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

Consensual Necrophilia

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,179 times Debate No: 49667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)




Thanks to Jifpop09 for his willingness to engage me on this controversial topic. Just so he and anyone reading this is aware, I will be utilizing (as well as expanding on) arguments I'd made in a previous debate on this topic for my opening arguments. I will, of course, post new arguments for rebuttal and conclusion in the final round.

In case there's uncertainty here, I'll provide some definitions:

Consensual: relating to or involving consent, esp. mutual consent. In this case, consent would be acquired before the person's demise, and will require the signature of both the person whose body is to be used and the proposed partner. Both would have to be in their right minds before providing their consent.

Necrophilia: sexual intercourse with or attraction toward corpses. In this case, it would embody the former mainly, with attraction being implied.

This would be implemented by making it lawful for those at the legal age of consent, while still alive, to give and record consent for posthumous sexual acts to be performed on their bodies and for these wishes to be honored within a short period of time (roughly a week) thereafter, during which time the corpse will be kept at cold temperature for short term preservation. After use, this claim to the corpse ends. It would be similar to committing one's body to scientific research after death, though in this case, there would be a distinct limit to use. Both of those involved would be made aware of the risks involved in such sexual acts as a part of signing this contract.

Obviously, there would be limitations to who could put up their body in this way, such that someone who dies with a terrible disease that could be transmitted post-mortem would not be able to utilize this system. Dealing with basic safety concerns such as this should require little effort, as diagnoses would be made regardless.

I have set it to 3 rounds, 10,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments. As this will simply be two rounds of debate, I'm affording as much space within those rounds as possible for argumentation, though of course, there is no need to use it all.

The structure of this debate will be as follows:

R1: Acceptance only
R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal
R3: Rebuttal and conclusion (no new arguments)

Yes, I am aware that there have been a lot of issues going around in the forums regarding what is reasonable to discuss here on DDO. However, I feel that debates like these must be had in order to better understand our views, instead of just feeling them viscerally as we so often do. I will be happy to engage with any and all arguments people have against this case.

I hope that those that will evaluate this debate will look at this with an objective eye. Much as I am not a necrophiliac myself, I feel this kind of topic warrants serious discussion, as we must endeavor to understand why we feel what we do about these topics instead of just going by gut feeling. For the sake of voting, therefore, I hope people will put aside their personal biases and judge this debate based the rationale behind the arguments provided.

With that, I await my opponent's acceptance.


I see no problem with the rules my opponent has set, and agree that I will be arguing that specific proposal.
Debate Round No. 1


I'll start out by thanking my opponent for engaging me in this debate. We've had a short conversation by email about this topic that I'm sure will expand into a very intriguing debate, and I know Jifpop will bring his A-game.

I know I have an uphill battle to fight here because there are likely very few people on this site who don't find necrophilia abhorrent. Most of the people who read this topic are likely going to have a very strong response to it from the outset " the thought of having sex with a corpse is inherently disturbing to most of the population.

However, what everyone who reads this must recognize is that I am not discussing anything that requires that anyone engage in this practice. My argument is not supporting practicing necrophilia in public - it remains a private act, just as any sexual act would be. I have simply created a system whereby consent can be acquired from the person whose corpse is to be used. As such, this does not increase the incidence of necrophilia, it simply affords necrophiliacs a legal, safe route for engaging in their fetish.

The burden of proof in this debate is shared. It is my burden to provide substantive reasons why the practice of consensual necrophilia should become legal, thus I must provide a clear justification (or set of justifications) for why the practice is beneficial to individuals and society at large. It is my opponent's burden to clarify the harms of the practice, and justify its continued illegality.

The reasons I take the Pro side of this debate are all detailed in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

What does this hierarchy look like?

At the bottom is the physiological needs, most basic to our survival. Above that is the need for safety and security, which is also among our most basic needs, protecting those above it.

Let's talk about these first. The basic physiological needs can be obtained by any individual who is capable of their own continued survival. These aren't affected by our sexual tendencies, as they are a basic component of our lives.

Safety is at least partially involved. While aspects like shelter and stability aren't affected, we can look at safety from the perspective of what happens to the humans involved in this necrophilia. In the status quo, they are attracted to corpses, but have no legal recourse for expressing that attraction. They cannot acquire the permission of the person whose corpse will be used, thus violating both that person's property rights to their corpse after death, and the property rights of their families to that corpse and its well-being. Everyone who engages in this act is automatically engaging in criminal behavior, and that criminality places them in the shadows of society. This relegates them to the fringes of society, and it is in those fringes that they are more likely to commit other criminal acts, thus affecting the safety of others. In general, this status also reduces their sense of belonging, though I will get to that more on the higher needs.

The remaining three needs - love, self-esteem, and self-actualization - are a little less basic, but no less necessary. Maslow refers to the bottom four layers as "deficiency needs," which, if not met, cause anxiety and tension.

Let's look at love. Really, what this boils down to is a feeling of belongingness (apparently not a made up word!). This really establishes an individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general. Whether this involves a friendship, familial relationship, or intimate relationship, that sense of belonging is necessary in order to form them in any lasting sense. A person who feels that their actions are being actively put down by society, whether in the legal or social sense, does not feel any sense of belonging in that society.

Now, my point here is not to state that these people would all be engaging in every sort of relationship if this type of law were implemented. Nor am I saying that all individuals involved in this practice are going to be perfectly well off in these relationships as a result of such a policy. However, acceptance in society, to any extent, will make a big difference in terms of how these people interact with the society around them. It will reduce their sense of loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression, and as such improve their interactions with those around them. Society doesn't need to actively condone their acts in order for them to feel more a part of that society.

Onto esteem. All humans have a need to feel respected, not just by themselves, but by society at large. You must be both accepted and valued by others. Gaining recognition is an important part of this process, and in order to be recognized, a person will often go to great lengths in their work or hobbies. This produces a sense of value in society.

Esteem is removed completely when the legal structure disallows their actions. They are not accepted by society. They are not valued. This leads to low self-esteem, or even an inferiority complex, where a person is plagued by doubt and uncertainty. In this case, they would most certainly feel that they don't measure up to society's standards. As this attraction is involuntary, there is no way for them to alter it, and therefore they will always feel that they are socially inferior, even if they don't engage in the behavior itself.

Lastly, self-actualization. Maslow described this best:

"What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization...It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming."

A variety of people express this very differently. A person may have a strong desire to express themselves as a dancer. Another may require the production of children in order to be self-actualized. To be self-actualized, one must master the previous levels on the pyramid. In essence, someone who is incapable of obtaining esteem, love or security cannot ever reach the point of self-actualization. Necrophiliacs cannot under current laws ever become self-actualized. They can never fulfill their full potential as their potential is actively denied by a society that deems their actions as being so unreasonable as to be illegal. As such, they will always fall short. These people can never be self-actualized. This means that none of the benefits of self-actualization are available to them. The list is extensive:

Efficient perceptions of reality (judge situations correctly and honestly)
Comfortable acceptance of self, others and nature (accepting of their own human nature with its flaws)
Reliant on own experiences and judgment (independent)
Spontaneous and natural (true to oneself)
Task centering (having a mission to fulfill in life that goes beyond oneself)
Autonomy (resourceful and independent)
Continued freshness of appreciation (renewed appreciation of life's basic goods)
Profound interpersonal relationships (marked by deep loving bonds)
Comfort with solitude
Non-hostile sense of humor (the ability to laugh at oneself)
Peak experiences (ecstasy, harmony, deep meaning)
Socially compassionate
Few close intimate friends rather than many surface relationships

These are all characteristics that are valued by the majority of humanity " hence, we tend to view those who achieve them as being role models. Everyone should be provided the best opportunity available in order to reach the point of self-actualization, and thus, we should not deny opportunities when they do no harm to society at large or to any individuals beyond themselves.

(Just a note, since these references are sort of interspersed through my arguments, I haven't numbered the specific locations where they reside. I apologize for any confusion this causes)

Alright, that's my case. While I'm tempted to provide some rebuttal to issues I'm likely to see, I will leave it to my opponent to establish his case and rebut mine.


Case 1: It would dillute society
I know many people in America are highly against censorship of any kind, but sometimes it is needed. Why do we have laws restricting what people can say on the radio, or what images can pop up when searching google? To protect the minds of children of course.

While I recognize the necessity of making them develop free thought, but up until a certain age, their minds are not ready for some horrors. Necrophillia is certainly one of them. Should we allow more evil into the world, to please the 40 men sick enough to sack their dead wife? This is neccesary censorship.

Case 2: The neccesity is few and far between

The great French thinker, Charles de Montesquieu, once said a line that has engraved itself forever into history.....

"Useless laws weaken the necessary ones"

What is this quote really saying. It is telling us that laws that exist without use, only serve to over burden the legal system, and lessen the effectiveness and respect of the courts. I have not seen a census, nor do I believe one exists, but I will take an educated guess and say only about 600 people in the US are openly Necrophiliacs.

By my oppponents proposal, the courts require the other person to give consent after death, which lowers the number of people in my educated guess to around 0-1. I have also deducted that 3 things would likely happen if this law were to be taken into consideration seriously....

- A media frenzy.

- A fierce congresional debate, allocated with government budget money.

- A rise of bigots or hate groups taking vocal or even violent stances on the issue. The southern poverty center has already recognized many southern-christian hate groups, which will likely be in protest of this law.

If my opponent has been following, then I hope s/he can now see that the process of implementing the law will be of more consequence then the one person who it benefits.

Case 3: The Court System may be exploited

Oh no, my other three cases were deleted. Damn! White Flame, you must forgive me, but this error happens sometimes when I press review. I apoligize, and request that I may put them into my next round?
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to Jifpop for his somewhat abbreviated post, and I hope that we can still engage in a good debate given these limitations (sometimes, DDO just screws things up).

Anyway, before I begin getting into some refutation, I will point out that Con chose not to engage in any rebuttal this round, meaning that my case stands firm. All of the benefits of these people being a real part of society in a meaningful way, their sense of belonging and ability to engage in meaningful relationships, their esteem, and their ability to reach self-actualization have demonstrable effects on society, and as Con does not contest these, these arguments stand as very important within the debate. His only real response is in the subtext " he's essentially stating that this is too small of a problem to worry about. As he cannot source his assertion that the numbers are small, I have tried to find the information on my own, with little in the way of results.

I think we can assume it's low, but to say it's 40 out of the entire 300,000,000 population of the U.S. is a bit presumptive. Of all the data I found, the most successful studies used literature and previously unreported cases as a source of investigation, coming to 122 cases total.[1] We can assume that the number is at least ten times that, as the majority of the people who are necrophiliacs would be very unlikely to give up that information willingly. As such, I'd say at least 1200 cases exist in the U.S. at any given time.

Even that is rather low, I confess. However, Con is evaluating their presence numerically. What he's misunderstanding is that their importance is not reflected solely in their prevalence. Few other populations are known for such a long list of criminal activities.[2] That effect, therefore, goes well beyond the small number provided. These are kidnappers, serial killers, and torturers. I would argue that a large part of the reason they engaged in these activities was because they were ostracized from society due to their necrophilia. They weren't given an outlet to express their desire, and were treated like freaks and terrors. This is what the process of ostracizing does, and it's worse here than with most, as the U.S. has classed this act as a misdemeanor or felony nearly across the whole country.[3] It's not just frowned upon, it's criminalized. They exist solely in the shadows of society, and when one knows that their most basic desire is a criminal offense if ever acted upon, it becomes difficult to interact with the world on anything resembling a normal level.

Now, onto some rebuttal.

Case 1: It would dilute society

This seems to be more of a case against exposing children to "men sick enough to sack their dead wife," in Con's words. Multiple responses.

1) They're exposed now. Necrophiliacs don't stop existing just because you've criminalized their activities.

2) This law wouldn't expose them to anything. Con is treating this as though it's now fine and dandy to go screw a corpse in the middle of the street or on TV. The basic laws of public decency still apply. In other words, just like sex, it's still censored.

3) Exposing kids to the realities that such people exist is necessary for these people to feel accepted by society. Without doing so, it remains taboo, incurring all the harms I've stated.

4) Con doesn't impact this at all. What's the harm of letting kids know that there are necrophiliacs engaging in an entirely legal sexual relationship with a corpse? He never says.

5) On this same basic reasoning, kids should never be exposed to sex either. That also hurts their fragile little minds. Given that, should we now outlaw sex in order to prevent it?

6) I'd say the status quo is worse. Not only do we have more serial killers around as a result of corpse raping (their only means of expressing their necrophilia), but it's splattered across the news every time. You might call what they produce "censored," but it hardly does a child's mind much good. In the event that this became legal, it might be news for a short while, but then it would disappear off the radar, and it would be far less graphic.

Case 2: The necessity is few and far between.

Con has to do more here. He doesn't warrant the statement that it's a useless law, instead just saying that it's too few people to matter. Two responses.

1) This is a reason to vote Pro. Con is essentially stating that the legal system should only focus on groups of people of a certain size, which means all of the current legislation illegalizing consensual necrophilia is also weakening other laws. All of those laws should be repealed, and those systems should be replaced with this, which places less of a burden on society in general by requiring less law enforcement and having fewer criminal activities.

2) I wasn't aware that a law became useless when it applied to 600 people or fewer. It seems like an awfully arbitrary cutoff for saying whether a law matters or not, and Con has given no reason why this specific amount constitutes a small enough minority to call it useless. I would argue that the effect of these people goes well beyond their numbers, but moreover that this view is detrimental to society. It allows us to repress and criminalize any minority we deem too small to care about.

It doesn't really matter whether one of the parties is dead or not. Their legal rights don't disappear immediately at death, just like any will they produce must be abided. They're still a legally relevant party in this.

Now, Con mentiosn three big problems that he deems to be demonstrable enough not to implement this policy. I'll go through each:

1) A media frenzy

You mean like every single time a criminalized necrophiliac engages in mass slaughter? I think we can bear the media frenzy that results from this far better. More importantly, I don't see the harm in a frenzy. Let's bring the conversation back out into the open and actually discuss this policy. We push it to the back all the time, and it's about time we had a frenzy.

2) A fierce congressional debate, allocated with government budget money

I'm not sure how much Con thinks it will cost for Congress to meet, something they should be doing anyway, but these costs are relatively insignificant. By comparison to the cost of bringing these people to trial just for engaging in necrophilia, we should be thankful that this is all that would be incurred.

3) A rise of bigots or hate groups taking vocal or even violent stances on the issue

First off, no necrophiliac is required to come out. They have every right to keep their desire a secret, and therefore anyone who does come out will do so knowing full well the consequences. Second, I don't think it's reasonable to say that they should kowtow to hate groups. Many people said the same for minority groups of all sorts who fought for rights in this country, and the fight for rights should not flag in the face of such hatred. Third, having more vocal stances means that these hate groups will come out of the woodwork. In the status quo, many necrophiliacs are treated poorly and hated upon. Nearly every time we hear from opponents of gay marriage, they're saying that legal necrophilia is the next logical step in debauchery. The hate is here to stay. If we suddenly know which groups are most vocal, that will give police a better chance of enforcing the law to protect these people more effectively.

Case 3: The Court System may be exploited

I'm not quite sure what Con is getting at here. Maybe he's saying that cases will pop up regarding this law that will cost the state money, or try to sue someone for having sex with their dead relative without their consent. I think this system adequately protects against the latter, and the former is a bigger problem in status quo, as anyone who engages in these sorts of sexual acts is guaranteed to go before the court.

Case 4: Public health concerns

I knew this was coming. The simple response is that it can't get any worse than it is now. Con will probably state a number of possible harms that can occur from having sex with a corpse. Those are all currently magnified. A person might have sex with a corpse that hasn't been kept as fresh as possible, as is the case here. This might occur outside the one week time frame. It might happen in any number of locations for the sake of expedience, rather than occurring in a more sterile environment. They are certainly likely not to know the health risks they face, or the methods available to ameliorate those concerns. Sure, there's always the possibility that someone will get some disease from it. But that is mitigated on so many levels. The only thing Con might argue here is that it might increase the incidence of necrophilia, but he'll have to warrant that carefully, as I don't see that as likely.

Case 5: Necrophilia legalization will spur more crime

I'd say my case straight turns this. Legalization will reduce the amount of crime by allowing these people to step out of the shadows and into the light of day. Perhaps as Con explains this, we will see some reasoning as to why the legalization of an act that is carefully regulated is somehow going to spur more crime, but this just doesn't make any sense to me as is.


The reality is that these people are here to stay, whether we like it or not. They're not going to disappear anytime soon. The best thing we can do is accept their presence and ensure that their behavior is engaged in at the safest possible level. By continuing to spurn them, we are certain to see the harms I've outlined continue, to both them and society at large. So let's put our gut reactions and biases aside. Vote Pro.

With that, I leave it to Con to wind up the debate.



Case 4: Health Implications

The health issues that can be caused by necrophillia far outweigh any arguments my opponent can make.

P1: While this risk may appear minor, it most certainly exists. Dead bodies can transmit airborne diceases, a key real risk of pandemic. While this can be prevented by trained professionals, I doubt that most necrophilliacs have the status to prevent this from effecting others. Should we risk harming citizens so a few people can satisfy their rare fetish?

It takes a great amount of trust to require someone to handle a dead body, which is why it is illegal in nearly every country. According to the National Health Institute, airborne diceases are more likely with dead bodies as their hardened skin allows in pathogens easier. Please people, we had a reason for only allowing professionals to handle dead bodies.

My opponent proposes a fix to this by refrigerating the body, which is great and all, but unless these necrophiliacs own a high tech freezer, that body is going to cause harm. Even with todays technology, their is just way to much risk and trust involved, and this can be screwed up a million ways without professional supervision. The fetish not only harms him, but others.

P2: One thing my opponent should realize by being a microbiologist, is that you should NEVER touch something dead without gloves. You will catch dicease. Now my opponent probably suggests wearing a condom (even know women would have nothing), it is just not reliable enough. This is a major public health concern. I will restate, only people with medical training should touch dead bodies.

Case 5: It spurs more crime

While the liberal argument that allowing people to come out decreases crime is something I agree with, I don't here. I don't know how much my opponent knows about Necrophilia, but he does recognize that the body can only be used for a week. This also means he recognizes that after the body limit expires, the necrophilliac is left lacking a source for his fetish. By legalizing his fetish, we just paved a way for him to illegaly commit this crime.

We all know that drugs are addictive, but so is sex, and the only way for necrophiliacs to get more is if they kill. By criminalizing the root, we can destroy the results of the stem they produce.

Cut off the head to kill the snake, how the old saying goes. Another thing my opponent seems to not realize, is that necrophilliacs can only use the body for 6 to 12 hours. It will litterally stifen whether its refrigerated or not, which is why most necrophilliacs become serial killers. By the time all the documents and official chanels are taken to clear the body for use, it will be stiff and useless. Rigor Mortis is a inevitable part of death,

    1. In 12 to 18 hours the body is, as the saying goes, stiff as a board. At this stage, you can move the joints only by force, breaking them in the process. It takes about two days for rigor mortis to fade, and once it does, decay sets in.

      HowStuffWorks "What causes rigor mortis?"

You mean like every single time a criminalized necrophiliac engages in mass slaughter? I think we can bear the media frenzy that results from this far better. More importantly, I don't see the harm in a frenzy. Let's bring the conversation back out into the open and actually discuss this policy. We push it to the back all the time, and it's about time we had a frenzy.

No, I mean the fundamentalist and moralist frenzy that results from socially progressive laws like this. This risk should only only be taken if their is a massive need for it, and enough people who it would apply to. Not 100 people at that.

The point I'm trying to make, is that the 1100 necrophiliacs (whiteflames estimate) who this law will never apply to, will be intensly persucuted and it will be just as hard to come out with their sex preferences.

I'm not sure how much Con thinks it will cost for Congress to meet, something they should be doing anyway, but these costs are relatively insignificant. By comparison to the cost of bringing these people to trial just for engaging in necrophilia, we should be thankful that this is all that would be incurred.

It can costs millions. President Obama spent months allocating spare government money in order to hold a congresional meeting on Puerto Rico. And that was rather low priority. A law like this, with the media attention and likely vast disaproval between conservatives and liberals (I'm sure not even any liberals would want this) would probably bring this to around 3 to 4 million. Money that 1000's of government employees rely on heavily, out weighing the number of necrophiliacs 5 fold.

Vote Con!!!!

Note: I ignored many rebuttals answered by my new arguments, which Pro agreed to me doing. It actually erased my debate again while writing this

Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 5 years ago
weird debate
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Bam (:
Posted by Wylted 7 years ago

Pro points out that legalized consensual nectophilia could help necro's become fulfilled people and by extension help society. I think con does a good job showing that this would not apply to most necro's. The red tape, cost and time sensitive nature of preparing corpses to be screwed, would likely lead to extremely few people taking advantage of the legalization. Finding people to consent before death would be rare and likely this would be a once in a lifetime thing to be able to screw a dead body. It's not just the cost and the red tape that would make being able to bang a dead body rare. The public shame and humiliation of being discovered would also prevent people from signing up to "do" dead bodies rare also. It's not only that a rare number of people would be able to take advantage. If just one person could take advantage of the legalization that would be great, but given the information provided we'd have to assume that it wouldn't be a law people could take advantage of multiple times.

Conclusion: based on the information provided. Legalizing consensual necrophilia wouldn't solve the problems pro aims to solve. Every single necrophiliac who wants can't get past their sexual urges to be fulfilled will still face the same problems they did before this became legalized.
Posted by Wylted 7 years ago
This is a tough debate to judge. I'm going to let my thoughts marinate and then judge it later.
Posted by kbub 7 years ago
I've looked over the health arguments, and must say I am still impressed by this debate the second time. I'm afraid Jifpop that I still am unable to give you the arguments. Here is why. Your concern over the health risks of non-living body intercourse is conceded in Pro's R3 before you make the argument, oddly enough. Pro notes that there is a danger for this activity, but legalizing non-living body sexual activity won't increase the number of instances of this sexual activity, thus making the percentage of people who are "necrophiles" remain about the same. As far as I can tell, whiteflame's thorough rebuttals about the taboo remaining after legalization is unopposed in your R3, and thus we have to accept that the percentage of necrophiles won't be significantly* higher if this form of sexual activity was legalized. So far, I would be leaning to the opinion that there might be a slight increase in sexual activity if it was legalized, since legalization obviously wouldn't decrease and you made arguments that they would increase, and thus "at the end of the day" there is reason to think as a judge that there is a slight change of a small increase, even though Pro's arguments were mostly refuted. However, whiteflame's 'turn' far outweighs that fractional chance--Pro argues that in more sterile environments offered by legalization diseases would decrease and health would increase. I am thus lead to believe that Pro's advocacy garners net health benefits/saves more lives. Excellent debate by all.
Posted by kbub 7 years ago
Alright, I'm reviewing them presently.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
They should be considered, kbub. I know that I didn't have a chance to refute them, but I accepted that Pro should have the opportunity to provide his full arguments. I think I did provide some refutation based on the titles, but that's all I could manage without seeing them. Sadly, an error in posting damaged the debate somewhat.
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
I am a bit upset, as it seems she did not consider my r3 arguments, as she told me in pm. She said they don't count if you could not refute.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
"R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal"

It's in my first round post, Jif.
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Sorry, I meant r2. Whiteflame marked r2 as construction only.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: withdrawn
Vote Placed by kbub 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an excellent debate on both sides. Pro, I thought your R3 was fantastic. You answered every point thoroughly and turned quite a few against Con. However, there's two points that con made that I think could've used some more analysis, but I'll get to that. I thought you did well in R2, but possibly spent a little too much on Maslow's hierarchy, which to me seems a little vague in terms of impact. It served as an excellent intro, but I wasn't entirely clear on the extent to which this law will allow one to achieve actualization, and the specific subsequent benefits. It seems almost an allegory, so I have a hard time flowing the benefits. Con--I have mixed feelings about your R2. You completely ignore Pro, which is very dangerous, though this time pro's points weren't well impacted in R2. You also don't tell me exactly why and how your points would harm society. Statistics here would be nice. I'm tempted to give pro sources by default for your making up statistics. In comments
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.