The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
J.Kenyon
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
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 5 votes the winner is...
J.Kenyon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,023 times Debate No: 14709
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Libertarians believe that "all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor" and income tax should, therefore, be abolished. Of course, this will leave an enormous black hole in the public finances but the Libertarians have a solution for this: slash public spending.

In essence, Libertarians believe that individuals should pay only for the services they actually use, not for services that they don't, and that public services and utilities such as health, education, highways, transportation, pension funds and social housing should all be in private hands and service-users (or their insurers) should pay the suppliers directly according to their particular requirements.

http://www.lp.org...

That sounds quite fair, doesn't it?

From a personal point of view, since I am currently taxed at a rate of 50%, I would, in effect, get paid twice as much as I do now because all my money would be mine to keep and none of it would be taken off me and used to house, clothe and feed economically inactive people and their dependants.

Under a Libertarian regime, no longer would I be obliged to pay for other people's kids to be educated or to take financial responsibility for complete strangers' expensive medical treatment.

Never again would I have to subsidise country landowners' comfortable lifestyles through government and EU farming subsidies and neither would I have old people sitting at home supping tea and sucking cakes at my expense.

Yes, if the Libertarians came to power, I'd be rolling in it. I don't have any children and I already have private health and pension provisions, so I would have so much money at the end of the month I wouldn't know what to do with it all – I'd probably end up giving it to charity.

Or would I though? I suppose I could actually do with a bigger, faster boat and what about that two-seater roadster I've been dreaming of owning since I was a kid? And it would be nice to go to some of those places in Asia and South America that look so appealing in the travel supplements but I've never had the time or money to visit…in fact, thinking about it, there are quite a lot of things I'd do with any extra cash before I thought about giving it away to the needy.

"But what about noblesse oblige?" you might exclaim; "if financially disadvantaged members of society such as elderly people on state pensions and unwaged disabled people are deprived of the vital public services they depend upon, they will have to turn to the voluntary sector for hand-outs. That means people like you will have to dole out large sums of money to charity each month to cover the massive increase in demand that these voluntary organisations would be faced with – and, of course, it would be very helpful if you donated some of your own time to help out as well."

And do you know what I would say to that? Well, I'll tell you, I'd say: "screw the poor and screw you too – I'm off to quaff champagne and gorge myself on gourmet canap�s on the aft deck of my new Princess 42 in the company of two blonde stunners."

And I bet most people would say something similar if they were asked to donate a large percentage of their time and income to charity.

So what would happen to the financially dispossessed? What about a single mother living in social housing caring for her disabled child, for example?

"Good evening, Madam. I'm from the local housing authority and I'm here to inform you that the state is no longer willing to pay your rent. From now on, you either pay the market rent yourself or I'm afraid I will have to ask you to vacate the premises immediately."

"But please sir, my husband died in childbirth (he tripped over the umbilical cord and fell into a big tub of placentas and drowned) and now the Libertarians are in power, I no longer receive welfare payments so I've got no source of income - I have to beg for scraps of food from kind-hearted hobos - I haven't even got any money to pay for my poor handicapped child's medication, never mind rent."

"So what you are saying is the world owes you a living, is that it? Well let me tell you it doesn't, you grasping little bitch, and thanks to the Libertarians, hard-working taxpayers are no longer under any obligation to underwrite your accommodation and living expenses – now cough up the cash or get out, you indolent, work-shy scrounger."

So, we can see that although relatively prosperous people could be much better off under a Libertarian regime, many people who, through no fault of their own, are either unable to work or would be earning a pittance once the Libertarians abolished the minimum wage, would suffer enormously – and they would receive no health treatment and their children would go uneducated.

Can an economy which allows financially privileged people to become vastly more wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable in society really be called a moral economy?

I don't think so, and I don't think you do either, and that's why I reassert that Libertarian economics are inherently immoral and urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.
J.Kenyon

Con

Thanks Brian, I look forward to a fun and rigorous challenge.

Note that Pro has not explicitly attacked the moral underpinnings of libertarians. Rather, he has made an emotional appeal to the unwed teenage mothers, implying that he has in mind some positive account of rights. This being the case, the onus is on him to show why we should accept such a doctrine. For my part, I'll be defending negative rights. Additionally, I intend to show that far from accomplishing the goal my opponent has in mind -- alleviating poverty -- state administered welfare programs do far more harm than good.

1. Welfare can never be morally justified

a)
Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights

Whether or not one has any rights, and if so which ones, can only be decided by argumentative appeal. Moreover, in order to participate in ethical discourse, the right to exclusive ownership and control over one's person must be presupposed. To negate this would result in a performative contradiction, which occurs when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the non-contingent presuppositions that make the speech act possible.[1] For this reason, no one can ever coherently affirm slavery: at best you might convince me to perform uncompensated labor for you, but insofar as I agreed to be your slave, I wouldn't really be a slave at all.

Our actions don't occur in a vacuum. One's actions are an extension of his person, and the right to property ownership must be extended accordingly. In order to take part in discourse -- or to perform any action at all -- we must also assume the right to allocate scarce resources for personal use. If, for example, I farm an unowned lot of land, no one has the right to stop me. Anything that interferes with my peaceful act of farming is a violation of my right to self-ownership.

b) Indefensibility of positive rights

Some, such as John Locke and David Conway, have offered that the homesteading principle is generally valid -- and indeed, it must be, at least in regard to some resources -- but that there are limits to what can be rightfully owned. However, the idea of such a proviso is logically incoherent -- if the proponent of such a theory is to be consistent, he would only be able to justify for himself the ownership of limited resources. If he were to interfere with another's peaceful homesteading activity, he would thereby illegitimately and inconsistently extend his own ownership claim beyond what is permissible under his own rule! In order to justify such an action, it would be necessary to appeal to some theory of collective ownership incompatible with the homestead principle and thus incompatible with ethical discourse.

Just for the sake of argument, let's examine what the idea of positive rights entails. In an influential thought experiment, Judith Thomson asks you to imagine that you wake up one morning to find yourself connected by a series of tubes to a violinist. A famous concert violinist. The Society of Music Lovers has gone through all of the medical records and determined that you and you alone can save him from what would otherwise be a fatal illness. You'll have to remain hooked up to him for a period of several months in order for him to recover.

Does the violinist really have an enforceable claim? Should it be punishable by law if you refuse to comply? How can the violinist have a right to my person when he has neither homesteaded it nor produced it? Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that "need" can neither be objectively quantified nor measured.[2] People have died from love sickness, should they be entitled to a lover-conscript? How long should a needy person be entitled to receive welfare? Forever? What if my support causes me to become needy, or increases my future needs? Moreover, even if need could be established, it would be in general terms, yet could only be satisfied by definite, particular resources. To which particular resources would the needy be entitled? Mine? Yours? John Doe's? Why?

2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state

Governments create poverty and artificial scarcity through idea patents, restrictive licensing requirements, protective tariffs, industrial subsidies, military contracts, corporate bailouts, inflation of the monetary base, minimum wage laws, rent controls, and other harmful policies. Pro himself notes that if the libertarians were in power, he would no longer have to "subsidise country landowners' comfortable lifestyles through government and EU farming subsidies and neither would I have old people sitting at home supping tea and sucking cakes at my expense." Abolish these practices and society will start to look a lot more egalitarian.

3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle

The number of welfare recipients has what in economics is referred to as a positive supply function.[3] As the incentives to go on welfare increase, so does the number of people who apply for and receive it. When disincentives to go on welfare increase, the number of recipients decreases. This theory is born out by empirical data as well. From 1973 to 1987, only 18.3% of poor people who received welfare benefits escaped poverty. By contrast, 45% of poor people who never received benefits escaped poverty.[4] Additionally, children in families that receive welfare are seven times more likely to be on welfare as adults.[5]

George Bernard Shaw once wrote "any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" and this is exactly what we see in today's political process. As the incentives to go on welfare increase and correspondingly the number of welfare recipients increases, so too does the political power that sustains and aggravates the cycle. Once a dependent class has been created, politicians can count on their support in perpetuity to retain power.

4. Private charities are superior to government programs

Pro worries that in a libertarian society, the well off might be hesitant to donate to the poor. I don't find this objection particularly weighty, after all, he is relying on the same people who won't voluntarily give to the poor to elect politicians who will forcibly redistribute their wealth. Moreover, as Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron points out, there is good evidence that government aid crowds out private giving.[6]

In 2008, Americans donated over $300 billion to charity.[7] Private charities, like the Mormon church, tend to focus on helping aid recipients find work, avoiding the pitfalls of dependency that government programs create.[h] Additionally, because private charities are smaller and more localized, they are better able to individualize programs and to deliver aid to the people who genuinely need it rather than those who are merely gaming the system. Finally, private charities are far more efficient than federal aid. Roughly 70% of all "welfare" dollars actually go to government bureaucrats.[i]

The resolution is negated.

References:

1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006. pg. 372
2. Ibid, pp. 415-416
3. Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New Liberty." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002. pg. 145
4. http://www.cato.org...
5. http://www.cato.org...
6. http://www.cato.org...
7. http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu...
h. Rothbard, pp. 149-152
i. http://www.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank J. Kenyon for his comprehensive, eloquent and thought-provoking rebuttal, to which I would like to respond as follows:

1. Welfare can never be morally justified
a) Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights

My opponent is correct when he observes we do not live in a vacuum: we actually live in a society based on the mutual co-operation of the members of that society. Under the framework of government, citizens are given certain rights, for example property rights, but with those rights come responsibilities: citizens must obey the laws of the land and also contribute their fair share towards the cost of maintaining a healthy and cohesive society, and that is achieved through taxation.

Nevertheless, these rights and responsibilities are not absolute: with the exception of communist regimes; it is not generally the aim of governments to implement tax and spend programmes that ensure that all citizens enjoy the same standard of living.
Neither are property rights absolute: you couldn’t, for example: invite the North Koreans to build a nuclear missile base in your back garden; convert your swimming pool into a sewerage treatment plant; destroy the habitat of rare flora or fauna on your land or hunt endangered species of wild animals there; erect a 200 foot wind turbine that may interfere with air traffic – at least not without prior permission.

In conclusion, as a member of society we do not have the freedom to opt out of laws or taxes, only to lobby our political representatives to amend legislation to suit our own personal wishes.

b) Indefensibility of positive rights

I refer the voters to my previous argument and reassert that individual members of society are bound by the rules and conventions of that society. It would be very unlikely that any government would introduce a law that obliged citizens to become human life support machines for talented musicians, but should a government be democratically elected on that platform, then the citizens would be obliged to conform (should the inevitable challenge to the law in a high court on the basis of a violation of human rights be unsuccessful, or, of course, in which case you may consider emigrating).

2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state

Let’s say you own a nuclear reprocessing plant and you pay your workers at least the minimum wage and provide them with a safe working environment. Then a Libertarian government takes control and abolishes the minimum wage and does away with all ‘costly and burdensome’ health and safety regulations.

Now, you might be fair employer, but your competitor, Ruthless Ronnie’s Nuclear Reprocessing Inc., decides to undercut your rates by paying his workforce less than you and by doing away with expensive safety equipment such as Geiger counters, radiation suits and decontamination chambers.

Of course, Ruthless Ronnie’s workers would be free to find alternative employment, if there were anything available, but if not they would be forced to accept Ronnie’s new terms - there would be no unemployment benefit paid under a Libertarian regime and, also, you as the owner of a rival nuclear reprocessing plant would be obliged to impose similar conditions of employment on your own workers in order to compete.

So, overall, you can see that, although the owners of the reprocessing plants would get richer, the workers would get poorer.

This is how poverty traps are really created and the offspring of Ruthless Ronnie’s badly-paid, over- exploited workers will not receive anywhere near the same standard of healthcare or education that would be available to Ruthless Ronnie’s children, or if the Libertarians gained power, any healthcare or education at all – and would, therefore, not be in a position to improve their life chances as adults, and so the process would continue down through the generations until a semi-permanent underclass were created.

You can see how this has happened in reality in India where the caste system developed as the result of unregulated free-market economics and the lack of a welfare state – just the sort of thing the Libertarians espouse.

The caste system in India, which is not based on ethnicity or religion (although it is closely associated with Hinduism), prevents social mobility and entrenches class divisions so that those in the higher castes are almost guaranteed to be prosperous whereas those in the lowest caste, the Bhangi, will never be employed in any occupation other than toilet-cleaning, sweeping or scavenging.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Naturally, in any society, there will be winners and losers., but the laissez-faire economy and lack of welfare provision in India amplifies that, so that while the majority of the population live in various degrees of poverty, billionaires such as steel-magnate Lakshmi Mittal, who spent $78 million on his daughter’s wedding in 2004, and who is worth S28.7 billion, live in the lap of luxury with no obligation, other than a moral one, to help alleviate the mass poverty that exists in the society that natured him and enabled him to make his vast fortune.

http://www.luxemag.org...

Of course, Mittal may have worked hard and deserve much success, but it is important to remember that his success would never have been possible if he had been born into one of the lower castes (or if his father hadn’t bought him a massive steelworks as a birthday present).

http://www.forbes.com...

In any civilised nation, the state has a responsibility to reduce poverty by giving young people from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to make the best of their lives – and to do better than their parents – and this is nigh-on impossible without state-funded health and education programmes.

3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle

Nobody in their right mind would attempt to defend a dependency culture, where people live on benefits as a matter of choice rather than necessity.
Nevertheless, just because there are (and always will be) failings in the system that enables indolent and unscrupulous individuals to milk the welfare system rather than go out to work, doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and abolish it altogether.

Take the analogy of petrol-driven cars for example. They are never going to be 100% mechanically efficient but with fuel becoming ever scarcer and pollution from exhaust emissions doing increasing damage to the environment, it has been necessary for politicians to address the problem.

They could have abolished cars and forced everybody to walk or cycle everywhere until alternative means of propulsion were developed, but they didn’t. Instead, they encouraged manufacturers with research grants and punitive legislation for polluting car makers to develop more efficient cars.

The same principle applies to welfare, incentivise work and punish dependency - improve the system, don’t abolish it.

4. Private charities are superior to government programs

Private giving is dependent on the performance of the economy and the prosperity of the individuals living within that society. In good times, there will be less demand from people in need and more people will be able afford to give generously at the same time.

In times of recession, on the other hand, there are huge increases in demand for assistance but people have less money to donate.

By giving through the tax system, these waves and troughs can be smoothed out to provide a consistent source of support for those genuinely in need.

The reality is that if a Libertarian economic system were introduced, those in need of support would go without while those in a position to prosper will benefit at their expense and that’s why Libertarian economics are inherently immoral.

Thank you.
J.Kenyon

Con

Pro still has not provided any justification for his view of positive rights other than a few remarks about democracy and the impracticality of absolute property rights. Most of his objections I already covered in the first round under 1B. I'll briefly address the issues with zoning, though I think this falls outside the scope of the debate.

1. Welfare can never be morally justified

a)
Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights

Pro claims we are bound to adhere to societal mores, however, this argument clearly does not hold water. If Brian lives in a society that chooses a human sacrifice by lottery each month, would he be morally compelled to acquiesce? I think not. This argument really hurts Pro's case more than it helps. What if I live in a libertarian society? Wouldn't I be required to observe negative rights then? If Pro wishes to be consistent, he'll have to admit that libertarian economics are not inherently immoral.

The examples Pro gives of "exceptions" to the homesteading rule are not really exceptions at all: if building a windmill makes it impossible to land airplanes at the local airport, I would be interfering with the land owners' ability to use his property for the purpose that he homesteaded it. I can't built a nuclear missile base in my backyard for the same reason I can't approach random strangers and force them to play Russian roulette, even if nobody ends up getting killed: both activities are essentially threats of aggression that are unnecessary to achieve any legitimate end or purpose. I can't convert my swimming pool into a sewage facility because the negative externalities would interfere with my neighbors' property rights.

On the whole, think Pro's moral case demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of ethical theory. Ethics is a logical discipline: rights are not contrived out of thin air based on gut feeling, rather, truth can only be arrived at deductively from incontestable axioms.

b) Indefensibility of positive rights

There were two parts to this argument and Pro has only addressed the latter. The rest has gone unrefuted.

I think Pro has largely missed the thrust of Thomson's violinist analogy. Whether or not "the people" democratically vote to implement such a policy is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it would be ethical. If 51% of Americans voted to round up all the redheads and kill them, would this be morally permissible? Moreover, Pro hasn't shown why democracy should even be accepted as a value criterion. Finally, as I pointed out in 1A, a democratic majority could hypothetically implement libertarian economic policies, thus undermining Pro's entire case.

2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state

Pro's "Ruthless Ronnie Power Company" example is a huge oversimplification of the way labor markets work. If it's true that employers would have their employees working 18 hour shifts for 50 cents a week, why is it that the vast majority of Americans make well over the minimum wage? What exactly is a "just" wage and how is it determined? If minimum wage laws really help the lower class, why not just raise it to $500 dollars an hour? Then we'd all be rich, right? Wrong. In a free market, compensation is a function of the worker's marginal productivity, competition among workers, and competition among employers. Minimum wage laws, by contrast are arbitrary. If the mandated minimum wage is higher than the worker's marginal productivity, businesses simply won't hire them. It becomes more profitable to downsize or automate certain tasks.

In a competitive labor market, an employer who underpays his workers will merely harm his own business. If a worker's marginal productivity is $500 a week and Ruthless Ronnie only pays him $200 a week, he's created an opportunity for his competitors, who can profitably employ the same worker for $300 a week or more. Even if some entrepreneurs do "exploit" some of their workers, this won't necessarily benefit them. Market competition would merely force them to pass their cost savings on to consumers in the form of lower prices, helping other wage earners.

Pro's assertions about India are simply factually incorrect. India was a socialist country from 1947 until the early 90's, during which time quality of life was poor and social and economic mobility were virtually nonexistent.[1] Since the massive reforms that took place in 1991, conditions have drastically improved. The economy shifted away from central planning and toward private ownership. Import licenses were eliminated and import duties reduced. Trade was liberalized in service and technology industries.[2] Poverty rates have dropped. India now has a thriving middle class.[3] In 2004 and 2005 alone, exports and imports grew by 19% and 30% respectively.[4] Foreign investment grew from a paltry $132 million in 1991 to $23.6 billion in 2005.[5]

3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle

Pro offers a common and rather vacuous argument put forth by statists. Basically it goes like this:

Lisa the Libertarian: Government programs are highly inefficient and tend to foster poverty rather than alleviate it.
Steve the Statist: Yeah, but why not just fix bad stuff? That way we only have good government!

This rejoinder ignores both the theoretical underpinnings of the libertarian argument and empirical reality. I have argued on an a priori basis that government welfare tends to inefficient because it enjoys unconditional and essentially limitless funding, creates a positive supply function, and allows politicians to benefit from the establishment of a dependent class. This is born out by statistical evidence as well. In 1934, US federal welfare expenditures totaled $13.7 billion. In 1976, totals stood at $234 billion, despite the fact that the previous four decades, particularly following the WWII boom, were years of unparalleled economic growth. Unemployment steadily fell and the middle class grew, yet welfare spending increased by 5164%. Even adjusted for inflation and population growth, that's over 40% per year![6] Today, despite the reforms that took place in the 90's, we spend nearly a trillion dollars annually.[7]

4. Private charities are superior to government programs

In a libertarian society, there would be far less poverty, for the reasons explicated in contentions 2 and 3. Additionally, my argument that government spending crowds out private charity has gone unrefuted.

Charitable giving appears to be stable despite the recession, falling by only 2% from 2007 to 2008.[8] Moreover, contrary to Con's assertion, a tax based system would do nothing to solve this (nonexistent) problem: a weaker economy means less tax revenue. Even if Pro is right and state run charity could provide superior relief during economic downturns, this is not necessarily a good thing. Markets tend to go through business cycles (largely the creation of central banking, but I digress) where productivity temporarily declines and unemployment rises. If the displaced workers are already receiving welfare benefits, they have less of an incentive to find a job and be productive after the recovery; the number of welfare recipients would tend to "stick."

References:

1. Ahuja, Sandeep, et al. "Economic Reform in India: Task Force Report." Diss. University of Chicago, 2006, p. 3.
2. Ibid, p. 14.
3. Ibid, p. 3.
4. Ibid, p. 9.
5. http://www.adbi.org...
6. Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New Liberty." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002. pp. 143-144
7. http://www.heritage.org...
8. http://hamptonroads.com...
Debate Round No. 2
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
A good read!
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
I disagree. At best, the fact that we're participating in discourse will give you limited form of the homesteading principle. Once that's done, you can argue for it's unrestricted validity. My first argument against positive rights came straight from the appendix to Hoppe's book. But yeah, I agree I could have worded it much better. Thomson's violinist was basically just for rhetorical purposes. It wasn't crucial to my case.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Your attack on positive rights is a combination of emotional arguments and a reductio that says positive/negative rights can't be valued equally. You need to say that even if we want to value positive rights out of some emotional or instinctual basis, its too late because you're already arguing with me and conceded negative rights. i.e. There can be no philosophy of positive rights because philosophy = argumentative propositions.

Your point 2 about poverty is just lip service. You should focus on one major thing - like the military - and explain how all resources have an opportunity cost... blabla investment/capital/technology > Real life GI Joe action figures

Pts 3/4 are good.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Kenyon,

"Whether or not one has any rights, and if so which ones, can only be decided by argumentative appeal. Moreover, in order to participate in ethical discourse, the right to exclusive ownership and control over one's person must be presupposed. To negate this would result in a performative contradiction, which occurs when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the non-contingent presuppositions that make the speech act possible."

Boo the style and wording is terrible booo

"Rights arise immediately during argumentation. By definition, the whole point of arguing is to garner the consent of the audience, so any breach of consent is a performative contradiction. Therefore, because Brian and I are arguing, he presupposes our mutual self ownership."

Fix'd
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
I was going to vote a tie and give an RFD, but as far as specifics go, I just forgot everything I read.

*Punches self in face*
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Well done on your part as well. I feel really pleased with the way this turned out.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Great debate J. Kenyon and thanks for your comments Freeman! (Yes, I know, but old habits die hard.)
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
Brian, why do you always use an exclamation point at the end of all of your sentences?! It's like you're living in a constant state of epiphany! Of course, it's not as though there's anything wrong with that! I actually think it's kind of cool! I wish I was so excited all of the time!

Apart from that, this has been a really awesome debate so far! It's amusing to see the contrast between your humor and J.Kenyon's very formal and serious presentation!
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Wow - I got carried away there - I had to edit quite a lot out of Round 2 in order to keep it under the 8,000 character limit - still, a really enjoyable and informed debate so far!
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
I'm just typing my reply as we speak...thanks for your interest!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
brian_egglestonJ.KenyonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: J's arguments were grounded in mostly logic and evidence, with numerous sources to back him up, while Brian stuck to appeals to emotion, often leavign holes in his arguments that J exposed.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonJ.KenyonTied
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 Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
brian_egglestonJ.KenyonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Well you know I could have probably given 5-6 points to Kenyon, but then that might look like I was giving my libertarian bro an easy time. In the comments section you can see I give him a hard time. And I will only award 1 point to kenyon for arguments because Brian did not engage the proof for self ownership at all.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
brian_egglestonJ.KenyonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: "Arguments and sources to Con, although he wasn't as fun to read as Pro, so I gave him spelling and grammer.. Excellent debate guys." - tvellalott said it best first
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
brian_egglestonJ.KenyonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and sources to Con, although he wasn't as fun to read as Pro, so I gave him spelling and grammer.. Excellent debate guys.