The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bannanawamajama
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

European Union vs. United States: Who would win a war?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Bannanawamajama
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 20,074 times Debate No: 52348
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

I will argue that the European Union would defeat the United States of America in a war. My opponent will argue the opposite. The debate will be rational, mature, and logical. I expect good conduct and proper spelling and grammar to be used. I feel obligated to implement a few basic rules:

1. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.
2. Sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format.
3. There will be no forfeiting.

The debate will follow the below structure:

Round One: Acceptance only
Round Two: Main Arguments
Round Three: Further Arguments and Rebuttals
Round Four: Final Arguments and Further Rebuttal
Round Five: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion

I look forward to this debate.
Bannanawamajama

Con

I accept your debate, and look forward to it.


I don't know why you are insisting on MLA citations, as that really not necessary on an online debate where you can link directly to whatever you are referencing, but I agree to abide by it.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

I appreciate my opponent's response and I look forward to this debate. I will start by listing facts about both sides and then I will review the facts and tell why the European Union would win.


European Union


GDP per capita: $18.451 trillion

Population (2014 estimate): About 507,000,000

Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom.






United States of America


Total GDP: $16.799 trillion (2014 estimate)

Population (2013 estimate): 317,859,000

States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Sourth Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.



Who would win a war?

We will use the above facts and further information in order to resolve this question. I do not feel the need to present further facts for these are the only ones we really need.

I believe that the European Union would win. The EU is comprised of many nations, while the US is just one. The EU has a much larger population, a greater Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and it outnumbers the United States. I do not see how the United States would win this war. I am not going to take the time to compare the military spending of both sides for I do not feel the need to do so. GDP and population are key. Whose army is going to win?; the one with more members or the one with greater spending? I believe the European Union will emerge as the victor for the population is immense, the GDP great, and the government not as corrupt as the United States government. The militaries of the member states will work together in order to defeat the United States and the European Union will eventually be victorious.

I believe this is a matter of interpretation. We do not need to know the military spending involved and we do not need to be aware of other such facts. The key to this is Gross Domestic Product and population, which the European Union obviously has more of. I do not see how the United States would emerge as the victor. The European Union consists of powerful, successful, extraordinary nations such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. In World War Two, Germany was one of the most advanced militaries in the world. Germany has advanced and now has an even larger arsenal of top secret weapons and the population obviously increased dramatically. The United States, of course, has a large army as well, but let's just look at the numbers and interpret the facts correctly. The United States will be outnumbered and will be defeated. The battle will not be short and easy, but I still firmly believe that the European Union would be victorious in the war.


I look forward to my opponents main argument. Once it has been posted, I will attempt to refute his points and I will support my stance. In that round, I will take the time to find more facts. I will find articles about this topic and quote some statements. I now close this argument and allow my opponent to commence.


MLA Citations

"The EU Member States - the List of EU Members, European Union Members, EU Members – EUCommerz." The EU Member States - the List of EU Members, European Union Members, EU Members – EUCommerz. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. <http://www.eucommerz.com...>.

"United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.

"European Union." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.



Bannanawamajama

Con

I. INTRODUCTION
My opponent argues three main points. 1. The EU has a higher GDP 2. The EU has a higher population 3. The EU is a coalition of multiple nations.

I will be arguing against each of these in turn. Considering the scope of this debate is the EU vs the US, I am assuming all non EU nations are neutral in this conflict, meaning no direct aid or fighting on behalf of either side from anyone else. This includes Russia, China, the rest of Asia, and the nations of Canada and Mexico.

II. GDP VS MILITARY SPENDING
Pro states that GDP is more relevant than military spending. This is not true. While Europe as a whole does indeed have a higher GDP, more resources doesn't affect war if it is not utilized. The European Union has more resources available, but as mentioned by Pro, it also has a larger population to support. A proportional amount of its economy is designated towards things like infrastructure and economic development as the US, meaning a larger amount of the European Union's resources is being spent on things that do not benefit them in an armed conflict. Military spending is the only part of a nation's GDP that specifically will affect their capability in war.

The US spends over $600 Billion a year on national defense spending. The most that any nation in the EU spends, the UK, only amounts to around $50 Billion, or 1/12 of that. The lowest that a nation spends is Estonia with $335 Million, or roughly 1/2000 as much. In order to match the US, each of the 27 nations would need to average over $22 Billion each. Currently, there are only 4 nations meet this requirement, UK, Italy, France, and Germany. Together they make up between 1/4 and 1/3 the spending of the US, meaning the remaining $400 Billion + needs to be made up by the weakest nations of the union. With over half of the nations remaining having expenditures comparable to Estonia, it can be seen that the US spends far more than double that of the rest of the EU. All this money goes to bolstering the military and purchasing the most devastating arsenal of firepower available in terms of munitions and ballistics.

III. POPULATION VS ARMY SIZE
Pro states that the EU outnumbers the US per person. While I acknowledge this, it is important to remember that not all citizens are able and willing to fight. Children, the elderly, and pacifists will not be able to join combat, and untrained civilians are more a liability than asset in organized warfare. Therefore, it is the standing military of the US vs those of the nations of the EU.

According to the reported army sizes of each of the EU nations, there is a sum total of approximately 1500000 active military soldiers available to the EU army. This, admittedly, is greater than the US, with a standing army of 1430000 active military units. In this straight statistic, the EU has an advantage. However, as explained above, the US outspends the entire EU by far. This means that the US army has more available firepower, more tanks, naval vessels, aircraft, and intelligence capabilities funded by their impressive military budget.

The US has over 10x the number of military aircraft that of France, the strongest air force of the EU, and over 100x of Lithuania, the weakest. It has a navy of approximately 80% that of the combined EU, which is spread out over a range of the entire massive coastline of Europe, and an equal number of tanks and armored land vehicles. While the near even strengths of naval and land vehicles and the combined air strength of 27 nations may seem to imply that the EU has a good chance against the US, as previously discussed, the US outspends the EU. This means that if the number of manufactured vehicles is near even, the US must have a far larger stockpile of ballistic missiles and automated drones and defense systems. These systems are even more dangerous than human combatants, as the US can more liberally use these forces without needing to consider possible casualties. The US is free to launch an entire stockpile of drone guided missiles because even if they are shot down, there is no loss to the US.

IV. 1 NATION VS 27
Pro states that the EU is comprised of many nations and outnumbers the US. While this is presented as an advantage, I instead argue that it is a weakness. Since we are assuming that the nations of Canada and Mexico are remaining neutral, and attacking from the West coast would be infeasible without the cooperation of Asia or Russia, the EU is left with the option of invading from the Atlantic coast, in terms of a land/sea based assault. While the possibility of aerial strikes remains, there is not enough of an air force to contain the entire military of the EU, so this would limit their capabilities. America has a far smaller shoreline to protect, which allows them to concentrate their troops into stronger units. The EU, on the other hand, not only has a massive shoreline from which America can land, but more vulnerable locations.

Furthermore, the existance of multiple nations in the EU means there are more targets available. In America, obvious targets for attack would be Washington DC or New York, major cities that would serve as a crippling blow both for politics and morale of the US. In the EU, there is a different capital and major cities for every nation, each of which would not be wiling to sacrifice their own protection. Germany would keep reserve troops away from the front line to protect Frankfurt, France would protect Paris, etc. All of these key locations would drain troop strength from the EU army, as they would not be available to attack. This also gives the US more options to surprise the opponent, while the EU only has a few choices on where to strike in order to effectively harm the US.

Multiple nations also means conflict over authority. There is a clear chain of command in the US, with the President as Commander in Chief and a standardized authority structure below him. Each of the EU nations has its own generals and leaders though, each with equal claim to authority. The arguments and power struggles between nations would make organizing a unified front more difficult and international communications would hamper efforts to coordinate strikes between armies.

V. CONCLUSION
As I have shown, the US has a standing army comparable to the entirety of the European Union, and spends far more in the pursuit of military strength. While the EU technically has more available men, and more naval ships, I have shown that even with similar land masses, the US has more available targets to strike at, meaning the EU needs to spread itself thin covering all its vulnerabilities. In a battle by battle perspective, the US will outnumber the EU in every conflict because they can afford to keep their forces concentrated. Furthermore, US leadership and organization will be more effective because they have established and honed military protocol and structure already in place, while a fully unified European military is still not available with non unified nations. By these criteria, it is clear that the US has the advantage in a full on war.

REFERENCE

"Global Firepower Military Powers Ranked for 2014." Global Firepower. GlobalFirepower.com, Feb. 2104. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <http://www.globalfirepower.com...;.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I will now attempt to refute his points and I will strengthen my previous argument by providing further evidence of why the European Union would defeat the United States in a war. I will begin my rebuttals by responding to each and every point he has made. Then I will support my previous argument. I would like to point out, however, that my opponent wrote quite a lot, and yet used only one source. I wrote considerably less, yet I had three sources. I urge the voters to consider this. Finally, before refuting, I will point out an error in my previous argument. The GDP for the EU was not supposed to be per capita; it was supposed to be total GDP. Without further ado, I will commence my refutations.

Rebuttals

GDP vs. Military Spending
"Pro states that GDP is more relevant than military spending. This is not true. While Europe as a whole does indeed have a higher GDP, more resources doesn't affect war if it is not utilized. The European Union has more resources available, but as mentioned by Pro, it also has a larger population to support. A proportional amount of its economy is designated towards things like infrastructure and economic development as the US, meaning a larger amount of the European Union's resources is being spent on things that do not benefit them in an armed conflict. Military spending is the only part of a nation's GDP that specifically will affect their capability in war.

The US spends over $600 Billion a year on national defense spending. The most that any nation in the EU spends, the UK, only amounts to around $50 Billion, or 1/12 of that. The lowest that a nation spends is Estonia with $335 Million, or roughly 1/2000 as much. In order to match the US, each of the 27 nations would need to average over $22 Billion each. Currently, there are only 4 nations meet this requirement, UK, Italy, France, and Germany. Together they make up between 1/4 and 1/3 the spending of the US, meaning the remaining $400 Billion + needs to be made up by the weakest nations of the union. With over half of the nations remaining having expenditures comparable to Estonia, it can be seen that the US spends far more than double that of the rest of the EU. All this money goes to bolstering the military and purchasing the most devastating arsenal of firepower available in terms of munitions and ballistics."

Some of the points presented above are true. However, I will interpret them differently than my opponent. I believe that GDP is in fact more relevant than military spending. Right now, as the EU and US are not at war, military spending is of course drastically different. However, if war were to commence, the EU nations would quickly utilize all of the resources, including the money, thus causing military spending to dramatically increase. The EU is capable of defending itself, and as it does, it will assemble more and more troops, thus causing it to be able to go to the offensive as well. In time, the EU's military spending will rival the US's. Eventually, the EU troops will assemble and defend the continent of Europe and the respective member states. Even if the United States were to win in the end, it would be a very long and bloddy war. It would not be an easy fight. I remain convinced, however, that the European Union will emerge as the victor.

Population vs. Army Size
"Pro states that the EU outnumbers the US per person. While I acknowledge this, it is important to remember that not all citizens are able and willing to fight. Children, the elderly, and pacifists will not be able to join combat, and untrained civilians are more a liability than asset in organized warfare. Therefore, it is the standing military of the US vs those of the nations of the EU.

According to the reported army sizes of each of the EU nations, there is a sum total of approximately 1500000 active military soldiers available to the EU army. This, admittedly, is greater than the US, with a standing army of 1430000 active military units. In this straight statistic, the EU has an advantage. However, as explained above, the US outspends the entire EU by far. This means that the US army has more available firepower, more tanks, naval vessels, aircraft, and intelligence capabilities funded by their impressive military budget.

The US has over 10x the number of military aircraft that of France, the strongest air force of the EU, and over 100x of Lithuania, the weakest. It has a navy of approximately 80% that of the combined EU, which is spread out over a range of the entire massive coastline of Europe, and an equal number of tanks and armored land vehicles. While the near even strengths of naval and land vehicles and the combined air strength of 27 nations may seem to imply that the EU has a good chance against the US, as previously discussed, the US outspends the EU. This means that if the number of manufactured vehicles is near even, the US must have a far larger stockpile of ballistic missiles and automated drones and defense systems. These systems are even more dangerous than human combatants, as the US can more liberally use these forces without needing to consider possible casualties. The US is free to launch an entire stockpile of drone guided missiles because even if they are shot down, there is no loss to the US."

I acknowledge that children, the elderly, and pacifists will not be able to join combat. However, there are plenty of healthy, resilient men and women that are indeed willing to fight. My opponent states statistics about the size of the EU and US armies. That point supports my stance, actually. As I have already refuted my opponent's military spending argument the rest of that argument is already refuted.



1 Nation vs. 27
"Pro states that the EU is comprised of many nations and outnumbers the US. While this is presented as an advantage, I instead argue that it is a weakness. Since we are assuming that the nations of Canada and Mexico are remaining neutral, and attacking from the West coast would be infeasible without the cooperation of Asia or Russia, the EU is left with the option of invading from the Atlantic coast, in terms of a land/sea based assault. While the possibility of aerial strikes remains, there is not enough of an air force to contain the entire military of the EU, so this would limit their capabilities. America has a far smaller shoreline to protect, which allows them to concentrate their troops into stronger units. The EU, on the other hand, not only has a massive shoreline from which America can land, but more vulnerable locations.

Furthermore, the existance of multiple nations in the EU means there are more targets available. In America, obvious targets for attack would be Washington DC or New York, major cities that would serve as a crippling blow both for politics and morale of the US. In the EU, there is a different capital and major cities for every nation, each of which would not be wiling to sacrifice their own protection. Germany would keep reserve troops away from the front line to protect Frankfurt, France would protect Paris, etc. All of these key locations would drain troop strength from the EU army, as they would not be available to attack. This also gives the US more options to surprise the opponent, while the EU only has a few choices on where to strike in order to effectively harm the US.

Multiple nations also means conflict over authority. There is a clear chain of command in the US, with the President as Commander in Chief and a standardized authority structure below him. Each of the EU nations has its own generals and leaders though, each with equal claim to authority. The arguments and power struggles between nations would make organizing a unified front more difficult and international communications would hamper efforts to coordinate strikes between armies."

The EU does not have a clear chain of command like the US, I admit that. However, the EU has a different system and we must respect that. Europe has a Parliament. In a sense, the Parliament can be compared to the President. I will concede that the European Union has more sites to defend. I grant my opponent this argument. I do grant him this point, but I will continue to fight him on the issues of military spending vs. GDP and population vs. army size.


Arguments Continued
The EU's geography will help it win the war. Below is a map of the European Union:



Below is a map of the United States:

The European Union has more penninsulas, islands, and such geographic features. This will enable more forts to be built and for naval fleets to be protected. The US does have one pennisula - the state of Florida - but it does not compare to European pennisulas, such as Italy and Greece. Geography is key to any war. The EU has a longer coastline, but this could be considered as an advantage: more land. My opponent may view this as a disadvantage for he would argue that the EU has more sites to defend. That is true, but the geography allows Europe to protect its forces more easily and the United States would have a harder time eradicating these forces.

The United States would fall eventually. Once Europe captures and/or eradicates the capital of the United States, chances of American victory will fall dramatically. Europe has an advantage: it has no capital. The member states have capitals. It would take longer for the US to cripple the EU. All the EU would have to do is capture Washington, D.C., take major cities such as New York and Chicago. The US will be paralyzed and will have to surrender.

In conclusion, the European Union would emerge victorious. It would be a long and difficult war, but it would be won by Europe.

Sources:
I did not use sources in this argument because I believe that refuting my opponent's arguments is more important. I used common sense when making this argument. Please do not penalize me for not using sources in this argument. Thank you.


Bannanawamajama

Con

I. INTRODUCTION
Thank you Pro, I will now re-rebutt. I won't add any more arguments as I believe we have enough to discuss now that it is not necessary for discussion. I wish to address Pro's critique on my argument having only one source to his 3. While I used only one source, mine was rich in information which I used in my argument, using data to support each of my arguments. Pro had 3 sources, 2 of them were Wikipedia articles, which are not considered reliable due to the lack of oversight and ease of manipulation, and one was simply a list of nations in the EU, with little further information available. While I admitt to being lazy and not wanting to use many sources, mostly because MLA citations are a hassle, my one source provided ample data to support my position. My opponent had more sources, but mine was of higher quality.

II. GDP USAGE
My opponent is operating under the assumption that any funds that a nation has can instantly be diverted to national security. This is untrue. National governments rely on detailed bookkeeping and planning, especially on its budget. This is called mandatory spending, and it involves paying for things a government has already bought or made a commitment to doing. This could be paying back debt, or funding government agencies for work they've already done. Because of this, GDP cannot be applied directly to military spending in times of need, because it has already been spent. Looking at this chart[1] we can see that most of the European Union countries in the past few years have been in budget deficit, meaning that they spend more than they have in GDP on domestic programs. As such, there is no extra money to be put toward military spending. The US already has a higher spending in military than the rest of the EU, so they do not need to find extra, and therefore have the advantage.

III. ARMY SIZE
Modern warfare is far more complex and technologically advanced today than it was 70 years ago. It is no longer adequate to simply have a will to fight in order to serve your country. Complex battle tactics and operation of specialized war equiptment requries high training. Civilians cannot be expected to be drafted into the army and be battle ready in any short period of time while still being able to keep up with current technology. This may have been possible in World War II, when fighting was relatively straightforward, but now with the advent of automated defenses and tactical strikes, it is unconscionable to send men to be slaughtered when they have no idea what they are doing. While the EU has a larger population, untrained noncombatants will not be ready to fight for a long period of time, giving the US an instant edge. Furthermore, as I mentioned last round, the US has more equiptment like aircraft and missiles. This means that WHEN the two armies swell due to training civilians for combat, the US will have a higher capacity to hold them, because they have more vehicles. The EU would be saturated first, and therefore be unable to keep up with America's mobility.

IV. SHORE DEFENSE
I fear that Pro has misunderstood my argument from the last round. Pro argues that having more shoreline is a benefit, because it means more forts can be built to protect the navy. However, the amount of naval bases is not in any way limited by available space. There are very few actual bases at all that need to exist to house the entire naval fleet of any given nation. Therefore, having more bases is meaningless, as there is already enough housing space for the entire navy either way. On the otherhand, having a larger coast to guard means that naval fleets need to be spread more thinly. The European Union has 66000 kilometers of shoreline attributed to it, while the US has around 20000[2]. As I mentioned last round, without the aid of non EU nations, the European Union would be hard pressed moving its ships around the world to get to the Pacific Coast, so the US only need to guard 10000 kilometers more or less. This means that the European Union needs 6 times the number of combatants defending the coastline as the US in order to provide the same protection per kilometer of vulnerable land. Since the EU army is not six times larger in any respect, this means that at any point on the respective coastlines the US can have a stronger defence. If both the US and the EU both send one command of ships each to attack a single base of the other, the US would have a stronger chance of victory because they will face less resistance at that point of attack. I would ask for clarification on the part of Pro as to why Europe's geography makes it easier to defend, as he states, as I do not fully understand this reasoning and therefore can't respond to it.

V. NO CAPITAL
While the European Union has no direct capital, each individual capital is still vulnerable. If a US army division invades England and captures London, all of the UK will surrender, regardless of the fact that the rest of the EU survives. This will cripple the EU because that is one of their strongest members. Similarly, as seen on the map Pro provided last round, France has a land bottleneck making it easy to cut off from the rest of Europe and take as a secondary target. Germany or Italy are likely the two strongest EU nations, but if France and the UK are eliminated first, they will lose their advantage of numbers. While the EU doesnt have any one strikepoint, it has at least 27 minor ones, each of which would cripple the EU by removing one of its members from battle. The US needs only to fortify 2 or 3 cities for the possiblity of invasion, while the EU needs to guard 27 or more. The US could station an entire Corps of troops in DC, but the EU would need to divide that up to provide protection to every nation. This means, just like in the shoreline example, the army will be spread thin and be easier to defeat in a point location analysis of combat.

REFERENCES
1. Commission, European. "Life in the Red Zone." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com...;.
2.Central Intelligence Agency. "Field Listing :: Coastline." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. <https://www.cia.gov...;.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

I have no further arguments or rebuttals. I will now write a conclusion paragraph regarding this debate.

Conclusion
I believe that both my opponent and I debated remarkably well. I did misunderstand a few things, yet I still understand his stance and his arguments. I remain convinced that the European Union would defeat the United States, unless the voters prove otherwise. Really, the outcome of this debate is not decided by me or my opponent; it is a matter settled by the voters. I urge the voters to give my opponent the 'more reliable sources' points. I do concede to the fact that I did not use as many sources. However, I believe my argument was still strong enough. In the end, however, the voters decide. I hope the voters read the debate thoroughly and vote fairly. Whether I win or lose, the debate was fun and I hope to debate this topic again one day, however more strongly.
Bannanawamajama

Con

My opponent offered no additional arguments this round so I have nothing to respond to.

I believe I have sufficiently argued that the US would win this war. America allocates more resources toward military strength than the entirety of the combined EU, has a more unified fighting coordinated fighting force, and has geographical advantages for setting up a defensive front.

I support all my arguments with documented sources with specific data to back up each statement. I therefore believe I have made the stronger case in this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

I have nothing further to say. I just hope the vote turns out fairly. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I really enjoyed it. Thank you.
Bannanawamajama

Con

I already gave a sufficient conclusion last round. I argued my point better I believe, and my position is correct.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kefu 12 months ago
kefu
European Union would win. The USA citizens are made up of european citizens and ancestors of europeans. There would be a major civil war and USA would fall apart from within.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
Because I have no further arguments or rebuttals, I will post something philosphical.
Posted by Bannanawamajama 2 years ago
Bannanawamajama
I see you've made your closing statement, but you know theres still one more round right? what do you want to do in the last round?
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I made an error in my main argument. The GDP for the EU is not per capita. It is supposed to be total GDP.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I will post my argument within the next 48 hours.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
The US spends more on our military then the EU put together 5 times.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPBannanawamajamaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Mostly, they were tied. Both Pro and Con made great arguments.