The Instigator
constitutionfirst
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Marijuana should be legalized as a spark for small business ownership

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
constitutionfirst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,702 times Debate No: 5725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (7)

 

constitutionfirst

Pro

I would firstly like to state that I am aware of the vast amount of arguments for and against that have been used in the past. I am going to attempt to illustrate my position not from the standpoint of morality or assertation of societal acceptance but from a strictly business standpoint since nearly every law that has been created has been made from a strictly monetary stand point. The points of public safety will no doubt arise and to that I will make a compelling argument as to the absurdity of those claims.

In the current state of the economy we are looking at many jobs being lost. Many of those jobs started to be lost on the corporate level including mass lay offs starting about a year and a half ago and have now trickled down to the small business owner. The industries that have been affected are numerous and far reaching and have severely affected our deficit spending, which is at a record level of 454.8 Billion, by the reduction in taxes paid through depressed consumer spending. Why then is a perfectly resonable indulgence such as cannabis, a taxable commodity, still illegal?

As someone who has travelled around I have witnessed fellow American's take up the art of brewing beer and in places such as Flagstaff, AZ microbrews are the norm while big corporate beers such as Budwieser are rare. This has provided an economy of young entrepeneurs, many of whom still in college, and has provided a job base in a community that would not be able to offer the ammount of jobs to supply the demand of university students in the region.

Marijuana, which is decriminalized (not legal) in 10 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon)(http://www.slate.com...), is an untapped industry on the same level as tobacco. As recounted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse "According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006, 14.8 million Americans age 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, which is similar to the 2005 rate." This is an overwhelming number of Americans who partake in an activity deamed anti-social.

Now I am DEFINITELY NOT advocating 12 year olds smoke pot. I do condone decriminilizing use for those individuals 21 and over who have the ability to make a choice for themselves and do have the ability to indulge in other intoxicating substances such as alcohol. Choosing which substance is ok to remain legal and which is not based on assanine illogical rhetoric is not only unpatriotic but near "Orwellian."

Accoding to the site "Tobaccofreekids.org" the average state "sin" tax placed on cigarettes is $1.18 which works out (depending on brand) to be an approx. 30% tax. And according to a study headed up by John Gettman, leader of the Coalition for the Reschedulng of Cannabis, conducted in 2006: "A study released Monday finds that marijuana is now the nation's biggest cash crop, with the value of the annual harvest exceeding that of corn, soybeans or hay -- the country's top three legal cash crops. The study, conducted by public policy analyst and former National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws head Jon Gettman, used official government figures to arrive at an estimate that the annual pot crop is worth $35 billion." That would generate $10.5 billion in new taxes if taxed the same as cigarettes. Or in other words enough to pay for out of pocket health care for half of the uninsured many of whom are children. (http://www.amsa.org...)

The other aspect of what I am proposing is introducing an entrepenureal spirit into those who are young and looking at entering into a lucrative business venture. As with the microbrew community, the pot community is a tight knit group that finds no problem in finding a target market. As stated previously the pot industry in the United States is an estimated $35 billion industry that has little barriers to entry as all the necessities for setting up and growing can be bought at the local Lowes or Home Depot. Hydroponic growing, a once mysterious method (at least to the layman) of growing crops utilized mainly for the growth of pot, is now being used for the GREEN community to produce healthy crops of almost anything imaginable and with far greater yields than conventional methods. Now that it is more widely known a legal grow operation can be set up in any household with little needed space, producing returns per square foot of approx. $130/mo (based on 1 ounce yeild per plant and one plant per square foot - at street value of $400 per ounce) making an unused closet capable of paying for rent each month!

Heading off any argument that somehow legalizing the production of marijuana will encourage or increase use in children is completely and utterly false. Selling to children would obviously remain a highly penalized charge and carry significant weight in detering the selling to children as it does with alcohol. By removing the criminal element to the product, thus eliminating dealers that are already partaking in a crime, this will leave those who purchase the substance legally with the option to smoke legally distribute legally or engage in illegal activity and making them think twice about thier actions. Undoubtedly there will be a few who engage in the sale to minors as with any regulated substance, however, by regulating cannabis and making retail operation legal the profit margin and temptability of illegal sale dissapear. Dealers operate primarily on bulk purchase, being able to buy a pound at a reduced cost and breaking it up and distributing it at an inflated price (often 100% markup at that quantity.) By making it so that this practice is improbable (since it will be possible for Joe Pot Smoker to go into a convenient store or hash bar and purchase at the same price he paid before on the stree) will actually reduce the selling to children. As long as the distributor (if operating as a retailer of the substance) obtains a license and abides by the law of the state regulatory agency than thier should be no problem with whether or not thier will be a social disruptance or a change in behavior.

As a renewable energy source mass hemp fields (that do not produce THC) can be used as a source for ethanol and "Farmers who grow hemp claim it is a great rotation crop and can be substituted for almost any harvest. It grows without requiring pesticides and is good at aerating the soil. On a per-acre basis, one estimate claims hemp nets farmers more income ($250-$300) than either corn or soybeans ($100-$200). A full crop of hemp only takes 90 days to grow, yielding four times more paper per acre, when compared over a similar 20 year period with redwood trees in the northwest United States. However, there are other varieties of trees that yield two to three times more than hemp." (http://www.madehow.com...)

The production of this crop (as with most Bast crops) yeilds everything from paper to substitutes for fiberglass. Historically it is the first cultivated crop dating back to Mesopotamia in 8000BC.

People use the drug for relaxation, proven medical benefits and as a biodegradable textile of which the possibilities are seemingly endless and from a business standpoint for job creation. It is time that we set aside the racially motivated and politically motivated laws that were created during a time of American shame where it was used to encarcerate Mexicans and African Americans because of our distrust of them. Enforcement of marijuana laws costs $7.6 billion annually (as opposed to 10.5 generated just with cannabis alone). The DEA would not want to confirm the findings of countless research organizations because to them, just like my reason for the legalization, it is a business decision and they would not want to take an action that would put many of them out of work. And to that I say "Hey you can always sell pot!"
Tatarize

Con

My opponent is completely wrong on the economic points of marijuana and shows a complete ignorance of basic economics. If marijuana were legalized the bottom would quickly drop out of the market and those currently engaged in illegal drug related activities concerning Marijuana would see their profits evaporate. The prices of the marijuana trade are artificially high because it's a black market trade and the risks incurred by individuals are high which leads to a profitable trade.

While cigarettes are certainly profitable that is primarily because they are extremely addictive and habit forming able to hook new clients after as few as two cigarettes, this provides a good deal of freedom for individuals to avoid high prices and keeps demand at a flexible rate to help drive down prices. Few people would or do smoke 40 marijuana cigarettes a day but the number of two-pack a day smokers is remarkable and consistent.

Marijuana isn't habit forming and with proper competitions and individual freedoms would lead to high quality products with very low profit margins. Without massive profits for small business opportunities the trade would become dominated by large corporate growers who could deal properly with the regulations that the government would clearly impose on the trade. Small businesses would be driven out and large corporations such as Starbucks would completely dominate. The large profit margins of today are due to the risk factors involved which drive the prices up and keep them artificially inflated whereas without such factors you could buy a pound of marijuana for a few bucks and the consumers rather than small businesses would be the primary beneficiaries of legalization. Those currently engaged in illegal activities, which do fund black markets and gangs, would quickly die off cutting off funding for these groups.

While I fully believe that Marijuana should be legalized as the drug trade serves to currently profit a few nefarious individuals, bringing it into the open would not switch those profits to less nefarious people, rather it would cause the market to suffer real competition and equalize the price of the product at what it is actually worth. We are dealing with a product that can be easily and effectively grown in one's own backyard with little to no effort and produce enough for personal use. Marijuana is nearly worthless and as such would stop being much of a cash crop at all. The paper-trade from the fibers would more than overwhelm the small amount used as drugs and would almost certainly be more profitable. However, again, in this case the large agrabusinesses would profit whereas the small buisinesses would be effectively crushed.
Debate Round No. 1
constitutionfirst

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge I look forward to the debate.

What my opponent says regarding the reason for the high price of marijuana is only partially true. Price of Marijuana world wide is relatively high even where there is an acceptance of the drug such as Amsterdam. You claim that I have an ignorance of the dynamics of economics because I do not understand basic supply and demand concepts however you contradict yourself by saying that large conglomerates would eventually take over production. You also state that the reason cigarettes are of such a low cost yet able to turn a profit is due in part to the addictive quality of nicotine and marijuana does not, which I would completely agree. This in itself is an ignorance of a basic market principle, you have to create a profit.

You also make the assumption that mass production of marijuana would generate the same good quality bud that smaller operations generate and this is completely false. As seen with any commodity it takes added time and care to generate high quality product. The brewers are known for this as well as those who produce cigars and cigarettes yet there is still a market for smaller companies who produce smaller quantity but higher quality and therefore more expensive goods. (examples: Flying Dog Beer, Crown Royal, Cohiba)

While it is true that the production of paper products and textiles do not support my premise of small business I use only as a means to illustrate my point that hemp is a highly profitable untapped tax source.

You do make a compelling point in that because of the low barrier to entry this would create a higher supply and lower demand thus lowering the price. While this may seem very accurate the low cost of actual growth still makes profit margin high enough to be profitable and since maintaining a small amount of plants requires less effort than growing on a larger scale (more than 25 plants) the entrepreneur can maintain another job and tend to his crop when he returns and thus putting more money in his pocket and more money into the tax system when he spends it.

Others in the community who do not possess the knowledge or desire to begin growing and would rather purchase would remain high. I failed to mention in my opening state the requirement to be licensed (as is with alcohol). This was alluded when I spoke of the regulation but I failed to clarify what that meant. Obtaining a licence for distribution and sale would increase those barriers to entry and there by increase the demand offsetting the other factors that would increase supply. Just as with beer and liquor production (that can be done in any home with relatively little effort) creation for personal use would be totally acceptable but distribution and transporting over state lines would remain illegal without proper licensing just as with the aforementioned commodities.

I also failed to mention that while selling for smoking is one way to consume marijuana the endless supply of baked goods would be a niche that those with the culinary skills could take advantage of. I know my opponent will again assume that corporations such as Toll House and Nabisco would diminish the return by competitive pricing but the evidence puts this argument at a disadvantage. They would no doubt exploit the opportunity but delicious specialty foods are still being made by the local baker. Though it may be more convenient to buy the prepackaged cookies and snacks from the grocer aisle people still purchase better quality food from the baker and he survives and even turns a profit. We even have specialty "gourmet" dog restaurants which would have seemed silly only 20 years ago. The point is that people have tastes and those tastes translate to profit. Why would someone spend 4 times more for Hydro when they could easily obtain regs for cheaper and in more abundant supply? Because it tastes better, doesn't make you as sleepy and heightens your senses more. It is a matter of personal taste. Budweiser would not be trying out new flavors of beer (at a higher cost to consumer than regular Bud) if not for the community of microbrewers who have significant enough market share to drive this upward competion. Certainly Budweiser could sell only Budweiser and Bud Light as well as lower quality and lower priced Busch and Natural Light but they do not want to lose any ground because demand is high for something new. And if people are willing to spend more for a quality product than they will explore that option. This does not mean that the competition from the microbrews dissipate as they are still around and doing well. Those that do not profit, drop out of the business and that is the natural selection process of the economy.

Complete deregulation of anything, as we see it now in our economy with the banking collapse, leads to chaos in the marketplace, yet that is not what I am proposing. Everything needs to be carefully considered before making a decision as big as this and approached in a businesslike manner. By regulating it with amount limits grown for personal use and by locations where you could consume (hash bars, your home) you maintain a level of balance that is important in the market.

I hope this overturns the claim that I am somehow 'ignorant' of basic economics 101 and would ask my opponent to not be as divisive in language until he understands my points clearer or uses more specific examples to illustrate my 'ignorance.'

Again thanks for taking up the debate and I look forward to your rebuttal!
Tatarize

Con

No, my suggestion that marijuana prices are high is absolutely true. You cite Amsterdam as if that's some fantastic gotcha. I didn't see any massive pot farms in Amsterdam. They aren't producing they are just legally selling. The price is however set by the market and, though legal in Amsterdam, is not legal elsewhere and thus worth more elsewhere. The black market prices in other parts of the world and Europe make the prices in the legal oasis of Amsterdam still reasonably high. Further, Amsterdam is overpopulated with high end marijuana whereas throughout the United States low end brick weed is consistent and common.

You can't compare the prices of legalized marijuana in Amsterdam to that of the United States. If we grew one or two fields of marijuana rather than corn in the central part of the United States it would exceed demand by a large amount and flood the market causing the price to plummet. Regardless how much you think small business would profit from this, the infrastructure is already existing within agrabusiness and associated distribution networks. The resulting product would be higher grade and significantly cheaper than needed. The prices in that respect would actually drop to artificially low levels when demands for the hemp-fibers and other more useful products hit the market causing a glut of the buds. Further the rolling and production could easily be done by any number of cigarette manufacturing plants and others.

Legalization would cause the black markets to collapse. This would deny income to unsavory people and certainly provide a good incentive to legalize, but your claim of small businesses cropping up all over the place is naive and wrong.

Cigarette prices are kept high and regulated in a monopolistic fashion. Further, they are extremely addictive making the smoking of dozens of them a day a practical reality for millions of Americans. That's a clear and obvious winner as far as products go. They are deadly and so you lose 400,000 customers a year and need to replace them but they pretty much sell themselves. If you could buy a pack of 40 joints for 4 bucks how large do you think the profit margin would be? Moreso when you consider that if people want to stop smoking pot all it takes is a decision. I'm not saying that marijuana sales couldn't turn a profit but rather it would only turn a profit for those manufacturers who produce them in bulk and that is not small businesses.

My opponent argues that small operations would produce quality products more than mass products do. I am inclined to agree that specialty operations could produce better products but take a look at Starbucks' drug distribution empire. They produce a very high quality product in a number of different areas with a high profit margin to the same base customers who probably also smoke marijuana. Don't you think that the operation could easily take over and add on the distribution and production of marijuana? Which isn't to suggest that you couldn't just get bulk product elsewhere for cheaper. In the distribution of the drug caffeine there are both low end and high end distribution operations and both are overwhelmed by corporate business.

The fact of the matter is that in distribution and production of alcohol the large businesses dominate to an astounding extent and the only time small businesses did good work for good profit was during prohibition. There are a number of small operations and self-employed individuals in the current black market setting who would be completely wiped out if marijuana ever became legalized. Legalization would crush these small illegal businesses. Further, the cash-crop status of marijuana would be equally demolished. Only the consumers would really benefit.

Hemp is highly profitable for those few farms in the United States who are given permission to grow it. It is taxed as a good and properly so. The plant fibers are certainly useful, but again after the market is flooded we'll find out again what we find out with farming time after time. It's hard work for nearly no profit and the only groups that seem to do well are large farming conglomerates and agrobusiness. Why should marijuana fibers of buds be any different than every other good in the world? Seriously, why? If not for government subsidies most products would be completely unprofitable to grow at all.

Why is marijuana going to break that mold and suddenly lead to small grow operations providing products to small pot clubs and coffee houses and providing large profits for everybody involved and large tax revenues? Why are large corporations not going to spring from this or diversify their business into this field? Why is pot special?

My opponent still fails to understand the basics of economic theory. He says "While this may seem very accurate the low cost of actual growth still makes profit margin high enough to be profitable and since maintaining a small amount of plants requires less effort than growing on a larger scale" -- Why would there still be any profit margin at all? Why not grow even more plants? There's a certain point where growing additional plants will cause a price decrease such that the added benefits of growing additional plants is canceled out by the costs of growth. For the small scale farming growing a couple dozen plants in his back yard this could be that it isn't worth it for him if he's only growing about five dollars worth of marijuana for six dollars worth of work. Why don't you grow tomatoes in your backyard? What is stopping people currently from having small scale farms? It isn't worth it. It's more labor than the plants are worth because market forces favor large scale operations.

My opponent believes that the profit margins will always exist and that supply cannot ever satisfy demand but this isn't the case with a product like marijuana. Meeting demand is trivial as the actual amount of product used is actually quite small compared to any other agro-product. Just as growing tomatoes in your backyard isn't profitable or useful, growing pot won't be either if pot is a legal product you can pick up with at any corner store.

My opponent suggests that regulations governing microbreweries would be similar but microbreweries are largely not-profitable and completely dwarfed by corporate outfits. I'm not arguing for a complete degregulation of the market as it pertains to a legal marijuana market but one should note that the regulations are easier for the larger operations to meet than smaller operations which again does not help out small businesses.

Unless my opponent can give a salient reason why pot is different than every other good on the market today, he loses. He claims to not be completely ignorant of basic economics but holds that there will still be a massive profit margin for a plant you could legally grow in your back yard. He seems to suggest that people would be interested in creating grow areas in their own backyard to produce product which isn't worth the effort to grow (because the large operations would easily do more for less), and that there would be no market forces to encourage any corporate interests towards higher grade products. -- I'm sorry but no.

There's a lot of good reasons to legalize pot, some hippy pipedream of everybody making infinite profits off a market traded good, you could grow in your backyard, and magically repel corporate interests in this perpetual profit machine, is not one of those reasons.
Debate Round No. 2
constitutionfirst

Pro

Silver Eagle Distributors, the largest Anhueser Busch distributor in the world, is located in Texas. Also in Texas are 112 different microbrew companies and brewpubs. Around the nation are 56 here in Florida, 52 in GA, 126 in Colorado, 120 in Oregon, 61 in New York, 156 in Washington (state), and in my opponents backyard, California, there are 112. (http://brewpubzone.com...) I suppose they didn’t receive his memo that there was no way to be profitable.

“There's a lot of good reasons to legalize pot, some hippy pipedream of everybody making infinite profits off a market traded good, you could grow in your backyard, and magically repel corporate interests in this perpetual profit machine, is not one of those reasons.”

I don’t remember ever stating anything remotely close to this comment. What I did say is that legalizing pot is a great way to start small business growth and infuse the economy with taxes to help relieve our deficit spending. My opponent just makes things up to justify his point while never once offering any proof or statistics to verify his opinion. I don’t suppose that he has ever done a Market Analysis, SWOT Analysis , or prepared any Business Plan whatsoever because if he did he would know that Supply and Demand have nothing to do with survivability, that is controlled by marketing. I would say that water is abundant (water covers 71% of the Earth's surface) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) yet I would be willing to bet that even my opponent has a bottle or two in his fridge while also having a water source somewhere in his house and probably another nearby. Supply and demand does not work in this case and boils down to marketing. Even at the local clubs people hook themselves up to oxygen and pay for it while still being able to breath normally after their jaunt.

My opponent talks about hemp diminishing the price of marijuana. He has done absolutely ZERO research and this is clear in the fact that industrial hemp has little THC, the key component that gets you “high” and it is the loosely worded drug laws that keep the product from being grown even though certain cultures rely on it for survival, like the HOPI tribe.

Tartarizer uses tomatoes as an example and I go back to the fact that again he apparently knows nothing of marijuana. People do not grow or give up on tomatoes because of the high cost of pesticides you have to buy to keep them alive. Marijuana has THC a natural insect repellent that tomatoes lack though they both grow with relative ease and minimum fertilizer.

I have clearly illustrated my point throughout this debate and have provided facts, statistics and examples of business models of the past that would easily transfer to business of “pot” while my opponent has stated opinion and rhetoric the entire time and offering no sources for his argument. My statement was that legalizing marijuana wld be a spark for small business growth and it inevitably would be. In business some succeed and some fail and not every one can be successful but conversely not everyone can fail so long as there is a dream and a plan. I now leave my opponent with the opportunity to close and look forward to the results
Tatarize

Con

"A spark for small business ownership" is a completely wrong and not a good reason legalize marijuana.

Marijuana should be legalized because there is no reason it should be illegal.

If something is harmless and a personal choice it shouldn't be outlawed by the government for what has been repeatedly shown to be really bad post hoc/ad hoc reasons. Similarly "spark for small business ownership" is the "it'll make you go insane" for the other side of the question. Neither are true. It won't help small businesses and it won't make you inject heroin into your eye.

-----

I freely admit that some small businesses will be helped and created but the reason for the legalization of Marijuana can't be for this purpose because it is exceedingly minor in comparison. In fact, the legalization of marijuana would drive a vast number of self-employed individuals completely out of business. And, I guarantee you that none of those microbrews make remotely close to the profits of Silver Eagle Distributors. Further, there'd probably be a few headshops and smokeshops that might do more business than before, however the bulk of money would go to the large corporations. Further, the bottom would drop out of the market causing a significant decrease in price, increase in supply, and drive street dealers out of business.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
I only would like the courtesy of a fruitful discussion so that I may understand why certain points are strong over others. You are right selfishness is a big part of voting for some people but I would hope to find a more intelligent class of selfishness on here
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
...Or I disagree with the resolution, you failed to convince me otherwise, and I agreed with Tatarize's points against your theses. Voting can be over-analyzed, you know.

I could also have voted against you to show dissatisfaction with the debate, to make your opponent grateful to me for my own purposes, because I personally dislike you, because I hate small businesses, to assuage my guilt over having experimented with marijuana, or for any other number of reasons.

It is arrogant to assume that you know what is going on in the head of a certain voter when he casts his vote, for or against you.

...And now that the debate is past voting period and you've won, what's the point really?
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
SolaGratia - reread it (I read it the first time too!) and I think you missed my purpose of the debate entirely. There are many reasons for or against one thing - I applied one and it was my opponents position to refute my claim. Changing an argument does not make a debate winnable solely because the purpose is to disrprove my claim which my opponent agreed with in his closing statement and that is that Marijauna legalization WOULD indeed create small business opportunity. You wish to say my debate does not hold merit simply because you believe there is a better reason to legalize it.
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
ConstitutionFirst: I believe Con may have stated some of them in his argument, should you be inclined to reread it. However, (1) it's not "habit-forming" and (2) it can be used for medical purposes. I am not necessarily against its legalization, I merely think that, like smoking and prostitution, mary jane is unworthy of enlightened humanity. Let the zombies get high, I prefer my life naturally stimulated.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
"and what is wrong with prostitution being legalized?"

http://www.debate.org...

I like to think my reasonings against my opponent are good reasons as to why Prostitution should not be legalized.
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
Sola - what are the "legitimate arguments for the legalization of marijuana" of you refer?
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
and what is wrong with prostitution being legalized?

After taking a glance at your profile Sola I noticed that you are against ANY form of drug legalization including medical marijuana.... your vote seems suspect as one who has a closed mind. If you could elaborate on WHY con wins (ie source references, valid references to business examples etc) I would be more inclined to believe that you voted with something more than personal opinion and actually judged the debate on the merits of the argument.
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
CON wins by a long shot. There are serious, legitimate arguments for the legalization of marijuana...PRO missed all of them.
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
Hey! Prostitution should be legalized everywhere as well...that will encourage small businesses!
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
"I would firstly like to state that I am aware of the vast amount of arguments for and against that have been used in the past. I am going to attempt to illustrate my position not from the standpoint of morality or assertation of societal acceptance but from a strictly business standpoint since nearly every law that has been created has been made from a strictly monetary stand point. The points of public safety will no doubt arise and to that I will make a compelling argument as to the absurdity of those claims."

That is my openning statement......

This is your closing....

"Marijuana should be legalized because there is no reason it should be illegal.

If something is harmless and a personal choice it shouldn't be outlawed by the government for what has been repeatedly shown to be really bad post hoc/ad hoc reasons. Similarly "spark for small business ownership" is the "it'll make you go insane" for the other side of the question. Neither are true. It won't help small businesses and it won't make you inject heroin into your eye."

Way to completely set up a strawman
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
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 LandonWalsh 8 years ago
LandonWalsh
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by asyetundefined 8 years ago
asyetundefined
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Numquam 8 years ago
Numquam
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
constitutionfirstTatarizeTied
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