The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Capitalism: part II

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,050 times Debate No: 20064
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




I would like to strike back at your last comments from our last debate. This time, please carry on an intelligent debate.

I would like to fire the opening shots. You wanted the good points of Capitalism, well here they are (they are not all of the good points). Along with them, I also have some attacks on socialism.

Defense Point 1: Capitalism allows for the vast majority of people to live comfortable lives. It allows for the free (as in the right to) growth of wealth.

Defense Point 2: Capitalism allows for the consumer to ultimately decide, what products should be produced and how many products that consumers will buy. Then the market sets an equilibrium price that allows for the consumer to one, shop where prices are cheaper, and two, get a say in what a particular price should be. This efficient system allows for shortages and surpluses to be eliminated in a timely fashion. This system allows for the consumer to decide what he wants.

Defense Point 3: It allows for the country's economy to grow, thus increasing both consumer wealth and business wealth, which in turn allows for consumers to buy more of the products that they want and the businesses to make more of the products that consumers want.

Defense Point 4: As consumers and businesses get more money through overall economic growth, this allows the businesses to pay higher wages to their employees, which allows their employees to buy more products from companies, and the cycle constantly repeats with businesses getting richer and more successful and consumers to get richer and to get more of the products that they want.

Defense Point 5: It allows for the poor to help their situation by allowing them to choose which job pays the most, which increases his wealth.

Attack Point 1: In most socialistic countries, most of the people are in poverty, and are not free to grow wealth for the government sets a maximum amount that people can save, and just tax the rest.

Attack Point 2: Socialism only allows for the Government to decide what is produced, how much is produced, and at what price the products will be sold at. This means that consumers have to take what the government gives them, and they may or may not end up with the products that they want or how many of that product they can buy. This in turn makes shortages and surpluses rampant. In most countries, the price of essentials is too high, and the number too few for the efficient transfer of resources, which makes poverty.

Attack Point 3: Neither consumers make much more money, for the Government taxes it all, and the businesses are not allowed to make profits, the profits go to the Government, which does not let the business expand and grow, and the businesses can not keep up with consumer demand.

Attack Point 4: Since businesses aren't allowed to make a profit, businesses can not increase employee's wages, which in turn, can not cycle more money into the business. Economic growth is cut off.

Attack Point 5: Since most employees are stuck at the same job most of their life, only a Government motion can increase wages, since the employee is not allowed to look around for higher wages, nor can the business make profit which in turn. the business can not increase wages. And that Government motion comes rarely.


Thank you for this second round of this debate. If I don't answer during the Friday- Sunday it's because I'm at state in Kansas City for Debate.

dp1. Proove it. The depression was caused by the stock exchange and in the last debate you said the stock exchange was Capitolism. So therefore, Capitolism leeds to Depression. Depressions leed to war. Europe was a peaceful place in the 20s, but the depression poiseed German public opion that helped bring Hitler to power. Source Meede 2009

Dp2. He is explaining how it works
Dp3. also in my response to dp1.
dp4. You said putting money in Americans pockets is a good way to boost the economy. When these jobs are made the government pays for it leeding into defiset spending. Just look what happend to France. You may say the U.S. is a superpower they can get away with anything. Well your wrong. the big countries get the hamer the most.
dp5. 99% get poorer and the 1% gets richer in Capitolism.
ap1. true socialist countries have a 75% tax rate
ap2. Hobbes says the people are cruel and should be ruled by a strong leeder.
ap3. government leaves the people with 25% so in realidy 25% is middle and 75% is the Government.
ap4. They get raises when there is an inflation.
ap5. The government has power to stop the buissness from going bankrupt to going over board.
my attack.
The U.S. dollar is key to the U.S.'s hegemoty in the world and the dollar has been effected by inflation.
Debate Round No. 1


Response to Point 1:
One of your points destorys your response "True socialist countries have a 75% tax rate". Do you think that the common population is making much savings with that tax rate? The great depression (similar to the 2008 financial crisis) really shows how regulation of the economy can hurt a marketplace.": Please read this article, and make your debate from there. Also, several socialistic countries have a stock market, including the Communist China. And depressions only lead to war when you have Hitler+Angry Germany+Great Propaganda+Hate towards Jews+World War I+Versillies Treaty+Depression. Depression was only one of the many factors in letting Hitler take power and start World War II

Response to Point 2:
Now explain to me what is wrong with that efficient system.

Response to Point 3:
Do you have a better rebuttal? Consumers and businesses both get a lot wealthier so that both can satisfy the other's needs and wants under Capitalism. Socialism destorys this system.

Response to Point 4:
The Government does not and should not pay for private sector jobs. Therefore, the deficit is not increased in this way. And yes, putting more money in Americans pockets is a lot of a better way than just pumping money into the economy. Can you make a better argument?

Response to Point 5:
Everybody gets richer in Capitalism. Even the poor. They have more money today than they did in 2000. In socialism, the bottom 90% gain nothing, and the top 10% or the party officials get a lot richer.

Response to Point 6:
Congratulations. You destoryed your own argument.

Response to Point 7:
And Ron Paul says, "We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the government provides largesse for the majority, the special interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress's legislative time.":

Response to Point 8:
25% of employee's small salaries only barely covers living expenses. This means that little employee money can be saved.

Response to Point 9:
I was talking about the Real Wage, or "The term real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation. This term is used in contrast to nominal wages or unadjusted wages. Real wages provide a clearer representation of an individual's wages.": This means that consumers do not have more BUYING POWER, or they can not buy more. They have more money, but it is worth the same after inflation. Therefore, no real salary raise.

Response to Point 10:
And that makes the Country's Deficit bigger. Just look at the massive bank bailouts the US's Government pulled. Those made the deficit a lot bigger.

Defense Point 1:
"Placing all the blame on the depression on the greed of individuals means you are overlooking the back-story behind the event and pointing figures at an easy target.

It is similar to saying the Titanic sank because it is made of Iron and steel, and while yes the titanic was made of iron and steel and those elements do sink in water it wasn't the reason it sank. Ships made out of iron and steel float all the time. Only when something major happens (like hitting an Ice Berg) do they sink.

In a similar way, only when something major happens to the economy does it change. The major shift that happened during this time was government regulation.":

Defense Point 2:
"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!": A Ron Paul quote.

Defense Point 3:
"Capitalism is the only economic system in the world that promotes voluntary excellence in individuals. Individuals are rewarded based on the amount of value they provide to the market. Capitalism provides incentives to be great and invent things that were never thought possible. It is a system that promotes growth among individuals and society as a whole.":

Attack Point 1:
"You can't save free markets by socialism, I don't know where this idea ever came from. You save free markets by promoting free markets and sound money and balanced budgets. The whole reason why nobody wants to address the real problem is, we're spending a trillion dollars a year overseas running an empire, and it's coming to an end. This country is bankrupt, and we won't admit it. Eventually though, the dollar will go bust, and we will bring our troops home, and we will live within our means, but we ought to do it sensibly, rather than waiting for the collapse of the dollar, and this is what we're doing, we're on the verge of destroying our dollar. And then, you think we have problems now, problems then will be a lot worse, it'd look like the Weimar Republic, or a third world nation. And a lot of people know that, and they're scared to death, but we don't need to be making the problem worse by just propping up everything with more government programs, more inflation, and more helicopters, it won't work.": A Ron Paul quote.

Attack Point 2:
Besides China, how many countries are economically, politically, and socially stable in this article?:


p1. sorry don't have time to read that right now. I'm being rushed do to studdies for debate/ forensics.
P3. no
p4. that is what I'm saying
p5. No sources provided therefore until then I'm right
p6. . wait what?!
p7. so you're saying the American people are stupid and can't do anything.
p8. true
p9. ???????
p10. yes, but with the debt 14 Trillion it won't be long before countries play the hold out game.
d1. I don't get
d2. you said besides China China is socialist
Nothing lasts forever and obvesously Carl Marx knew this. Socialism is a graduial transaction from a Capitolism instead of a violent overthrough of the system. In todays world, a simple war can turn into a nuclear hollicost. It could cause a nuclear Winter.
Debate Round No. 2


Response to Point 1:
I don't know your schedule exactly, so here is the article again if you have time: If not, don't worry about it.

Anyway, my arguments I used in "Response to Point 1" from Round 2 are extended to this round since you did not post a rebuttal to my statements.

Response to Point 2:
Since you have failed to provide even a response for Point 2, I will just add an attack along with my previous statement "Defense Point 2" from Round 1.

"Capitalism demands the very best of every person and rewards him or her according to his efforts and skills, accordingly. It allows anyone the freedom to choose the work or business of their skill and interest, and to trade that labor or product for either the equivalent monetary value, or an equally desirable product or service in trade (which the IRS would now still tax!). The value of a person's work is determined by the free market where there is a 100% correlation between the value added to society and the compensation earned in return. In true capitalism, it is the consumer is king.":

Now please debate in Point 2 this quote and my previous post from Round 1.

Response to Point 3:
Since you can not come up with a better rebuttal for this point, and your rebuttal was to look at your Point 1, I must again say my arguments I used in "Response to Point 1" from Round 2 are extended to this round since you did not post a rebuttal to my statements.

Response to Point 4:
Well the Government paying for jobs is certainly not a Capitalistic idea. " Under capitalism, it is the government's job to make sure there is a level playing field for privately-run companies by enforcing laws and regulations.": The Government dosen't add jobs in Capitalism.

Response to Point 5:
There should be no need for sources. People everywhere across the United States are getting richer. That is a fact. Even with the recession, the vast majority say that they are better off economically than they were in the year 2000. The unemployment rate is reasonable (compared to a lot of countries), and the inflation rate is almost negligable. But in countries like Spain with a very high unemployment rate and Venezuela with a very high inflation rate, Socialism is proven wrong. Even Singapore and New Zealand, who are even more Capitalism than we are have almost no cyclical unemployment ever, and a very small inflation rate with little poverty.

Response to Point 6:
I said that the Government taxes people until they have little savings money, and you backed me up by saying that most socialistic countries have a 75% taxation rate. Thank you.

Response to Point 7:
That quote backs up something I like to call the "welfare effect". It states that "once a person is on enough welfare to sustain themselves for a long period of time, most people, even once their financial situation improves, will not want to go back to work because they can just get free money from the Government, and they don't even have to do anything". More simply, if you worked a hard job and earned $50,000 a year, then you became unemployed, and got $45,000 in unemployment benefits per year, would you give that up and go back to your job? No. Why? Becuase you get money for nothing.

Response to Point 8:
Thanks again for destroying your own argument. This means that you just said that socialism makes people live bad lives and have no savings.

Response to Point 9:
Amount of money and buying power are two different things. Amount of money is how much money you have. Buying power is how much you can buy with that money. If your salary gets a yearly bonus each year that equal the yearly inflation rate, you have more money, but you can not buy anything more because your money is worth less. Get it? And if your raise always equals the inflation rate, you do not have any more buying buying power than you did last year. But in Capitalism, where you usually get a extra bonus ON TOP of the inflation rate, the employee actually has more buying power. Do you get it? Raising with the inflation rate is not raising the real wage.

Response to Point 10:
My point was that if Governments stopped doing the Socialistic practice of bailing out big businesses, then the government's debt would not be so high. Bailing out businesses increases the debt or decrease tax revenue.

Response to Point 11:
Think of it this way; a stick of dynomite blows up a very stable building (very safe, sturdy, and zoned). Did the building cause it's own collapse? No. The dynomite did. The building was very stable (like the stable 1920s Stock Market), but the dynomite blew it up (the beginning recession of the late 1920s). Get it? The stock market did not cause the great depressions. Stock markets can not cause a economic crash.

Response to Point 12:
You did not post a rebuttal, but a very gramatically incorrect sentence which I do not get for that reason. Please one, elaborate on that, and two, make your grammar better.

Attack Point 1:
"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism.": Do you get this statement? I was just saying that you can not condemn Capitalism for the things wrong with the American and European Economics since neither of them have had Capitalistic Economics in 80 years.

Attack Point 2:
"Capitalism is the only economic system in the world that promotes voluntary excellence in individuals. Individuals are rewarded based on the amount of value they provide to the market. Capitalism provides incentives to be great and invent things that were never thought possible. It is a system that promotes growth among individuals and society as a whole.": This means that Capitalism allows for the individual employee do not only need to do the best he or she can, but for he or she to want to the the best he or she can so that they can earn more money. Capitalism makes businesses and employees want to do better so the business can make more money, and not go bankrupt, and so the employee make more money, and not go unemployed. It gives incentives for progress and productivity. Socialism does not, and that is why Socialistic Countries eventually fall behind on the world stage and economy.

Attack Point 3:
Besides China, how many countries are economically, politically, and socially stable in this article?: Please answer me. Or will it destroy your argument?

LANNAN13: I have delayed this as long as I could. I hope I have given you enough time. You have until 12:18 PM on Monday to post your argument for Round 3.

VOTERS: If lannan13 does not post his argument for Round 3, please forgive him.


I went 2-3 at state. Thank you Paul for up holding your promise other debaters haven't.
I'll just give the first two points sorry I'm booked.
4. Well no matter where you go there will be jobs needed and gov. has every right to step in and do somethin and even Hobbes ideas back this. He said people are bad by nature and should be ruled by a strong government.
5. Proove it, have you not been watching the news and reading the news as of late. People are poor and have started to go with the OWS.
6. You're welcome!!! Do you think after this debate we can debate something else, plese. As you see I ain't good at this.
7. exatly, but people have health insurance and other benefits. So I sure beside the 5,000 dollar difference they would stay.
8. ???
9. What ever happend to the money you don't spend, eh?
10. What about the trusts from the 1900s.
11. No, it is a more than a stick of TNT it is more lick several strapped to some supports. some supports fall, makes dar marks, and damages the ceiling. The building is the U.S. due to the rolling 20 (before the TNT) it doesn't destory America but it damages and scares it.
12. Carl create this system where it would be the alternate opion from Capitolism. To prevent a deadly world war and in today's world a war would mean a nuclear war. a Nuclear Winter is when the smoot from the missles block out the sun and cause extition. also a single EMP that would strike the U.S. it would frie the power grid and many people would die in hospitols (they only have a weeks worth of generators) and of food poisoning
Debate Round No. 3


Response Points 1-3: My arguments for these points from Round 3 are extended into this round. Debate them if you like.

Response Point 4: The fact that jobs are always needed means that the Government does not and should not have to step in. Letting the free market decide who gets jobs is more efficient than the Government deciding for various reasons. And one, people are not bad by nature, and two, it is the strong Government that has destroyed the work ethic in this country through handouts. Look at my "welfare effect" point from the last round.

Response Point 5: One, OWS is losing people, not gaining people. The source for this is that OWS is no longer in the first page or even in the fron section (except for the op/ed section). The are now only covered locally. In other words, New York City's OWS is only covered in New York City, not in say Atlanta. And two, just google Venezuela's inflation rate, or Spain's unemployment rate. And google Singapore and New Zealand's economy. They are some of the best in the world.

Response Point 6: Are you conceding this part of the argument? Yod did prove my point.

Response Point 7: Again, you are destroying your own argument. How? Because you are conceding that the welfare effect exists. This is the main reason for poverty, unemployment, and slow economic growth. Could you either make your point clearer, or do you have a better rebuttal?

Response Point 8: You said I was right. There is no better concession than that.

Response Point 9: Do you still not get it? If salaries only go up with the inflation rate, your money, however more you have, is worth the same as you had last year. That is the side effect of inflation. The money you don't spend again goes up, but most likely, it will only go up with the inflation rate. Is this your point? Do you still not get the concept of inflation and real wages?

Response Point 10: I don't see what this has to do with this debate or my point. The trusts of the 1900s had nothing to do with Government Bailouts.

Response Point 11: I will cover three points. One, the stock exchange did not and could not cause the Great Depression. There have been several incidents of stock market crashes (especially in the 1980s) when the economy took no hit. Two, if you are hinting that tighter regulations would have prevented the Great Depression is wrong because thousands of new Government Regulations caused the stagflation of thr 1970s and the Recession now. They did not prevent them. And three, the Great Depression was caused by an economic slump (not really a profound statement though).

Response Point 12: Your point is completely irrelevant.

Response Points 13-15 (my three attack points): My arguments for these points from Round 3 are extended into this round. Debate them if you like. At least debate Attack Point 1 about how the economic slumps of the last 80 years (including the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, and the Recession) could not have been caused by Capitalism, since our country has not been purely Capitalist since just after World War I.

VOTERS: After this, this my seem like a boring debate. I will attempt to pick it up by firing several attack points at my opponent in my final round argument. I will attempt to make this debate as interesting as possible. They will be very persusasive and backed up with either one or any combination of logic, theories, or proof. I will also attempt to use sources to prove my opponent's points wrong. At least 1 if the point needs at response (like point 12 does not need any sources), and at least 3 if my opponent askes for them. And there will be at least 2 to back up each of my attack points. Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of Capitalism: part II.

LANNAN13: I hope you can respond to each and every one of my points this time, including the ones that I carried over into this round. Please make an intelligent rebuttal to each point.


4. Jobs are needed and its the governments job to create them and to look at for the wellfare of the people.
5. So just because they don't have the front page dosen't mean there going down, it just means they're old news.
6. yes
7. people are greedy by nature and must have more money and more benefits and more of everything its just human nature. Hobbes backs my point.
8. okay then moving on
9. I'm a kid I'm not good with money.
10. I'm saying the business world should stick together in one group that way it would be easier to fix and to control.
11. Great depression was caused by deficet spending. Marshall Plan and marked the end of the Roaring 20s.
12. How
13. There have been several economic recessions in the last 80 years. Its america's own falt for some. With the parcal democries they set up.
Voters: sorry I've been bussy so I couldn't be detailed on the rounds.
Ron-Paul: I will in the final round unfournautly.
Debate Round No. 4


Response Points 1-3: Since you didn't respond to any of these points, I will simply use them in seperate attack points later in this argument.

Response Point 4: I will seperate this into two seperate points.
Point 1: Yes. Jobs are needed (VOTERS: This is a fact)
Point 2: "Every time the federal government undertakes some simple task, it becomes an effort to reinvent the world. Last week it was revealed that a $20 million stimulus program in Seattle to weatherize homes had managed to weatherize three homes and create 14 jobs in its first year. Nothing is ever straightforward. Every city has lots of companies in the business of weatherizing homes. But the government can't just go out and hire them. It has to throw in provisions for taking people off the street for job training with special outreach for Spanish language speakers and so by the time all this is thrown into the pot, nothing gets done.": The government one, does not have the obligation or right to create jobs (I invite you to pick up a copy of the US Constitution and state me the passage in there that contradicts me), and two, when the government does try to create jobs, it usually does it horribly.

Response Point 5: Newspapers love to make money as much as other businesses do. The most important or sensational news stories are printed from front to back (or the first section has the biggest news stories, and the further away from the front section, the more mundane the story, and the further away from the front page of a particular section, the more mundane the story is). I have noticed that OWS has not even been mentioned on the news channel either. Plus, they are losing membership drastically. "At its height, Occupy was a few thousand leftists in a park. Now it is a few hundred leftists without a park and with a couple of faculties that really should be put to a more productive purpose.":

Response Point 6: Thank you for the concession (VOTERS: This is a concession by my opponent). Please do not come back to this point.

Response Point 7: People are greedy by nature. That is why socialism exists. Becuase the poor want the rich's money. " the truly essential biological part of human nature is the capacity to experience the feelings of others as much as our own feelings. Rather than greed, this capacity for solidarity may be what makes us distinctly human.": "think a lot of people are materialistic, but only a few (unfortunately the ones who are usually in charge) practice greed":

Response Point 8: Thank you for the concession (VOTERS: This is a concession by my opponent). Please do not come back to this point.

Response Point 9: I will seperate this into two seperate points.
Point 1: I see that you are ignorant of much economics. The concept of the difference between real wages and nominal wages is hard to grasp for some, but they will eventually get it.
Point 2: You forget that I am 2 years younger than you are. How are you not good with money when I am excellent at economics and I am even younger than you?
I will not count this as a concession, but please do not come back to this point.

Response Point 10: Do you know why the trusts were created? Your beliefs to not align with socialism. You are saying that companies should be able to merge and form massive monopolies (I believe this is ok, but I am a Capitalist, you aren't). It's America's socialistic policies that try to stop these mergers (look at the antitrust lawsuits brought upon AT&T for trying to merge (or take over) T-Mobile:

Response Point 11: You are flip-flopping. First, you said that the stock market caused the Great Depression, and now you are claiming that deficit spending caused the Great Depression. Did I change your mind, you did you change your own mind? Either way, deficit spending had absolutely nothing to do with the Great Depression. I can't even find a source linking or disproving the two. And what does the Marshall Plan have to do with the Great Depression? "The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism.": No connection.

Response Point 12: We are debating Capitalism, and you bring up nuclear winters and EMPs. Irrelevant.

Response Point 13: In Capitalism, there are recessions, but there is an equal, if not greater amount of boom period time. If you analyse a Capitalistic country's economy over a length of time from a couple of years on, you will find in almost all cases that there is some economic growth. There is always steady growth in a Capitalistic economy. And again, partial democracies are a socialistic ideology because they advocate for a bigger government, so naturally, they favor that the laws they pass are not seen by the general public until execution. In pure Capitalism, there is no strong Government (hence why I and Ron Paul say that America does not currently have a Capitalistic Economy), so there can be no partial democracies.

ALL: My opponent has not attacked me on the other grounds that most debaters either address or directly attack me with, so I have no attack points.

VOTERS: Please give me the Spelling and Grammar point. You can see why. I leave it up to you to decide who won this debate. Vote Pro.

LANNAN13: Thank you for this debate. Thank you for accepting this debate, and thank you for debating with me. This was a clean debate. Thank you.


1. I never siad they weren't jobs are important to bost the economy if people have no jobs then they can't buy stuff to put into the economy.
7. I siad people are bad by nature for I was going off Hobes beliefs.
9. I'm more of a history and science guy
10. Corefirst Bank and Trust is still fully functional and opperational.
11. Marshall Plan was to fix the countries and get them back on the road on there own.
12. No it's not a clash and downfall can leed to war and war today with nukes.
Voters: I clearly lost give the points to Ron-Paul
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For lannan13: Well it dosen't matter now.
Posted by lannan13 6 years ago
don't worry I did
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For lannan13: While I was reading your Round 4 debate argument, I noticed that you gave me a comment in your argument that stated "Voters: sorry I've been bussy so I couldn't be detailed on the rounds. Ron-Paul: I will in the final round unfournautly." I know what the first comment meant, but I do not know how the two go together. Does your comment mean that you are busy again, and will hastily write your Round 5 argument, or does that mean that you will have a lot of time to write a very good argument? I just want to know before I post my last round argument so I know how to format it. If I did not post my Round 5 argument, that means only that you haven't answered this e-mail yet with an adequate response. Please answer as soon as possible so I can post my Round 5 argument as soon as possible.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For lannan13: If you end up having to forfeit Round 3, that is ok. I have told voters in my Round 3 argument to forgive you and to not charge you the conduct point if you do. But if you end up forfeiting Round 4 and/or 5, I am sorry, but I think I am going to ask voters to give me the conduct point. Is this fair? I will allow one forfeit and one forfeit only.
Posted by lannan13 6 years ago
thank-you I apperiate that
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For lannan13: I believe you.
Posted by lannan13 6 years ago
If I end up forfitting a round it would be because I'm at state in Kansas City. If you don't believe me go to the national forencis, look up points. go to kansas-flint hills, Topeka High, Allan-Michael Lannan
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For lannan13: It's ok. The first round never really counts anyway. It just states what the parameters of the debate are, and what aspects are to be debated.
Posted by lannan13 6 years ago
sorry for the sloppy 1st round I was rushed on the computer.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
OK. Wednesday it is. See you then.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 6 years ago
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically swept the field.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 6 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had superior points and expanded on them far more than con.