The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
HadenQuinlan
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Amerca should use its oil reserves and give it to only two companies.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 3588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

America has its own oil but we refuse to use it. There is American oil that is drillable in parts of the country and oil that is reserved. Gas is at its highest price ever. This is the perfect time to use our oil. But we can be strategic and give it to only two companies. Those two companies will have competitive prices, avoiding a monopoly. And other gas companies will have to lower their prices just to compete. This will bring the cost of gasoline down significantly and help the economy tremendously. This will also get other oil companies to try and find alternative resources so they can compete or simply lower their prices.
HadenQuinlan

Con

I negate the resolution that,

"America should use its oil reserves and give them to only two companies"

Before I begin making my own case, I'd like to start with my opponents.

"Those two companies will have competitive prices, avoiding a monopoly. And other gas companies will have to lower their prices just to compete."

What my opponent is insinuating here, is that we should give two companies a larger competitive edge over smaller companies, which will, in turn, be forced to lower their gas prices. However, we must examine the benefits of this action. With large amounts of oil being sent to only two companies, they would be able to lower their gas prices. Smaller, less-wealthy companies, will not be able to make this shift, forcing them to either A) be bought out by another company or B) shut down. There is no benefit in this action, because we would see all the smaller, less known, less used oil companies eliminated it would almost eliminate pluralization of companies. Eventually, there would only be two oil companies left, and one would, eventually, succeed the other - forcing us into a monopoly. Using the oil reserves in this manner is only going to eliminate the large pluralization and selection of companies that we have now.

"This will bring the cost of gasoline down significantly and help the economy tremendously."

My opponent claims that depluralizing the oil business will be beneficial, however we can clearly see that it is not. Our country is currently facing a recession, and with depluralization of oil companies many, many workers would need to be laid off. This A) causes large amounts of unemployment, B) puts a large strain on the government through payment of unemployment. Couple these effects with the fact that we're facing a recession, and you see that it would not be beneficial, but in fact tremendouly detrimental to the economy.

"This will also get other oil companies to try and find alternative resources so they can compete or simply lower their prices."

This claim just exemplifies the point my opponent is trying to make, that forcing unfavorable oil companies to find another source of income or die out is just, however it clearly is not. Despite the individual strain on the thousands of workers who work for said oil companies, there's a large economic strain on these people as well.

So as I've clearly shown, giving oil to only two companies would be economically and domestically detrimental because of the removal of pluralization of companies and the large economic strain on the government

As you can see, my opponent has flimsy cases based completely off of the idea that "lowered gas prices would be beneficial" which is easily batted away by the above refutations. At this point in the debate, you must vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

--- "we should [not] give two companies a larger competitive edge over smaller companies, which will, in turn, be forced to lower their gas prices...Smaller, less-wealthy companies, will not be able to make this shift, forcing them to either A) be bought out by another company or B) shut down."

+ I'm willing among with probably the vast masjority of Americans to see the smaller oil companies pack their bags in an effort to put more money in America's economy and loosen our dependence on foreign oil. I understand what you're saying and I've thought about it a lot. But the American who has lost his job and is getting foreclosed on would benefit. The struggling airlines and bankrupt ones [5 now] copuld grow back into business. There are FAR more important interestes than these small gas companies. And I'm sure most Americans wouldn't mind seeiung some of these evil gas corporations pack their bags as well with their price gauging. They've bathed in their money for long enough. They can either innovate and create new resources, lower their prices, or shut down. It's only fair to the average American. There are far more American businesses, people and employees hurt than small gas companies who can be hurt.

--- "one would, eventually, succeed the other - forcing us into a monopoly."

+ This is ridiculous speculation. WHY would one gas company succeed the other!? As of now all gas companies have generally the same price, barely differing and no gas company is succeeding the other. If two companies had similarly low prices, then why would one succeed the other. It wouldn't!

--- "Our country is currently facing a recession, and with depluralization of oil companies many, many workers would need to be laid off. This A) causes large amounts of unemployment, B) puts a large strain on the government through payment of unemployment."

+ Are you kidding me!? Unemployment is at a huge high. The lowering of gas prices will bring more oil companies, more trucking companies, etc. Bringing more jobs. The big oil companies can take the hit. They've been hitting the American taxpayer for a little less than a decade. It's their turn.

--- "and with depluralization of oil companies many, many workers would need to be laid off. "

+ This is NOT depluralization! There will certainly at least be two gas companies and when the other gas companies are forced into innovating new technologies they will succeed too and so will the American taxpayer. There is NO depluralization. These companies can either innovate for benefit of the American taxpayer or pack up.

--- "This claim just exemplifies the point my opponent is trying to make, that forcing unfavorable oil companies to find another source of income or die out is just, however it clearly is not."

+ So far just this year: 5 airlines have been run out of business, companies are laying off people by the thousands, the lay offs in march were in the hundreds of thousands, airline lay offs are huge, delta just cut their work force in half, car companies are feeling the burn, any company that ships anything anywhere has tremendous loss, causing lay offs, boating companies are feeling the burn, every American feels the burn. Those few affected negatively by my plan pale in comparison to the millions of people this recession will hit globally unless we do saomething fast. Those few convenient store workers, gas station owners, and evil corporate bigwigs can take the punch for the millions of Americans effected by this recession and millions globally effected by a recession of the leading superpower.
So as I've clearly shown, giving oil to only two companies would be economically and domestically detrimental because of the removal of pluralization of companies and the large economic strain on the government

--- Please consider the average person or average company. If we give oil to two companies we can lower the price significantly instead of in just a small way. This can literally save our economy. Our we can give oil to every person who decides they want to sell gasoline Then the price drops but not significantly enough to do any substantial saving. Please consider the average person instead of the evil gas corporations.
HadenQuinlan

Con

"I'm willing among with probably the vast masjority of Americans to see the smaller oil companies pack their bags in an effort to put more money in America's economy and loosen our dependence on foreign oil. I understand what you're saying and I've thought about it a lot. But the American who has lost his job and is getting foreclosed on would benefit."

So, in your first refutation you state that you'd be willing to see many small oil companies get overrun or shutout by larger ones, however later on you say

"Are you kidding me!? Unemployment is at a huge high. The lowering of gas prices will bring more oil companies, more trucking companies, etc. Bringing more jobs. The big oil companies can take the hit. They've been hitting the American taxpayer for a little less than a decade. It's their turn."

This is completely contradictory to the point you made in your first refutation. You say that America would be willing to spike unemployment, but then you recognize that unemployment is a giant problem. This doesn't make any sense, you're saying that unemployment is bad, but making more unemployment is good. Bigger companies would NOT take the hit, because there'd be two large companies - much like pepsi and coke - who completely dominate the industry. Oil is different than pepsi and coke though, because oil tastes the same no matter what company's behind it. You won't see small, store brands of cola, you'll only see the giant ones dominating the industry. Large companies will benefit, hitting the average american harder by:

A) Laying him off, causing him to lose his job. As you've already recognized, unemployment is a giant problem. Why spike it even higher?
B) You brought up, "Taxpayer", with unemployment rates spiking it's only going to hit the taxpayer even harder because he'll need to put more and more of his money into the social welfare programs.

"These companies can either innovate for benefit of the American taxpayer or pack up."

You keep using taxpayer as a term to reach out the general conservative audience, however you haven't shown how there would be any beneficial effect on taxes. In fact, there's only a highly detrimental one. Oil prices lowering are good for a small amount of time, however the way to go about lowering oil prices is NOT the way you're suggesting. You're suggesting that we give two companies a giant upperhand over every other one, completely dominating the market and forcing all smaller companies to change their business or die. This is NOT going to be beneficial at all, and you haven't shown any instance in which this would be beneficial besides the fact that the general populace would be happy for a month or two with their gas prices lowering by thirty cents.

" So far just this year: 5 airlines have been run out of business, companies are laying off people by the thousands, the lay offs in march were in the hundreds of thousands, airline lay offs are huge, delta just cut their work force in half, car companies are feeling the burn, any company that ships anything anywhere has tremendous loss, causing lay offs, boating companies are feeling the burn, every American feels the burn. "

Is this really an argument for your case? A prevalent theme throughout your arguments seems to be that unemployment is bad, and you go on to say that:

"the millions of people this recession will hit globally "

which means it's only going to get worse. You've accepted the fact that unemployment is a giant detrimental issue, yet you want to institute a plan that would only cause MORE unemployment, MORE of a strain on our taxpayer's pockets and overall an even worse recession than before.

"Those few convenient store workers, gas station owners, and evil corporate bigwigs can take the punch for the millions of Americans effected by this recession and millions globally effected by a recession of the leading superpower."

Okay - this is where you're wrong. There is no benefit to this plan. More jobs are not being created, jobs are being eliminated. Also, there's an effect you haven't realized. With only two companies dominating the market, in the long term prices are going to spike up. Without many different companies to keep the prices low we're going to see gas prices inflate in the future. So basically, you should change that refutation to the following:

"Those convenience store owners, gas station owners, oil drillers, oil manufacturers, oil warehouse workers, oil company owners and American who drives a car that uses gasoline can take the punch for a nonexistant crowd of people."

Your plan is going to effect every American, it's going to drive our economy down deeper than it will already go now, I don't see how there's any logic in your debate at all.

"Please consider the average person or average company. If we give oil to two companies we can lower the price significantly instead of in just a small way. This can literally save our economy."

I don't think you understand my argument at all. Lowering gas prices enables Americans to drive longer, however it also causes them to lose massive amounts of jobs. You say, "Consider the average american..." however, I think you need to stop and do that yourself. Your entire case is ludicrous, based off of a faulty plan which will only create massive unemployment, end up spiking the price of gas even higher, and create a giant governmental and domestic strain to help pay for social programs such as unemployment and welfare.

Finally - by wording of resolution, we see that the United States would be GIVING away their oil. World Oil prices are at an all time high, so if the United States is to give away such a hot commodity, versus selling it to American companies (more than two), or saving it for when we really need the oil boost to help pull us out of the moderate recession we face, the United States economy would only suffer. Why give a man a gold brick when you can sell it to him?

I'd like you, the judges, to take my opponent's words and apply them. Consider the average american. What's better, a massive recession that will be driven deeper and deeper by gas price inflation, unemployment, and spiked taxes? Or - the moderate recession we're facing now?

At this point in the debate, it seems incredibly silly to consider voting Pro, as you can see I have shown that giving away our oil to only two american companies would create such a large-scale impact that our recession would hit much harder, and much closer to home than it would without this action. I urge you to vote in a Con ballot.

Thanks ;D

~HQ
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

--- "you're saying that unemployment is bad, but making more unemployment is good. Bigger companies would NOT take the hit, because there'd be two large companies - much like pepsi and coke - who completely dominate the industry."

+ No. I am saying that the oil companies' high prices are causing high unemployment. If the oil companies had lower prices then more jobs would be available. Perfectly logical. Not a contradiction. Sorry.

--- You brought up, "Taxpayer", with unemployment rates spiking it's only going to hit the taxpayer even harder because he'll need to put more and more of his money into the social welfare programs.

+ Wow. If I've ever seen ridiculous speculation, then I'm seeing it right here. You're implying that Congress would increase taxes to give more wellfare. This would never happen especially not now. Congress just gave out huge checks. They're not going to take out more money from our pockets. Please be reasonable.

--- "You keep using taxpayer as a term to reach out the general conservative audience."

+ Oh. Thank you for explaining to me what I'M doing.

--- "however you haven't shown how there would be any beneficial effect on taxes."

+ I never said taxes would be lowered or hightened. You simply said they wouldn't. I used the term taxpayer to indicate that they are already spending so much money.

--- In fact, there's only a highly detrimental one. Oil prices lowering are good for a small amount of time.

+ Hmm...Not if we give the company's oil. They'll make more money and they'll be able to sustain low gas prices. And innovating oil companies will either promote new resources, which are available, or die.

--- change their business or die.

+ So I guess the average person is less significant than a few oil companies.

--- This is NOT going to be beneficial at all.

+ I understand your point but lowering gas prices can save our economy. Every aspect of our economy is affected by gas prices as I've mentioned earlier. We could save ourselves from recession. That's more significant than allowing a few oil companies to keep scoring off the American citizen.

--- You've accepted the fact that unemployment is a giant detrimental issue, yet you want to institute a plan that would only cause MORE unemployment,

+ A few oil companies could lay off all of their employees even but that will be a speck compared to the millions who will loose their jobs and homes. Think of the greater good.

--- MORE of a strain on our taxpayer's pockets and overall an even worse recession than before.

+ Why would taxes be raised???

--- With only two companies dominating the market, in the long term prices are going to spike up. Without many different companies to keep the prices low we're going to see gas prices inflate in the future.

+ You are wildly speculating that one oil company would succeed the other. There is no evidence, theory or even reason to think that.
In the long run, more oil companies will be able to compete. The other companies are not being banned from selling oil. Just loosing an advantage for a while.

"Those convenience store owners, gas station owners, oil drillers, oil manufacturers, oil warehouse workers, oil company owners and American who drives a car that uses gasoline can take the punch for a nonexistant crowd of people."

--- Your entire case is ludicrous, based off of a faulty plan which will only create massive unemployment

+ The gas company jobs are significant lesser than the average jobs. What about UPS, FedEx, the Air Force, school buses, airlines, etc. Theyy have to use gasoline and are laying people off in huge numbers. 5 airlines have already shut down this year.

--- end up spiking the price of gas even higher

+ Giving free oil to gas companies will spike oil higher? Please explain.

--- and create a giant governmental and domestic strain to help pay for social programs such as unemployment and welfare.

+ Oh because now everybody's fine? We shouldn't act to stop the recession? Just live and learn?

--- World Oil prices are at an all time high, so if the United States is to give away such a hot commodity, versus selling it to American companies (more than two)

+ If we sell it to the companies, then the prices won't drop. The oil reserves are to be given away in times of emergency...THIS IS THAT TIME.

--- or saving it for when we really need the oil boost

+ We've used the oil reserves before. Oil is at an ALL TIME HIGH, inflation accounted for. This is the time to use whatever resource we can to lower gas prices. If we don't need lower gas prices now, then the concept of needing lower prices will never be usable.

--- My opponent says that taxpayer dollars will be increased because of wellfare costs but no legislature is going to approve of higher taxes.

--- My opponent says that many jobs will be lost, which is of course true, but the jobs saved will be far greater.

--- Let's not forget that companies already have alternative resources. BP has alternative resources but logically decide not to give them because they have an established infrastructure and are making incredible sums of money. They will give out their source immediately to stay in business and other companies will try to innovate as well so they can continue to compete.

--- My opponent says that gas prices will spike up but if you give the companies oil then they will obviously be able to lower prices significantly.

--- Here's the thing! I agree that the oil jobs loss would be upsetting and generally unfortunate. However, already hundreds of thousands have been laid off in March alone. Congress has proposed a stimulus plan to give $600 to every person. The recession is still considered inevitable. It is time to take significant action. Already 5 airlines have been shut down this year. The job loss is tremendous. Trucking companies are laying people off tremendously. The job loss is so huge and it is primarily due to high gas prices. If we give our oil to every company then the price drop will only be small between companies. If we give our oil to only two companies, then the price drop will be great and more jobs will be created and so will more revenue. Our economy can literally be saved. And our dependence on foreign oil will be forever loosened.

*** I hope you side with the greater good instead of the lesser jobs.
Thank you for reading.
HadenQuinlan

Con

"No. I am saying that the oil companies' high prices are causing high unemployment. If the oil companies had lower prices then more jobs would be available."

How does this make sense at all? You want to lower gas prices, however by creating a 2 company dominance of the oil industry so many lesser companies would be obliterated. High oil prices aren't causes high unemployment, you haven't shown any proof. There's no logic to this.

"Wow. If I've ever seen ridiculous speculation, then I'm seeing it right here. You're implying that Congress would increase taxes to give more wellfare. This would never happen especially not now. Congress just gave out huge checks. They're not going to take out more money from our pockets. Please be reasonable. "

No - you don't understand any of my argument at all. The taxpayers pay x% of their check to help support Y programs. Y programs, including unemployment and welfare, suddenly require massive amounts of more money due to unemployment spiking. Congress passes Z law, to raise amount of x% to w% to help fund Y programs. Get it? That's perfectly reasonable.

" I never said taxes would be lowered or hightened. You simply said they wouldn't. I used the term taxpayer to indicate that they are already spending so much money."

Stop making an appeal to the taxpayer if you aren't talking about taxes. I'm showing how they'll be heightened, causes a larger strain on the average american, the average taxpayer, the average american taxpayer whatever. You want to talk about the average man, I'm doing it.

"Hmm...Not if we give the company's oil. They'll make more money and they'll be able to sustain low gas prices. And innovating oil companies will either promote new resources, which are available, or die."

You think that oil corporations are all that sustains american economy, while you haven't addressed the fact that by giving away all of US Oil resources would be largely detrimental because we'd be killing off one of the most valuable commodities to the world.

" So I guess the average person is less significant than a few oil companies."

The average person is more important, but oil companies are also important. So, your ridiculous plan is going to not only devastate the United States economy, it's also going to hit the average person in long-term spiking gas prices, taxes being raised and it's going to murder all small-oil companies who will either be bought out, waste money on new innovations only to go bankrupt or die. Eventually, all the small companies are going to die. This is not beneficial, this is so massively contrary to benefit I don't understand why you're still advocating such a ludicrous position.

"I understand your point but lowering gas prices can save our economy. Every aspect of our economy is affected by gas prices as I've mentioned earlier. We could save ourselves from recession. "

No, this would not save us from a recession. Perhaps in the short term, but if we look ahead 6months to a year, you'll see the long term effects will annihilate us. The giant domination of the oil industry by two companies (the ones supplied by US oil) will end up inflating gas prices. Unemployment will then peak due to:

A) Oil companies being shut down.

B) Gas prices heightening even higher than before.

" A few oil companies could lay off all of their employees even but that will be a speck compared to the millions who will loose their jobs and homes. Think of the greater good."

It wouldn't be a "few" as you've rehashed throughout this entire debate. Your entire argument is, "few guys can lose their jobs, look at all americans." the fact is, I have been looking at all American Citizens, the giant effect on all US Taxpaying and nontaxpaying citizens will be so enormous our entire economy could possibly crumble. Are you not seeing how ridiculous, far fetched and whimsical your plan is?

"+ Why would taxes be raised???"

I explained this above.

"You are wildly speculating that one oil company would succeed the other. There is no evidence, theory or even reason to think that.
In the long run, more oil companies will be able to compete. The other companies are not being banned from selling oil. Just loosing an advantage for a while."

A giant advantage, and as you said they'd have to innovate to a different industry or die. Stop changing your points, the fact is there wouldn't be any "other companies" there would be two superpowers annihilating the market. Just come to reason now, this is so silly.

"The gas company jobs are significant lesser than the average jobs. What about UPS, FedEx, the Air Force, school buses, airlines, etc. Theyy have to use gasoline and are laying people off in huge numbers. 5 airlines have already shut down this year."

What? You say look to the average american, so lets look at the Average American. Joe works in an oil refining plant. Joe gets laid off because of your fantasy plan. Joe now cannot support his family. His children get taken out of school in order to help support the family, Joe picks up a job and McDonalds. Do you see where this is going? The workers of the gas companies are not "evil corporate bigwigs", they're Americans like you or I. And your ridiculous plan is going to screw them, the people you claim to be advocating for.

"Giving free oil to gas companies will spike oil higher? Please explain."

In the long run. I've elaborated upon this earlier.

"Oh because now everybody's fine? We shouldn't act to stop the recession? Just live and learn?"

No - you have some ridiculous economic notion that a recession is possible to stave off. If it's possible, it's only going to crush the American economy in the long-run. You really need to reevaluate your plan.

"If we sell it to the companies, then the prices won't drop. The oil reserves are to be given away in times of emergency...THIS IS THAT TIME."

No, this isn't that time. The recession we face now is moderate at worst, your plan is only going to murder the economic and domestic status of the United States. Honestly, to you, the judges, please see how whimsical this plan is.

"We've used the oil reserves before. Oil is at an ALL TIME HIGH, inflation accounted for. This is the time to use whatever resource we can to lower gas prices. If we don't need lower gas prices now, then the concept of needing lower prices will never be usable."

No... oil prices don't determine the fate of the American Economy. IF we've got high oil prices, but we've got Americans working and pumping money in and out of the system then we're fine. In the long and short term, unemployment is going to stop this steady flow of money and force us into a longer, more detrimental recession than the current system.

"And our dependence on foreign oil will be forever loosened."

I don't think I need to argue against this, any logical person who reads this statement is going to see how much of a fantasy this is. My opponent is pulling some "THIS IS OUR TIME, THIS OUR COUNTRY, THIS IS SPARTAAAAAA" appeal to the people. However, let's keep our heads and examine the facts:

1) Unemployment is at an all time high. Lowered gas prices are going to maintain and then increase this high.
2) Depluralization will occur - not completely, but to the effect that there's only two companies dominating the market.
3) Unemployment causes a giant strain on the government, boosting us deeper and deeper into the, as my opponent has agreed, inevitable recession. This strain puts the US more heavily into debt, forcing us to raise taxes to pay for social welfare programs like unemployment and welfare.

My opponent has advocated largely for the people, and as you can see his case not only disproves any relation to helping the people - in fact, his case is so ludicrous we will see the average american becoming devastated along with the economy.

For these reasons, as well as the clear logic behind it: vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
This would be a good idea if it weren't just two companies. You could make this much better with plurality. But, since this resolution lacks plurality, I vote CON.
Posted by Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
The most retarded resolution ever. Do you REALLY believe this, pro?
Posted by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
silly debate, kind of sad i participated in it
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
Zander, I don't believe they are responsible but they obviously can change it not that that is a smart option but giving them more oil will obviously reduce prices. w
Posted by zander 9 years ago
zander
I don't know why people think the oil companies are to blame for high gas prices...
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
I completely agree, con. Nice.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by livi 9 years ago
livi
notpolicydebategodHadenQuinlanTied
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 
Vote Placed by dave23456 9 years ago
dave23456
notpolicydebategodHadenQuinlanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
notpolicydebategodHadenQuinlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
notpolicydebategodHadenQuinlanTied
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 
Vote Placed by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
notpolicydebategodHadenQuinlanTied
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