The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,207 times Debate No: 4203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (17)

 

libertarian

Pro

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. My dad is a cop he knows that the main reason people think twice about robberies is because the may be armed.

Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. No body is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes.

Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes.

Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes.
beem0r

Con

Take note: Since my opponenet's resolution asserts two things with an AND [or a typo thereof], all I must do to negate it is negate ONE of these assertions.

I will completely agree that I see no better alternative to the libertarian position on gun control. Less gun control creates a better society, since as my opponenet pointed out, it lowers murder rates, etc. Basically, it is beneficial to society to not have gun control laws, so therefore that is the best policy.

HOWEVER, I must disagree with my opponent's assertaion that Libertarians are right when it comes to 'victimless crimes.'

I will define a victimless crime as a crime in which no ones rights are being infringed. Examples: prostitution, people doing drugs, people gambling, etc.

Let us look at the effects some of these have on society. Allowing prostitution creates an unproductive job and promotes infidelity in society. Someone is spending time at work, but not truly producing anything useful for society as a whole. Not only that, but it needlessly increases the risk of STD's spreading.
Also, promoting infidelity [or rather, not explicitly promoting fidelity] has its own problems for society. This leads to less stable families, which means kids are generally not raised as well, people are often less happy because they are upset at a spouse, and are therefore less productive, etc.

Drugs? Drugs cause many problems. Because of the mind-altering effects of drugs, people will often make bad decisions while on drugs - decisions that are often hurtful to society. Also, Marijuana makes people less ambitious, and therefore less productive. And many other drugs are dangerous, and their use runs the risk of prematurely ending lives, another loss for society.

Gambling? Casino workers get money, but they do nothing to add to the wealth of the country. By disallowing Gambling, our society is more prosperous, since these people might actually have jobs that produce something useful.

My opponenet states that "Nobody is hurt" by these things, but the fact is, we're ALL hurt by these things. Our society prospers more if people do not be prostitutes, use drugs, and/or gamble. By trying to elminate these things today, whether we have to pay money to enforce it or not, we are investing in a more prosperous future, and isn't that the goal of any society?

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I. Gun Control
>>> Take note: Since my opponenet's resolution asserts two things with an AND [or a typo thereof], all I must do to negate it is negate ONE of these assertions.

+++ :( That's just really not nice.

II. Prostitution
+++ My opponent presumes that prohibiting prostitution actually reduces it, this is untrue. Recall alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933. Home producers created whiskey and bathtub gin. The price of alcohol skyrocketed on the black market, which encouraged greed and inevitably violence. As a result prohibition did literally nothing to actually prevent alcohol from being consumed by the public. The government lost considerable amounts of tax dollars from bootlegged alcohol and it became impossible to regulate the quality, i.e. safety, of the product.
This is also true of prostitution prohibition. It is very expensive, while being ineffective and causing violence to take place.

+++ Also, In Las Vegad, where prostitution is legal, the prostitutes are checked for STDs. This could be put in place nationally and would be significantly more effective in the fight against STDs from prostitution.

>>> Allowing prostitution creates an unproductive job

+++ Oh please. Unproductive jobs are already in America. In debate, we call that non-unique. People will continue to play solitaire at work and go to the watercooler whether prostitution is legal or not. C'mon.

>>> and promotes infidelity in society.

+++ Bad songs, movies, and Bill Clinton promote infidelity in society. The American people can decide what to do with their sex organs! The option of prostitution is still out there and any person with a brain cell can find a prostitute. The prohibition on prostitution is ineffective and useless. If somebody wants to cheat on their spouse, they can manage to do it without a prostitute.

+++ Prostitution legalisation would not promote infidelity. Prostitution is already around. The illegality of the practice makes it less likely to suspect. In a world, where it was legal, a spouse would suspect the practice more easily and therefore, it would be less likely and spouses would catch the adulterer easier.

>>> Someone is spending time at work, but not truly producing anything useful for society as a whole.

+++ It makes people happy. McDonald's floor moppers don't produce anything ofr society as a whole either but should we ban them?

>>> Not only that, but it needlessly increases the risk of STD's spreading.

+++ Prostitution is already around. The only difference is people will not get arrested and crowd the prison system for their job.

>>> Also, promoting infidelity [or rather, not explicitly promoting fidelity] has its own problems for society. This leads to less stable families, which means kids are generally not raised as well, people are often less happy because they are upset at a spouse, and are therefore less productive, etc.

+++ Um... This is wildly speculative, tremendously exaggerated, and the links do not link. Infidelity should be illegal, not prostitution.

+++ Prostitution laws cost a lot of money that does not hurt anybody and limits freedoms.

+++ The Constitution uses the word "not" in reference to restricting government 22 times. The founding fathers do not support victimless crimes, like prostitution.

+++ Our police could be stopping thefts and murders, crimes with victims, instead of entrapping workers who are making people happy and not hurting anyone at all.

III. Drugs
>>> Because of the mind-altering effects of drugs, people will often make bad decisions while on drugs - decisions that are often hurtful to society.

+++ Drugs will not be easier to get when legalised. I proved this earlier in Section II, with the Alcohol Prohibition model. The War on Drugs proves to be ineffective. We are all able to acquire drugs and never get caught if we wanted to. It is not even a serious crime. Often, cops will even let you off with a warning for small drug possession, but it is still tremendously costly. Cops can hardly stop prisoners from having narcotics, how can they stop the American public? They can not.

>>> Also, Marijuana makes people less ambitious, and therefore less productive.

+++ Only after long term use. And this presumes that legalizing marijuana will increase its use. It will not. The Alcohol Prohibition model proves that. So does the Amsterdam model prove that. In Amsterdam, they have proved that. MARIJUANA USAGE IS HALVED WHEN IT WAS LEGALISED IN AMSTERDAM.

[http:// www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm]
[US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109]
And many other drugs are dangerous, and their use runs the risk of prematurely ending lives, another loss for society.

IV. Gambling
>>> Casino workers get money, but they do nothing to add to the wealth of the country.

+++ Yes. They do. They are just as influential to our economy as most other establishments.

>>> By disallowing Gambling, our society is more prosperous, since these people might actually have jobs that produce something useful.

+++ This is speculative and unproven.

V. Conclusion
I have proven that the prohibition of anything by the government does not work but only inrceases the usage. In America, the drug usage is double that of Amsterdam, where drugs are legal. Alcohol prohibition in America did not work and was repealed three years later.
Prohibitions are always costly and always ineffective.
They always cause crime.
The United States is rooted on freedom of speech, religion and trade.
End Prohibition! End Victimless Crime Laws!
beem0r

Con

I must admit, the argument from my opponent was far more formidable than I was expecting.

CON I: "Prohibition effect"

Let's talk for a bit about the prohibition effect. This is the effect where illegalizing something increases its usage, and makes it more dangerous.

Let's think for a moment about WHY prohibition did what it did to the alcohol moment. Before 1920, Alcohol was legal. And then, suddenly, the government decided to take that away from the people. THIS is what caused the prohibition effect.

That is to say, while the initial generation might rebel against the new law, each suceeding generation will conform more and more, and eventually, the overall effect will be a good one. People don't react well when the government suddenly tells them "You can't do this," but they accept it a lot more easily if they've been raised by the media and their parents to accept that they cannot do whatever it is (especially if there are harsh consequences to doing the thing).

Thus, while the illegalization of prostitution/gambling/drugs may be a bad thing in the short run, in the long run, it actually ends up having a positive effect. Since there are likely no figures to support me, I've just used reasoning to do it for me.

CON II: "Prostitution / Casinos lessen productivity"

There are a great many things that actually make America more prosperous. Most jobs help accomplish this, while some service industries simply don't help our standing within the global economy. Gambling and prostitution are among these service industries. Most jobs help create or maintain something we can trade with other nations. Most service industries increase the standard of living of Americans by giving them a new service.

HOWEVER this is hardly the case for Prostitution and Gambling. Prostitution doesn't benefit anyone who's in a committed relationship, and it actually lessens the incentive for people to seek out a committed relationship. Since committed relationships are a huge investment in the future [brings healthy, well-adjusted kids and stable, happy, working parents, etc.]. Basically, it helps productivity in the long run for Prostitution to not be as common or easily available.

And gambling certainly doesn't help society. For some, it throws them into a cycle of poverty, and for some few others, it allows them to reap a large amount of wealth without contributing anything to society. This overall lowers productivity. People in the first group are left more often begging, gambling their money away, etc. rather than finding a stable job they can be productive in. Their mind is on gambling, not on what they should be doing. And for those others, they no longer have the incentive to find a productive job, since they already have a fat stack of cash. Thus productivity suffers. And with it, society too.

Other service industries tend to not make people less productive. For instance, a barber. He cuts your hair, you give him some money. That's it. There's nothing inherent in what a barber or a McDonal's floor mopper does that makes people less productive.

CON III: Response to "Our police could be stopping thefts and murders, crimes with victims, instead of entrapping workers who are making people happy and not hurting anyone at all."

A> They DO stop thefts and murders.
B> I have shown that prostitutes are hurting society, by removing an incentive to find a committed partner by being completely useless for anyone who's in a committed relationship. Since our society thrives with committed relationships, this is decidedly bad for society in the long run.

CON IV: "Drugs"
My opponenet claims that the prisons are filled with drug dealers, but also claims that law enforcement is ineffective against drugs, and it would be no easier to get them if they were legal. As my opponent has shown, a VAST number of people get arrested every year for drug possession or drug dealing.

Let's think about what that means with some reasoning.

A> The use of drugs is detrimental to society.
B> Many people who use drugs are penalized for it.
C> People who are penalized, by having to pay fees and/or getting misdemeanors, will be less successful in life, and less likely to have children.
D> From B and C, people who don't do drugs will have more children on average than people who do do drugs.
E> This leads to drug-using being slowly eliminated from society.

Not only that, but we can cross-apply CON I here. Thus, there will be a long-run trend away from drug use if it remains illegal, for both these reasons.

Also, consider that all these fees and such that are paid for drug possession go to the government. Thus, they usually end up at least paying for their own burden on the system. And if it's not quite enough to pay for it, the fees could be increased. That would be a better plan.

Also, consider that drug dealers/users are often killed in the status quo over drugs, which leads to an even less drug-prevalent future.

Also, Amsterdam is a very different place than the USA. Simply showing that Amsterdam has lower drug usage than the US does not show that the drug policies are the cause. Association does not imply causation.
What would be much better in showing causation would be a study comparing Amsterdam's drug usage pre-legalization and post-legalization.

CON V: Conclusion Response
I have shown that prohibition does indeed work, just not in the short run. [CON I]
I have shown that prohibitions are not always costly, since they generate income [CON IV]
While prohibition might usually cause crime, it only does so in the short run, which is insignificiant in the big picture.
It matters not what America is rooted on. That is an appeal to false authority. Just because the constitution says X, or the founding fathers would say X, does not mean X is right.

I have argued why prohibiting certain 'victimless crimes' is a good practice.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

I: "Prohibition effect"
>>> each suceeding generation will conform more and more
+++ This is a foolish, unproven assumption. I have given multiple examples of how prohibition fails. The Harrison Act passed in 1914 to lower and eventually stop drug use. The War on Drugs started in 1972. Drugs are still prevalent in the United States. Prostitution has been illegal in almost all individual states since about 1910. Prostitution still often occurs in the United States. Gambling started going under fire in the 1800s. Gambling is still widely rampant.
II and III: "Prostitution / Casinos lessen productivity"
>>> [Prostitution and gambling are untradeable and do not help Americans.]
+++ Prostitution and gambling is a way to help lower income Americans get a better income. And no one is harmed in the process. Prostitution is between consenting adults. If we outlawed all activities that we could not trade or were not overall helpful to society that would include: movies, parks, car shows, etc. THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS UNTRADEABLE OR SOLELY FUN IS NO REASON TO OUTLAW IT IN OUR FREE NATION.
>>> committed relationships are a huge investment in the future
+++ Banning video games, large meals and theaters would make us more productive. But we live in a free society where our Constitution has the word "not" in order to restrict government 22 times. Our government is based off freedom, not on what will make us more productive. It is a nation for the people, not for the government. A nation that would prefer to be more productive as a society that give basic freedoms is the once Soviet Union or Cuba. Not the U S of A.
>>> [Gambling] throws [some] into a cycle of poverty, and for some few others,
+++ In this case, investing in a business should be outlawed. If you want to start a business, you have a great chance of not succeeding, which leads to a cycle of poverty. Americans are smart enough to make their own choices if it hurts nobody else. China and Cuba make decisions for their people not America.
>>> People in the first group are left more often begging
+++ Americans are smart enough to make their own choices that effect them. If you are doing something that hurts nobody but yourself, it should be your freedom, as our founding fathers wanted. Let's remember the Constitution uses the word "not" 22 times to restrict government power against its people. And remember that we are talking about America, not Cuba or China, who make decisions for its people instead of allowing freedoms.
>>> they already have a fat stack of cash and no job.
+++ What ever happened to liberty and for Christ's sake the pursuit of happiness?
III: Police Productivity
>>> They DO stop thefts and murders.
+++ Police could, obviously, be more productive if they had more police and more financial resources to spend stopping victims from being robbed, raped, etc.
>>> our society thrives with committed relationships, this [prostitution] is decidedly bad for society in the long run.
+++ No. It's not. Prostitution is sex between consenting adults. Consenting adults have sex all the time. This is a basic right. The government does not have the right to hinder that and they have failed in trying to hinder consenting adults from having sex.
+++ Maybe you prefer China where they meddle in family matters like how many children you can have. The government cannot decide for people how they run their love and family life.
IV: "Drugs"
>>> Many people who use drugs are penalized for it.
+++ But drugs are still rampant. The prisons are small compared to the amount of people using drugs and dealing drugs. Besides, violence is increased due to drugs, like it was in prohibition. Gang drug wars exist because of the criminalization of drugs.
>>> People who are penalized [are] less likely to have children.
+++ This is wildly speculative. And how is this a good thing? Up there, you supported family life, in your prostitution arguments.
>>> people who don't do drugs will have more children on average than people who do do drugs.
+++ B is untrue. Therefore, C is untrue. Your links do not link. And this is wildly speculative.
>>> This leads to drug-using being slowly eliminated from society.
+++ The Century anniversary of the Harrison Act is quickly approaching and your speculative defense has yet to happen? Why would this happen? It will never happen.
>>> [Fees replace the tax burden]
+++ THEY NEVER DO! Tax revenue could be way higher. Drug usage is huge! The taxes on drugs could bring exorbitant revenue. And right now, the government is not effectively stopping people from using drugs. I don't even think you believe what you are saying.
>>> the fees could be increased.
+++ Why would increase fees on Americans who have not hurt anybody but just want to be happier citizens? What happened to freedom afforded by the Constitution!?
>>> [Drugees are often killed, so less drugs]
+++ That is a terrible thing to say! Are you advocating the death of drug using Americans?
>>> Association does not imply causation.
+++ Well, in cases of extremity it does. DRUG USAGE IN HALVED IN THE NETHERLANDS, AFTER MANY DRUGS WERE LEGALISED! This is a significant figure and to say there is no correlation is just a debate defense and contrary to common sense.
>>> What would be much better in showing causation would be a study comparing Amsterdam's drug usage pre-legalization and post-legalization.
+++ If this is true, then my other statistic is causaitive but [http://www. drugpolicy. org/ library/dekort2.cfm] proves that in the 1960s when drugs were illegal in Amsterdam, the usage rate was much higher and now it is much lower. SO, AS YOU ASKED, I HAVE PROVEN THAT LEGALIZATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN PROHIBITION.
CON V: Conclusion Response
>>> I have shown that prohibition does indeed work, just not in the short run.
+++ Amsterdam, Alcohol Prohibition, Gambling Prohibition, Drug Prohibition, and Prostitution prove that wrong. You even admitted that there are no figures to back you with your generational argument. I have all these on my side.
>>> I have shown that prohibitions are not always costly, since they generate income
+++ Prohibition is always costly. It takes away tax revenue and costs billions in law enforcement revenue. This is not made up with the fines. ALSO, IT TAKES SO MUCH MORE MONEY TO HOLD, TRANSPORT AND TYR A PRISONER: A LOT MORE THAN THE SMALL FINE THEY PAY.
>>> While prohibition might usually cause crime, it only does so in the short run, which is insignificiant in the big picture.
+++ This is never proven. YOU JUST CONCEEDED THAT PROHIBITION CAUSES CRIME, AT LEAST FOR A WHILE. I have proven with Amsterdam, Alcohol Prohibition, Gambling Prohibition, Prostitution Prohibition, and Drug Prohibition that even after a century, usage will be up and crime will dramatically increase.
>>> It matters not what America is rooted on. That is an appeal to false authority. Just because the constitution says X, or the founding fathers would say X, does not mean X is right.
+++ I think very highly of our Constitution. The founding fathers would be very upset to see the government they designed and the senators and presidents they essentially hired trampling all over the American people's freedoms.
*** Victimless crime laws trample over Constitutional freedoms and philosophies.
*** Victimless crime laws cost money in tax revenue, police personnel resources, police financial resources, court trial money, court trial time, and a lot more.
*** Victimless crime laws are always ineffective. Legalisation actually lowers the use of said crime.
*** Prisons will be less crowded with the few "criminals" that have been caught in the prison system. Rapists, murderers, and robbers will not be freed with parole.

Thank you. Please vote PRO for the better position and debater.
beem0r

Con

I'm experimenting.

First, let me point out that I have a right to make new arguments in response only to new arguments my opponenent brought up last round, otherwise I must stick to my previous points.

However, my opponent conceded a strange thing last round.

"Banning video games, large meals and theaters would make us more productive."

Sweet. So these are all victimless, and my opponenet has shown that they should be crimes.

Note that he did not say "Less people playing videogames would make us more productive," which would still possibly be dealt with by my opponent's argument about the prohibition effect. He stated that banning them would ACTUALLLY raise productivity.

Thus, I can subvert the entire prohibition effect argument by simply using these new things as points.

I can also effectively abandon the arguments about whether or not less gambling/prostitution/drugs raises productivity.

So now, this debate is about freedom vs. productivity. Throughout the debate, I have upheld productivity as the ultimate goal of society. My opponent has effectively agreed to my terms - rather than bringing up another goal that is superior, he has consistently attempted to show that my points do not increase productivity. If freedom can be shown to be the ultimate goal of society, then my opponent would have had an easy time defeating my simply by claiming that I infringed on freedom, which my plans do. However, he did not go there. Instead, he went the route of trying to show that my plans did not increase productivity.

His only support for his criteria of freedom as more important than productivity is that the constitution supports freedom. THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE WRONG. "Person X or Document Y agrees with me, therefore I'm right" is not an argument.

I asked in Round 1, "we are investing in a more prosperous future, and isn't that the goal of any society?" And my opponent never disagreed. Thus, I think it is obvious that the superior criteria is productivity in this debate.

Thus, we should ban videogames, large meals, and theaters, since that increases productivity [my opponent agrees that it does]. Thus, there should be victimless crimes.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
If you want the real answer on this ask yourselves who the bad guys are rooting for. I guaranty every smart murderer, bank robber and car jacker can't wait for weapons bans among law abiding citizens. Just as the terrorist can't wait for Hilary or Obama to get in the White House.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
And I didn't change the debate based on a typo. I assumed that you meant "and." This means you have to back up BOTH of your claims. To negate the resolution, I have the prove that one, the other, or both, are wrong. I chose to just attack one of them, I don't see how that's unfair. I conceded half the resolution to you, that's hardly unfair to you.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Libertarian, do you claim that the statement

"Banning video games, large meals and theaters would make us more productive."

Does not allow me to completely avoid the argument over the prohibition effect?

This debate is about whether victimless crimes should exist. I provided a criteria for making something a crime: that it lowers productivity of society. I backed this up, and got you to argue on my terms.

You provided a different criteria, but I disagreed with it, and your only argument for it was an appeal to authority.

If we go off my criteria, then videogames, large meals, and theaters, should indeed be banned, since that increases productivity. If we go off yours, then they shouldn't, since it limits freedom, which you claim is more important.

So yes, it did become a debate about which criteria is superior.
Posted by CaliBeachgirl 8 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
Wow, Nice Debate. I totally agree with libertarian here. If they legislate gun control laws Americans will have a serious problem. Who will have guns if they do this? I know your thinking well duh the police, but arn't you forgeting someone? Criminals don't abide by the laws therefore they would still have guns (stealing them or threw illegal weapons trading), so they would be the ones with guns, Leaving law abiding Americans with no way of protection. No more shop owners could defend themselves agaist robberys, or home owners agaist break-ins. If people even have to debate an issue like this what is america coming too?

Ok well I know I'm not the one debating so i'd better shut up now.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
THE DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF SOCIETY!!! IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE DEBATE BECAUSE OF A TYPO IN THE WORD "AND" THEN YOU HAVE TO STICK TO THE TOPIC!!! YOU CAN'T JUST DECIDE WHEN THE TOPIC IS IMPORTANT AND WHEN IT IS NOT!!!
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
I apologize korezaan. That was rude of me.

- C'mon Beem0r! Twisting people's words is not the same as debating. I have a statement and you try to persuade people that what I said means something it does not. THIS IS DISHONEST! It is not debating. Debating would be to negate my points or present better ones. This was a pretty one sided debate and in your statement "I am experimenting" as well as other words we can tell that you are not even on your side even more. But please let's keep these debates honest and fair instead of twisting my words in a way that I can never respnd.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
I'll keep whatever "pet peeves" i want thank you very much.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Beem0r go lok at hour debate please?
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
- It is consider blogging for the party, which helps spread the word about Libertarians. It shows people, this is a Libertarian position.
So yes, it is necessary for me to put "Libertarians are right" in front of my resolutions.
Does it bother you if I do that?
Because if so, you should find another pet peeve.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Libertarians are right on Easy Cheese - it's delicious
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
libertarianbeem0rTied
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: Obvious
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
libertarianbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
libertarianbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
libertarianbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by me9alo 8 years ago
me9alo
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 aquajet16 8 years ago
aquajet16
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
libertarianbeem0rTied
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