The Instigator
PervRat
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Corporate greed is more harmful than taxes collected by the government

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  
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: 4/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,975 times Debate No: 7855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (12)

 

PervRat

Pro

I put the topic up for debate that:
Corporate greed is more harmful than taxes collected by the government

I declare that PRO (myself) shall need to prove, to win this debate, that Corporate greed has a greater cost with a lower return to the people of the United States than taxes collected by the United States government (and state and local governments).
I declare that CON shall need to establish the converse: that the taxes collected by the government are a worse harm than corporate greed.

I shall allow CON to actually establish the opening argument, and thus I am making this four rounds. In the hopes of staving off my own wordiness that I worry has caused my previous opponents to slow their responses, I have reduced a character-limit to arguments to 4,000 characters. However, PLEASE NOTE that I have reduced your time to argue to 48 hours, so if you expect to have a lot of real-life interference for the next few days, please do not bother accepting this challenge.

Further, I ask the audience to refrain from trying to become a "third debater." I also ask my challenger (or the audience) to not attempt to make arguments in the "Discussion Tab" until the debate is over.

I have an overabundance of time on my rat-paws. If you find you dislike my position, but do not think the challenger is doing a good job at opposing me, feel free to challenge me! I can handle more than one debate at a time.

AGAIN, I FOREFEIT ARGUMENTS THIS FIRST ROUND to allow "Con" to make opening arguments. Thank you for accepting my challenge, and good luck!
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"Corporate greed" consists of the desire to make a profit by using the corporate model to create things people use at a very efficient rate. It makes possible, among other things, your acess to a computer. Every time a person voluntarily spends money on a corporate product, they prove they value the product more than the money.

By contrast, the fact that people AREN'T spending their money willingly on what the government presently offers them, and the government has to rob them at gunpoint (tax them) demonstrates they value the government's service less than their money. Taxation, unlike "corporate greed," fails the economic calculation problem-- there is no method to rationally determine how much of it brings a greater product than a cost. And since politicians are motivated by the nature of their election system to exceed whatever that amount is (there is little doubt that, say, spending on subsidies to nonsuccessful corporations in local states from the funds of successful ones from other states destroys value, yet that is done on a regular basis), they naturally fall on the losing end of that model.

Each of the essential services of government can be provided through a nontax model, by way of user fees-- such fixes this economic calculation problem. The continued existence of taxes gets in the way of this, thus adding an additional cost to the tax system by way of what is given up in the form of better government services, ones actually subjected to economics.

When one thing is inherently required to be superior in it's product to it's costs or die out, and the other has the opposite motive utterly in such regard because it can hide the costs among politically unpopular places and will receive campaign funds from the person receiving the plunder, the result is inevitable.
Debate Round No. 1
PervRat

Pro

"Corporate Greed" to me is the "most toys" mentality that people wish to be much better off than having to worry about affording a place to live, food, etc. To me, corporations further this with such tactics as sexing up notions of high-horsepower vehicles over sensible ones.

Corporate greed is inescapable if you wish to have a roof over your head, a car to drive to work to afford that work over your head, food to eat, water to drink, something to pass by the time you can't afford to do otherthings, and a job to pay for it all. The basic necessities of life are all owned by corporations, completely out of democratic control and the moment the CEOs determine that you are not a profitable sector of the economy to keep making their products affordable to you (or by contrast, that the loss of quality their products would endure by dumping your job for overseas slave labor).

Compare Medicare to private HMOs. Medicare offers significant bang-for-buck efficiency in terms of revenues it collects from payroll taxes to what it doles out for actual medical services, and in addition HMOs actually have people hired strictly to refuse to pay for critical services for their customers in dire need of medical attention using very flimsy excuses (a woman had a yeast infection as a teenager that was quickly cured, her HMO when she was in her 40s determined when she needed to go to a hospital, after paying years into the HMO premiums, that the yeast infection she went through as a teenager was a pre-existing condition; the woman nearly died from her medical problems in her 40s). HMO agents actually get paid multi-thousand-dollar bonuses for every coverage claim they can find a way to dismiss (this was admitted to in testimony given before Congress!)

== COMPARISON OF CORPORATE GREED TO GOVERNMENT GREED ==
Let's say the government raises everyone's taxes to 50%. No one actually pays that much, but let's say for the sake of argument that actually happened. How horrible! Half of the money you make is now going to the government.

Let's say that the corporation you work for decides to ship your job overseas. Its better for everyone, because the slave labor and lax environmental laws really drive down the cost of production, the stock owners and executives will then have a lot more money for themselves. You've now had a 100% loss of income.

Now tell me, which is the greater harm that impacts your life more, in the above scenarios: the 50% increase in tax or the 100% cut in income?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

""Corporate Greed" to me is the "most toys" mentality that people wish to be much better off than having to worry about affording a place to live, food, etc."
And, they shouldn't be much better off than that?

If corporations could magically "sex up" such cars, they'd "sex up" transportation via cardboard box-- low costs, therefore higher profits for them if they pull it off. Yet they haven't.
People like high horsepower vehicles on their own. At best, a company can convince a customer that THEIR high horsepower vehicle is better than the competitor's. It cannot omnipotentrly convince them which sort of vehicle is best for their needs.

"The basic necessities of life are all owned by corporations,"
They are PRODUCED by corporations. But they stop being owned by them when sold. This is, again, points in favor of the corporation-- the only reason you buy from the corporation instead of anything else is that the corporation does a better job producing it. All of the things you mentioned, except such advanced things as cars which only result from corporate greed, are things you can attain in other ways-- but not as well. This is because corporate greed is BETTER at providing them.

"completely out of democratic control"
Not entirely true, unfortunately the mob manages to pass all too many regulations with those tax monies of yours. But to the extent it is out of democratic control, yay. It replaces it with control by RIGHT- control of everything by the one who created it until he chooses to sell it. This is superior to the advance auction of stolen goods by whoever can steal them which is an election.

"and the moment the CEOs determine that you are not a profitable sector of the economy to keep making their products affordable to you (or by contrast, that the loss of quality their products would endure by dumping your job for overseas slave labor)."
Corporations do not enslave overseas labor. They hire overseas labor that was starving due to an insufficient amount of corporate greed being allowed in their countries, using their size to threaten local tyrants into allowing them to provide the things people need by trading it for those people's labor, saving millions of lives by the simple act of trying to make a profit. To the extent the people in question are "slaves," this is the fault of governments.

"
Compare Medicare to private HMOs. Medicare offers significant bang-for-buck efficiency in terms of revenues it collects from payroll taxes to what it doles out for actual medical services, and in addition HMOs actually have people hired strictly to refuse to pay for critical services for their customers in dire need of medical attention using very flimsy excuses"
There is no such thing as a "private HMO" in today's world. The "private" health sector is CRIPPLED by government regulations. Taxes go into DESTROYING the values it could have created. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...
Furthermore, you're measuring efficiency improperly. The proper measure of efficiency would be whether the people whose money is being spent value the health services in question more, or what they would have otherwise bought-- and there is no question there :).

If you wish to find HMO's that refuse fewer claims, pay for a better contract. It's that simple.

"You've now had a 100% loss of income.

Now tell me, which is the greater harm that impacts your life more, in the above scenarios: the 50% increase in tax or the 100% cut in income?"
Things like the 100% cut in income are CAUSED by the tax money, and the regulations it's spent on. Without tax increases, employers can employ more, and there are fewer regulations that can be bought by tax money to make you less employable.

In a free market, even if somehow outsourcing were possible, you'd just find a job slightly down the wage curve-- and the loss would be efficiently minimized :)
Debate Round No. 2
PervRat

Pro

Confession time: I'm hating the character limit I put. I had made a more responsive post three times this size in Notepad that I couldn't get to fit into my character limit, my only solution was to focus on HMO vs. universal health care in this argument, just trust that my original rebuttal had a lot more, heh. I think I'm going to stick with full 8k post limits in all my future debates I create. Respects, as always, to my opponent and regrets I could not respond to all his points in this rebuttal.

===

"Control by RIGHT" ... that's far more true of beauracracies who are on government salary instead of stocks and bonuses to do the best job they can carrying out a duty to help people instead of profiting off of them. Imagine where we'd be if police or fire departments were managed by corporations the way hospitals are. If you have no insurance and no means to pay, no one will put out the fire destroying your house and no one will bring the creep who raped your little girl to justice. Thousands of people die annually from medically preventable causes that would be caught and treated early if they had regular access to a doctor. Compare this with "socialist" states which have a fraction of our per-capita expenditure on health care (and yet many of our "capita" get zero "product" from our health care system). They pay less than we do out of their paychecks for health care, and get much more!

I can think of no stronger proof for my case than the fact that our corporatized health care system kills more people every year than al-Qaeda killed on 9-11. There's no shock and horror sight of skyscrapers crumbling in smoke and dust or a hole torn in our nation's military command center, its spread out in every state and community, so its easier to hide, bury and not think about, but I don't see why Americans left to die by HMO greed are any less victims than the victims of terrorism.

No "first" or "second" world country on the planet has a corporatized health care system even vaguely resembling that of the U.S. All of theirs are provided by the government through "evil" taxes. The result? Overall, people pay much less for their health care (in terms of how much money they pay in taxes to fund the national health care systems) and get unhindered health care access. No rewarded-for-killing-people corporate judge hunts for excuses on why they don't need to cover a patient for critical life-saving procedures even though that patient has been a customer paying gargantuan premiums for years. It is absolutely atrocious and ridiculous to lay even a significant portion of blame on government taxes and regulation for this situation.

I challenge you to shop around to find what HMOs you can get as an alternative to your employer-supported one. By and large, there are zero alternatives ... you can pay thousands of dollars in premiums, or you can gamble that you just won't get sick or injured or need regular health care. Pay them to make sure the chambers are empty when you are forced into a game of Russian Roulette by corporations, or take a gamble that the loaded chamber just won't come up every day you are forced to play that game.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"I'm hating the character limit I put."
You're not alone :)

"that's far more true of beauracracies who are on government salary"
It's far more true that salaries funded by plunder leads to control by right? How can plunder =right?

"Imagine where we'd be if police or fire departments were managed by corporations the way hospitals are."
First off, hospitals are mostly run by bureaucratic mandates, private corporations just take the crap they're given for rules and try to find some way to make it function (as a result, most hospitals are nonprofit). Second, if they were managed by corporations in a free market (the issue is not whether they are run by corporations as such, since governments ARE corporations, simply ones engaged in plunder rather than trade), they would be subject to the laws of economics and therefore economized upon-- i.e., oolice services would go where they were valued, instead of on tracking down druggies, hookers, and other folks whose "Crimes" harm no one. Fire departments are already fairly well run, I don't envision much change in them in a free market, though they would no longer have to "ban buildings" for not complying with "fire codes," and could instead simply charge higher fire protection rates to those buildings.

"f you have no insurance and no means to pay, no one will put out the fire destroying your house and no one will bring the creep who raped your little girl to justice"
The alternative being slavery. The risk of not being competent is more than outweighed by the reward of actually having a shot to live a life that is YOURS.
By the way, I can imagine quite a significant possibility of charities providing funds for the protection of children against rape, as evidenced by the current popularity of denouncing even non-rape relations with children. Same people who work for Perverted Justice would probably be more than willing :).

People don't HAVE regular access to a doctor when the government controls health care. They have regular access to a waiting list (unless, in some countries, they have political clout, but clearly earning service by providing something in exchange for it is a superior basis to having political clout).

"Compare this with "socialist" states-- hey pay less than we do out of their paychecks for health care, and get much more!
"
They get much more if you think of humans in terms of cattle-- you get more, healthier meat, because expensive services become impossible to obtain, the money that would otherwise be spent on them by those who earned it going instead to fund statistics for those who did not earn it. They do not get much more in terms of a total product-- since the "expensive" illness is often outweighed by the great productive capacity of the person who has it, and yet many cannot produce enough to justify even the cheap illness.

Of course, as evidenced earlier, under a free market (as opposed to our regulatorily crippled market) access across the board is cheaper.

"I don't see why Americans left to die by HMO greed are any less victims than the victims of terrorism.
"
"Leaving someone to die" means "leaving them alone.--" i.e., not being their slave. Refusal to be a slave is not the same as attacking another person.

"
I challenge you to shop around to find what HMOs you can get as an alternative to your employer-supported one."
Irrelevant. Our current system is a direct result of taxes, as are the other systems. The differences are trivial compared to those obtainable in a free market. It is the free market, not our current regulated one, which I am supporting.

"when you are forced into a game of Russian Roulette by corporations"
"Force" has nothing to do with the corporations. The corporations create health care, it's up to you if you wish to accept it. "Force" is what happens when you make those who create health care, and the things which make it possible, your slaves. Which you do :)
Debate Round No. 3
PervRat

Pro

Hospitals and funding ...

Hospitals are mostly run by HMOs. HMOs decide what and how much they fund. The CEO is between you and essentialy services. If the HMO says to pull the plug, no matter what the doctor or patient want, the plug gets pulled. This was admitted to in testimony before Congress! Despite rumors to the contrary, no one gets free medicine ... an indigent who goes to the ER gets a $700 bill that will get reported to the credit bureau before they even do anything. Someone who commits the crime of getting sick gets punished with a bad credit score.

"... don't envision much change" for Fire departments in a private sector. Aside from the fact that tens of millions of Americans would not have any fire protection at all anymore, you mean, and that those who do will pay many times more than they currently do in taxes to fund stock dividends and multi-million-dollar executive bonuses, and if the "FMO" decides to be less than thorough in funding, a small fire could be left smouldering a bit because the FMO won't fully fund putting it out?

"Expensive services become impossile to obtain" ... you think the cream of the U.S. crop has the absolute best in the world? Wrong, one of the most socialist states on the planet, Sweden, I believe carries that spot! The best tech, and its universal health care! In fact we import a lot of medical tech from Sweden. And ... WTF, you think it is -good- to let unrpoductive people die from diseases expensive to treat? I simply have no answer whatsoever, none that are rational anyway, to such a remark! It reeks very much of aristocracy or caste, and very much in opposition to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and justice for all. Oligi-ocracy anyone?

"... as evidenced earlier, under a free market ... access across the board is cheaper."

Umm, what? What evidence? That's patently false, the W.H.O. proved it! No socialized health care system costs more than our corporatized one!

"not being their slave"
So HMOs should not be slaves to actually fund their customers' health care as they are supposedly in the business of? Have you actually read what you are writing? In your book, people should hand over their money to an HMO and not expect anything in return, most certainly not having their health care covered as the HMO promised! I guess you feel HMO CEOs and stockholders are in dire need of charity.

"Irrelevant?" Umm, no, I challenged you to find a single example. Employers rich enough to offer heatlh care benefits don't buy into more than one option, so you are stuck with whatever your employer offers, if anything, buddy! I submit you just proved my point and disproved your own.

HMO corporations do /not/ create health care, they merely tyrannize and profit from the appearance of providing it. Doctors and hospitals create health care, but they are overruled by what an HMO will pay for. Its up to them if they actually fund a procedure or not, and even for paying customers with legitimate needs who have paid tens of thousands of dollars over the years in obscenely high premiums, they can still refuse to fund a basic procedure. In effect, they take a customer's money and can and have provably provided customers with nothing for that money if you actually get sick and need help. "Their way or the highway-to-the-graveyard-way" is not free choice. Pay us a lot of money and we might help you or might not, or do not pay us (if your employer even allows you the luxury of paying us for which we might give you nothing in return) and die ... sorry, I don't see a free choice there.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Hospitals are mostly run by HMOs."

"
HMO corporations do /not/ create health care,"
Contradiction

"HMOs decide what and how much they fund."
In a free market, whether you join an HMO or pay your own way is up to you.

"The CEO is between you and essentialy services."
Wrong. Unless you are somehow capable of paying for it in their absence, they aren't "between" you and anything, except in the sense of providing it.

"If the HMO says to pull the plug, no matter what the doctor or patient want, the plug gets pulled."
Not if the contract says otherwise.

"This was admitted to in testimony before Congress!"
People will admit to all kinds of crazy things when their livelihoods depend on it, and make no question about it, dissent from the official party line by a company in a business as government-controleld as health care is not healthy for the company.

" no one gets free medicine ... an indigent who goes to the ER gets a $700 bill that will get reported to the credit bureau before they even do anything."
If someone is already screwed credit wise, such is essentially free.

"Someone who commits the crime of getting sick gets punished with a bad credit score.
"
A "Bad credit score" is not a punishment. It's an accurate assessment of your likelihood of repayment. Further, the crime is not getting sick, but stealing expensive health care :)

"Aside from the fact that tens of millions of Americans would not have any fire protection at all anymore"
How many people who are poor enough that they wouldn't be able to afford fire insurance (with the relevant drop in their taxes) own significant assets to protect from fire?

"those who do will pay many times more than they currently do in taxes to fund stock dividends and multi-million-dollar executive bonuses"
Such things only happen for companies on an EXTREMELY large scale, as a result of the efficiency gains of that large scale. The per customer efficiency gains necessarily out way the per customer costs of these things, or incorporation on that scale will become economically undoable.

"and if the "FMO" decides to be less than thorough in funding"
You mean, if the customer chooses to sign a contract covering less than thorough insurance (to get cheaper insurance). Their choice.

"the cream of the U.S. crop has the absolute best in the world?... Sweden, I believe carries that spot! The best tech, and its universal health care! In fact we import a lot of medical tech from Sweden."
Sauce?
And "Importing tech" from Sweden means it's OUR markets paying for it.

"WTF, you think it is -good- to let unrpoductive people die from diseases expensive to treat?"
As opposed to slavery? Certainly.

"and very much in opposition to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and justice for all."
Let's analyze this:
The right to life implies the right to one's OWN life-- not the right to enslave another.
liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) require my plan.
"Justice" iscausality applied to human action. Health care is only caused by production-- and can only justly be applied to the productive.

"
What evidence? That's patently false, the W.H.O. proved it! No socialized health care system costs more than our corporatized one!"
R2 link proves our health care IS socialized.

"
So HMOs should not be slaves to actually fund their customers' health care as they are supposedly in the business of?"
They should be held to contracts- no more.

"Employers rich enough to offer heatlh care benefits don't buy into more than one option,"
Clarifying-- government created employer-tied insurance, by tying tax privileges to it. Otherwise, you would be paid more wages, and free to choose health care in an open market :). Indeed, gov't created our present insurance system entirely, without it, out-of-pocket health costs would be affordable (especially due to lack of free riding, lack of duty-to-care laws.)
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I don't have money to legally emigrate. Mexico is too violent, and has an even more stratified caste society than the U.S."
But it's stratified by gunmint! :)

"Canada I have other issues with"
Such as?

"
I don't think you got the full meaning of means of emigration ... sure, I could cross illegally, but I won't do that."
What commitment! What resolve!

"
BTW, welcome to capitalism - http://cgi.ebay.com...... - you and I have just been sold.
"
No, the website has been offered (not yet sold). It's Phil's property, we are guests :).
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
I don't have money to legally emigrate. Mexico is too violent, and has an even more stratified caste society than the U.S. Canada I have other issues with, but it would be a "lesser of two evils" between the U.S. and Canada.

I don't think you got the full meaning of means of emigration ... sure, I could cross illegally, but I won't do that. If I moved, I would go with enough money to legally afford the emigration and to do it right, I guesstimate somewhere between $20,000 - $100,000. I am far from having a net worth even close to that, I am completely destitute.

BTW, welcome to capitalism - http://cgi.ebay.com... - you and I have just been sold.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I mean, I sure as hell know, if there were an actual, honest-to-godless capitalist country somewhere in the world, I would not rest, I would devise a plan for the quickest means there possible.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Btw, rat... even if you don't have the resources for an ocean crossing-- why not Mexico or Canada? You have feet dontcha?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Lol guys. You make Mexico's model sound pretty much exactly like the Nordic model, except one works out at the moment and one doesn't.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"One of the most socialist states on the planet, Sweden, I believe carries that spot! The best tech, and its universal health care!"

My wife is from Sweden and I have been there. Everything you are told about Sweden misses one key point as to why their system of socialism works: Their population has remained static at around 9 to 10 million for the last thirty years. Socialist societies can work with small populations with some degree of success so long as your trade is totally lopsided to exports and not imports as it is there in Sweden. The only thing that Sweden imports to any large degree is fruits and vegetables. They manufacture just about everything that people need in their own country and export the same amount to the rest of the world. They don't have to rely on their own people to fund 100% of all their welfare programs, they have a constant supply of outside money making up the difference. Combine this with 0 population growth and you have a viable socialist system. Their system will never work here not now not ever.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Mexico suffers from gargantuan destitution because of unregulated capitalism that has super-concentrated the wealth in much the same way as capitalists press for here in the U.S."

Mexico is not capitalist. PROGRESA is funded by VATs and subsidies (program cost is something like 50+ billion). Pemex is taxed at an absurdly high amount, 62% of profits (to the point where Pemex is significantly in debt to maintain production).

If anything Mexico is headed towards the Chavez socialist system of waiting for foreign invested infrastructure before claiming it. NAFTA encourages foreign investing; however to be allowed an S.A. or an S.A. de C.V. requires 'third party management' - i.e. hire a national and it becomes far easier to have a business.

The party in power, PAN 'encourages' free enterprise (make money so we can take it) but is highly restrictive on individual liberties.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Extreme capitalism as you propose allows zero regulation."
Depending, of course, upon a definition of "Regulation" :)

"Governments are not allowed to set safety or environmental standards, nor collect taxes to pay for the social and environmental damage corporations cause in their persuit of stock prices and executive bonuses."
This part is mostly true-- no safety standards, and no environmental standards except for universally applicable torts (air, mostly, along with leachable waters).

It does not change the fact that they are allowed to enforce contracts.

"
That ten thousand workers who are very productive should get kicked to the curb so the executive can give himself the equivelant of several times their collective pay as a personal bonus to me says companies are badly under-regulated."
You're engaging in the counterfactual and treating it as factual. It is not true that ten thousand workers who, in actual net effect are "Very productive" can get fired in order to give an executive a bonus, any executive doing it would be fired for costing their company profits.

"Suddenly, the nation has 10,000 people no longer able to pay taxes, nor any of their bills, so how do you propose to make up that lost income?"
If it is true, as you claim, that those workers are "Very productive," in net effect, then firing them has removed production from the market. This causes a demand spike-- someone will hire them in order to create the missing products.
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Extreme capitalism as you propose allows zero regulation. Governments are not allowed to set safety or environmental standards, nor collect taxes to pay for the social and environmental damage corporations cause in their persuit of stock prices and executive bonuses.

That ten thousand workers who are very productive should get kicked to the curb so the executive can give himself the equivelant of several times their collective pay as a personal bonus to me says companies are badly under-regulated. Suddenly, the nation has 10,000 people no longer able to pay taxes, nor any of their bills, so how do you propose to make up that lost income? By cutting taxes even more to the executives who abandon their own workers?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"All of the abuses I told you corporations could put in place, they would be free to do so if there were no regulation. "
Is there a reason you post things after I've rebutted them?

See here:

"
You're equivocating on "Regulation.""

In the sense of the enforcement of contracts, capitalism permits regulation. It permits none other, however :).
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: medicare wins it
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
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 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 philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
PervRatRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00