The Instigator
BEN875
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
MrMarkP37
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

Minimum wage laws should not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
BEN875
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,068 times Debate No: 7723
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

BEN875

Pro

Minimum wage laws are not only unnecessary but counterproductive because competition for workers keeps wages up and wage controls discourage hiring.
People are going to go where the money is. For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 dollars per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it.
Supply and demand is the fundamental principal of economics. The supply of workers goes up as wages go up and demand for workers goes down as wages go up. Therefore, as the minimum wage goes up, the number of people employed goes down. When the minimum wage goes down, the number of people employed goes up.
MrMarkP37

Con

I would like to thank my esteemed opponent for the opportunity to debate this interesting topic with him.

I agree that supply and demand is a great thing and works well in most economic situations, but this is not one of them.
There are two fundamental flaws in my opponents argument: Supply and demand does not work for jobs and that companies will either choose to or be forced (by market forces) to do what is ethical for their employees.

Supply and demand does not work for jobs. Supply and demand is a great thing when it comes the price of goods, like a stereo or a television, but not when it comes to jobs. You see, when you are making a decision to buy a stereo or a television it is not something that you absolutely need. Those things are luxuries so supply and demand works by balancing how much people want a T.V. (demand) by how many are available. In our modern times when everything can be mass produced supply is normally decided by how many have already been sold.

However jobs are not a luxury for most people, they are a necessity, because people need money to eat and pay for a place to live. Therefore when people are looking for a job (especially in hard economic times, like this one) they are likely to take the first job that comes their way. People are given the choice of either working or starving and faced with a decision like that people are much more willing to take what they can get.

Think about it, how many people out there have interviewed for a job and accepted it without even knowing what the exact rate of pay was? I know that I have done this before and I'm sure that others out there have done the same.

Employers are not ethical when it comes to workers. There are many examples of this throughout history, I'm sure we all know about the child labor practices and the rock-bottom wages that employers used to provide before labor laws came into effect. However, there are still unethical behaviors that go on today. It is unethical for CEOs to take million dollar salaries and also accept million dollar bonuses while their workers earn minimum wage.
And speaking of minimum wage let's talk about it. Even assuming that minimum wage is eight dollars an hour (which it is not in most states) if you worked 40 hours a week you would bring home around $950 a month after taxes. With that amount of money this is what you are expected to do: Pay rent, pay utilities, buy gasoline for your car, get food, pay for health and car insurance and any other expenses you might have.

You would be hard pressed to just pay for an apartment and utilities with that amount of money, and that would leave you without food.

The minimum wage already doesn't provide people with enough money to live. Abolishing it would be horrible for the citizens of our country. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal and his further arguments, as I'm sure he has them, as I have mine.
Debate Round No. 1
BEN875

Pro

Employers have to compete for workers the same way they have to compete for customers. If Ben's Carwash charges $10.00, and Kristina's Carwash charges $7.50, Kristina will take Ben's customers. If Ben's Carwash starts at $10.00 an hour, and Kristina's Carwash starts at $7.50 an hour, Ben will take Kristina's workers.
My opponent mentioned people who are so down and out and desperate for work that they will accept any job without even knowing what the rate of pay is. What my opponent is overlooking is that when the government mandates a higher wage, employers will hire fewer of these desperate people. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 an hour worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7.00 an hour, even if the government demands it. The law of supply and demand, which is going to operate no matter how hard the government fights it, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes.
MrMarkP37

Con

My original point remains the same:

A carwash is a choice you can make. You don't have to get your carwashed. You could keep your car dirty or you could do it yourself. A job is something you must have. Supply and demand is always offset by the fact that demand is driven down because the goods that are offered are luxuries. This situation is not present in job searches where a person needs a job to survive.

The main point here is that many employers could afford to hire more employees if they were willing to make slightly less profits. However, the greed of employers forces them to hire only the bare minimum of employees in order to do business. This results in lower quality of products, which encourages consumers to shop foreign goods that are of higher quality.

So what would happen if we abolished the minimum wage? Let's examine some of the countries where the minimum wage doesn't exist.

Zimbabwe has no minimum wage and eighty percent of their people live below the poverty line. Yemen is another country without a minimum wage but they are in a better situation, only around half of their population live below the poverty line. I could go on, but I believe that everyone gets the point. Think about Korea or Mexico or Vietnam or any of the other countries where people work for pennies a day and live in abject poverty.

When there is no minimum wage the quality of life plummets for the workers and raises for the owners of business. The casam between the rich and the poor is huge in those countries. This is because employers leverage the need of the people to work by offering them the bare minimum to survive.

This is neither an ethical or a smart way to do business in this country. If anything our minimum wage should be raised in order for our citizens to be able to live a better quality of life. Many would argue that this would hurt the profits of those companies, but I disagree. If employers paid more than their workers would be able to afford more of their goods and would thus support the company.

As a side note, the lack of a living wage has also led to the degredation of the family unit. In order to support a family most couples must both work. That means that there is no parent at home with the children, forcing parents to use daycare, a nanny or latchkey. This also means that parents don't have the time or energy to prepare a home-cooked meal in most cases. Not only does this destroy valuable bonding time for the family, but it also forces parents to buy fattening fast food that has caused an epidemic of childhood obesity.

Employers know these things are happening but they don't care as long as their profits continue to go up.

The best reason to keep the minimum wage is to keep the quality of life we enjoy intact. If we eliminate the minimum wage then we will devolve into Yemen or Zimbabwe.
Debate Round No. 2
BEN875

Pro

Supply and demand works just as well with things people need as it does with things people want because in both cases people have choices. Businesses need workers to survive. Because people seek work for the means to purchase both needs and wants they are going to demand/expect as much above the bare minimum to survive as they can get. This forces employers to bid up wages to get and keep employees. Businesses will be shooting themselves in the foot if they pay unethical wages because when people are allowed to work wherever they want, they are going to go where the money is.
At the end of Round 2 my opponent stated that "The best reason to keep the minimum wage is to keep the quality of life we enjoy intact. If we eliminate the minimum wage then we will devolve into Yemen or Zimbabwe." Singapore doesn't have a minimum wage and they have a higher income economy than the United States with less unemployment. Canada has a higher minimum wage than the United States and they have a lower income economy than the United States with more unemployment.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita
http://www.nationmaster.com...
MrMarkP37

Con

I understand your point about Sinapore, but the difference is Sinapore has a fraction of the population that the United States does and not nearly as large an economy. Canada does suffer from slightly higher unemployment than the United States, but their quality of life index is higher than the United States's.

I see what you're saying Ben, but the difference in our arguments is that you are arguing paper facts and not putting them in a real-world scenario. You argue that business owners would be shooting themselves in the foot to pay an unethical wage and yet Walmart does it. Not only do they do it, but they get employees. Since we are talking about the minimum wage I think it would be helpful to point out that minimum wage jobs are jobs that you don't need a college education to get. In many cases, you don't need a high school education to qualify for these jobs either. When you have a college degree and you are looking for work, Ben's idea of supply and demand works perfectly. Businesses are looking for people that can help them grow and those people (because of a college degree) have certain skill sets that are valuable to the company. Companies will compete for managers or PR people or even HR reps. This causes the wages in those jobs to be competetive, because buisnesses want to lure the best and brightest.
Minimum wage jobs don't hold any of those same benefits to the workers. Minimum wage jobs take litlte to no skill to fill. In many cases companies are just looking for warm bodies to do some menial tasks. If someone doesn't want the job, they don't care because they know that someone will always come looking for job.
The problem with Ben's argument is that the supply of workers in our country is always going to out pace the demand of companies to hire people. There are simply too many workers are not enough jobs. This means that the balance of power will always slide to the employer.

If we eliminate the minimum wage the price of goods might come down (although, knowning the way that businesses work, I doubt this would be the case because once people are used to paying a certain price for something businesses will only raise prices from there) but even if prices do come down wages will go down with them. Employeement might go up slightly but more people will be living below the poverty level.

We have seen what happens in this country when the businesses are given all the breaks and are allowed to write their own rules. It only ends up in ruin, because capitalism, unchecked, will always destroy itself.

I'm going to take this last little bit to discuss an alternate solution to the problem. This isn't really part of the argument at hand but it might help you to better understand my point. Minimum wage laws were put into place to establish a standard of living for people. Since their inception the minimum wage has never kept up with the actual cost of living. This is because businesses have raised their prices to create more wealth for themselves. But why do we have a country and a form of government? Is it to make businesses rich or is it to help the people of our own nation?

The reason that the NFL is the best run league in the history of sports is because they have a salary floor, a salary cap and limit on corporate earnings via profit sharing. Everyone that works with the NFL wins because of this wonderful balance. I believe that we should institute something like this in business. Now, it woudl be almost impossible to create a revenue sharing program in the real world so this is what I would propose:

A minimum wage that keeps up with the cost of living.
A salary cap (I don't have a specific number in mind) that controls wages that can be earned by the top CEOs of companies. This will do more than abolishing the minimum wage to keep prices of goods down because of the huge salaries and bonses that CEOs get. It will also make the argument of competition for CEOs moot as each company will have a salary cap. This would also force companies to improve their practices for their employees because CEOs (like NFL players) would have many things to take into consiideration when selecting a job.

A sliding scale on the top prices that companies could charge for goods and services. This scale would not be applicable to all goods and services but only those that are neccessary for survival, like food.

I believe that this would be the most beneficial solution for everyone. Companies would still make great profits, CEOs would still get great salaries and employees would be able to support their families. This would decrease the burder of the government to support peopel via welfare and would free up money for the government to spend on neccessary programs without running into as much debt.
Debate Round No. 3
BEN875

Pro

People who are merely a warm body, doing menial tasks, in a job that doesn't require a high school education, that takes little to no skill to fill, deserve to be paid rock bottom wages because they are contributing next to nothing to society. Hard working, responsible people, who make short term sacrifices to get educations and acquire skills that make them valuable to society are rewarded with the sky high wages that they deserve.
My opponent says that the supply of workers will always be out of pace with the demand of companies to hire people. It's actually the minimum wage that puts the demand of companies to hire people out of pace with the supply of workers because as the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. Wyoming has one of the lowest minimum wages in the country at $5.15/hr. Their unemployment rate is 4.5%. Oregon has one of the highest minimum wages in the country at $8.40/hr. Their unemployment rate is 12.1%.
MrMarkP37

Con

As far as Wyoming and Oregon goes, once again Wyoming's population is a fraction of Oregon's. Fewer people means it is easier to get a job. Wyoming also has several staple industries in mining and drilling. Michigan's minimum wage is $7.40/hr but the unemployement rate is 12.6%. That is higher (actually the highest in the country) than Oregon, which has a higher minimum wage. Indiana has an unemployement rate of 10% and a low minimum wage of $6.55/hr. Massachusetts has a high minimum wage $8.00/hr and their unemployement rate is 7.8%. As you can see, the rate of the minimum wage doesn't have as big of an impact on unemployment as one might think. There are many factors that lead to the unemployment rate, that state of local industry is one of the biggest factors.
People who are merely a warm body do not deserve rock bottom wages. Not everyone is cut out to go to college. People are not created equal, but they should be given equal opportunity to suceed. Some people are smart and can excel in college, get good jobs and earn good wages. Some people aren't so smart and they become janitors or construction workers or frycooks. That doesn't mean that they are worthless and should be paid as such. If no one took those jobs our society wouldn't function.
Also, I don't understand why someone that goes to college and then becomes a hedge fund manager is more hardworker than a ditch digger that breaks his back eight hours a day so that we have paved roads to drive on. Am I suggesting that we pay ditch diggers millions of dollars? No, I am not. What I am suggesting is that we show some respect to those hard worker folks that help make our wonderful country run. We can do that by paying them a decent wage to live on. This country was founded on hard work, and that was what was always rewarded. Lately, we've been rewarding people for who they know or what kind of slick moves they can pull in a boardroom. How they can pull the wool over the country's eyes for a few years and then collaspe an economy. It seems like we did a lot better when we rewarded the warm bodys that man a shovel or a broom. It's not glamorous work and it doesn't take a genius to do it, but someone has to do those jobs or our country would sink down the tubes.
Debate Round No. 4
BEN875

Pro

Excelling in college is not the only way to succeed. My brother is in college but hasn't finished yet and he already has a nice apartment, dependable car, and a reasonable amount to spend week to week just from waiting tables at a restaurant. A friend of mine is married to a guy who never went to college and was making rock bottom wages at a Petco when they first started dating. After she got pregnant he went to Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning(HVAC) school and is making a quality wage now. They were able to move out of their apartment and get a house. My Dad never went to college. He was in the Navy for a while and then got a job at a paint store and worked his way up to manager. My family wasn't rich but my brother and I had a nice house to live in, my parents had a dependable car to drive, we ate good food, and took fun vacations all without my Mom having to work. My Uncle didn't even graduate from High School. After he got married he went to a trade school and now he's an electrician making great money. I've never gone to college, a trade school, or the military and I make a lot more than the minimum wage. My opponent says "This country was founded on hard work, and that was what was always rewarded." I say that hard work is still rewarded and that society functioned a lot better when people were self reliant and didn't have a "What has my government done for me lately?" attitude.
My opponent also stated "I don't understand why someone that goes to college and then becomes a hedge fund manager is more hardworker than a ditch digger that breaks his back eight hours a day" Just because people, such as CEOs, don't do physical work, such as construction, doesn't mean that they don't work hard or that they slimed their way into a life of luxury. A manager's contributions are worth a lot more than the rank and file's because their decisions create more wealth than other workers create. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney makes more than $200,000 a year and his salary comes from union workers who don't make anywhere near that much. Ford Motor Company wouldn't have been worth anything without Henry Ford's assembly line. After Michael Eisner took charge of Disney their net worth climbed from $2 billion to $42 billion. T.J. Rogers took over a company called Cypress Semiconductor, which was in debt back in 1982, and turned it into a billion-dollar company that now has 2,500 employees.
MrMarkP37

Con

This was a great debate. I had a ball discussing this topic with you, I think we both made good points, and I believe we both had logical, valid arguments.

I understand that there are avenues that you can take that don't include college to make a good living. What your point doesn't address is the people that still MUST work in menial jobs. These jobs need to be filled or society doesn't work. If there were enough good jobs that only high school students were left to do the menial jobs then that would be okay, because those high school students would still be supported by their parents. Unfortunately, there are people trying to support families on those jobs.

As far as self-reliance goes, the minimum wage doesn't have anything to do with self-reliance, it has everything to do with fairness. We had a minimum wage in the 1940's and unless I'm wrong, I thought that the generation that lived through the depression and won World War II was pretty self-reliant. I guess they weren't self-reliant enough to live without a minimum wage though.

My point about managers is not that they are useless, it's that we overvalue their importance. There are a few examples of great managers, and you've listed some. I could run out a laundry list of managers that ran their company in the ground while banking millions of dollars in salary and bonuses. I think that you understand my point, though, so I won't do that.
Just as a head coach of a football team is an important piece of the puzzle, I believe that they get too much credit when the team is good and too much blame when the team is bad. It is the players on the field that must perform. The same is true of CEOs, they make important decisions, but companies would fail if they had no work force.

A company's goal is always going to be to pay the lowest amount of wages possible and still have people interested in working for them. That is how business works, lowering wages lowers overhead and means more profit. That means there must be a check on a company's natural tendancy to do this.

The minimum wage helps the economy as well, if the minimum wage were destroyed the economy would suffer greatly. The economy is always strongest when the middle class is strongest, because there are millions of middle-class people and they are all raveneous consumers, which drives the economy. If the minimum wage were eliminated many people would fall out of the middleclass, because as the minimum wage dropped the salaries of other employees would drop as well.

There would exist a casam between those that made millions and the rest of us. This would destroy society as we know it.

As to my point about hard work. What I'm saying is that CEOs and hedge fund managers are rewarded on a much higher scale than other employees for the work they do. I'm not saying what they do is easy, but it doesn't produce anything. There is no tangable good that they produce. They have an ability to manipulate numbers and create wealth for their company doing so. The reason that we are in the economic mess we are in now is because this line of thinking got out of hand and it was pushed too far.

What I'm saying is that we used to reward people that actually made something useful, like a car, or a television or a table. That is what we should be rewarding, that is what matters. It is a mistake to put too much faith into the paper wealth created by stock market gurus. The real wealth exists in what you can make.

Take the bailout for example, the bankers and insurance companies got whatever they wanted. They produce absolutely NOTHING. When the car companies went to Washington they were made to feel like dogs and they had to agree to a host of stipulations before they got any money. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be stipulations when the government is giving out billions of dollars, what I'm saying is that I find it interesting that they treated the bankers so much differently. The car companies actually produce a real good, something I can see and touch. We have already lost our ability to make shoes and televisions in this country because we started letting other countries dominate us in those fields. If we let our ability to make cars die then we are going to be giving another huge industry over to someone else, probably China and Japan. Then what? What will we be actually able to produce in this country?

That is what I'm talking about when I say rewarding work. It's how it used to be done in the fourties and fifties. Those times didn't seem so bad.

The minimum wage is a necessary check on corporate greed, pure and simple. Instead of hurting the economy is actually helps it by giving people enough money to purchase the very goods they are helping produce. Which is the other aspect of eliminating a minimum wage. You said that if the minimum wage was eliminated companies would be able to hire more people and produce more goods. While that might be true, they would also sell fewer goods because people would have much less money to buy things. Since they would be selling less, they would have to lay-off some people, which would cause sales to fall even more. You can see where this is going. Eventually there would be an equilibrium and we would have probably a slightly higher unemployment rate than we do now (because people would be making less and thus be able to buy less) and people would be poorer than they are now, that's all that would happen.

I understand that many people think the government isn't a solution to every problem, and I agree, but the government has to do something right, it can't be all bad, or else how would it have lasted as long as it has, and how would we be able to be such a successful country?

This was a fabulous debate; I had a lot of fun with it. I would like to thank my opponent for a great back and forth and while I urge you to vote con, I think he deserves kudos for some of this arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Too much of this debate focused on the class gap between the maga rich and mega poor. In reality, most jobs are in small to medium businesses. For them, minimum wages indeed discriminates against the really poor.

Imagine a small store owner in a medium sized town. He needs an assistant to help stock and clean. The state forces him to pay his employee $8.40 an hour (the current minimum wage in Oregon). Given a choice between a high school teenager with a car on summer break versus a single mom with three kids, he'll take the teenager. Why? The teenager has more availability and is a low-maintenance employee. His heart goes out to the mother, but with three kids and no husband, she'll be less reliable. As a worker, she is less valuable to his needs. Maybe he decides it would have been worth it to help out the mother-in-need at $5.00 per hour, but the state forbids it.

I see so many teenagers with jobs and few adults. Teenagers are eager to earn money, easy to replace, and don't have other demands on their lives. Poor adults, especially ones with poor health or with children, are high maintenance. They call in sick more or have to attend to their family. Teenagers, then, become greater in value.

I don't think minimum wage should be eliminated altogether, but it shouldn't be arbitrarily fixed so high. Maybe a balance. What if the minimum wage could be appealed in specific cases. For instance, the store owner and single mother could agree on a wage below minimum and file with the state for approval. The poor need the bottom rung.
Posted by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
What all of you seem to be forgetting is balance. Of course it would be horrible if you set the minimum wage at $100/hr, just as horrible if you abolished minimum wage and allowed companies ot pay two dollars an hour. Also, the flip side of your argument of prices going up if the minimum wage was set higher, is the fact that fewer people would be able to buy goods if they made less, or they would buy less of a staple, like food. This would mean that a company's profit margin would either remain static or even go down. Corporate wealth is not the engine that drives our economy, consumer spending is. Also, if anyone that understands economic issues is against the minimum wage, then why do we still have it? There have been many administrations from both sides of the aisle in power since it was established, there has been many opportunites for it to be abolished.
Posted by Cyrus_the_great 8 years ago
Cyrus_the_great
I think the argument against minimum wage is minimum wage itself, everyone say's employers would exploit their workers more without it but they could exploit us because of it. We established a minimum wage but a factory worker makes almost 3 times more than minimum wage. We already get paid by our value, minimum wage should be abandoned but it isn't. Any ways who actually makes minimum wage in America?
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
If minimum wage law had any positive effect, we could set it at $50/hr or why not $100/hr. Anyone who truly understands economics laughs at the whole concept.
Pervrat: Of course a high powered CEO gets paid far more than a skill-less laborer. She also produces more value for the company. Every person has a commercial value, but that value is variable. Pricing a skill above its intrinsic worth merely creates a distortion.
Look at it this way: Consider a hypothetical company that employs a infinite number of skilled persons, at various levels of competency, with a pay differential of $.01/hr separating each level. If a minimum wage is demanded above the lowest level, in fairness, every person above that level would get an increase. The net effect would be that the costs of products of that company would go up, without any increase in value - just price. Everyone buying those products then pays more. Those on the margin would no longer afford the products. You would then clamber for an increase in the minimum wage. And round and round we go.
When I was ten I asked my father why the government didn't set the MW at a level to make everyone rich. I'm no longer ten.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
What you fail to realize is nobody is trying to support a family on minimum wage. Garbage collectors get paid pretty well. Farmers don't get paid minimum wage either, they get paid for whatever their crops will bare. So, before you start making statements about what others make, maybe you should find out exactly how much some of these people are earning.
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Anyone who believes a CEO sitting on millions and a destitute desperate to pay for food, shelter and medicine are on an equal basis and the destitute has as much power to set a wage is too delusaional for me to rationally debate with.
Posted by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
People that take minimum wage jobs do nothing for society? That's just arrogant. Are you serious? Who takes your garbage, hands you your change, farms your food, builds your car, lays the brick for the walls of your house. We need those people, man. Not everyone is cut out for a college degree. You're gifted with smarts and a cushy life. Some people are born poor, in burnt out inner city areas. They take a job or they turn to crime. By not turning to crime they are benefiting you. The arrogance of the upper class is disgusting when they think that everyone that wasn't as privileged as them is worthless.
Posted by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
Supply and demand works both ways. If there are too many of one type of job (ie, janitorial jobs, clerk jobs) then the business can drop the price immensely. This will result in people needing to get two jobs. That will in turn bolster poverty, because not everyone will be able to do so, and if they do, they won't have time to save up money and do things like go to college. Businesses are not always run scrupulously, my friends. Trusting that bosses will simply "give" fair prices and do a good job based on suppy and demand is ludicrous. Why do you think there are sweat shops?
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
I am going to have to agree with Ben875, I have seen exactly what raising the min. wage did in fast food. It actually provided out what I thought it would. The business owner not only increased the price of his products to make up the increase, but he went just a bit further to increase his profit margin and blamed it on the wage increase. There are enough government agencies in place now to ensure workers are paid a fair wage. The federal minimum wage is only used now to allow unions to cry about their wages are too low.

Businesses will always do what ever they have to in order to maintain their profit margins and not do with less, just like the government. How many times over the years have we seen companies say we need everyone to take a pay cut and cut in other areas to allow them to stay in business? Has the government ever taken a pay cut or done away with a tax that has run its course? I know for a fact that in some city budgets there are taxes being charged that was put in place back in the early 1900's.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Marine1 8 years ago
Marine1
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
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 KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
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 Cyrus_the_great 8 years ago
Cyrus_the_great
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
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 Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
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 mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by brycef 8 years ago
brycef
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
BEN875MrMarkP37Tied
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