The Instigator
thelemite
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Zasch
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Have Americans lost their desire for Freedom & Liberty in order to let the Fed. Gov. foot the bill?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/8/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 1554
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

thelemite

Con

Social Security, alternative energy, health care, marriage, smoking, welfare etc. etc. etc.

It seems that in the 21st century our Federal government wants to have more and more control of our daily lives. When does it end? What part of our daily lives will the Federal Government allow us to make our own decisions?

I fault the government for their continuous encroachment of our freedom and liberty but I fault the American people more for allowing this to happen.

Our female candidate for President wants to "take those [oil company] profits..." Excuse me? The Federal Government confiscating the profits of a private company to do what they want with it?

Let the debate begin!
Zasch

Pro

The disagreement in this debate will likely come over the definition of what it means to be a free person. Is freedom merely the absence of interference from others, or is freedom the ability to enact one's own will? I subscribe wholly to the latter view of freedom. To explain why, allow me to illustrate: Suppose that one day I wake up in a large pit. It just so happens that I was sleeping in a park when some natural event happened and a large fissure was formed. I am now unable to escape, and nobody appears to be there to assist me. Would we say that I am a free man? In a sense we can: it was not that someone violated my liberty by putting me in the situation, and it is not as though the government is preventing me from getting out. It seems as it this situation, intuitively, is a non-free one. Why is this? Because freedom is not merely seen as absence of interference or restriction; freedom is the ability for me to live my life in a way that is pleasing to me without restricting the freedom of others to do the same.

Is that possible, though? Perhaps if I live isolated out in the woods, but in normal human society it seems clear that there are people who ultimately are able to perpetuate themselves ahead and there are humans who fall behind. Those who fall behind face a restriction of their liberty on both fronts: they lack the resources to live their lives in a way that they see fit, and the society itself is structured such that there are significant restrictions on their ability to acquire those resources (for instance, an inability to afford an education or healthcare resulting in an inability to generate wealth). It may be tempting to say that the person is still free, as there is no man holding a gun to his head, but a man denied both the tools and the opporitunity to develop those tools for self-actualisation seems to be little more than a serf or a slave.

All human interaction is going to require that the actions of other humans be constrained, and thus we must then decide to what extent ought it be constrained. To what extent do certain measures negatively and positively impact the liberty of various groups? As it relates to the federal government, many of the programs that you speak of involve wealth redistribution: the state is forcibly expropriating the property of some people in order to pay for various things. I should note that this is a problem with taxation in general (and, ultimately, a "state") and is unavoidable. The question, once again, comes to the degree by which this situation is a tolerable infringement on liberty.

Speaking from just a values perspective, liberty is going to be infringed upon no matter what we do. Thus, we must look to the consequentialist outcomes in order to determine what the appropriate course of action ought to be. We can frame the issue as attempting to measure the value of a dollar, in terms of liberty: how many "liberty points" are lost per dollar taken in taxation? More directly, by how much is the ability of a person to live their lives in accordance with their desires reduced compared to the amount taken in taxation? Let us once again use some scenarios to try to tease that out:

1. Suppose that my sole goal in life is to eat bread. The cost of bread is $10, and my income each month is $10. Suppose further that $5 is taken from me in taxation. I am thus unable to eat bread. Relative to bread-eating, the loss of my liberty is quite high.

2. Suppose that my sole goal in life is to eat bread. The cost of bread is $10, and my income each month is $1,000,000. Suppose further that $1,000 is taken from me in taxation. Here, the loss of my liberty does not appear to be particularly high; the amount taken from me is nearly 200 times larger, but my ability to actualise my desires is not negated in the slightest, given my considerable financial power anyway.

3. Suppose that the above situation is reality. However, suppose further that the government then gives, of that $1,000, enough to allow the man in situation 1 to purchase bread. His liberty is enhanced in far greater proportion to the marginal infringement on the liberty of the rich man.

Of course, the real world is more complex than this, but it seems that the value of a dollar has a diminishing marginal utility as compared to already accumulated dollars. It thus follows that the consequential infringement on liberty follows the same pattern.

Therefore, if the programs in question are efficent enough, it could easily be the case that it is an affirmation of the liberty of a great many people in society to have those programs exist. Far from Americans straying from freedom, it may be the case that Americans are instead embracing the totality of freedom rather than merely a narrow, constrained definition thereof. To do otherwise would result in an even greater infringement on the liberty of the American people.
Debate Round No. 1
thelemite

Con

>>>The disagreement in this debate will likely come over the definition of what it means to be a free person. Is freedom merely the absence of interference from others, or is freedom the ability to enact one's own will?<<<

When we talk about freedom and liberty we are talking about both of the above but only in the context of government. That is the scope of the debate as written. The reason being is that the government has an ability that we as citizens don't have, that being, the ability to use force to accomplish its goals.

If I lose my job and am unable to feed my family, would it be right for me to cruise on over to the rich side of town with my .45, hold it to the head of the first person I meet, take 35% of the money that they have on them because I have a need for it? Of course it's not. Neither is it right for the federal government to do the very same thing.

>>>Suppose that one day I wake up in a large pit. It just so happens that I was sleeping in a park when some natural event happened and a large fissure was formed. I am now unable to escape, and nobody appears to be there to assist me. Would we say that I am a free man? In a sense we can: it was not that someone violated my liberty by putting me in the situation, and it is not as though the government is preventing me from getting out.<<<

Although this is a ridiculous analogy, I will still address it. Yes, you are a free man having a bad day. You are free to exercise your will and get yourself out of your predicament, or you are free to sit on your duff and not deal with the problem at hand.

>>>It seems as it this situation, intuitively, is a non-free one. Why is this? Because freedom is not merely seen as absence of interference or restriction; freedom is the ability for me to live my life in a way that is pleasing to me without restricting the freedom of others to do the same.<<<

Based on this statement, you believe that anytime an individual experiences obstacles in life that they are not free. At your age I can understand how you came to this belief, but please believe me when I tell you that life is full of obstacles. There are many instances in everyday life where an individual will have to do something that is necessary rather than doing something that is pleasing to them. I myself would like to sit at home and play on my Playstation all day and get intoxicated. Being a responsible family man, obviously I can't do this. I have to work everyday so that I can feed myself and my family. Does this mean that I am less free? Of course not!!

>>>Is that possible, though? Perhaps if I live isolated out in the woods, but in normal human society it seems clear that there are people who ultimately are able to perpetuate themselves ahead and there are humans who fall behind. Those who fall behind face a restriction of their liberty on both fronts: they lack the resources to live their lives in a way that they see fit, and the society itself is structured such that there are significant restrictions on their ability to acquire those resources (for instance, an inability to afford an education or healthcare resulting in an inability to generate wealth). It may be tempting to say that the person is still free, as there is no man holding a gun to his head, but a man denied both the tools and the opporitunity to develop those tools for self-actualisation seems to be little more than a serf or a slave<<<

The downside of Freedom is responsibility. I am free to do anything I want, but I have to accept the responsibility for my actions. If I play video games all day and stay drunk, the end result is that I will lose my home, my family, and everything, especially my pride. An individual is free to succeed but s/he is also free to fail. Both are part of this thing called life. It would be nice if it were a sure thing that if we followed a certain formulae, that everything turns out fine. But that only happens in fairy tales.

>>>As it relates to the federal government, many of the programs that you speak of involve wealth redistribution: the state is forcibly expropriating the property of some people in order to pay for various things. I should note that this is a problem with taxation in general (and, ultimately, a "state") and is unavoidable. The question, once again, comes to the degree by which this situation is a tolerable infringement on liberty.<<<

For the first 137 years of the experiment on freedom that we call the United States we had no wealth redistribution. We had tariffs, property taxes etc. It wasn't until 1913 that our government came up with income taxes and it wasn't until WWII that we had payroll deductions.

Taxes in themselves are necessary. Civilization needs money to work. But wealth redistribution is a whole other thing entirely. In 2006 our government spent 2 trillion of taxpayer dollars in Medicare payments.

http://www.latimes.com...

So the government confiscates money from those who earn it to pay for someone else's healthcare. Pardon me, but pay for you own healthcare. When I had surgery for a hernia back in 2001, I'm sure I could have gotten it paid for by the government, but why should I burden you with my health problems. I ended up going to private charities, and personal contacts to pay it off as I sure couldn't afford it.

How many more jobs and how much more wealth could have been created if that money had been left in the pockets of those who earn it?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the percentage of the income in this country is earned by the richest 1% of all income earners? Second, what percentage of all the income tax paid in America is paid by that same 1%? I'll give you the numbers next round after you respond.

>>>Therefore, if the programs in question are efficent enough, it could easily be the case that it is an affirmation of the liberty of a great many people in society to have those programs exist. Far from Americans straying from freedom, it may be the case that Americans are instead embracing the totality of freedom rather than merely a narrow, constrained definition thereof. To do otherwise would result in an even greater infringement on the liberty of the American people.<<<

I still don't see the logic in your arguments. If someone else is footing all the bills for someone, that person isn't free. They are slaves. Even a benevolent master is still a master. I serve no man but me. Do you own yourself, or does the government own you?

Thank you.
Zasch

Pro

>>If I lose my job and am unable to feed my family, would it be right for me to cruise on over to the rich side of town with my .45, hold it to the head of the first person I meet, take 35% of the money that they have on them because I have a need for it? Of course it's not. Neither is it right for the federal government to do the very same thing.<<

From an ends-based perspective, it is difficult to see why this would be at all immoral. When one is faced with the choice of either taking a fairly inconsequential amount from some person or letting several people die, I do not believe that there are going to be a particularly large number of people who say "Well, part of freedom includes the freedom to starve...". Indeed, the violation of the liberty of the family is so massively great and the violation of the liberty of the rich person so small as to create an almost overwhelming imperative to take the money. Dead people aren't free.

>>You are free to exercise your will and get yourself out of your predicament, or you are free to sit on your duff and not deal with the problem at hand.<<

Your response would be quite appropriate if we lived in a world where simple effort could solve everything. We do not live in such a world.

>>At your age I can understand how you came to this belief,<<

I would ask that we dispense with the ad hominems for purposes of discussion. Address the argument, not the man.

>>but please believe me when I tell you that life is full of obstacles.<<

Especially when they lead us to make assumptions so easily turned.

>>Does this mean that I am less free?<<

Of course it does - you are not free to implement your desire to play Playstation all day. In a hypothetical universe where we live in a state of superabundance, perhaps you would be able to do so and thus have a greater amount of freedom, or control, over your own life. As a society, we are willing to tolerate this infringement on our liberties because contributing back to the society is the only thing that can make it function (cross-applying the reasoning for taxation). Without this infringement on our freedoms, we would face a far larger loss of liberty. However, unless you are defining freedom to avoid relation to achieving ones will entirely, you are clearly marginally less free.

>>The downside of Freedom is responsibility.<<

Once again, this would be a comforting thought if we lived in a univrse where ultimately the outcomes of all things came down to "personal responsibility" - unfortunately, this is often not the case. If I am a rural farmer in Africa, all the "personal responsibility" in the world is not going to feed my family at all. If my family and I are dead, obviously our liberty is going to be entirely nonexistent - and being dead due to starvation versus the bullet of a gun is of little distinction to the dead man.

[[[t we call the United States we had no wealth redistribution. We had tariffs, property taxes etc.]]]

Both tariffs and property taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. Wealth is being taken from some person and distributed to another person.

>>It wasn't until 1913 that our government came up with income taxes and it wasn't until WWII that we had payroll deductions. <<

Interestingly, 19th century America was notorious for its oppression, its extremely large class divisions (that resulted in very large labour strikes and even threatened revolution at various points), and a rather depressing level of human development.

>>Taxes in themselves are necessary. Civilization needs money to work. But wealth redistribution is a whole other thing entirely.<<

Taxes *are* wealth redistribution.

>>So the government confiscates money from those who earn it to pay for someone else's healthcare. <<

So long as the sum isn't particularly great relative to a persons wealth, the rich man's ability to actualise his own will is not severely impacted. If someone dies from a lack of medical care, their ability to actualise their own will is entirely negated. It is unclear to me how you can see that situation as somehow maximising freedom.

>>How many more jobs and how much more wealth could have been created if that money had been left in the pockets of those who earn it?<<

This is somewhat tangential, since we are simply discussing whether Americans have "lost their desire for freedom", but jobs and wealth are not the ends; they are the means to an end. Suppose I were to offer you a lockbox that contained an infinite amount of money (setting aside the obvious inflationary problems that would cause). However, I attach a provision that you may never spend that money on anything but live squid that must be immediately consumed. In a sense, we can say you are extremely rich! However, this will likely be of little benefit to you unless you really like live squid: You cannot use your money to improve your life.

The improvement of life is the end of the economy. We can arbitrarily raise our GDP or our job numbers by producing large numbers of superfluous goods that no one wants or by having EVERYONE be added to government payroll (perhaps everyone receives a dollar in exchange for their employment), but this would be useless to us because it doesn't improve our lives. However, even if our GDP *shrinks*, if our lives are improved then the tradeoff is worth it. The economy is not an end unto itself, but a means to the end of human liberty.

>>Just out of curiosity, what do you think the percentage of the income in this country is earned by the richest 1% of all income earners? Second, what percentage of all the income tax paid in America is paid by that same 1%? I'll give you the numbers next round after you respond.<<

Last I remember, the top 1% owned about 38% of the nations wealth and paid approximately 37% of all federal taxes. Given the diminishing marginal return on income, this structure seems very reasonable.

>>I still don't see the logic in your arguments. If someone else is footing all the bills for someone, that person isn't free. <<

They aren't free relative to the amount of money that was taken in taxation, sure, for their will may have dictated that the money taken in taxation be used in a different manner. However, the man who dies of cancer because he could not afford the education to get a good job and thus pay for treatment is not free either - he is dead. The man who cannot give food to his starving family because the rest of world society has ignored him is not free either - he is dead, along with his spouse and his children. The woman who grows up in an environment where crime is rampant and education is hard to come by is not free either - she is consigned to a life of poverty and immorality. If, somehow, everyone existed in a vacuum where the actions of one individual do not impact the actions of other individuals, then perhaps your view would have some merit. We exist in a world where we are all increasingly interconnected: what one person does may change the whole life-course of another person.

The minor infringement upon his liberty that takes place when his considerable reserves of wealth are diminished pales in comparison to the liberty that others gain in being free from the burdens of poverty, disease, hunger, and ignorance. Indeed, on a society-wide level, the health of such a society would be increased by such a great amount that the rich man can accumulate even GREATER riches, far in excess of what they would have been without that redistribution, as can the whole society. An educated, fed, healthy populace can push the boundries of science and art far beyond those of a society divided between an educated, fed, healthy class of rich people and an uneducated, starving, diseased class of poor people.

Death isn't freedom - prosperity is freedom.
Debate Round No. 2
thelemite

Con

>>>From an ends-based perspective, it is difficult to see why this would be at all immoral. When one is faced with the choice of either taking a fairly inconsequential amount from some person or letting several people die, I do not believe that there are going to be a particularly large number of people who say "Well, part of freedom includes the freedom to starve..." Indeed, the violation of the liberty of the family is so massively great and the violation of the liberty of the rich person so small as to create an almost overwhelming imperative to take the money. Dead people aren't free.<<<

From your arguments, it seems to me that you believe that having money is the only way to be free. Or rather that if a person doesn't have money that they can't be free. Not only do I disagree with you, and not only am I sure that most of the people who read this debate are going to disagree with you, even some of the big wigs of the American Revolution disagree with you. Patrick Henry's famous quote says it the best.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

What did Thomas Jefferson have to say about it? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Slavery is much, much worse than death. And when someone else, especially the government is paying the bills that makes the individual a slave.

Part of freedom is the freedom to starve. If an individual continues to make bad decisions such as not seeking an education or becoming addicted to drugs, or raising children that they can't afford etc, then bad things are going to happen. It sucks but welcome to life.

Now in the analogy that you responded to, wouldn't it be much more prudent and much more an act of freedom and liberty if I go to that rich man without the gun and tell him, "Sir, I'm really in a tight spot. I can't feed my family and you seem to have a great deal of resources. Is there something that I can do to earn some money so that I can take care of my family?" In other words, ask him for a job. By taking this path, I don't violate his freedom and liberty and right to use his hard earned money. Unfortunately, half of America doesn't want to do the work to take care of their personal responsibilities. They would rather send the Federal Government with their ability to use force to achieve their goals and take that money from the rich guy to pay for their children, or health care, or retirement.

>>>Of course it does - you are not free to implement your desire to play Playstation all day. In a hypothetical universe where we live in a state of superabundance, perhaps you would be able to do so and thus have a greater amount of freedom, or control, over your own life. As a society, we are willing to tolerate this infringement on our liberties because contributing back to the society is the only thing that can make it function (cross-applying the reasoning for taxation). Without this infringement on our freedoms, we would face a far larger loss of liberty. However, unless you are defining freedom to avoid relation to achieving ones will entirely, you are clearly marginally less free.<<<

If I'm reading this right, you are suggesting that the only reason to make good decision like working, not raising children that we can't afford, not becoming addicted to drugs etc is so that can contribute "back" to society? Scan that again, it didn't compute. I work to take care of myself and my family and to make our life better. I fight the good fight of personal development so that I can become more successful in all of my endeavors. As a matter of fact, when I hear someone say that they have no personal motives and are working for the common good of society, I start reaching for my gun because this guy is going to try and take something from me and more often than not, put it right into their own pocket.

Now as a practicing Thelemite (look it up) and I know a little about Will. One of the most important lessons that I have learned is that Will is not simply desire. More times than not, following one's desires actually prevent one from accomplishing their Will. But I digress.

>>>Once again, this would be a comforting thought if we lived in a univrse where ultimately the outcomes of all things came down to "personal responsibility" - unfortunately, this is often not the case. If I am a rural farmer in Africa, all the "personal responsibility" in the world is not going to feed my family at all. If my family and I are dead, obviously our liberty is going to be entirely nonexistent - and being dead due to starvation versus the bullet of a gun is of little distinction to the dead man.<<<

I have news for you. Everything does come down to personal responsibility. It's not your job to feed my family nor is it my responsibility to feed yours. And as we've already discussed, I would much rather be dead than be a slave to anyone. Especially the government.

>>>Both tariffs and property taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. Wealth is being taken from some person and distributed to another person.<<<

How's that again? I missed something.

>>>Interestingly, 19th century America was notorious for its oppression, its extremely large class divisions (that resulted in very large labour strikes and even threatened revolution at various points), and a rather depressing level of human development.<<<

And the advent of the income tax sure didn't help anything. You know, I always find debating easier when my opponent makes my points for me.

>>>So long as the sum isn't particularly great relative to a persons wealth, the rich man's ability to actualise his own will is not severely impacted. If someone dies from a lack of medical care, their ability to actualise their own will is entirely negated. It is unclear to me how you can see that situation as somehow maximising freedom.<<<

If the rich man volunteers to help the sick man with his hospital bills and works out a deal then both men are free. When the government comes in and takes the money from the rich man by force to give it to the sick man that is an infringement on both of their freedom.

>>>Last I remember, the top 1% owned about 38% of the nations wealth and paid approximately 37% of all federal taxes. Given the diminishing marginal return on income, this structure seems very reasonable.<<<

You would think that this is the case and I hate to disillusion you but according to the IRS is completely wrong. The fact is that the top one percent of income earners pull in only around 18% of all income, yet they pay approx. 38% of all income tax collected. http://www.irs.gov... The top 50% of income earners pay 100% of all income tax. This is far from reasonable.

The lower 50% pay nothing and yet keep demanding more and more social services and expect the "evil rich" to pay more and more. This in itself shows how little Americans want to be independent and also shows how the government will do all it can to cater to them.

Well, I'm rapidly running out of space here so I'll address your last sentence.

>>>Death isn't freedom - prosperity is freedom.<<<
Only if that prosperity is earned can it be called freedom. Otherwise, it's slavery because someone then owns you.
Zasch

Pro

Zasch forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by thelemite 9 years ago
thelemite
Individual responsibility is not a political buzzword. It is essential to freedom.

The acualization of the Will cannot be governmentally controlled. It can only manifest by serious hard work by the individual. And any governmental intereference in the life of the individual, whether seemingly good for said individual is the pathway to slavery, not freedom and liberty.
Posted by Zasch 9 years ago
Zasch
But that simply isn't freedom - freedom is a meaningful concept only as it relates to the actualisation of individual will. If we stray from that definition, we end up explaining other concepts but we do not touch upon freedom or liberty. By affirming situations where it is moral for people to die so long as property rights are protected, you are affirming property rights, not freedom, for death is the absolute nonexistence of freedom.

Your worldview would be accurate if the only source of infringement on freedom came from the law-making organisation in an area, but it is difficult to justify a normative difference between a lawmaking political organisation and a non-lawmaking organisation as it relates to infringement upon freedoms. The distinction you draw between the two is arbitrary from the perspective of the unfree agent, and such a distinction can only exist if you affirm that property is more important than humanity.

"Accept the consequences", "personal responsibility", and the like are all appealing political buzzwords but they are rendered hollow by your selective application of what it means to be a free (or "uninhibited") person.
Posted by thelemite 9 years ago
thelemite
I am not just talking about property rights, although those are just as important to freedom as is not wanting to die. What I am talking about is an individual's freedom to do as they will without government interference (assuming said individual isn't violating someone else's rights). And for one to accept the consequences of their actions and decision making.
Posted by Zasch 9 years ago
Zasch
I apologise, I became a bit busy and thus wasn't able to respond to your contentions. If you are curious as to the refutation I would have provided, though, it would have been that you are using a highly nonstandard definition of freedom that does not at all speak to human will or human action but rather speaks to property rights.

You define "freedom" in such a way that it doesn't matter if a person is unable to accomplish a thing: all that matters is whether property rights are secured. The fact that you claim that "freedom includes the freedom to starve" illustrates this point best.

Any traditional look at liberty would say that unwillful death is among the greatest infringements to a persons freedom that is possible, but you disagree with that analysis because property rights are not being infringed upon. Ultimately, through your argumentation, you reveal that it isn't freedom that you are concerned about: it is property. ANY action is acceptable so long as property rights are preserved, even action that results in the deaths of human beings. This view violates both positive and negative liberty.

It is fine to view property rights as being the most important thing in the world, but you then go on to criticise Americans for desiring the ability to act in a way that is compatible with their will; you criticise them for wanting freedom at the expense of property rights. Of course, "freedom" is a much more appealing label than "property rights", but ultimately the way you are using the term freedom does not at all correspond to what any reasonable definition of freedom actually is.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Amos 9 years ago
Amos
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 9 years ago
fresnoinvasion
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by Zasch 9 years ago
Zasch
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by thelemite 9 years ago
thelemite
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by midgetjoe 9 years ago
midgetjoe
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by patrock2 9 years ago
patrock2
thelemiteZaschTied
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 
Vote Placed by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
thelemiteZaschTied
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