxed these colonists unreasonably which lead to war. The English Government was non-legitimate because they did not uphold justice. Groups of vigilantes aided the Continental Army of the colonists with the intention of being an independent nation which by the way was obviously successful. If it were not for these vigilantes, the United States, a strong nation of justice, would not exists. In that case, vigilantism was necessary and moral. Therefore being just. Therefore preserving human rights such as independence.

His third contention stated that vigilantism effects the citizens and the government negatively. However, in the resolution, the government has failed to enforce the law. By the government failing to uphold its end of the compact, it effects the peoples' protection. The lack of obligation of the government to preserve justice is questionable indeed. Therefore, people have the human right to defend themselves from anything harmful to them, for example a non-legitimate government. Because the government failed to provide for the peoples' protection, the people defend themselves, preserving human rights, preserving justice.

----------------------------------------Response to 1st argument on justice-----------------------------------------------------

Like stated above, police fail to preserve justice, therefore failing to uphold human rights. Just because someone is a police officer does not necessarily mean he or she will preserve human rights and justice. Like for example, Rodney King.

In the resolution, the government has failed to enforce the law. Because the government has failed, it has revealed lack of obligation. Even if the obligation were still there and the government were to then after, enforce the law, it does not matter. The resolution states, the government has failed. The event of failure has taken place like said in my first observation. The only event that matters in this debate is the one taking place in the resolution which would be the government's failure to enforce the law. Therefore, any argument referring to the government enforcing the law is eliminated because it does not exist in the resolution.

------------------------------------------------response to 2nd argument on justice---------------------------------------------

I have given examples in my responses to your contentions.

------------------------------------------------response to 3rd argument on justice----------------------------------------------

People deserve protection. Mostly, people would rely on their government with a little intention of providing it on their own when necessary. Because the government cannot provide protection for the people, the people protect themselves because they deserve it. Just like they deserve justice, security, and human rights. Human rights, like said in my VC, are a standard of justice. Any argument that states that people do not deserve or are not allowed to have these rights, fails to uphold justice. Therefore failing to win the value.

-------------------------------------------------response to 1st argument on MPHR----------------------------------------------

I explained the unjust behavior of law enforcement agencies. Therefore explaining what happens to criminal justice. Like my opponent stated, no government is perfect. This is true with everything. Regardless of who punishes them, not all criminals are granted fair treatment because of our irrational intentional behavior against them. Even some forms of punishment against them. Like for example the death penalty being an unjust law. However, if a vigilantes were to simply kill their victims, using your knowledge, then most criminals would simply stop breaking the law. It is basically the idea of fear. Therefore preserving security among the people because no one or at least a very very minimal amount of people would break the law.

----------------------------------------------Response to 2nd argument on MPHR-----------------------------------------------

Countered through out my responses.

---------------------------------------------Response to 2nd argument on my 1st contention-----------------------------------

The government that was dissolved like Locke and Ayyildiz explained, is no more. It is then up for the people to re establish their own protection even if it means constructing their own government, but never reshaping their old one. Basically the situation would be a non-legitimate government being replaced by a new one formed by vigilantes which is in fact justified. Protecting their well-being is all part of human rights which is a standard of justice, Elizabeth Ayyildiz explained. Because the government cannot protect the people, the people then protect themselves. Any argument that disputes this fails to win the value.

---------------------------------------------Response to argument on my 2nd contention---------------------------------------

My 2nd contention is not restricting the right of self defense to defending from a non-legitimate government. Self defense in general, protecting yourself from anything harmful to your well-being. It is not vengeance. My argument was not about the government defending themselves, it was about the people defending themselves. Therefore, no contradiction there.

-----------------------------------------Response to 1st argument on my 3rd contention--------------------------------------

Like stated in my response to your first argument on justice, the government has indeed a lack of obligation to protect its people. The only event that matters is the one taking place in the resolution which is the government's failure to enforce the law.

----------------------------------------response to 2nd argument on my 3rd contention----------------------------------------

countered in my responses to all your contentions.

Thank you!
Negative may proceed.


Starting at the top of the aff, on Justice:

1. I agree that police don't always end up failing to enforce the law; however,

a. Replacing an imperfect justice system with unchecked vigilantism also won't achieve justice.

b. Understand that a government's failure doesn't open up the door to any self-righteous citizen who wants to try their hand at playing policeman: he never directly responds to the fact that, one failure to enforce one law doesn't destabilize the entire government; no law enforcement system will ever be 100% perfect, but the aff can't use that as a justification to let ordinary citizens have free reign to punish criminals as they see fit (as stated in the aff's definition).

2. Firstly, whoa: the only example the aff provides of vigilantism is the American Revolution.

a. The aff is trying to redefine vigilantism; the definition we both agreed upon: "The act of a citizen who takes the law into his/her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals." We obviously aren't talking about a countrywide rebellion, we're talking about a single citizen going out, after a crime has happened, and apprehending/punishing this criminal for his/her illegal activity.

b. Also, my opponent says, verbatim, that "Vigilantism can even be a group of civilians who formed their own government and pursue their duties to uphold human rights." By the aff's admission, this is a government enforcing the law, not vigilantes, and the aff has stepped outside the resolution. Simply put, if vigilantes 'form a government', then they are no longer vigilantes, and can't be taken into account.

3. His whole argument is that we must protect rights, and people therefore protect themselves.

a. Again, merely look to the fact that vigilantism happens after the crime is committed, therefore it cannot be self-defense, but as I said in my 1st ctn, it is purely vengeance.


1. My opponent starts off describing the justice system.

a. Cross-apply the argument that the aff is replacing an imperfect system with a worse system.

b. He just says the death penalty is unjust, never proving why, yet in the same breath, suggests that vigilantes kill are their victims; so, my opponent is advocating the manipulation of fear and perpetuation of excessive violence to cut down on crime. This will definitely rock the flow for you.

2. "countered..."

a. He never refutes that MPHR is a sickeningly consequential criterion; thus, you see that Synderesis is superior.

b. As my opponent advocates manipulation of criminals' fear and the use of violence, obviously vigilantism fails the Synderesis test.

On ctn I:

1. He drops this argument.

a. He never proves that a single failure is equivalent to the destabilization of the whole system, thus his argument about a government losing legitimacy, obligation, and government dissolution are entirely fallacious.

2. He reiterates the vigilante government.

a. If vigilantes form a government, they are no longer vigilantes acting, but rather a government enforcing the law.

b. He ignores the Locke quote from Sec. 220 explaining that people are allowed to mold themselves a more capable government; understand that while this is justified, taking the law into one's own hands is not justified.

c. Vigilantes, by definition, are single citizens; even if they acted as a group, they would be acting under a single mindset, giving way to a vengeful, violent mob mentality.

On ctn II:

1. He discusses self-defense.

a. I was also discussing the people; what I'm saying is that, since vigilantism happens after a crime is committed, that one cannot protect himself from something that has already happened; thus, vigilantism is not self-defense, but is simply revenge for the wrongs committed.

b. He doesn't respond to the contradiction that, he says a legitimate government must uphold the people's right of self-defense, but that, first, he claims the government is dissolved, and second, that if a legitimate government were in place, people would probably not need to exercise the right of self-defense.

On ctn III:

1. "lack of obligation"

a. A government's MAIN obligation is to protect its people; and, the government hasn't just gone away after one failure, as that doesn't render a government entirely helpless; obviously, we can't allow vigilantes to blur the line between state and citizen responsibility, or the government will never be able to effectively enforce the law.

b. He never responds to the fact that vigilantes will also encourage the government to shirk its responsibilities by providing a sort of 'safety net'; if the government believes it has no obligation, then obviously it will fail its responsibilities, and that's what the aff is advocating.

2. "countered..."

a. He never counters that society will become reliant on the false 'justice' of vigilantes, and will thus depend on the use of bias and excessive violence to "perpetuate a cycle of impunity", as my ctn III evidence points out.

Moving to the negative, on Justice and Synderesis:

1. My opponent fails to attack either of these.

a. Plato's Justice, everyone performing their natural duty in society, not only ensures what each is due, but in that, promises a far more functional society.

b. Synderesis is the better weighing standard, as it looks at intents, methods, and effects, and furthermore, it ensures that the aff cannot ignore the excessive violence and biased intentions.

He tries to attack all three ctns at once, so I will have to address these in the same way; On ctns I, II, and III:

1. He discusses the flaws of the justice system.

a. A single government failure doesn't render the government incapable of enforcing laws: Plato's Justice requires that a designated entity be around to do so, in this case, law enforcement; if the government is unsatisfactory, then merely change it.

b. Vigilantism is not self-defense; it happens after the crime is committed, and is therefore not protection, but vengeance.

c. The aff assumes that if a government fails to enforce a law, that it must be corrupt; by my opponent's logic, since no government is 100% effective, that every government that fails, even once, is corrupt; obviously, flawed logic.

d. The aff is committing quite a fallacy: he's essentially saying 'Because the government fails to protect human rights, and vigilantes are acting now, they must be protecting human rights.' No causal link here. Government fails =/= vigilantes succeed.

2. Rodney King

a. If we see how badly bias clouds the minds of trained law enforcement, then the horrors of bias in the unchecked, untrained vigilante will be far worse.

3. American Revolution

a. Again, vigilantes forming a government means that they are no longer vigilantes, thus are outside of the resolution.

b. Vigilantism and rebellion are quite different; vigilantism is a response to a crime, rebellion is a response to repeated oppression by a government.

c. Vigilantes don't act as a group; by definition, vigilantism is the action of an individual citizen; please, don't let the aff redefine the term mid-round.

d. Fun fact - the English government was trying to enforce its laws, and American Revolutionaries wouldn't let that happen.

4. Self-defense

a. As I've said, vigilantism happens after the crime, thus it isn't defense, but revenge (as vigilantes apprehend and punish these criminals themselves; no trial, no impartiality, no checks)

b. No government is going to work 100% of the time, but that doesn't automatically open the door to whoever wants to give it a try; the aff never realizes that a single failure by the government doesn't erase the obligation entirely, as the aff wants you to believe; my 3rd ctn explains that, with this mentality, the government will fail in the future by simply shirking existing obligations while society relies on unchecked bias and violence.
Debate Round No. 2


Being the fact that this is the last round of the debate, I am only allowed to go over what has already been said according to the rules of LD. I will only point out the main details of why I affirm vigilantism. I would also like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It was exciting for me and I do hope it was for him.

Both me and my opponent value justice. My criterion of justice was human rights. I affirm that vigilantism is the act of self defense against criminals of the law. In my previous arguments, I stated that if the government fails in its obligation to protect the people, then the citizens have the right to protect themselves. By the citizens protecting themselves, they uphold the human right of self defense, thus making themselves vigilantes. Human rights are a standard of justice, therefore making vigilantism just.

John Locke said "a government that fails to fulfill its responsibility to its citizens is not a legitimate government, thus citizens are not obligated to recognize its legitimacy." In the resolution, the government has failed to enforce the law, therefore it has failed in its responsibility to its citizens, making it a non-legitimate government. So, the citizens are not required to recognize it. If the government cannot enforce the law, it is then up to the citizens to enforce it, according to Social Contract of John Locke.

I affirm the resolution. The value is justice and human rights are a standard of justice. Self defense is a human right. Because the government cannot protect the citizens, the citizens take the right of self defense and use it. The right of self defense is a standard of justice and is also an unalienable right that MUST be upheld and preserved. Human rights are rights God gave us the day we were born and for those to be taken away is immoral, thus unjust.

I thank my opponent again!
It was a pleasure discussing this and I wish you luck in future arguments.


In the interests of fairness, and considering that this is an LD-formatted debate, I will allow the affirmative to have the final word, and refrain from referencing any voting issues or crystallizing any arguments in the round.

The only thing that I will say is that I enjoyed this rematch with jay very much, and that I look forward to seeing who the voters choose as the better debater in the round today.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago

Conduct: Tied - Both debaters played nice.

S/G: Tied - Both debaters were nearly flawless in spelling and grammar after a quick skim.

Arguments: Con - Con managed to turn many of Pro's arguments and examples, such as the Rodney King example and the American Revolution example; Con turned the 'self-defense' and 'vigilantes-turned-government' arguments; in Pro's last rebuttal, he failed to protect his arguments, and merely restated them.

Sources: Con - Overall, it's was not only Aff's 4 to Con's 5, but Con managed to turn Locke against Pro, which essentially made that source useless for Pro.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Do you guys keep up with NFL Topics though? We finished using this one a LONG time ago; we moved onto military conscription for nationals, and we'll soon be getting a new topic for Sept-Oct.
Posted by heyitsjay 7 years ago
oh yea, awesome. yea i actually joined this site primarily to increase my debate skills. good thing i made the team. yea anyways yea this is one of the huge LD topics at my school as well. im actually doing mock trials tomorrow on this topic.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Oh yeah, I'm with Bartlesville Debate. I'll be going into my 4th year when school rolls around here; both of the cases I used for our rounds on each side were the cases I took to tournaments for Regionals, State, Districts, etc.
Posted by heyitsjay 7 years ago
i know, we really should!! are you in a speech and debate team at school? if not, trust me you have potential. :)
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
It's fine; I just didn't want to step out of the format.

It was a fun rematch, especially being able to switch sides and see things from a whole new perspective. We'll definitely have to debate another few rounds sometime!
Posted by heyitsjay 7 years ago
im srry i didnt see the comment after you posted your fianl words. i undertsand that Ld states the aff speaks last but i mainly anticipated on the format. i apologize, i would not have minded if you mentioned anything such as arguements. but i respect you for following LD. it was a nice rematch. very interesting how we switched sides. well yea it was nice debatting this with you again. good luck in future debates.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Question: Do you want to follow LD format in the sense that I forfeit the last round? Because I don't really want to forfeit, but in LD, aff speaks last, so I was wondering what you wanted to do.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Last line: Thank you, aff, for a fun debate, and I look forward to round 3; vote neg!
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
I don't understand this: I had about 100 characters left, and I used them, but when I clicked 'review', it cut the end of my post off at a certain point; it did that in a previous debate, too, and it's making me kind of mad.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
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 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
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:70