Resolved: The US should cut alliances with Saudi Arabia
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
== Structure ==
1. Opening arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Closing
==Rules==
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. 8000 characters maximum
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
the Saudis refused to give intelligence help to the United States without demanding sensitive information in return that could have damaged sources or intelligence collection. “According to some FBI personnel, this type of response is typical from the Saudis,” the report said. One FBI agent told the committee that “the Saudis have been useless and obstructionist for years.”
We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region
I am not reporting the corrupt votes on this corrupt debate because of my corrupt memory.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Armoredcat // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con conceded the debate, FF´ed all the rounds, and he did not present an argument, so arguments and conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: Concessions are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side, which he did not do.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alex // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro had an argument and used sources.
>Reason for Mod Action: Concessions are not moderated unless the voter voted for the conceding side, which he did not do.
************************************************************************
Truth be told I don’t really believe the position I argued for. I wanted to try a devil’s advocate/foreign policy debate.
I think I laughed hardest at the fact that even though you're Jewish, you want the only alliance that has single-handedly ensured Israel isn't blown to smithereens to get cut. Was a good laugh.
nope
What did you think of my arguments
It’s alright. I hope we can debate again sometime
All I can say is I learned alot about you as a person from your reaction here.
Next time I won't wait until the Sunday, I will have a pre-prepared insta-post.
I forgot about this debate, you can have the win I can't produce something good in 28 minutes.
Fair enough. I like depth.
Okay but my speech is going to be a lot longer than that. There's a huge abyss if depth to this.
Mind waiting till Sunday to post arguments?
Lol. I think you're a fairly solid debater. Though to be fair the majority of your debates were with Type1. Anyone who loses to them should feel bad
Because I suck but my rating doesn't? ;)
Thanks so much for accepting! I've been really wanting to debate you on a topic