The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Being poor should be a crime and repeat offenders should be given the Death Penalty

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,772 times Debate No: 23110
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

imabench

Pro

This is a part of OberHerr's devil advocacy tournament.

The Resolution is: Being poor should be a crime punishable by a prison sentence and people who are repeat offenders of being poor should be put to death.

Parameters:
1) Poor is anybody who is living below or within $1,000 of the poverty line
2) Poor people who are of working age and refuse to work and are poor are elegible to go to jail
3) Jails are the rape dungeons owned and operated by the US Government.
4) Poor people go to jail for the first 3 violations go to jail for 3 and 1/3 years
5) If they break the law for the fourth time, jail time is increased to 10 years
6) A fifth time, 20 years
7) A sixth time, death sentence

First Round is Acceptance only
THEBOMB

Con

I accept. I'm a bit scared of what imabench is going to write but, okay.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

I am being the devil's advocate for this debate, so lets do this >:)

Reasons why being Poor should be a crime:

1) Poverty can be related to Criminal Activity

Areas that are poverty ridden correlate with areas that have extensive amounts of reported cases of rape, murder, alcoholism, smoking, doing drugs, etc which all end up costing the government more money than other areas. Poverty doesnt actually cause these things, instead these are often ways for people to try to escape from poverty due to lack of better more legal options.

Now to correct this problem the government has created affirmative action programs, along with a handful of other initiatives to try to help people, but the effectiveness of these programs are very debatable since these programs are argued to be very expensive yet always only resolve a sliver of the overall problem. Poor people cost the Government billions of dollars each year through programs that can be seen as ineffective or by stimulating illegal drug trades that also costs the government billions of dollars.

http://econlog.econlib.org...

"Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration."

"Sociologist and criminal justice scholars have found a direct correlation between poverty and crime."

http://capaassociation.org...

Poor people make up a massive problem to the US government, but the government isnt fixing the problem of poor people, they are simply dumping money into agencies and programs to lessen the effects caused by poor people instead of addressing the real problem, the actual poor people.

2) Going to jail can help poor people get back on track

I may sound like im on crack right now but here me out on this one. Prison allows people to become re-educated while they are incarcerated, which is important because education is also affiliated with crime rates in poverty conditions. Prisons also have numerous programs to help criminals get a job when they couldnt before, it helps people get work experience too which helps them get jobs in the private sector. Prison programs help reeducate poor people so that when they get out of prison they dont always go straight back to committing crimes, but now actually work to sustain themselves and eliminate the need for the government to help them.

"I think going to jail was the best thing for me," Hollenbach said. "I needed to learn and to get my head on the right track. Going to jail stopped me from getting deeper and deeper into the things I did and getting a longer sentence or getting me killed.""

http://readingeagle.com...

3) Death Penalty eliminates the worst offenders

If at first you dont succeed, try try again. This idea allows people to get a do over if they do not successfully re-integrate into the job market through re-habilitation programs that are offered by prisons. In fact people get 4 tries to pull through and not fall into poverty. The reason why people are killed the fifth time around is because at this point it can be assumed that they will always revert back to crime and always be detrimental to the government, to society, and to the budget.

4) Society benefits from it.

There are more problems caused by poverty than its relationship to crime rates. Poverty ridden areas are prone to increased reliance on government funded programs (food stamps to name just one), and poverty rates are also breeding grounds for welfare dependency, homelessness, unemployment, higher rates of unwanted births, and higher cases of divorce which also just exacerbate the effects of poverty on people. Poverty also can mess up a person psychologically as they develop since a lot of people are born into poverty from the start. Poverty also affects people's health and the longer people live in poverty the shorter their life span is.

http://www.poverties.org...
http://www.cliffsnotes.com...

========================================================================================================================================================

Throwing poor people in jail sounds cruel and unusual, but prison does re-habilitate people to be able to get jobs, it helps educate people, and cost wise it reduces dependency on massively funded government programs that only alleviate part of the effects rather than try to fix the cause. This idea allows people multiple tries to try to get their lives on track much more effectively then they could have while they were on their own which is why being poor should be a crime and people who break this law 5 times should be thrown in jail......... Which actually benefits all of us
THEBOMB

Con

Thank you imabench for this debate and I shall begin.

Contention 1. The insaneness of this proposition.

As of 2011, the poverty line was $22,350 per year (for a family of 4). (1) Now according to the United States government, 58.5% of people will spend at least a year below the poverty line some time in their life (1). My opponent is basically advocating that we send about 60% of the United States population to jail…simply for being poor. Not only does this overcrowd our overcrowded prisons, it will have the effect of, obviously, sinking the United States economy simply because there will be no workers to work. My opponent may argue that these people do not fit the second parameter, but, what reason does a person go beneath the poverty line? Lack of income. If someone is refused work then, they have no income, thus, they sink beneath the poverty line. Let's say none of these people can get work after getting out of jail, would my opponent justify the killings of 60% of the United States population?

Contention 2. Cruel and unusual punishment)

How is it not cruel? You are punishing people simply because they may have grown up in the wrong place at the wrong time. In many poorer areas, there are no jobs to be found. Thus, it is simply a cycle of poverty and depravation in these poorer communities. The "United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty." (2)

So let us see, is the punishment too severe for the crime. Sending someone to prison based upon their economic status seems to be way too severe. I mean prison could maybe help some people, but, how prison is better than say, more and cheaper trade and technical schools to help these poorer people learn a trade without having to go to prison. Does it offend society's sense of justice? Yes, if you define justice as getting what you deserve, then, the poor deserve to be helped and raised out of their economic pit. Furthermore, you will be offending a good majority of the population, 60% to be exact. A person should not to be punished for something which inherently is not their fault. Poverty is a cycle, a community is poor, crime moves in, and it stays poor until outside influences change this. You need an influx of jobs and opportunity. Would a less severe penalty than death or 3 years in prison do the trick? I mean prison is a horrible place, I hope my opponent will not argue this with me, why wouldn't a single punishment for one year even two years accomplish the same goal? Why 3.5 years? Why kill them at all? The only reason my opponent cites is for criminal reasons. At the very least, this year or two year in prison will show a person that if they get into drugs, if they kill a person, they are going to go to prison, for a much longer stretch.

Contention 3. Will not change anything

As my opponent says, "Areas that are poverty ridden correlate with areas that have extensive amounts of reported cases of rape, murder, alcoholism, smoking, doing drugs, etc which all end up costing the government more money than other areas. Poverty doesnt actually cause these things, instead these are often ways for people to try to escape from poverty due to lack of better more legal options." Let us say person X kills person Y. Person X is poor. Will person X not go to jail for the rest of his life simply because he killed person Y? Replace murder with any crime you would like, they are still going to go to jail for that crime.

The only way to change things is increased police force presence. One of the most dangerous cities in the United States, ironically, is Washington D.C. according to a Florida State University study there was "a 15 percent reduction in crime in the police district where the White House and National Mall are located when additional officers were on duty during high terror alert days… Overall, crime was down in the city by an average of seven crimes a day or 6.6 percent" (3) Let's look at another city, New York "The police measure that most consistently reduces crime is the arrest rate of those involved in crime, the study finds. Felony arrest rates (except for motor vehicle thefts) rose 50 to 70 percent in the 1990s. When arrests of burglars increased 10 percent, the number of burglaries fell 2.7 to 3.2 percent. When the arrest rate of robbers rose 10 percent, the number of robberies fell 5.7 to 5.9 percent. In the case of murder, the decline was 3.9 to 4 percent; in the case of assault, 2 to 2.4 percent; and for motor vehicle theft, 5 to 5.1 percent." (4) A study by the California state government found that crime dropped due to eleven main factors the number one was the strength of law enforcement agencies. (5) More police leads to less crime. There is a better way rather than just throwing people in jail for growing up in the wrong place.

Refutations

1) Poverty can be related to Criminal Activity

Notice the word "can" what about those poor people who are not committing violent crimes, should they go to jail also because of those who do?

Furthermore, crime is not directly linked to poverty it is in fact, linked to "irrationality. People who have biased beliefs about practical matters, and/or exercise poor impulse control, are likely to screw up their lives across the board. … a lot of crime can be seen as objectively self-destructive behavior that happens to have an unusually large amount of collateral damage." (6) In order to lower crime you also must raise educational rates as "Low education rates, by the way, are also linked to high crime rates." (7) Would it not make more sense to keep people in school to lower poverty and thus crime rather than throw them in jail for being poor? The poor people are not the problem, it is the cycle. Do you think a poor person would rather be poor or rich? I'd say rationally they would want to be rich. Therefore, why not allow them to become rich instead of throwing them in jail? Raise education rates, lower crime, and this gives more incentives for businesses to want to invest in an area.

2) Jail == back on track

Not really. According to the Pew Center on the States, "slightly more than four in 10 offenders return to prison within three years, a collective rate that has remained largely unchanged in years" (8, 9) In many cases, prison is not successful in rehabilitating prisoners which shows it is not the best option to help someone get their life back on track.

3) Death eliminates offenders

Aside from this method being completely cruel, over 40% of people released from prison revert back to crime. Prison is not the best option to rehabilitate criminals seeing how it fails a lot of the time. My opponent suggests we kill people because of the faults in the system.

4) Society benefits from it. (I will address this more later on..running out of room)

My opponent really has not provided any plan for getting rid of poverty. I mean if all poor people are committing crimes they would be getting arrested for these crimes anyway. Arresting people because of their status in life, which many do not get to choose, is cruel and wrong.

Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.fsu.edu...
4. http://www.nber.org...
5. http://ag.ca.gov...
6. http://econlog.econlib.org...
7. http://capaassociation.org...
8. http://www.usatoday.com...
9. http://i.usatoday.net...
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Madness? THIS IS SPARTA

"Now according to the United States government, 58.5% of people will spend at least a year below the poverty line some time in their life"

What kind of an oppressive world would we live in if we threw people in jail the minute they became poor? This program is for people who are poor for an extended period of time but also do not have the means to crawl out of poverty and refuse to try. The percentage of people in poverty in the US right now sits at 42.6 million out of 311.6 million.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.google.com...

42.6 mil divided by 311.6 mil = 13.67% So that right there is the limit of how many people could potentially be imprisoned. When you eliminate those who already have the means to crawl out of poverty, or are not of working age, and have evidence to show they are trying to get out of poverty, then the real percentage of people who would be imprisoned under this program will crawl well south of 14%

"what reason does a person go beneath the poverty line? Lack of income"

Thank you Sherlock Holmes we were all wondering that....

"Let's say none of these people can get work after getting out of jail, would my opponent justify the killings of 60% of the United States population?"

Assuming that NONE of them can get a single job out of 4 tries lasting a span of 40 years (unlikely) then I would keep the option open, especially since the true percentage is south of 14% and not 60%.....

2) Cruel and unusual punishment?

"You are punishing people simply because they may have grown up in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Whoa whoa, its not punishment we are helping these people. Also the only way to violate this law is if you are actively not seeking to try to improve your situation, not just by being poor.

Parameter 2: "Poor people who are of working age and refuse to work and are poor are elegible to go to jail"

If people are trying to help themselves, and they are doing a good job and have the potential to get out of poverty, they wont get thrown in jail. Also people who may slip into poverty who still have the means to recover wont get thrown in jail either.

"So let us see, is the punishment too severe for the crime. Sending someone to prison based upon their economic status seems to be way too severe"

Parameter 2, its only for people who are poor and refuse to try to help themselves.

"I mean prison could maybe help some people, but, how prison is better than say, more and cheaper trade and technical schools"

Oh well lets see, we can make a program to send people who do mooch off the system to jail to get their lives straight, or we can pay to send them to school where student loan debt has now surpassed credit card debt, where the success rate of graduation from there is 43%, compared to 60% from prisons!

http://www.usatoday.com...
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com...

" if you define justice as getting what you deserve, then, the poor deserve to be helped and raised out of their economic pit."

This is aimed towards people who are poor who refuse to work and mooch off the system, when you put it that way then the justice equation gets pretty even...

"Furthermore, you will be offending a good majority of the population, 60% to be exact"

Oh yes the false number your using even though the program only affects 14% of all Americans TOPS.

"A person should not to be punished for something which inherently is not their fault"

Let me try again, Parameter 2: "Poor people who are of working age and refuse to work and are poor are elegible to go to jail"

A person being punished for exploiting the government by going to jail for 3 and 1/3 years just so that when they get out they can have a greater chance to be wealthier doesnt sound like an injustice....

" I mean prison is a horrible place, I hope my opponent will not argue this with me"

I shant not deny this................................... No I wont argue it

"why wouldn't a single punishment for one year even two years accomplish the same goal? Why 3.5 years? Why kill them at all?"

Do the math, 3 tries at 3 and 1/3 years equals exactly 10 years, then for the fourth offense, the term is 10 years. The fifth time it is 20 years which is equal to all previous 4 sentences combined. It is then only after the 6th offense, after 40 years of the government giving them the opportunity to help them, then that person should be put to death. The amount of time and money invested into this person over a minimum of 40 years of helping them who has actively NOT tried to help himself economically and places a burden on society could justify him being put to death.

"The only reason my opponent cites is for criminal reasons."

Along with all of the government programs that taxpayers dump billions into to try to only lessen some of the many effects that are used to inefficiently fight the effects of poverty when other easier solutions are at hand.

"At the very least, this year or two year in prison will show a person that if they get into drugs, if they kill a person, they are going to go to prison, for a much longer stretch."

Sounds like a hell of an incentive to try to find work to me.

3) Wont change anything?

"The only way to change things is increased police force presence"

Increased police forces is once again another tactic that uses millions of dollars to only address part of the issue rather than fix the problem. Increased police forces do not cut down on health problems, drug addiction, divorce rates, high birthrates, or illiteracy.

============================================================================

Poverty to criminal activity

" In order to lower crime you also must raise educational rates as "Low education rates, by the way, are also linked to high crime rates."

Low education = more crime,
poverty = low education,
so then poverty is indirectly linked to crime rates. It doesnt cause it they are simply related which is all I stated.

"Would it not make more sense to keep people in school to lower poverty and thus crime rather than throw them in jail"

I wish we could but the success rate of those schools are lower than that of even prisons.

" Therefore, why not allow them to become rich instead of throwing them in jail?"

WE DO, THATS HOW PEOPLE CAN GET OUT OF BEING ARRESTED!!! If people show they are trying to get out of poverty (Parameter 2) They wont go to jail.

"slightly more than 4 in 10 offenders return to prison within three years"

So thats about 40% per time that person went to jail. This program allows for five terms in prison before putting people to death meaning that the number of people put to death with be

.40 x .40 x .40 x .40 x .40 Which equals 1.024%

So if the 40% number is true then this program would naturally only end up killing 1.024% of everyone who is indicted.

That is a success rate of 98.98%!!!!

Death eliminates offenders

" My opponent suggests we kill people because of the faults in the system."

Twisting of my words much? The prisoners are partially at fault to you know, not just the system. The system though wouldnt fail since the prisoner is given five tries to help himself and still does not succeed, meaning that after 5 attempts there is clearly something wrong with the person, not the system.

"Society benefits from it"

Running out of space too. Society benefits from this program because crime affects all people, and crime rates are high in areas ridden with poverty. But this program targets the problem causing individuals who mooch off government programs rather then try to help themselves, not just people who are poor.

THEBOMB

Con

1)Don't you forget, Sparta lost :P

"What kind of an oppressive world would we live in if we threw people in jail the minute they became poor? This program is for people who are poor for an extended period of time but also do not have the means to crawl out of poverty and refuse to try."

Under this proposition, the United States would be this oppressive world. Nowhere in my opponent's parameters does it say they have to be poor for an extended period of time. Merely, they just have to be poor. So basically, unless the minute someone drops below the poverty line, they apply for a job or provide "evidence" then they go to jail. The parameters provide no time frame, so we must assume, the time frame is instantaneous. Why should we change the parameters now that we are 3 rounds in…out of four rounds. Furthermore, my opponent clearly misinterprets my statistic, I was not saying that 58.5% of the US population (aged 21 to 75) is living in poverty at this moment; I was saying 58.5% of the US population will at some point be living in poverty. Under my opponent's plan, 58.5% of the population will be subject to prison terms (or even death). Now if you "eliminate those who already have the means to crawl out of poverty" then the number is still going to be significant even without an instantaneous timeframe.

"Thank you Sherlock Holmes we were all wondering that...."

The sarcasm was not needed…Although, I believe it goes "thank you Sherlock" not "Sherlock Holmes" :P

"Assuming that NONE of them can get a single job out of 4 tries lasting a span of 40 years (unlikely) then I would keep the option open, especially since the true percentage is south of 14% and not 60%....."

Concession. The true number of people (aged 21 – 75) who will eventually drop below the poverty line will be 58.5%. In my opening arguments I stated, "according to the United States government, 58.5% of people will spend at least a year below the poverty line some time in their life". This proposition is still insane…

2)Cruel and unusual punishment

"the only way to violate this law is if you are actively not seeking to try to improve your situation, not just by being poor."

There was no specific timeline you have to get above the poverty line or prove you have the means to get above the poverty line. So it must be assumed they go to jail the instant they dip below the poverty line.

Also, my opponent never said what kind of work. Illicit work (drug dealing) can get you out of poverty (just look at the people who control the Mexican drug cartels you cannot define them as poor) they earn their money illicitly yet, they still have the potential to make money. So how exactly does this end crime if crime can be the thing which gets a person out of poverty? This law will not change anything because being a hitman for a drug cartel can be considered work…in other words, my opponent wants to add another useless law to the United States law code.

Next my opponent get's into economics, the average technical school/two year college is a two year program and costs about $3,000 a year or $6,000 total. (1) (this will vary college to college but, not by much.) A three year prison sentence costs around $44,000 a year (2). (This number will vary state to state but, not by much). So which is cheaper? I'd say the technical school/two year college. My opponent, also, misinterprets his statistics, the rate of graduation from college is 57% not, 43%. If they had actually read their CNN article they would see it says "Forty-three percent of students who start college will not graduate in 6 years." So if 43% do not graduate then 57% do graduate. Furthermore, despite the huge student loans, "Taxpayers and other lenders have little risk of losing money on the loans." (3)

"Oh yes the false number your using even though the program only affects 14% of all Americans TOPS. "

I implore my opponent to read my arguments instead of just skimming them…you are going to be imprisoning 60% of people at some point in their life. Not now, in the future.

"3 tries at 3 and 1/3 years equals exactly 10 years…"

Time to do some more economics work. Let's say none of these people get killed in prison or need medical attention. We will also assume the current population stays constant to make the numbers easier to work with. Since I have established that at some point in time 58.5% of Americans will WHETHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE dip below the poverty line and there is no set time frame for when the imprisonment begins (so we must assume instantaneously) then, 58.5% of the current population of the US (311.5919 million people) means 182.3 million people will be imprisoned for at least 3 years. So if we say $44,000 dollars. Now time for simple multiplication to be fair we shall say only 40 million people go to jail for these 3 years and to be fair $30,000 dollars a year for a prison sentence (in many crime ridden states it is in fact a higher cost…) so $90,000 equals 3,600,000 million dollars (or 3,600,000,000,000 dollars) over an extended period of time. We must also keep in mind this is only for the first 3 year sentence and not even taking in account most people. Compared to this, social security is cheap…

Even if we take my opponent 13.5% number (downgraded to 5%) we still have a nice 5% times 310 million people multiplied by $90,000 dollars for a 3 year sentence. Comes out to a wonderful $1,395,000,000,000. Still a significant number. In terms of cost, I would say it's much cheaper to have the government simply pay for a poor person's 2 year college costs. They have comparable graduation rates (57% to 60%) and it is still cheaper to pay a person's college tuition.

3)Will not change anything

If the point is to lower crime, then more police lowers crime. Also, if reeducation lowers crime then send people to school.

Since we have established lower crime is directly related to more schooling then send people to school it is cheaper and the success rates of the schools are comparable. Schools also have the added benefit of not costing so much that it would effectively collapse the United States government…Educate people then they do not have to face prison.

You may only kill 1.024% of people at a tremendous cost.

"the prisoner is given five tries to help himself and still does not succeed, meaning that after 5 attempts there is clearly something wrong with the person, not the system."

As I have said above, you can still use illicit means to gain the capital you need to stay out of prison. I mean those people who are in gangs are not just going to get up and reform. What makes my opponent think they are going to be able to get these poor people in prison when we cannot even stop murders from occurring? I mean there are entire gangs of poor people who are trying to get rich.

As for the societal benefits, yes, crime affects all people. Crime rates are high in areas ridden with poverty. But, is my opponent changing anything? No. Work is implicitly defined, through this debate, as the pursuit of wealth. Drug cartels are attempting to sell drugs to make money. So what is my opponent changing? As I stated above, "being a hitman for a drug cartel can be considered work."

1. http://www.collegeview.com...
2. http://www.theatlantic.com...
3. http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

I have to FF this round because I have to study for a calculus final. The con has probably won this debate already but I would still like to say a few things

1) people would not be thrown in jail the second they become poor. The time limit would range anywhere from 3 months to a year, it wouldn't be instantaneous... If it really did concern you then you could have asked me to define such a time limit in round 1, round 2, in the comments section, or in a PM. Dot wait until round 3 to address a problem and then try to tie my hands to not answer it because Pi had plenty of time to do so beforehand. Since the time frame isn't instantaneous that makes the number of people at risk for going to jail less than 14% if they can prove they have the means to get out of poverty.

2) proving people can find work means finding legitimate work, not illegal work like being a drug dealer. To prove you can escape from poverty means showing you have the ability to hold down a steady legit job, not an illegal one.

3) The cost is heavy, I'll concede that, but think about it, if we no loner need all these programs such as affirmative action or Medicaid to help the poor, then the amount of money the US has to pay the costs jumps down quite a bit

4) the 1% of all people being put to death was unrefuted

5) illegal work isn't an acceptable excuse to show one has the means to escape poverty, and this is designed to lower crime, lower health costs, lower divorces, lower pregnancy rates, all kinds of things, not just crime. Education and police only go so far

I thank the con for a wonderful debate nonetheless, and I thank the voters for reading :D
THEBOMB

Con

I'm sorry my opponent had to basically forfeit this round but, nevertheless.

I would like to point out the main argument my opponent conceded. There are better ways to deal with the issue. As I said, and it remained uncontested, "it's much cheaper to have the government simply pay for a poor person's 2 year college costs. They have comparable graduation rates (57% to 60%) and it is still cheaper to pay a person's college tuition." Since this remained uncontested, there is a better way rather than throwing people in jail. The cost alone attacks the refutation. You would be replacing parts of welfare with something which is many times more expensive.

PRO dropped much of my analysis under point number 1.

PRO dropped most of my analysis under point 3.

Now to my opponents last points.

1) It was up to Pro to define all parameter's necessary for this change in the status quo to take place. Since Pro failed
to do so, Con is free to interpret unsaid parameter's.

2) My opponent did not define work. Being a drug dealer is a job, it is work. It just is not legitimate. Once again, my opponent failed to define the term "work" as such, it was up for interpretation. It is Pro's job to define exactly what the change in the status quo should be.

3) Concession. (Plus my analysis above).

4) If there is a better way rather than putting people to death, we should take this option.

5) Work had to have been specifically defined. It was not. I took the implied definition of the "pursuit of wealth".

Thank you imabench for this debate. :D
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Thank you imabench :)
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I congratulate on your victory con :)
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
*growl* double post
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
good debate
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
good debate
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Game on
Posted by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
Im sorry but the urge to give Pro 7 points just for making this resolution is almost overwhelming....
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I don't exactly see the argument he'll make but, okay...
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
16k, no way, imabench is always completely serious when he debates...
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Well, just so people know, this debate is suppose to be serious. So, unless imabanch ACTUALLY makes a good case for the resolution, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
imabenchTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: lololol kfc is very good lol pro spel lol dat is noot gud
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
imabenchTHEBOMBTied
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: Con cleary showed that there was better options than prison and death.