The Instigator
Forever23
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
pittythefool
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Halt Trade With Nations That Practice Child Labor

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 986 times Debate No: 84511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

Forever23

Con

Rules:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Refutations
Round 4: Summaries

No semantics
No Kritik
No trolling

Disobedience of any round rules will result you in automatic concession and forfeiture.
pittythefool

Pro

At this juncture I feel that our products that are widely produced through exploitation need addressing. Yes there is an argument that is widely thrown about by some that these poor souls would not have any employment or means of substinence if they weren't working or for better words inslaved by these companies. My feelings are that commerce needs to fair and transparent. Companies should not be allowed to exploite people for profit. Why business can't be fair is beyond me. Greed seems to prevail and if our governments can't be righteous enough to intervene when really necessary then we as consumers should be more responsible in the goods we purchase.
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Con

My opponent has automatically conceded. Round 1 was acceptance ONLY. He began by stating an argument. That argument was that we need fair trade.

Con wins automatically

Conduct and convincing arguments points go to con.

Vote con
pittythefool

Pro

Ok very strange however conceading is i suppose in the eye of the beholder.
Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Con

Con wins due to rule breaking by pro

Vote con
pittythefool

Pro

Ok if you must..well done!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: pimpmaster// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The people in the debate are not the ones who vote and decide who wins. Con ended this debate when she thought she won the debate due to a rule stipulation. The assertion of "ONLY" was not the rules. I would even consider this a game of semantics. engaging in semantics would lose. Con can make the assertion and point this out to the voters, but the voters make the call. Con decided to end the debate leaving con nothing to argue. Con used semantics, ended the debate, and had poor conduct. It seems con was attempting to win via GOTCHYA style instead of knowing the data. VERY POOR CONDUCT and if everyone engaged in such a debate style would destroy this site. Full point sot PRO to prevent such a dishonest debate style from CON in the future.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain sources or S&G. (2) The voter insufficiently explains conduct. While the voter clearly has issues with Con's style of debating, conduct requires a higher standard of violation.
************************************************************************
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: - I removed my vote seeing that the rule breaking is ambiguous
Vote Placed by Beginner 1 year ago
Beginner
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I say we give this a null vote and be done with it. Mistakes were made on both sides, and both sides can come out learning from it. In fact, this is the kind of debate that is better off deleted, no offense to either debater. :P
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as Pro outlined their argument in round one, which was explicitly specified for *acceptance* only~~and that any 'disobedience' of the rules given by Con would result in an automatic concession and FF. Debate structure was clear, Pro went against it; thus indicating that they hadn't properly reviewed the round one description.
Vote Placed by TheProphett 1 year ago
TheProphett
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite providing an argument, Pro did not read the rules stated by Con and therefore resulted in his immediate concession, which he agreed to in the following rounds. Pro misspelled words frequently in his rounds - S&G. Conduct goes to Con for the breakage of rules
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro broke the rules. Round 1 was for acceptance only. As such, he must also accept concession of his arguments, as is stated in the first round. Also, Pro's spelling was far from easy to read...
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to make an argument. Coduct to con due to an ambigious rule violaton
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Forever23pittythefoolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said that "all rules must be followed", and then in turn forgets to follow her own rules by making the debate a 3 Round, rather than 4, which it was originally set out to be. Since It's 3 rounds, you cannot waste 1/3 of your space just talking about acceptance. You need to write opening arguments in Round 1, rebuttals in Round 2, and Conclusions in Round 3, or at least have some summary of your arguments. This was crap on the side of Con. Seems like she wants to debate just to get wins, rather than get some intellectual achievement out of it. This could have been a good debate, had both sides argued, but Con pressed on some claim about a disobedience to the rules. I will rule this dilatory and award argument points to Pro, since Pro was the only one that had an argument. Con set rules, and then didn't follow them either, as there was no Round 4.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Forever23pittythefoolTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and con only made argument