The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,141 times Debate No: 99413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




Hello,! After a very long hiatus from this website, I have returned and I am ready for a debate. I have dabbled in many political economic models and I find libertarian ideologies very intriguing and thus I look for a discussion about it.


Minarcho-Capitalism Ought To Be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

  • Obviously no personal attacks.
  • Whoever is chosen for this debate shall assume con's position and will argue that anarchism is preferable to minarchism.
  • This debate should be considered impossible to accept. If a contender accepts this debate and has not been chosen they shall forfeit and the judges will consider the debate a loss for him/her.
  • Rounds:
    • R1: Challenge & Acceptance
    • R2: Pro's Opening Case, Con's Rebuttal
    • R3: Con's Opening Case, Pro's Rebuttal
    • R4: Refortifications & Closing (No New Contentions May Be Submitted)
  • Both Pro & Con agree to the following definitions:
    • Minarchism: the libertarian political philosophy advocating the minimal existence of a government and legal regulation of a market and social activities.
    • Anarchism: the libertarian political philosophy advocating the complete absence of a government and legal regulation of a market and social activities.
    • Capitalism: the economic model advocating the private ownership of the means of production and the exchange of capital for goods and services.
  • Violation of these rules will result in loss of conduct (not the entire debate).

I have decided to challenge the user Lupricona for this resolution. I look forward to a pleasant debate and I wish the best of luck to my opponent.



Thank you for choosing me. I accept the debate; good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Lupricona for accepting this debate! Best of luck to you! I would like to note that I myself am a minarchist but I have been teetering on the edge of anarchism. If you speak well enough you may change my mind. Regardless, let us begin!


The framework of my position can be separated into these talking points:

  • Minarchism is strong where anarchism is weak
  • Minarchism is far more practical to maintain than anarchism.

Where Anarchism is Weak, Minarchism is Strong

Grudgingly stated, there are undeniable advantages to the existence of a minimalistic government; in fact, one would be useful. I’m not going to spout off the typical rhetoric about monopolies and “muh roads” (which are legitimate concerns, mind you) but I strongly assert that minarchism is strong where anarchism is weak. One of these weaknesses is how crucial services would be operated; services such as fire departments, hospitals, and policing. In anarchism, these services would either be privatized or cease to exist. This could prove problematic in several ways. I typically use this example: fire departments have proven to be an extremely useful and life-saving service. Privatizing them would mean that the owners of fire departments can discriminately select who they provide service to. This puts citizens on their blacklist who might need their service in a very bad place. I understand that those who blacklist civilians will only lose business, but if this takes place in an area with frequent fires, the departments will have this option and civilians shouldn’t be put in the place where they might not have protection from fires. It also means that many fire departments would go out of business. Fires aren’t particularly common in most places and a lack of demand could mean that fire departments could not afford to operate and would close their doors. Many other crucial services like these could also suffer in a similar fashion: police (which are more or less personal protective services in a libertarian ideology. I will address this more in my refortification if I must but I need to save space), hospitals, courts (which would likely cease to exist), and so on; all putting civilians in a very bad place. The minimal existence of a state can fix this by providing only the bare minimum. Taxation may not even be required for such a small amount of services either; however, if you wish me to elaborate on how that I would work I prefer that you ask and I will do so in my refortification.

The Impracticality of Maintaining Anarchism

Storytime! It’s the year 2019, the government has finally stepped down and in its place there is nothing; pure anarcho-capitalism. In a perfect world, it would stay this way forever and everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, this isn’t a perfect world and within only a few months a band of soldiers have risen up and have begun to capture territory under the direction of their new and very oppressive king. Sadly, all there was to stand in their way was a collection of unorganized fighters and they were quickly and sorrowfully defeated. To me, this is the danger of anarchism. I’m sure you’ve heard this concern before but it is one that needs to be addressed. The likelihood of anarchism to be reverted to some form of authoritarianism by means of conquest is too great to be taken lightly. Even a well-armed public that is willing to defend itself (which is almost always the immediate response, so make sure you completely understand this contention) would eventually prove too weak to defend itself from an invading nation or a malevolent local militia because of its lack of organization. This is another place where minarchism would prove more practical than anarchism. A minimalistic government could provide that organization. No standing army, no draft, no military spending, and certainly no foreign interventions; only organization. This would leave a civilian population much better protected and also means that this applied political philosophy remains intact. You may respond with something along the lines of "it would always be possible that minarchism might be abrogated," but so does every other political philosophy that is made manifest. It simply happens to be that minarcho-capitalism would be much more easily maintained than anarcho-capitalism.

Thank you Lupricona for accepting this debate! I had intended for my opening to include more talking points but I feared not having enough space. Either way, I eagerly await your response. Best of wishes and happy debating!



Thank you, Pro, for your opening case. I will not attempt to refute the claims you have made.

Contention 1: Minarchism is strong where anarchy is weak.

My opponent argues that under an anarchical system, police, firemen, courts, and other such useful structures for society would likely not exist or might not exist in an efficient fashion.

Under this contention, there are three important things to consider:

1- The general stance of anarchists is to abide by the Non-Aggression-Principle, or the non-initiation of force. Breaking thing principle is inherently immoral, and is the most basic structure of how society should run. So, even if x is more practical than y, if x requires initiating force, y is morally superior to x. Under the basic mincarchist society, such structures as police and courts would exist through initiation of force, generally through taxation. Now, my opponent has stated a way around this, and if he can provide the solution (a solution that also avoids force), then he will successfully refute my counter claim.

2- No human is inherently good or bad. Rather, they have the potential to act on either morally righteous or malicious intentions. Given this, no structure of society will ever be flawless. Pointing out possible flaws in a societal structure does not immediately prove it is inferior. Rather, we ought to look at all possible structures and determine which one is truly superior. So, even if anarchy does include the issues that my opponent provided, are those combined issues truly inferior to all of the combined issues of a minarchist state? Given that my opponent has made the claim that he could craft a minarchist society without taxation, I would like to see his full argument for that society before I list out all possible flaws and then compare that to the anarchist society.

3- Are my opponent's claims accurate? In an anarchist society, would the societal organizations such as the police force, fire department, etc, necessarily be privatized or ceased to exist? I would argue that it doesn't have to be the case. Right now, in American society, these organizations exist, and we imagine that they exist because the people desire to pay taxes to allow them to exist. The issue is that everyone is forced to pay, and the benefit of an anarchist society is that every individual would have the option to donate the money to public organizations. The public fire department could either help only those who provide money (so it isn't unjust for them to opt out of not saving those who didn't donate), or a selection of the population could donate enough so that the society could function for everyone. Either option is morally superior to the minarchist state, where these structures would be forced on people.

Contention 2: The impracticality of Anarchism.

My opponent raises the issue that an inherent desire of certain humans is to conquest land. Given that conquerors will eventually desire to take over land, which societal structure provides the better solution?

Under a minarchist state, an invading army would know exactly where to attack- the organized center of the army. Once an invading army conquers the central control of the entire state, they then have legitimate power over the entire state. This allows for an easier takeover of land and resources.

Under the anarchist society, there is no central authority. If an invading army wants to conquer land, they can only conquer as much as they can control. Since there is no central authority or rule of law, they would need to create these structures as they continue to conquer. This method is fragile, as it then weakens out the army over time. Also, the ruled societies would not imagine their conquerors to be legitimate rulers, so there would always be the possibility of opposition.

Also, imagine two societies side by side, a minarchist society and an anarchist society. If you were an invading army, would you consider going after the minarchist society, where you only need to take over the central government to have power over the entire land, or would you rather attempt to use all available men and station them over the entire land of the anarchist society, continually enforcing illegitimate rule over them? Clearly, the minarchist society would be easier to dominate.

Debate Round No. 2


Note to the Judges

Note to the judges of this debate. There was originally a flaw in the initial rules. They way rounds were set out would have left Pro writing a rebuttal to Con's opening case before Con's case was even written. A revision is being made. Here is the new round layout:

1) Acceptance

2) Pro Opening/Con Rebuttal

3) Pro Refortification/Con Opening

4) Pro Rebuttal/Con Refortification

This clears up a huge issue in turns and makes the debate more smooth. Thank you for tolerating the confusion.


Thank you, Lupricona, for your refutation! You drive a hard debate, but I enjoy a challenge. I will refortify my position with the same method you attempted to refute my contentions with.

Minarchism is Strong Where Anarchism is Weak

1) I will begin by presenting to you my state funding plan. This plan is actually very simple; the government would institutionalize a sort of loan system which they would charge interest on. That's it. Participation in this program is entirely voluntary and therefore does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Such a program will also be more than enough to sustain a minarchistic government who's sole function is providing the bare minimum to society. As far as I am aware, there are not any major flaws in this proposition and all that was required to defeat your counter-argument was to demonstrate that management of a minimal government does not require aggression. I have done so and successfully defend my position.

2) I do understand that no human being is neither inherently moral nor amoral and because of that there will never be a flawless society; however, this is not a relevant counter-argument. My argument isn't that anarchism is flawed while minarchism is not; this is a misrepresentation of my position. I observed the flaws in anarchism, if I had left my argument at that you would have refuted my entire contention; however, I demonstrated that minarchism properly addresses these issues without violation of the NAP. By doing so I logically conclude that anarchism is manifestly inferior to minarchism. Unfortunately, you did not truly refute my position and you leave my contention virtually unscathed.

3) I am not quite certain where to begin addressing your third point of refutation. For one, your thinking seems more utopian and idealistic than practical. I expressed my concerns about the possible dangers associated with privatizing these services. You respond with "the public fire department could either help only those who provide money..." This is my exact concern and I made detailed notes on exactly why that can be dangerous. It would not be unjust for fire departments to refuse service to civilians who have not paid for it, but it leaves both the civilian and the service provider in a very dangerous position. You have told me that it is moral (and I agree) but you have not provided a solution to this problem. You also make note that civilians donating to these services can keep them operative. This much is true, but there is no promise of any form of willful donations and it is only likely that service providers will look out for their best interests and function primarily to the entities that donate the most to them; this also places civilians in a very dangerous position. Your refutation is mere idealism at best and cannot be logically demonstrated. Again, you fail to properly represent and refute my position, this time by further demonstrating that there is an issue and proposing a utopian scenario in which people willingly participate in donating to public services out of the kindness of their own hearts. My state funding plan covers these problems. Citizens and businesses may withdraw a loan from the government. By paying this back with interest the government collects the means of funding these services and the service providers are eliminated of any functional bias because they do not receive their funding from private entities. This means that nothing is being forced upon anyone and minarchism and anarchism remain equally moral; however, minarchism is more practical and should be preferred to anarchism for that fact.

The Impracticality of Anarchism

In his rebuttal, my opponent asks a question. "Given that conquerors will eventually desire to take over land, which societal structure provides the better solution?" My answer would be obvious, I would invade an anarchistic society first. It would be far easier to initialize and both societies are equally difficult to control. To begin, it is important to realize that nothing is ever going to serve as an effective deterrent to conquest and there is always the possibility that either system would be abrogated through the same means. Neither system is ever going to be perfect. However, organized militias have always proven to be more effective than their unorganized counterparts. One of the reasons that the United States have never seen defeat in war is because of their superior organization. The opposite goes for France. The reason they have seen total defeat in almost every major war since Napoleon is their lack of organization compared to their opponents. Organization, even a little bit, is going to prove more effective than being unorganized. Organizational superiority is a fact of history and it would require new feats of mental gymnastics to attempt a refutation. Later on in your rebuttal, you do voice an excellent concern, however. You argue that submission to conquest is more likely under the establishment of a minarchistic state. This is true but doesn't take history into consideration. Resistance to authoritarian conquest has always existed. In almost every one of the nations Hitler conquered, France, again, being my example, rebellious factions arose and fought against the occupying establishment. I will concede that anarchists are more likely to view conquerors as illegitimate rules, but this isn't a trait found exclusively among anarchists. Submission to rule is entirely dependent upon the will of a population. If the central authority of a minarchistic nation is defeated, noncompliance can and would likely serve as an effective form of resistance (just like anarchism). Minarchism better defends a population because it uses both the anarchistic methods of resistance to noncompliance and an organized militia. Your refutation is strong but unfortunately, doesn't take every possibility into consideration. I, and many more, still consider minarchism to be a more practically maintained and defended system than total anarchism.

Thank you again, Lupricona, for accepting this debate! I eagerly await your opening case. As this is the end of my position I will ask the judges to please vote for the logical choice, Pro. Minarchism is preferable to Anarchism.

Thank you.



Thanks, Pro.

The main reasons that an anarchist society is preferable to a minarchist society were already explained in my rebuttal rounds, but I will attempt to reiterate them in a new and organized fashion:

Argument 1: The Non-Aggression Principle

The minarchist society necessarily violates this principle by forcing a community to support certain organization, like an army, police force, etc. Even with some type of loan system (which my opponent theorized yet needs to explain in more detail) isn't a way around this- it still initiates taxation on the citizens, just at some point in the future.

Also, even the fact of having an army itself is a violation of the NAP. I myself do not support any cause of war, and given that there are others who share my opinion, it would be morally wrong to force pacifists to supply an army with money. And, as I explained in my rebuttal section, a society with no army at all is superior to a statist society with an army, because the invading army would have so much more land and resources to conquer and maintain, whereas they would have less efforts in conquering a state.

Argument 2: Hierarchies

There is no legitimate authority in humankind. Every interaction ought to be through voluntary exchange, and any exchange that is by the means of a dictator is inherently immoral. A minarchist state requires some level of hierarchy, in order to organize the police and army.

An anarchist society would have every exchange be completely voluntary, with no one human being having political power over another.

If you concede that no human has any authority over another, you concede that anarchy is morally superior. If you do not, please give arguments that justify hierarchy in society.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you, Con, for supplying your opening case. I look forward to refuting it to the best of my abilities. I have developed a refutation and I will address several of the most prominent issues in your opening statement. As a quick side note, I will mention that much of this rebuttal had been written at a very late hour and may not make perfect sense. I will review it in the morning before I finalize my argument and post it, but I cannot guarantee that everything will be crystal clear. I preemptively apologize to my opponent, the audience, and the judges for any confusion I may cause them. However, I digress...

The Non-Aggression Principle

My opponent argues that the defined form of minarchism and my state funding plan necessarily violates what is known as the "non-aggression principle." However, this requires failing to understand that the NAP is strictly a code of ethics and my funding plan is entirely voluntary. Unfortunately, the Non-Aggression Principle is simply an idea and adherence to it is not compulsatory. It is only a set of guidelines and it has no practical application in an anarchistic society. Despite it being the very framework of anarchist philosophy, there is no guarantee of popular adherence due to the fact there is no method of enforcing or protecting it. If an individual were to break this code, the only entity to hold them accountable would be society; but as history demonstrates, society is not known to be trustworthy with abiding by ethical codes. Also, my opponent argues that my state funding plan requires the use of force. Firstly, he fails to address how this would be so. He says that even with some type of loan system… isn't a way around this- it still initiates taxation on the citizens, just at some point in the future.” However, my plan has been described as being optional and taxes have not been included as being required. Citizens are not required to participate in this program. If my opposition can demonstrate the reason that taxation is required to initiate this plan I would be capable of providing a proper refutation but he leaves this argument extremely ambiguous. Secondly, the NAP is still only a code of ethics. It has no practical application because it is only an idea. More concrete contentions are needed in order to properly defend this position.

As for the debate on whether or not minarchism is a better defended than anarchism, it has been demonstrated that anarchism is not preferable. Con argues that an invading army would have so much more land and resources to conquer and maintain, whereas they would have less efforts in conquering a state.” Interestingly, this has already been wholly refuted. In the refortification of my position, I demonstrated that noncompliance is not a characteristic found exclusively among anarchists. In almost every one of the nations Hitler conquered, France, again, being my example, rebellious factions arose and fought against the occupying establishment. I will concede that anarchists are more likely to view conquerors as illegitimate rules, but this isn't a trait found exclusively among anarchists. Submission to rule is entirely dependent upon the will of a population. If the central authority of a minarchistic nation is defeated, noncompliance can and would likely serve as an effective form of resistance (just like anarchism). This means that managing the entire population of a minarchistic state is just as difficult as managing authority over an anarchistic one.


Given the subjective nature of philosophical political debate, an appeal to morality should be avoided at every possible opportunity. Debates like ours are used to determine which moral standpoint is preferable; therefore, appealing to your own standard of morality to attack my position is circular reasoning. I say this because you argue that "an anarchist society would have every exchange be completely voluntary, with no one human being having political power over another. If you concede that no human has any authority over another, you concede that anarchy is morally superior." It is only the stance of anarchists that political authority is inherently amoral. To any other political philosophy it is not; so I do not concede that no human has political authority over another and this argument fails.

I must also review the logical inconsistency of my opponents argument before I conclude my rebuttal. It is a very common statement among anarcho-communists that anarcho-capitalism does not qualify as anarchism due to the natural order of hierarchies associated with capitalism. Although I gainsay that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, I must concur that capitalism naturally includes hierarchies because of the way workplaces function. A CEO is above a manager and the manager is above their employees. The capitalist model of the workplace naturally entails that certain individuals be in authority over others. To argue that anarchism requires that no person is in any form of authority over another, you necessarily reject your own position and have ended this debate on your own.

Thank you, Lupricona, for this debate. I always enjoy having such an immersive and thought out discussion and you have provided me with the perfect reintroduction to DDO. I hope to someday debate you again. Also, thank you to all of those viewing this debate and who will judge it. I assert that my opponent has not properly refuted my contentions and that I have thoroughly refortified them. I await Con’s response to my rebuttal but I believe my refutation of Con’s opening case is satisfactory. I have also observed a variety of grammatical errors in Con’s writing and I, therefore, insist that spelling and grammar be awarded to Pro. For these reasons, I can only ask that the judges vote for the only logical choice, Pro.

Thank you and have a great day.



Thank you, Pro, for your final round of rebuttals.

The Non-Aggression Principle

My opponent seems to misunderstand what the NAP is exactly. This principle is a measure in which we can rate which society is better than another. In my beginning rounds, I argued how that, if one society is morally superior than the other, this makes the society better. Since this is what we are debating, it is imperative that we judge societies by the NAP. The more unjustified force that is applied on innocent citizens, the less justification for that construct of society.

My opponent then argued that, still, his system does not initiate force. He argues for a voluntary tax and loan system. However, if the tax system is voluntary, what separates it from an anarchist society? I fail to see how this method would work in a minarchist society; it isn't feasible.

I've already explained how an invading army would prefer to attack a minarchist society, with an organized center that upon invading immediately grants them control over the entire society, rather than the major difficulties of invading an anarchist society with no center and no ability to control all of it without having to use vast amounts of manpower, allotted all over the society, to force the conquered people to obey. This has not been refuted. In a minarchist state, if the central army is taken over, all of the resources then belong to the invading army. It would be difficult to disobey them, because they have control over the resources. In an anarchist society, resources are not centralized, and the army would have to take control over all of the resources spread out over the entire land to gain control- an option that isn't easy to do.


Capitalism allows for private ownership, rather than the state. This doesn't imply hierarchies at all. Also, within a company, some forms of hierarchies are morally acceptable, like when a person buys a building, becomes the owner, and then contracts workers who voluntary work for a fraction of the total revenue.

What isn't morally acceptable is the idea that some people have political or moral authority over another human being.

My opponent didn't concede that it is wrong for people to have power over another, but gave nothing in the way to justify his position. If all men and women are equal, how then can we have governors, and leaders, who have moral authority over other people? This is where statism fails- any version of it- because people are inherently equal. Statism requires disrupting this moral truth.

Thank you for the debate.

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
I'd recommend that you guys read this
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
RFD Part 2
This makes no sense because (assuming) that citizens are making loans to the government that would be payed back plus interest, the only way the government would get money is through donations. There would be no money to pay back the interest. There could not be full compensation to donaters because the money is going to run social programs, and definately could not go to interest. Pro seems to amend his plan later on by explaining that the government would loan money out to people, and the interest they would pay back to the government would fund the programs. Still doesn't explain where the government would get the money to lend out.

Regardless, Pro also argues refusing service to those who don't pay for it is unjust (and rightly so since we would be *allowing* people to die. Pro also points out that Con failed to refute that these programs could not exist in rural areas.

Pro argues that organization is better in winning wars, giving the example of the militias in the US and poor organization in France. Pro argues that resistance to an authoritarian party would be the same in both systems.

Con argues that Pro's plan still violates non aggression in the loan system through the interest. This isn't true because the citizens are voluntarily undergoing the tax, thus no force is used.

Con argues that every exchange ought to be voluntary, and with a monarchist state this is not possible. This isn't true though because Pro's plan allows government to only be funded through voluntary loans.

R4 rehashed what was already said or pointed out what was already intrinsically wrong with the arguments. All of Con's offensive arguments were negated intrinsically. Con failed to negate Pro's argument that many people in rural areas and those being discriminated against would lack social services, and since I have no impacts to weigh this against Pro wins the debate.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
RFD Part 1
==Round 2==
Pro argues that privatization of social services such as fire departments would allow for discrimination to exist, for example against minorities. Pro argues that although boycotting these services in order to make them lose buisness and change their policies could be done, this would mean lack of protection from fires, which is dangerous. Pro also argues that Fire departments in rural areas would not get enough funds to function and would close,

Pro argues that anarchism could lead to an authoritarian state emerging via the inability of anarchists to organize against it.

Con responds by arguing that anarchism requires the non initiation of force, and if a government were to have social services funded by taxes, this would require force. This rebuttal doesn't work because it doesn't argue to me why I should accept the nonaggression principle, Con merely tells me what it is. Why is this theory valid? If Con proves that to me, pro's argument on social services is negated. Con does not provide a warrant though, so this point fails.

Con argues that we have to look at the combined strengths and weaknesses of each system to determine which one is preferable, rather than specific points. I agree, a judge has to weigh impacts regardless to determine on balance which side better argues their side.

Con argues that in anarchy the fire department could only provide for those who pay for it, or a society could pay enough for everyone. He claims again that this is morally superior without a warrant, and the warrant for the non aggression is still lacking

Con argues that in anarchy there is no central structure to topple. Thus, it is harder for a conquering army to dominate people, as well as the fact that the people would always revolt against an authority since they are anarchists.

==Round 3==
Pro argues that the government would make a loan system that would charge interest. The program would be voluntary.
Posted by thebestdebate 1 year ago
Will do and thank you!
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
I'll vote on this over the next couple days. Just post a comment on my profile reminding me periodically every day
Posted by thebestdebate 1 year ago
We will soon be requiring judges to vote on this debate. Please be ready to provide an RFD or your vote may be challenged. Thank you to all those participating!
Posted by thebestdebate 1 year ago
MatthewMoran has been challenged to debate this resolution. If he does not accept, a new challenger will be selected.
Posted by thebestdebate 1 year ago
I will be choosing an opponent sometime later tomorrow so everybody has a chance to read the updates to the rules. Best of luck to all of you! This is going to be a great debate!
Posted by thebestdebate 1 year ago
Thank you, everybody, for your interest! I have made changes to the debate rules where concern was expressed. Before I choose my opponent I just want to make sure everybody is clear on these changes.

Hayd, refortifications does mean that you will be given the chance to defend yourself from your opponents rebuttals as long as you do not submit any brand new contentions.

MatthewMoran, I have altered the debate definitions from "state" to "government" so things are more clear there. The resolution is that minarcho-capitalism is preferable to anarcho-capitalism in general. This may be argued freely. Be it however you decide to argue.

Capitalistslave, I have altered the debate to more accurately depict the nature of this debate. Thank you for pointing that out. We will have a debate though and I am excited for it.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
I would love to accept this. In R4 it says refortifications and closing statements, I want you to clarify that this allows for defense against opponent rebuttals.

If so, I would love to do this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments