The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

All drugs should be legalized

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 7 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,010 times Debate No: 24378
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

16kadams

Con

PRO argues all drugs (every single one) should be legal for any purpose, CON argues the drug war should be continued.

1st round acceptance.

Also if this debate is NOT in the voting by next Thursday CON wins automatically.

BOP on PRO. No negotiating this.
LaissezFaire

Pro

I accept.

Since Con didn't define the terms, I thought I'd define a few things.

Drugs- recreational drugs (heroin, meth, LSD, etc)

Legal for any purpose- legal for adults, in the sense that cigarettes and alcohol are legal for any purpose
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

C1: Legalization would increase users

We already have a drug problem in this country, and it effects everyone. Youth in our country are also effected by drug problems, and legalization would only make it worse. The main problem with legalizing drugs is it would lead to a massive increase in users, and make drugs easier to obtain [1]. Illegal drugs cost when they are illegal are much more expensive then when they are legal. All drugs which are currently illegal, cocaine, marijuana, PCP, meth etc. have higher prices now then they would be if they where legal. But many estimates argue drug prices would be 3 times lower, which is a large amount indeed. It would mean many would now be able to afford large quantities of the drugs, and when things cost less one is more likely to buy the item. A good example is food, or medicines. People usually opt for the over the counter generic brand then the name brand as it is cheaper. People opt for the cheaper brand of food for the same reason. Lower costs equal more people buying the substance.
"Legalization would decrease price and increase availability. Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use. Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction. As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success."[2]

Now most drugs we are talking about today have at one point been legal. The reason these drugs are currently illegal is because the government and society have decided drugs like these should not be freely legal as they are a threat not only the the user, but everyone around him. Legalizing drugs not only lowers the actual cost of the drug, which would lead to more users, but to lower costs to the person itself. In other words there is less cost of being mugged to get the drugs, getting arrested etc. It would lower the deterrent effect which is currently in place. When cocaine was restricted in the early 20th century, addicts and users fell as restrictions became more common. Many other drug experiments occurred in Europe, most of which lead to increases in users and crime. Many European countries are beginning to change their laws to a more stricter setting as the increase in usage outweighed the other legalization benefits [3].

C2: Legalizing drugs would increase crime

There are many views on the subject, but the main ones are it will lower crime if you legalize or it will increase crime. Both sides, though, generally agree that drug usage leads to aggressive behavior, worse judgement, an makes it more likely for people to commit crimes.

Statistics prove people are 6 times more likely to murder because they are influenced by a drug, not because they are trying to find money to buy a drug. In other words, most people do not commit crimes (assuming the crime is connected to drugs) not for drugs, but because of them. [4] With this in the picture, we can see drugs to cause crime when you use them. It is also important to note C1, which argues legalization would lead to an increase in users which inevitably means an increase in violence.

Another example is Portugal, an argument we hear from the legalization crowd of it working well, saw an increase in homicides after legalization [5]. When California legalized cannabis in 1976, DWI arrests soared, 70% for juveniles and 40% for adults. Many sex abuse cases involve drug usage, and property crime is also linked to drug usage as well [6].

"Legalization would decrease drug distribution crime because most of those activities would become lawful. But would legalization necessarily reduce other drug-related crime like robbery, rape, and assault? Presumably legalization would reduce the cost of drugs and thus addicts might commit fewer crimes to pay for their habits. But less expensive drugs might also feed their habit better, and more drugs means more side effects like paranoia, irritability and violence. Suggestions that crime can somehow be eliminated by redefining it are spurious. Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens."[6]

C3: The drug war has decreased users

My case fails unless I can show some success to the drug war. The US drug war has decreased casual use, and some even say it has prevented others from even trying drugs. Drug usage is down a third since the 1970s (in the US). Cocaine use has decreased 70%, in other words it has decreased by 4.1 million users [7]. Marijuana usage has also fallen, in 1979 the marijuana 30-day usage rate was 13.2%, in 2006 it was 6.1%. This is a 54% reduction in usage, this is a triumph [8]. Overall drug usage in 1979 had similar numbers, 14.1% of americans 12 and older used any type of illegal drug in the last 30 days. In 2009 the number dropped too 8.7%. Opoid use is down 80% in the last century (100 years) [9].


http://www.justice.gov...


CONCLUSION:

I have little to say, I am sick and tired and hope what I just wrote made some sense. Vote Con, and I look forward to the next round.


[1] http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu...
[2] http://www.drugwatch.org...
[3] htp://www.facs.org...
[4] http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...
[5] http://www.cnn.com...
[6] http://www.sarnia.com...
[7] http://www.justice.gov...
[8] http://www.cnbc.com...
[9] http://www.ibhinc.org...
LaissezFaire

Pro


C1: The Marginal Drug User


While legalization would increase drug users, the new users wouldn’t be the same type of people that current users are. To see why, imagine a continuum, with hardcore users at the left end, people that would continue to use even if police went around executing all drug users, and at the right end, people that wouldn’t use no matter what. The drug users legalization would create wouldn’t be like left end users—they’d be somewhere in the middle. They are the marginal users (that is, marginal in the economic sense, not marginal as insignificant), the people who wouldn’t use drugs while they’re illegal, but would if they became legal. It’s hard to believe that these people would be problem users. The left-end people are the problem users, the violent criminals—someone that will only consider doing drugs if they’re legal probably won’t isn’t the type of person that commits violent crime or is otherwise a detriment to society.


There probably aren’t many of these marginal users anyway. Con provides statistics showing the decline of drug use during the drug war—but alcohol and tobacco use have declined substantially during that time too, without the criminalization of either cigarettes or alcohol. There’s no reason to think the drug war caused the decline, rather than whatever caused the decline in tobacco and alcohol use. [1] [2] If you look at Portugal, which decriminalized drugs in 2001, has slightly increased, but not to the extent that one would expect looking at Con’s C3. [3]


The concern is, perhaps, that drugs would transform these otherwise normal, law-abiding people into addicts and violent criminals. But there is little evidence for this position. Even PCP, despite its reputation, is not actually associated with violence. [4] Even meth isn’t as addictive as most imagine it is—only 6% of the 10 million people who have ever used meth used it in the past month. [5] Con provides some sources showing that drug use is associated with criminality, but has the correlation backwards—it’s not that drug users tend to be violent criminals, it’s that criminals tend to be drug users. Con cites Portugal as an example of drug legalization increasing murders, but his source is out of date—the homicide rate in Portugal rose initially after decriminalization, but sharply dropped off after 2007, going down to near pre-decriminalization levels. [6]



C2: Drugs are fun


Discussions of drug policy tend to focus only on harms. It’s taken for granted that increased drug use is a bad thing—something that needs to be outweighed by other things, such as reducing prison populations or gang violence. But there are benefits to drug use. Drugs are often extremely fun—that’s why people do them. Sure, for someone that becomes an addict, the harms surely outweigh the benefits—but that only happens to a small minority of users. The benefits of drug use are more obvious for soft drugs like LSD [7] and ecstasy [8], but even heroin [9] and meth [10] users often have positive experiences without much downside. Considering only the harms of drugs when evaluating them is like concluding sex is bad because of AIDS. This is obvious for a drug most of us have experience with—alcohol. There are some problem users, but most people can use it recreationally without destroying their lives.


C3: Prohibition and current users


The drug war is unquestionably harmful to current drug users. Because drugs are sold on the black market, their quality and safety is often poor. After decriminalization in Portugal, drug use became much safer. [3] Hundreds of thousands of drug offenders are currently in prison, and hundreds of thousands more used to be. [11] In addition to the obvious harm of being locked up in a cage for several years, prisoners are often raped, with more than 200,000 cases in 2008 alone, according to the Department of Justice. [12]



C4: Gangs and Cartels


Because drugs are illegal, they are supplied by criminal gangs. Violence between these gangs has killed 55,000 people in Mexico alone, with 1.6 million more displaced by the violence. [13] Many more have been harmed by gang violence in the United States, Columbia, and other countries connected to the drug war. Of course, legalizing drugs wouldn’t eliminate organized crime completely, but it would certainly significantly reduce it—look at the Mafia after Prohibition was ended. It didn’t disappear, but once alcohol was supplied legally, rather than by criminals, it lost a main source of revenue and its power declined.



C5: Morality of Prohibition


The first question we face is whether it’s permissible to forcibly protect people from themselves. We usually don’t think so—if someone wants to eat nothing but McDonalds, we don’t stop them. We don’t need to weigh the costs and the benefits of their actions, because even if we know for sure that their habits are harmful, we realize that what other people want to put in their own bodies is none of our business.


And even if one is a paternalist, the case for prohibition is weak. Why try to protect marginal users, but not be paternalist toward the hundreds of thousands of other users that would be thrown in prison, or the tens of thousands that would die in gang violence?



[1] http://www2.potsdam.edu...


[2] http://www.webmd.com...


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


[4] Martin Brecher et al., "Phencyclidine and Violence: Clinical and Legal Issues," Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 8:6 (December 1988): 397-401


[5] John A. Newmeyer, "The Epidemiology of Amphetamine Use," in David E. Smith, ed., Amphetamine Use, Misuse, and Abuse (Boston : G.K. Hall, 1979), 55-72. SAMHSA (2002), tables H.1 and H.2. NIDA, 81-85. Monitoring the Future Study, tables 5 and 7.


[6] http://www.indexmundi.com...


[7] http://erowid.org...


[8] http://erowid.org...


[9] http://erowid.org...


[10] http://erowid.org...


[11] http://www.drugwarfacts.org...


[12] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...


[13] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

C1: The marginal drug user

"While legalization would increase drug users" Thank you.

Proceeding:

My opponents main argument here is legalization would make non violent users. I cant tell if he is hinting that prohibition is the problem, which is likely the case, but I would like to note the argument of marginal drug usage is mainly an opinionated argument which I see no logic in. When drugs where fully legal in the early 1900s, addiction rates where very high. In 1880, for example, opium and cocaine where legal for use and did not need doctors advice/oversight. Addiction was at very high rates. The UK has had other problems with more liberal laws, (allowing doctors to prescribe heroin), which have all lead to increased addiction rates.[1] Before cocaine was banned in 1915 cocaine usage [and addiction] was very high; so high that it was a major argument for its criminalization.[2] As we can see there is no "marginal drug usage" involved with legalization. The facts are clear: It increases addition rates, getting addicted is not marginal. I would also like to note marijuana, the least addictive of illegal drugs, is still highly addictive. Even moderate long term use can lead to many health problems and addictions.[3] Even if we assume there is "marginal" drug usage it can still lead to addiction, and an addiction to marijuana has been linked to violence.[3]

My opponent then argues that the reason drug usage is falling is the same as tobacco and alcohol. But my opponents sources for tobacco argue 20% decreases in tobacco usage, and alcohol decreases of 50%. Current drug decreases are much larger, closer to 70% decreases in cocaine usage.[4] It is also a fact when you have higher costs people are less likely to engage in the activity/buy that product. For example if the price of Macintosh apples rose and the cost of red delicious apples fell the sales of Macintosh would decrease and purchases of the red delicious apples would increase. The drug war makes drugs substantially higher, as stated last round up too 4 times higher.[5] As this is a large factor we MUST assume that the drug war has some impact on the amount of users. Also with the strong data that legalization increases users,[1] we can assume the drug war deters those users (until the war ended). My opponent then cites the famous Portuguese drug decriminalization (started in 2001). The funny thing is that it was a failure. There was a 30% increase in drug overdose deaths (the marginal user!!) and the number of people tested positive for drug consumption rose 45%. I would also like to note Portugal has the second highest heroin usage rate of Europe. There was a 215% increase in cocaine usage.[6] I would also like to note alcohol and tobacco is still a much more common drug then illegal drugs.

My opponent then argues drugs do not cause crime, arguing there is no linkage. But when California decriminalized marijuana usage, DWI arrests soared. But it is a fact that most sexual abuse cases involve drug usage. And it is also important to note most inmates have history of drug usage.[2] 24% of attacks on police officers happened when the attacker where under the influence of illegal drugs.[7] It is also important to note Portugal had an increase in drug related crime after its decriminalization.[6]

C2: Drugs are fun

My opponent first argues that legalization would lower prison population. FALSE. only 700 inmates are in jail for only drug usage, usually they have a violent crime then the drug usage stamp thrown on for extra jail time. So in reality you would have barely a dent in prison populations after legalization.[2] The DEA found the same conclusions.[8] My opponent then cites many "experiences" which scare me to read the links. But from what I read it argued drugs where "fun". Binge drinking for some people is great and makes them feel like studs. But does this mean it is good for them? Here's a debate.org example, the new user platypus enjoys smoking marijuana. Marijuana, however, has many health effects. Most notably the toll it takes on your lungs, and the effect it has on the T-cells. It disables T-cells so they cannot fight infection properly.[3] It also has been shown to make it harder to learn information and practice certain activities.[3] Cocaine, for example, has stimulants that pleasure the brain and make you "have fun". Cocaine ruins normal brain-to-body communication[s]. Their first exposure, and many others, are considered "pleasurable". Cocaine also increases risk of heart attack as well as other complications and long term problems.[9] What I am saying is drugs might be "fun", but their effects are negative in the long run and are sometimes secret and non see able until they strike.

C3: Current users

His case is actually correct, prohibition makes drugs less safe. There is no way to rebut this. Although drugs are harmful regardless, it is true prohibition does increase its potency. But what I am saying is legalization makes the problem worse (though not potency wise.) Legalization of any drug leads to increase in demand, and therefore leads to exacerbate the problem. And again my opponent argues the jail card, refuted above as most drug usage arrests the inmates are arrested for violent crimes then drug usage. It would not lower jail populations. My point being yes, it makes drugs more potent. But legalization increases violence and users which hurts society through ER costs, violence costs, etc.[3]

Back to prison: Michigan only has 15 simple possession inmates, Wisconsin has 10. There is a total of 700,[2] and that is 2.7% of drug related crimes.[8] I would also like to note the DEA is also moving many of these inmates more towards treatment centers over jail.[8]

C4: Gangs

This is the point that is always argued, legalization would not end gang violence. I would like to first point out the government would likely limit drugs to 18 (or 21) as a minimum age, meaning everyone under 18 it would still be illegal to use drugs. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of the illegal drugs (age would likely be 21 for drugs -- like alcohol). So the gang and cartels would still be fairly large as the majority of drug consumption is for the under 21 crowd. In other words, the black market would still exist and thrive.[7] Also high taxes/regulation of these drugs, like we see with tobacco, could lead to higher gang violence rates. In NYC we see a high tobacco tax, and a large black market.[10] Legalization may or may not fix the problem. Also many groups and states argue huge revenues from marijuana legalization, the revenues they say it would rake in would require a 50$ to the ounce tax, that's a 100% tax.[3] So in reality a black market would love the high taxes and the 21 age.

C5: Morality of prohibition

Not allowing someone to buy something is not immoral. I would also like to ask under what philosophical umbrella is it immoral? Religiously? Utilitarian? I also dont see any immoral aspect to not allowing someone to buy a harmful product. The only immoral aspect I see is it causes gangs to kill people, but my analysis above shows legalization would do little to curb gang violence.

CONCLUSION:

Remember, my opponent has the BOP. He is a great debater, but has failed to meet his burden. That's it. Vote CON.




Sources: (some shortened due to 8000 character limit)

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] Francke, D., and S. W. Varcoe. "Evidence Based Data and the Failed Portuguese Experiment." Dalgarno Institute (2010)
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://www.justice.gov...
[9] http://www.drugabuse.gov...
[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
LaissezFaire

Pro

C1: The Marginal Drug User
I don’t think my opponent understands what I mean by ‘marginal.’ It just means the people that wouldn’t use drugs now, but would if they were legal. Like, the additional drug user—not marginal as in insignificant.

High addiction rates were cited as a reason to prohibit drugs in the early 19th century. According to one estimate, there were 150,000-200,000 opiate addicts in the United States in the late 19th century, when opiates were completely legal. [1] But there are 750,000-1,000,000 addicts now. [2] The population increased about 4x in that time—with addiction rates increasing about the same amount.

It’s true that cocaine use decreased more than alcohol and tobacco use. But alcohol use decreased more than tobacco use—is that because of alcohol prohibition during the past few decades? In addition, part of the decrease in cocaine use can be explained by the rise in meth use. As the drug war raised the price of cocaine, stimulant users turned to the much cheaper meth instead. And while it’s true that higher prices means fewer sales, it doesn’t mean substantially fewer sales. The demand for drugs is very inelastic—much lower prices mean only slightly higher consumption. [3]

The problem with Con’s Portugal statistics [4] is that, like all unscientific drug warrior propaganda, they just cherry pick before and after statistics without any effort to control for other variables. For example, imagine that drug use increased 10% a year before decriminalization and then 8% a year afterward. Or if drug use in similar countries increased 300% while Portugal’s increased 200%. Controlling for other variables can make a huge difference in what the numbers show. When you do this, you find a decrease in heroin and cocaine seizures, a decrease in drug related deaths, a decrease in people entering drug treatment, and a sharp decrease in problem users. [5] [6]

Again, Con gets the correlation backwards. It’s not that drugs cause people to be violent, it’s that the type of person who’s a violent criminal is also usually the type of person that uses drugs. This is why even though a high percentage of criminals are drug users, only a very small percentage of drug users are criminals. A study by the Department of Justice found that the only drug that can be shown to increase violence is alcohol. [7] A review of the scientific literature on the subject has the same conclusion. [8] If Con wants to make the case that legalization would increase violence, he should cite actual scientific studies, rather than cherry-picked drug warrior propaganda statistics. Perhaps some evidence does show that drugs use increases violence—I don’t know, I haven’t looked at every study on the subject. But even if it does, Con also has to show that this would outweigh the decrease in gang and cartel violence.

It’s true that drug legalization would lead to more people driving high on marijuana. But driving high is much less dangerous than driving drunk, and more marijuana use leads to a decrease in alcohol use—the overall effect is a decrease in traffic fatalities. [9] The effect was a 9% decrease with just medical marijuana legalization, and would probably be higher with full legalization.

Back to my argument about the marginal drug user, I’d like to restate my case for the sake of clarity. My argument is that the marginal users (the additional users after legalization) would have fewer problems with drugs than the typical user, and would certainly look nothing like hardcore criminal users. Since even the average drug user is not an addict or a violent criminal, and is just a normal person that happens to enjoy an illegal drug more than legal one like nicotine or alcohol, this suggests that the new users legalization would create wouldn’t negatively affect themselves or society all that much with their drug use.

C2: Drugs are fun
My opponent completely misses my point. Obviously using drugs has negative effects. So does drinking soda. So does sex—you could get an STD. So does skydiving and rock climbing. So does football—the side effects of this dangerous recreational activity include memory loss, dementia, and a 42% increase in heart disease. [10] If you looked only at the negative effects of any of these activities, you’d conclude that they’re bad and no one should do them. But all of these activities also have positive effects—mainly, people like doing them.

Con uses the example of binge drinking, which just proves my point. Most alcohol users aren’t alcoholics or binge drinkers—they’re just normal people that enjoy alcohol. Most users of illegal drugs are just normal people that like getting high. Yes, drugs have risks, but if I weigh them against the positive effects and decide that I’m better off doing drugs, who are you to say that I’m wrong?

C3: Current Users
Con concedes that prohibition makes drugs more dangerous for current users. This, of course, begs the question of why we should be so concerned with protecting future potential users from the dangers of drugs, but not with protecting current users.

Con neglects to mention the non-violent drug dealers in prison—people who are no more morally guilty than a liquor store owner (perhaps less so, since alcohol is more dangerous than most illegal drugs).

C4: Gangs
The idea that there would be a violent black market supplying drugs to minors is absurd. Look at alcohol and tobacco now—they’re age-restricted, but gangs and cartels don’t supply minors with those things. A high enough tax could cause a black market, but we could just not have the tax then—problem solved.


C5: Morality of Prohibition
You don’t see a moral problem with not allowing people to buy something? Maybe not if it’s something you personally disapprove of. What if the government banned fast food because of its dangers? You wouldn’t have a problem with police throwing anyone caught with fast food in jail? (Of course, most of those actually imprisoned would be fast food dealers—those charged with simple possession are just put in fatty treatment centers).

The “philosophical umbrella” I’m using is ethical intuitionism I guess—although it’s also immoral under deontological rights-based ethics and preference utilitarianism.


[1] http://web.archive.org...
[2] http://www.policyalmanac.org...
[3] http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu...
[4] http://www.drugfree.org.au...
[5] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org...
[6] www.iza.org/conference_files/riskonomics2012/portugal_p772.pdf
[7] http://www.druglibrary.org...
[8] Robert Nash Parker and Kathleen Auerhahn Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 24, (1998), pp. 291-311
[9] http://ftp.iza.org...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

I concede, I used to be very opinionated as con but I feel more undecided now. Vote pro.
LaissezFaire

Pro

Wow, not many people are willing to admit it when they've lost an argument. Thanks for the debate, Con.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Wtf

And yes I too find that entertaining.
Posted by LaissezFaire 2 years ago
LaissezFaire
lol@Unbiased's vote/name.
Posted by LaissezFaire 2 years ago
LaissezFaire
"My opponent then cites many "experiences" which scare me to read the links."
You should read them, if for no other reason than to understand your opposition better. If you want to stop drug use, shouldn't you at least understand why people use drugs?
Posted by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
Aren't C1 and C3 essentially the same?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Ah, a good debater takes one of my political debates, excellent. :D
Posted by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
So bawesome (boss +awesome). Good to see LF back to kicking arse.
Posted by LaissezFaire 2 years ago
LaissezFaire
Ah thanks, didn't see that.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
No as in no arguments in the first round. Let 16kadams start.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
@LaissezFaire: "1st round acceptance." I would take your question as a no.
Posted by LaissezFaire 2 years ago
LaissezFaire
Since I have the BOP, do you want me to start in Round 1, or do you want to post first?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 2 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am counter vote bombing UnbiasedSymmetry.
Vote Placed by UnbiasedSymmetry 2 years ago
UnbiasedSymmetry
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: He did well
Vote Placed by dirkson 2 years ago
dirkson
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did an excellent job defending this resolution - Better than I thought possible! Con gets a conduct point and a tip of my hat for conceding. -Dirk
Vote Placed by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to LF for concession by Con. As per my own policy on concessions, 16k gets conduct for being able to concede.
Vote Placed by Xerge 2 years ago
Xerge
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Microsuck 2 years ago
Microsuck
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con CONceded. I give con the CONduct point because of the open mind that he has.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Rarely do you find someone who physically concedes that they lost. Conduct to con for that.