All 'drugs' should be made legal and be controlled by the state.
One point as an example: The root of all 'drug' related crime is prohibition. Product illegality has created a black market which is a very successful business. The success of this business is wholly reliant on the demand for the product. Unfortunately for governments, this industry has shown no sign of weakening. Is it not time for another approach?
My argument is PRO legalisation. Please provide a counter argument that includes references and facts as support.
My opponents case is extremely weak. He is very vague, his only argunment is that statistics show we should legalize drugs. But he has provided none nor has he shown where those statistics apply. Therefore his argunment should be discarded.
C1. Drug legalization would increase use
Drug legalization advocates claim legalization would have no effect on the usage rates, many go onto say it would decrease use. But they fail to use logic in the situation. Would it make sense if we lifted penalties that usage would decrease? If we lowered penalties based on Deterence theory usage would increase.(1) So based on valid legal and pshycological theory legalization would increase usage.
Another reason use would increase is simple, prices would fall. Drugs which are currently illegal are much more costly and therefore deter lower class citizens of society from using them. Most scholars say legalization would cut prices by three times, in other words prohibition keeps drugs three times the cost then they would on a legal market. Lowering prices would make its availability higher and therefore increase usage. Unless all the people on drugs now are the only people wanting to do drugs, an unlikely scenario. Search price would go from low to zero. It is a risk of being arrested if you go to a street dealer, under legalization you could buy the drug all you want. Based on that the increased availability and lowering the cost of punishment means, in theory and practice, drug usage would increase.(2)
Let's end the theory and let's ask what it does in practice. In practice we see periods of more lax control generally leads too increased consumption. In the 1800s, when most drugs where legal, addiction rates and usage rates where extremely high amongst the general population. Since drugs where prohibited we have been seeing steady declines in usage. Now let's look at the Alaska experiment -- they legalized marijuana in the mid-seventies -- was an utter failure. The law only allowed users of 19+, but this increased availability to kids and children could easily get acess from family members. Basically the market opened up, unintentionally, too all age groups. This experiment rose users amongst the adult and teenage populations tremendously. Teenagers saw a 51% increase in marijuana usage after the law, in the 90s when laws became more restrictive they saw a 57% decrease in drug usage amongst teenagers.(3)
What's the problem with more users? Easy. Illicit drug users get addicted 75% of the time. Alcohol has addiction rates of 10%. So you think alcohols bad? Illicit drug usage is worse. It has been shown more users would increase drug induced deaths, DUI, and raise addiction rates which would lower productivity in the workforce.(4)
C2. Drug legalization would increase crime
It is commonly argued legalization would reduce crime, but that is illogical. Surveys have shown over half of violent crime offenders where under the influence of drugs during their attack, and almost a quarter (24%) of people attacking police officers where under the influence of illicit drugs which where known to increase aggressive behavior.(5) With increased usage from legalization it is logical these crimes would increase.
Many drug experiments have shown large increases in crime. For example, marijuana decriminalization raises the total number of DUI's substantially. It rose over 40% for adults in California and 70% for juveniles in their experiment alone. Now over 80% of cases of child abuse is linked to drug usage. No evidence suggests legalization would help this problem, and evidence shows it would get worse. With taxation it would likely create a new niche for black markets. With high tobacco taxes we see large increases in black market crime over tobacco. Also more the black market would thrive amongst youth users too as they a) consume most of the drugs, and b) usage would increase meaning more demand. Legalization does nothing to lower crime, all it does is make the situation worse.(6)
Legalization makes the problem worse.
The classic response of individuals who possess no first hand knowledge or experience of narcotics is to turn to statistics as the basis for their arguments (it's worth pointing out at this stage that I did indeed mention statistics in my opening statement, but only that they would add weight - at no stage did I proclaim they would form the substance of my argument). Unfortunately this approach is fundamentally flawed - especially when it comes to percentages. In fact, the repeated use of statistics in this field is a laughable and extremely naive approach when you consider the simple fact that most of these statistics are basically estimates, fabrications and averages that have no solid basis in fact at all.
Apart from individuals that have checked into clinics or been seen by doctors or taken part in a survey, do you honestly believe that the government and it's statisticians have managed to collate data from the hidden 'underground' drug culture? Are cannabis smokers, LSD takers and heroin users actively taking part in surveys or questionnaires?
Unfortunately, this critical flaw in the argument against legalisation comes up again and again. It is a way of people with no real-world experience of narcotics to attempt to demonise something they don't understand. This includes my opponent, politicians and law-makers who use drug policy and statistics as a way to perpetuate myths. The 'War On Drugs' as we know it was started in the thirties by a lobbyist called Harry Anslinger (http://bit.ly...) who was to become the worlds first 'Drug Czar' - an informal title for the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a role that is mirrored in other governments. He used specific substances and the cultural consumption of them amoungst ethnic minorities in New York as a way of marginalising and segregating, a way of vilifying groups of human beings that didn't happen to be white, but were mixing with white people - amazingly, the prime examples revolve around jazz clubs. Not only that, usage of the word 'marijuana' was proliferated to ensure that cannabis was made to sound foreign and alien.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry Anslinger
It is incredible how the antiquated and poorly-informed 'war on drugs' was started in the early part of the 20th century based on next to no knowledge of the compounds and chemicals which make up the substances and their historical use. Science and social anthropology in the context of 'drugs' were not understood. Instead, the premise was based on propaganda that would now appear to be fascist. The bottom line is, all of the laws in place today to control drugs stem from this one mans crusade to rise to the top of the political tree by instilling fear and prejudice in middle white America. Confronted with the threat of an invasion by 'marijuana' fuelled foreign crazies would have been enough to convince the voting populice that they needed a man like Anslinger to stop this 'Satanic' music and it's perpertrators continuing to pollute white America in the literal sense through inter-racial relationships and offspring.
This has formed the foundation for drug law as we know it today, and has not been allowed to be reviewed since as it is still a powerful tool for propaganda and vote-winning during elections.
In direct reference to C1. which uses Deterrence Theory as a basis for the assumption that 'legalization would increase usage', what fundament does this have in real-world law enforcement? None at all. Unfortunately, my opponent assumes that humans in general would not be able to help themselves and will indulge, or use, or consume drugs in increased numbers. The bottom line is - the numbers will increase. Why? If governments controlled drugs, they would actually have useful, meaningful and accurate data and statistics (unlike the fabrications supplied by government agencies and my opponent) which could inform us all about the scale of use. At the moment, there is no real data (as I have already pointed out), so therefore the true numbers may indeed shock weak-hearted conservatives such as my opponent. The irony is that a large proportion of adults consume alcohol, the most popular drug, the most accepted narcotic. In fact, almost all adults will have tried alcohol at some stage. Unfortunately for my opponent, this means that he lives in a country filled with drug users - including family members and even the President - yet this doesn't provide any shock value at all.
In regards to paragraph 2 of C1., my opponent has completely failed to understand the debate topic. The second part of the topic title is that the legalisation be 'controlled by the state'. In the UK, governments place tax and duty on alcohol and tobacco, and are even talking about legislating to put a minimum price on alcohol (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...). The taxes also bump up the retail price. In real terms, what this means is that alcohol and tobacco taxes provide some of the funds necessary to provide rehabilitation and treatment for those who suffer from diseases related to consumption. Prices, if controlled by the state, would include taxes which could provide rehabilitation and treatment. At present the black market has no provision for this. Using expressions like 'in theory and in practice' when referring to an idea about drug pricing that has no basis in real-word data or even relevance in regards to the topic title is unfortunate.
Including a reference to a study from the 19th Century as a point in an argument really has no bearing on modern life and uses the same form of fabricated statistics which we have established as being fundamentally flawed. Also, cannabis use is to this day a hotly debated topic, and again, due to a lack of solid data my opponent has invalidated his own argument. Holland is a prime example of decriminalisation of this 'drug' presenting no real danger to its general populace. I would urge my opponent to stop using antiquated, isolated information in order to support his case. The fact remains that due to individuals like my opponent we lack the knowledge we really need to understand any problems that arise because of narcotic consumption. Unfortunately the perpetuation of ideals such as his, and the continued illegality of narcotics, we might never understand the true scale of use or abuse in the world - it's this group of people that assume that drug laws fundamentally stop people from taking drugs! This is an extremely naive and laughable assumption.
The greatest irony about C2. is the fact that my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that a multitude of crimes have been literally created as a result of prohibition already. In fact, your former president shared this sentiment:
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln
Drug cartels, street dealers and the violence that comes along with this could all be avoided if drugs were controlled. Again, to assume that black markets would completely disappear is naive and not something that I've suggested at any point. The fact remains that human beings like to get footloose and fancy free and for millennia have found all manner of substances that facilitate this. I believe that enforcing pointless laws and spending billions of taxpayers dollars fighting an unwinnable war on 'drugs' isn't working... do you?
I would like to first note most of my opponents arguments are bare assertions, opinions, or unverifiable arguments.
1. How the drug war started and the stats
It does not matter how the drug war started, why? Because many good causes are started by unfavorable means. The only relevant argument in this section is the argument that the statistics are flawed. My opponent argue it is impossible to calculate the amount of drug users in an overall scenario. Mainly because many stay underground or never report their usage, and the only samples we have are ones in rehab or ones in jail. But the polling needn't be direct, though. All it needs to be is based on proxies that can calculate fairly accurate estimations which are widely accepted amongst scholars in the debate. Many proxies for the data include arrest rates, anonymous polling, census socioeconomic factors, drug costs (a good proxy for consumption), and FBI uniform crime reports. Experts agree that these are good proxies for calculating drug use . So my opponent arguing it is impossible is a lie.
My opponent continues the bare assertions saying being against the war on drugs means we have been mislead by politicians that are trying to gain votes. If they where looking to gain votes, however, they would support the legalization of marijuana as 50% of the populace is in favor of legalization, 46% opposed . As we can see based on poll data my opponents political argument fails.
2. Defending C1
My opponent is sticking to the assertion that drug statistics are flawed. Again he needs to prove that the proxies used are inherintley flawed before arguing this. Further he also concedes even if drugs where legal the statistics would be flawed as all of the stats I showed where in legalization scenarios. My opponents rebuttal here is, actually, all bare assertion. He says there is no good data, and that the government does not control drugs. Using DEA seizures as a proxy it has been shown that supply reduction is falling and falling significantly. They have been using the lower supply and the increased control to use price and make drugs to expensive for most americans, which is a sucess . My opponent has only been insulting my sources, instead of using other ones. Even if we assume my sources are faulty with no alternative offered by my opponent I am the only one with any data on the subject, and not just bare assertions. My opponent then says almost all adults use alcohol. Yes, they do. That's a great example to prove my case. This shows legal drugs have significantly higher usage rates. During prohibition alcohol usage rates where much lower then they are today . And my opponent never refuted the deterrence theory, it makes sense as it means the costs of getting drugs is much higher and will deter some people. The logic means prohibition will deter some people from purchasing many drugs. Unless my opponent can refute deterrence theory the point stands and the logic supports the statistics.
My opponent then argues my argument on more cost to drugs (more money cost, not cost in jail time) actually shows my opponent has not looked into how expensive drugs are. For example marijuana is very expensive due to the drug war. My opponent claims if the state taxes it that the state could make it as expensive as in prohibitionary times. But is this logical? No, not at all. But as stated last round prohibition makes drugs 3-9 times more expensive, meaning we would have taxes of 300-900% on these drugs to equate the same cost that it is in prohibition. The highest tax on tobacco, for example, is over $3 . All alcohol taxes, like tobacco taxes, do not even reach 100% . Therefore we see that my opponents cost argument is very illogical, and laughable. Having a 400% tax, for example, would make the black market exist and continue at the same strength it is today. As we can see it is illogical to say taxation or regulation would make the price the same as its price during prohibition.
My opponent then foolishly says using data from the 19th century should be discarded. Why? It accurately shows deterrence theory working amongst peoples physiology, it also ignores the statistics brought up with Alaska. He is cherry picking my stance in order to look like he is chipping at my statistics, when he is not.
3. Defending C2
My opponent claims prohibition would create black markets, but this only works if he can prove legalization would end markets. We can assume a minimum age for buying drugs would be used, likely twenty one to be consistent with the alcohol age. People under that age consume the most drugs in the country, therefore the black market would still thrive amongst the lower population . We also see that if we take my opponents C1 argument to heart, the tax of 300-900% would raise prices so much it would create a black market, as all high taxes on products have the ability to create. Therefore my opponents argument is not convincing, and the controlling of drugs by the state would increase crime.
My opponent criticizes me for a 19th century source then cites Abraham Lincolon, and that's, in my opinion, is very funny moment. And I refer to my statements above which shatter Lincolns quote.
As we can see, C2 is logical as I have proven legalization raises crime, and that cartels would exist still. So lets build on C2 a bit.
"Amsterdam’s experience is already being duplicated in California under the current medical marijuana statute. In Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime."
Legalization increases crime, its a logical statement.
Statistics and proven and widely accepted theories > My opponents bare assertions
 Mary-Lynn Brecht, M. Douglas Anglin, and Tzu-Hui Lu "Estimating Drug Use Prevalence Among Arrestees Using ADAM Data: An Application of a Logistic Regression Synthetic Estimation Procedure" Department of Justice, (2003).
Con has said "it does not matter how the drug war started" and "many good causes are started by unfavourable means" in an attempt to downplay the facts that I presented as a historical basis for my argument; that the fundaments of International drug law are flawed. Unfortunately, my opponent has simply demonstrated how morally corrupt the process of lawmaking has become, and that this contradicts the ethics of contemporary law based on truths.
As a basis for this assertion, Governments are actually known to dismiss new data when it contradicts political ideals - even when it has been derived from scientific means. Professor David Nutt (DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci) was drugs adviser to the British government and later fired after presenting scientific research that showed alcohol is more harmful than LSD or MDMA (ecstasy) in terms of mortality rate, crimes related to consumption, and injury (http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk...) (http://www.guardian.co.uk...). As a scientist who truly understands the physiological effects of narcotics through ongoing research, he is, by definition, an expert on the subject. He was fired after he presented this scientific data, purely because it went against government policy. Politicians, although not qualified to make any assertions about health or psychological impact are doing so anyway (http://www.guardian.co.uk...).
Scientific research and discovery can indeed overturn or change law, however as we have seen, even pure science can be blindsided by politicians when it would seem to contradict their agenda. Richard Nixon commissioned a study in 1972 and the Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse found that "the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition was suspect" but the Nixon administration did not implement the studies recommendations (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The majority of Republican representatives in US government are perpetuating that same approach in regards to stunting reformation, as Conservative ideals are certainly not bound by logic, science or scientific research - they are instead based on a highly dubious 'moral' code (http://www.press.uchicago.edu...). This is further elaborated on later in my criticism of The Heritage Foundation and their propaganda later on in this round of my case.
DRUG STATISTICS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY
It is important to repeat that there is a 'Dark Figure of Crime' (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - which not only applies to the unknown scale of victimless crime (http://en.wikipedia.org...) like narcotic use but even real crime like physical assaults and rape - and due to this fact government agencies use statistics as a way of reporting on the effectiveness of law enforcement without having to use watertight data. In real terms, my opponent cannot refute the fact that by a legalising drugs a more comprehensive dataset will be achieved through the additional figures provided by legitimate manufacture, wholesale and retail through legitimate channels of commerce.
Unfortunately DEA seizures are no indication of the scale of drug related 'crime' by way of trafficking. In fact, this agency and others including the CIA and State Department have faced accusations of colluding with cartels in order to traffic narcotics into the United States, with CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz publishing a two volume report in response to these allegations that did not deny these allegations (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It would be foolhardy to assume there is no corruption. With this in mind, along with the pure speculation of my opponent about numbers regarding use and trade, how can any individual claim to have the 'facts' or statistics that would make his case ironclad? The fact that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the law means that it should be reviewed.
Regardless of whether a tax on currently illegal narcotics would be profitable, the taxes garnered from sale would provide government revenue that does not currently exist. At present drug pricing structure is obviously not bound by the usual rules of trade and commerce transparency and yet still constituted $321.6 billion dollars in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The cultivation of plants and chemicals and the sale of the resulting product would be no different from any other foods or consumables currently available on the market. His assertion that legalisation/decriminalisation leads to price increases is also a fabrication. In countries and states where laws have been relaxed in regards to cannabis, prices are considerably lower (http://www.priceofweed.com...) and in regards to cocaine, "the standard economic model predicts that the quantity of drugs consumed would rise and the prices would fall" (http://ideas.repec.org...) (The "quantity" correlates to the conversion of consumers from black market to legitimate products).
My opponent said:
"They have been using the lower supply and the increased control to use price [sic] and make drugs to [sic] expensive for most americans, which is a sucess [sic]"
In this rather confusing sentence, my opponent has attempted to add credence to his ideas regarding drug pricing. I will end this part of my case by pointing out that in 2005 the Government Accountability Office described the data used to evaluate progress in the drug war as "problematic" and said there was an absolute "absence of adequate, reliable data on illicit drug prices and use." (http://www.cfr.org...) (http://www.gao.gov...).
My opponent is somewhat naive in his black-and-white assumption that I should prove that legalisation would "end [black]markets[sic]". There would be no definitive end to black markets, however the requirement for them to meet demands would be reduced and be replaced by legitimate vendors. Importantly, "violence results from policies that create black markets". (http://articles.cnn.com...) The case for legalisation is given further weight knowing that those in control of the black markets will no longer have complete control as they do now.
The most shocking part of my contenders argument is his attempt to use reference no.8 (http://www.heritage.org...) - The Heritage Foundation - a politically motivated and biased organisation website that does not serve as impartial information for his case. It attempts to discredit all verified and credible scientific research by implying that cannabis is "unsafe in any amount". For this reason you must disregard that part of his argument completely due to it being based on a complete fabrication. The fact the article implies that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol is not only inaccurate, but it is also completely unfounded. As with all consumables, including foods and drinks, there are damaging factors. Over consumption of water have caused recorded deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org...). However, there was not a single death as a result of consumption of cannabis in 2011 (http://www.economicsjunkie.com...). In fact historically there are no recorded deaths induced by cannabis, and not only that but it's almost physically impossible to overdose on it (http://www.drugwarfacts.org...). As a contrast, 4% of all deaths globally are due to alcohol, more than AIDS, TB or violence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).
I look forward to the next round.
Many things happen in immoral or evil ways that actually have good outcomes/future means to the process. For example, every law we hear and support (most of us support some type of law) is supported by lobbyists and is passed by them. It’s not the drug war that’s corrupt, rather the political systems evolution towards this standard.
My opponent has argued using governmental data is “flawed” when it comes to the drug war debate. Now even if we assume my opponent is correct, this does little to refute my case as much of my data comes from external sources. For example, much of the data for usage statistics and crime (my whole case) had much of its data from non-governmental sources . Further, much of the data in the drug legalization debate is not governmentally backed . So even if we assume my opponents point is correct, we cannot assume my points are invalid as I used outside sources.
Now, although there is bias amongst governmental officials science must be able to do a few things: 1) Facts fit the theory (on balance), 2) must account for previous experience, 3) be able to predict phenomena, and 4) must have large amounts of proof .
(1) Facts fit the theory
This is actually a huge part of a theory which is needed to prove X or Y, and although drug legalization is gaining support under the younger generation there are large amounts of statistical data which, on balance, support drug prohibition .
(2) Must account for previous experience
Much of my case relies on previous experience, if anything most of it does. Much of my crime and usage statistics come from previous experiments in California, Alaska, and much of Europe as examples .
(3) Predict phenomena
All of these statistics predict that legalization would lead to increase in crime and increase in usage rates. And these statistics have successfully predicted many of these happenings . Drug legalization in countries highly cited by activists as proof of legalization, notably Portugal, is touted a failure by many. Crime involving drug use as increases as well as drug usage rates. For example, the increased consumption of cocaine in Portugal has been “extremely problematic” and the cannabis increase has lead to a lazier workforce . As we can see, the statistics have predicted phenomena.
(4) Having large amounts of proof
As I have shown, using direct evidence from countries in Europe and various legalization experiments there is a large amount of proof based on theories as well as direct observations proving legalization would not benefit America .
--As we can see the drug prohibition stance fits the definitions of a valid scientific fact/theory, and cannot be criticized.
My opponent cites many statistics, mainly from wikipedia and pro legalization sources which do not cite much data. Based on realistic evidence, marijuana legalization would not even raise as much money as many of those “statistics” are more predictions rather then direct observations. And many of the statistics assume that the economic benefits would mean at least one billion marijuana cigarettes would be smoked in each large state (California, Texas etc). And that taxation would be 400-500%. This is highly unrealistic, and in reality false. Further, growing marijuana is cheap and the taxes would lead many people to grow it themselves, and therefore hindering the economic revenue the states bring in .
Further, there are many social costs that involve economics that would cause net decrease in economic profit. For example, current drug use (not the drug war/black market) costs 160 billion a year in social costs (ER costs, violence etc.) But at the same time estimates say cocaine use would go from 2 – 20 million addicts, therefore raising the overall social costs by millions of dollars . Further, 13 billion dollars of profit are generated from alcohol and tobacco, but they cost 100 billion dollars in social costs. There is little evidence drug legalization would have a benefit, on the contrary data proves that the social costs will overall hurt the economy and outweigh any potential tax benefit .
Further, the taxes may have adverse effects on crime. For example, taxes on these items raises over time with reckless government spending. So what many of these local governments do is attack the low hanging fruit – tobacco. They raise those costs, which have been observed to create a black market .
Overall, taxation would a) have no effect on the economy, b) may have the opposite effect, and c) possibly create a black market which we are battling now.
My opponent has conceded legalization would not end the black market as taxation would still exist and many drugs, like marijuana, would be cheaper to just grow on your own or get from black market vendors. My opponent then says the black market is the creator of all problems therefore the point stands. What? This means the creator of all these problems would still exist. Black markets do not disappear during legalization scenarios.
Marijuana v. Alcohol
(1) The debate title reads “all” drugs, therefore this objection is irrelevant
(2) My opponent criticizes a source which, by any logical person, is a accurate source. Why? Easy: it cites references to its opinions. I am a bias source, yet what I say is as credible as my evidence. Same with the heritage foundation. As we can see, they have 56 cited references most to academic journals, neutral sources, or RAND studies. All of what they say is not “discredited”, if anything it is highly accurate as it is written by a legal expert as well as having exceptional resources .
n This objection is irrelevant to the debate as it does not attack the all drugs hypothesis
n The heritage foundation is a good source
As we can see, the statistics put forward are credible (when all put together), and many of my opponent’s objections are self-defeating, illogical, or irrelevant. It is clear that “all” drugs should not be legalized, and that a vote for PRO would be just and appreciated.
 Manuel Pinto Coelho “Drugs: The Portuguese Fallacy and the Absurd Medicalization of Europe” Asociación para um Portugaul livre de drogas, (2007)
basicallyrad forfeited this round.
1. He bender defended his round one case from my attack
2. Dropped C1 of my case last round.
===My opponents main case failed===
1. Never proved my statistics where flawed
2. Using science I showed my case is credible
===Why C1 stands===
1. I proved using evidence legalizing drugs increased consumption
2. My opponent offered NO counter evidence
3. He dropped the point before he forfeited
===Why C2 stands===
1. He never proved drugs didn't cause crime
2. His worries looked into a black market, I showed a black market would still exist under legalization, so point null.
Conduct point con
Arguments: obviously con
Sources: depends on the view, I cited a peer reviewed study and websites with credible backing, but he had more total sources.
Conduct: con (pro forfeited)
S/G: you choose.
4 - 0 (or 6 - 0) in favor of con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|