The Instigator
Guardian
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

15% Tariff

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,911 times Debate No: 12701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Guardian

Pro

I believe that many of the problems the United States faces could be fixed by putting in place a 15% tariff. Many corporations are outsourcing jobs and factories because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world. A tariff would level out the playing field by making up the difference in cost that American based companies have to pay to their employees, causing more companies to stay domestic. America is also facing a problem with soaring deficits. More corporations staying in the U.S. due to a tariff would bring in additional revenue for the U.S. Government. This is not to mention the revenue a 15% tariff would bring in of itself. I have more reasons for a tariff but we will start with these.
LaissezFaire

Con

Your statement that corporations are outsourcing jobs bcause they can find cheaper labor elsewhere is incorrect. The U.S. send more FDI (Foreign Direct Investment to Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg combined than China, Mexico, and India combined. [1] Wages in the first three countries are much, much higher than those in the latter three. So why are U.S. companies investing in countries with such high wages instead of the cheaper ones? It's because American companies are creating jobs overseas, not moving them. Generally, U.S. corporations make things in foreign countries so that they can sell them in those same countries, and so FDI flows to richer countries because there's a larger market for selling goods.

[1] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Capital Outflows Without Current-Cost Adjustment, 2007," International Economic Accounts, www.bea.gov/International/Index.htm

Yes, some goods are being produced in 3rd world countries instead of the US. But why is this a bad thing? We're better off buying cheap plastic crap from China than manufacturing it here. Because of the law of comparative advantage, both countries are better off specializing in things they're good at. So China and other 3rd world countries keep the low-paying jobs, and we specialize in high paying high-tech and service jobs. Jobs may be flowing overseas, but they're being replaced by better, higher paying jobs here.

This tariff would also hurt lower and middle class families by forcing them to pay higher prices for goods. Tariffs increase consumer goods, especially goods such as clothes and food. Since low income people spend a much larger percentage of their income on consumer goods, they are disproportionally hurt by tariffs. For example, even our currently fairly low tariffs transferred $11.8 billion from American consumers to farmers, amounting to an annual 'food tax' of about $100 per household. [2]

[2] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a Glance 2008 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008), pp. 84-85.

Protectionists often try to argue that tariffs will save manufacturing jobs. A popular example is the steel industry, which faces considerable foreign competition. A tariff on steel could save jobs in steel plants, because our steel manufacturers would face less competition. But policies always have unintended consequences. If there's a tariff on steel, the price of steel is increased, and this hurts every sector of the economy that uses steel in its products. The tariff would save some jobs, but destroy many others.

All of the above applies only to the effects of the tariff itself. In addition to these negative effects, enacting a tariff will cause other countries to enact retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. This would make it much harder for us to sell goods abroad, crippling our export industries.

So, to recap, tariffs hurt anyone who works for a company that buys things from abroad, sells things abroad, and anyone who buys anything. Who would benefit? Elite interests able to lobby Congress to give them special protection from competition. Inefficient failures that need subsidization to stay afloat.
Debate Round No. 1
Guardian

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I would quickly like to clarify that 15% is a number that is high enough to have an effect, but low enough to not be a shock to our economy. The percentage itself isn't relevant. I will refute my opponent's arguments next and then offer more of my own.

--"Your statement that corporations are outsourcing jobs because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere is incorrect"--
America IS losing an alarming rate of jobs due to cheaper labor elsewhere. A large portion of these are in manufacturing.
---http://www.aflcio.org...

--"Generally, U.S. corporations make things in foreign countries so that they can sell them in those same countries, and so FDI flows to richer countries because there's a larger market for selling goods."--
American companies that build factories overseas in order to capture foreign markets would be unaffected by a tariff since they would build and sell in the same country. So I fail to see how they are relevant to this debate.

--"Yes, some goods are being produced in 3rd world countries instead of the U.S. But why is this a bad thing"--
It is a bad thing because we are losing jobs. It is a very, very bad thing because U.S. manufacturing has a much wider impact than just on economics. During the American Revolution America had a very hard time getting the necessary amounts of weapons, powder, and shot; not to mention clothes because there wasn't a very strong textile industry in America. America had been a colony of Great Britain. America shipped her unfinished goods to the mother country and Great Britain sold them back to us as finished products. If we lose our manufacturing sector, we are delegating ourselves to being a "colony of the world." More examples of this include the Civil War. The South was an agrarian society and the North was a manufacturing society. It was for this reason that the South lost. Also, when the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor their navy and air force were far superior to ours. If it hadn't been for our massive manufacturing sector America would not have been able to recover to win the war. It was because of our manufacturing that the Japanese worried about "awakening the sleeping giant."

--"we specialize in high paying high-tech and service jobs"--
The link I provided also shows that many 'white collar' jobs are going overseas as well. If a factory is overseas then it only makes sense that the management and other administrative jobs necessary to run the plant would go with it.

--"This tariff would also hurt lower and middle class families by forcing them to pay higher prices for goods."--
First of all, many of these 'lower and middle class families' that you speak of are the ones that are losing jobs to begin with. I think that they would rather have their jobs and pay slightly higher prices for some basic goods, instead of losing their jobs and seeing prices go lower. A tariff would help keep their jobs here. Many corporations around the world employ workers who live in abysmal conditions. Is this the state you want America's middle and lower class to live in just to compete for their jobs? Also, the Federal Government would be gaining revenues from the tariff. This would allow them to decrease other taxes, further helping these families. (this is how Bismarck built the powerful German nation)

--"For example, even our currently fairly low tariffs transferred $11.8 billion from American consumers to farmers, amounting to an annual 'food tax' of about $100 per household.--
While I understand that this was just one example you could have picked, $100 annually is not that much money. In fact, it's a very small amount. But on the subject of food... In 1996, 1,450 Americans came down with a severe sicknesses caused by a water parasite. They got this parasite from Guatemalan raspberries. Not long afterwards, 175 children got hepatitis A from Mexican strawberries. The strawberries were mis-labeled that they had come from the United States. By the way, Cyclospora, the Guatemalan parasite, can disable a person for thirty days or more. It is serious. Rod Leonard, executive director of Community Nutrition Institute, said that "Americans are becoming a bunch of guinea pigs, and there's no possible way under current trade agreements for these risks to be controlled". Higher tariffs could solve this problem. While I admit that these examples deal with low numbers of people, there are many more that happen all the time. Reuters news service summarizes a report by the 'Institute of Medicine of the U.S. Academy of Sciences' by saying that "the surge in global trade and travel... is creating a huge health threat in the United States." Consider that many of the fruits and vegetables we eat in the U.S. are coming from countries where we are not even supposed to drink the water. Also, these countries' governments do not hold these farmers accountable for the pesticides they use, or the sanitation practices they observe. Thanks, but I'll take my $100 annual tax. :) Tariffs would fix this problem. As you have noted low tariffs already cause more produce to be bought in the U.S. (--"For example, even our currently fairly low tariffs transferred $11.8 billion from American consumers to farmers, amounting to an annual 'food tax' of about $100 per household"--) so higher tariffs would cause more food to be grown and bought in the U.S. under our safety standards.

--"A tariff on steel could save jobs in steel plants, because our steel manufacturers would face less competition."--
Just because there is a tariff does not mean that competition has to decrease. There are plenty of domestic companies. Also, you pointed out earlier that U.S. corporations build plants in other countries in order to sell to that country's consumers. A tariff would in no way stop foreign companies from building plants here and competing. A tariff only stops foreign companies (or American ones for that matter) from building and employing overseas, and selling in the U.S. Foreign companies would be welcome to compete here, as long as they built their factories and employed here.

--"Enacting a tariff will cause other countries to enact retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods"--
So what? If our companies wish to compete for other countries' markets they could build plants in other countries as well. Also, America has the largest consuming culture on the earth. I don't think it would be that big of an issue for domestic corporations to find buyers here. And since jobs would be returning due to the tariff, there would be more buyers than ever before, and prices could not be that high because, as I've shown, tariffs do not automatically mean no competition. Also, it has been historically proved in this country time and again that prices and wages are a cycle. When one goes up, the other is soon to follow. (consider minimum wage as an example) I have more points for a tariff but I have run out of room, so I will save it for the next round.

note: I highly recommend Patrick J. Buchanan's book "The Great Betrayal" for anyone who is interested in this subject.
LaissezFaire

Con

"America IS losing an alarming rate of jobs due to cheaper labor elsewhere. A large portion of these are in manufacturing."
No, we are not. That is a complete fiction. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing, but the vast majority (97%) is because of technological advancements, rather than free trade. [1] That's why even though manufacturing jobs have been disappearing over the past few decades, manufacturing output has continued to increase. [2]

[1] http://www.cato.org...

[2] Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, and U.S. Census Bureau, "Current Industrial Reports," http://www.census.gov...

"American companies that build factories overseas in order to capture foreign markets would be unaffected by a tariff since they would build and sell in the same country. So I fail to see how they are relevant to this debate."
The relevance is that these jobs are the jobs protectionists are claiming were 'outsourced.'

"It is a bad thing because we are losing jobs. It is a very, very bad thing because U.S. manufacturing has a much wider impact than just on economics. During the American Revolution America had a very hard time getting the necessary amounts of weapons, powder, and shot; not to mention clothes because there wasn't a very strong textile industry in America. America had been a colony of Great Britain. America shipped her unfinished goods to the mother country and Great Britain sold them back to us as finished products. If we lose our manufacturing sector, we are delegating ourselves to being a "colony of the world." More examples of this include the Civil War. The South was an agrarian society and the North was a manufacturing society. It was for this reason that the South lost. Also, when the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor their navy and air force were far superior to ours. If it hadn't been for our massive manufacturing sector America would not have been able to recover to win the war. It was because of our manufacturing that the Japanese worried about 'awakening the sleeping giant.'"

Again, we are not losing jobs (on the net) because of trade. That is a myth and nearly every economist in the world would agree with me. The ones from your AFL-CIO link are a small minority. It's like finding a few biologists that believe in creationism.

As for national defense- I find it interesting that you use the example of America and Great Britain before the American Revolution as an example of why free trade is bad. There was no free trade, it was mercantilism. The U.S. didn't have a manufacturing sector because Britain forced them not to. Besides, as I said before, our manufacturing sector is not declining. The amount of manufacturing jobs is declining, but our manufacturing output is increasing. Even if manufacturing output was declining, we still build our weapons here, and there's no reason to think we will outsource that industry, as the U.S. is the best manufacturer of high-tech weaponry.

"The link I provided also shows that many 'white collar' jobs are going overseas as well. If a factory is overseas then it only makes sense that the management and other administrative jobs necessary to run the plant would go with it."

And the irrelevant quote from earlier shows that U.S. companies rarely send factories overseas.

"First of all, many of these 'lower and middle class families' that you speak of are the ones that are losing jobs to begin with. I think that they would rather have their jobs and pay slightly higher prices for some basic goods, instead of losing their jobs and seeing prices go lower. A tariff would help keep their jobs here."

Again, free trade has never, ever, been shown to decrease the net amount of jobs. Those families are not trading jobs for lower prices. Free trade brings both higher paying jobs and lower prices.

Arguing that free trade destroys jobs is like arguing that technology destroys jobs. Both are technically true, but miss the big picture. Both destroy some jobs, but also create just as many. One, free trade increases exports because of lower tariffs in other countries. Two, the lower prices caused by trade create jobs. If a consumer spends less on consumer goods because of competition from abroad, they have more to spend on other things. If businesses can spend less on raw materials because of trade, they can produce more.

"Imported food causes deaths"
A tariff would not solve this problem. Your proposed tariff would result in Americans buying somewhat less imported foods and somewhat more American grown foods. That doesn't solve the problem. The obvious solution seems to be to check food for such poisons.

"Thanks, but I'll take my $100 annual tax."
And I'm not trying to stop you. I think you should be able to buy food from whomever you want. My problem is that you are forcing your choice on every American. In addition, that $100 is under the current law, not your proposed system. Under your 15% tariff, the amount stolen from hardworking American families and given to a few farmers would be quite a bit more.

"Just because there is a tariff does not mean that competition has to decrease."
Yes, it does. The entire point of a tariff is to decrease competition. If a tariffs did not decrease competition, corporations wouldn't lobby for them.

"So what? If our companies wish to compete for other countries' markets they could build plants in other countries as well"
Well, for one, perhaps those companies don't have the resources required to do something like that. Two, it's an indisputable fact that retaliatory tariffs hurt people who work in export industries. How can you justify protecting some workers' jobs by sacrificing other workers' jobs?

"And since jobs would be returning due to the tariff, there would be more buyers than ever before, and prices could not be that high because, as I've shown, tariffs do not automatically mean no competition."
No, they are not. There is absolutely no evidence that that is true. And I never said that tariffs automatically mean no competition, nor does anyone else. They mean less competition. That's the entire point of a tariff, to protect a few special interests from competition.

"Also, it has been historically proved in this country time and again that prices and wages are a cycle. When one goes up, the other is soon to follow. (consider minimum wage as an example)"
This is completely ridiculous, and definitely is not "historically proved." You have provided no argument to support this claim, and it is contradicted by the evidence. Take the 19th century for example. The dollar bought about twice as much in 1900 as it bought in 1800, but wages went up exponentially. Free trade causes both lowered prices and higher wages, as I explained earlier. As for the minimum wage, that's an entirely different debate.

Note: I recommend Mad About Trade by Daniel Griswold for a quick explanation of how free trade benefits America; In Defense of Global Capitalism by Johan Norberg for how free trade benefits 3rd world countries, and any paper by any well-respected economist has written about trade for a more technical, in depth analysis of the benefits of free trade.
Debate Round No. 2
Guardian

Pro

America IS losing both jobs, and factories overseas.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...
http://onlinembastudy.blogspot.com...
http://www.commondreams.org...
http://minnesota.publicradio.org...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
While it is true that technology is a portion of this, it is not the only factor. Cheap labor abroad is unfair to the American worker because other countries do not implement the same moral employment codes that the U.S. does. I used the American Revolution as an example because it is what America is becoming all over again; this time to the rest of the world. It is not only unfair labor costs that hurt American manufacturing. There are numerous examples of foreign companies, backed by their governments "dumping" their products in the United States, in order to kill the U.S. industry. In many cases they have been all too successful. Take America's tv companies for instance. Sony, helped along by Japan's Ministry of Industry and Trade, dumped tv's into the American market at below production level costs and ran American companies out of business. By the time the U.S. government caught on and took action all but one of the U.S. tv companies was out of business. The same is true of Airbus, which receives subsidies from European governments. In it's first 25 yrs airbus did not make a penny of profit. They were kept alive by foreign socialist countries. One executive warned that if Airbus had to give away planes, they would do it. Richard Evans of British Aerospace said, "Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream." While I am all for free-market competition, I am not for socialist countries destroying our industry by dumping. A tariff would fix this problem by raising their prices and giving our industries a fair chance.
You say that "we build all our weapons here". But Manufacturers importance to National Security is not that simple of an issue. Commander of the Pacific Forces, Admiral James Lyons warns, "All of the critical components of our modern weapons systems, which involve our F-16's and F/A 18'S, our M-1 tanks, our military computers-and I could go on and on- come from East Asian industries." Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Crowe Jr. said "The U.S. defense industrial base is already in danger of becoming too dependent upon foreign sources for strategic supplies." Former Commerce Official, Erik R. Pages says, "The Bush Administration was forced to intervene with foreign governments on over thirty occasions to guarantee delivery of critical military parts.. we could have run into some real problems. We were sweating bullets over it, and the military was sweating bullets too." This is not to mention that all of those overseas factories producing our military computers are more susceptible to terrorism and espionage. And, in the example above, the problems faced were with friendly nations that were supporting us. Imagine if even a few of these nations were neutral or worse, opposing us. Our military power would be greatly compromised.
In the years 1869-1900 there were very high and far reaching tariffs in place due to the Republican party's dominance during that time. America's prosperity was growing during this time. During this time, -the gross national product quadrupled - The U.S. government ran surpluses up till 1893 - the national debt was reduced by two-thirds -custom duties provided 58% of this income- Between 1870 and 1900 commodity prices fell by 58% -real wages, despite a doubling of the U.S. population rose 53% -U.S. industrial production rose by 4.7% per year -America's exports grew by 5% a year during 1870-1913, while free-trade Britain's grew by less than three percent. (tariffs do not hurt exports) America also passed Great Britain in Manufacturing output by 1913 due to this protective tariff wall. In the 1895 "History of the Republican Party" there are records that every time a tariff was placed on an item, the price of that item fell. This is also reflected in the fact that the price of commodities fell along with a protective tariff.

In conclusion, we ARE losing jobs overseas to cheap, but unfair, labor costs. We are also losing jobs due to foreign socialist countries dumping their products here in order to destroy American companies. Our military computers, tanks, and jets are being increasing produced abroad. This causes problems because they are more easily subject to terrorism and espionage abroad, and if the countries they are located in were to stay neutral or fight against us, we would have serious problems getting our necessary military equipment. Also, during the times that America has had a protective tariff we have been an extremely prosperous nation, surpassing other free-trade nations. Prices have fallen during these times, the government ran surpluses and real wages increased. A tariff should be enacted in this country.
LaissezFaire

Con

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for a stimulating and enjoyable debate. This is the first debate I've done where my opponent posted arguments for all of the rounds, which is a nice change.

"While it is true that technology is a portion of this, it is not the only factor."
You misunderstood me. I never said it was the only factor. Just that it accounts for 97% of the job losses in the manufacturing sector. Since you did not attempt to dispute that claim, I assume that you accept it.

"Cheap labor abroad is unfair to the American worker because other countries do not implement the same moral employment codes that the U.S. does."
I fail to see how workers in other countries working for less than American workers is "unfair." Why, morally, shouldn't they get the jobs, if they're willing to work for less? How is the poverty of the rest of the world "unfair" to American workers?

"I used the American Revolution as an example because it is what America is becoming all over again; this time to the rest of the world."
I wasn't aware that the rest of the world was attempting to force a mercantilist system on the U.S. If this claim is true, I completely agree with you that it is wrong. Fortunately, they seem to be failing. As I said before, manufacturing output is increasing in the U.S, and has been for a while, even with our lowering of trade barriers.

"There are numerous examples of foreign companies, backed by their governments 'dumping' their products in the United States, in order to kill the U.S. industry. -=Dumping anecdotes=- While I am all for free-market competition, I am not for socialist countries destroying our industry by dumping."
First of all, you certainly are not 'for' free-market competition. You are proposing a tariff. Free-market competition means competition in a market free of restrictions such as tariffs. As for "dumping," I welcome it. All it means is that foreign governments are taking their taxpayers' money and basically giving it to American consumers in the form of lower prices. Imagine if the Japanese increased their TV and car subsidies to the point where they were giving American consumers TV's and cars free of charge. Yes, workers at American TV and car companies would lose their jobs. But since Americans no longer had to pay for TV's or cars, they'd have much more money to spend on other things, so production, and therefore the amount of jobs, would increase in the rest of the economy. No net loss in jobs, and, on top of that, everyone gets free stuff!

"Paragraph about National Defense + Military"
While I don't agree with you that imports hurt our national defense, it's irrelevant anyway. Your tariff would not eliminate imports for companies producing military goods. It would somewhat reduce them. The "problem" would not be solved by your tariff. If you were proposing restrictions on imports for companies vital to national defense, this might be a valid point. But you are not, so it is not.

"Paragraph about the U.S. and Britain in the second half of the 19th century"
You say that prices fell with tariffs. Prices fell because output was increasing faster than the monetary base. They fell in spite of tariffs, because we were in the middle of our industrial revolution. It's interesting that you mention free-trade Britain. Yes, U.S. exports increased at a faster rate than British exports during the time period you mentioned. Of course they did. The U.S. was in the middle of its industrial revolution, while the British had already had most of theirs. [1] Free trade forced British industries to compete with the world, making them better and more efficient. That allowed the Britain to experience its industrial revolution sooner than countries like the U.S., where tariffs subsidized inefficient and failing businesses. [1] The U.S. eventually did surpass Britain in exports, but only because of the rapid growth in population and capital relative to Britain.

In addition, if you look closely at the U.S.'s economic expansion during that period, you'll see that it was not tariff protected industries that led America's surge during the late 19th century. [2] The fastest growing industries were transportation, distribution, utilities, communications, and construction. [2] Protected steel mills and textile factories were relatively stagnant. [2]

Speaking of economic history, I think I'll mention a few other changes in trade restrictions. For example, the Smoot-Hawly tariff increase in 1929 ushered in a era of unprecedented prosperity, while the large tariff decrease after WWII brought a post-war slump lasting for decades. Wait, no, that's not right; the exact opposite happened.

[1] Crafts, Nicholas. Britain's Relative Economic Performance, 1870–1999. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

[2] Douglas A. Irwin, "Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth-Century America," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. W7638, April 2000, pp. 16-17.

Conclusion:
1.My opponent has failed to show that free trade destroys jobs. The claims in the AFL-CIO article posted are contradicted by all empirical evidence, basic economic reasoning, and nearly every economist.
2.My opponent claims that free trade is hurting the U.S. manufacturing sector, but did not offer evidence contradicting my claims that a) 97% of job losses in the manufacturing sector are the result of technological advance, and b) manufacturing output is going up in the U.S., showing that our manufacturing sector is not declining.
3.My opponent failed to adequately address my claims of the negative effects of higher prices on consumers and businesses. Unless I misread his posts, he argued that tariffs would not really increase prices. This claim is unsupported by a logical argument or evidence, and is contradicted by economic reasoning.
4.Contrary to my opponents claims, it is clear that our economic history shows that tariffs not only don't help growth, but stifle it.
5.It is clear that tariffs do not increase or decrease the net amount of jobs. They protect some jobs by destroying others. My opponent has failed to morally justify stealing from some workers and consumers to protect a few special interests.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
OK. Sent you the debate challenge.
Posted by Guardian 7 years ago
Guardian
I would. I support it due to conditions in our society and problems that I believe the government has created, but as a practice in and of itself I'm not convinced that it's a good thing. But yeah, that would be an interesting debate.
Posted by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
Thank you as well. You mentioned the minimum wage, and I noticed on your profile that you support it. Would you want to have a debate about that?
Posted by Guardian 7 years ago
Guardian
LaissezFaire, Thank you for an excellent debate.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Have fun with this, Con.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
GuardianLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by MasklessJRAF 7 years ago
MasklessJRAF
GuardianLaissezFaireTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
GuardianLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
GuardianLaissezFaireTied
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 Guardian 7 years ago
Guardian
GuardianLaissezFaireTied
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:70