The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
trendem
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Obama's Stimulous plan is going to be a complete failure

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 10 votes the winner is...
sadolite
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,073 times Debate No: 7008
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (10)

 

sadolite

Pro

"Simple math and economics 101" is all that needs to be said in my opening statement to make my case. Printing worthless money will only create inflation and make the problem worse. I have history on my side. History has proven time and time again that all of his ideas will fail and fail miserably in a capitalist economy. It would be a perfect plan if one was going to create a socialist/communist society. Nationalize all banks as is being suggested and most likely will be done. Expand the welfare state to get as many people as possible reliant on govt, which is being done. And tax those who are not reliant on govt until they are, by increasing gov't spending so much that it can never equal the revenue intake by those who pay taxes, which is being done. Crush private business with endless regulation and even more taxes on them also, which is being done. After the country goes into a depression which it will, Nationalize all businesses and everyone works for the gov't and gov't will decide who gets what and how much and what will or will not be produced. And last but not least total govt control of health care system, which will more likely than not be achieved under this administration as they have already passed similar legislation with regard to the child population. Only one last step to go to get everyone on the govt dole with regard to health care. And then take the guns away by proxy, Make it to expensive to own one. There is already legislation for this plan in the works.
To all who voted for change, boy oh boy are you going to get it. Say good by to capitalism forever. Capitalism can not function if the gov't is run by socialist/communists and promotes socialist/communist ideas for the economy. This is a fact, socialism/communism and capitalism can not exist together. Capitalism is based on taking risk with ones own money to earn more money and employ more people to earn even more money. Socialism makes everyone equal no matter how hard you work or how little you work. Unless of course you are the one deciding for everyone else what is best for them at the upper echelons of govt where it's do as I say not as I do.
I will attack and destroy any comers on this issue, you had better know economics well, but then again if you did you would know this plan is going to be a miserable failure.
trendem

Con

I thank Pro for his passionate opening, but disagree with him just as fiercely.

Pro commits the fallacy of slippery slope when he says Obama's plan inevitably leads to socialism/communism. He falsely asserts that Obama's plan means "endless regulation", ever-increasing taxes, endless welfare-state expansion, and nationalization of all banks. He asserts, without proof, that at a later stage, the administration "nationalize all businesses", impose "total gov control", and render it difficult to own guns. I demand evidence for his far-fetched claims.

Pro seems to view everything in black and white. Either we're wholly capitalistic or fully socialistic, he says. But there exist mixed-economies too (India being a thriving example), where capitalism and socialism co-exist. America is a mixed-economy even now.

This makes Pro's arguments about the inefficacy of total communism/socialism irrelevant. America is not, and gives no indication that it will be, a socialist country.

Energy is one area where Obama's plan will succeed splendidly. The plan triples current government spending to totalling 38 billion dollars in government spending and 20$ billion in tax incentives over the next 10 years. These loans, loan guarantees and tax credits for businesses will allow them to establish plants, conduct research and commercialize new existing technologies. The spurt in clean energy development over the next 10 years will be a crucial step on starting to wean ourselves from foreign environmentally harmful fossil fuels.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

2007 revenues............ +2.4 trillion

2007 expenditures....... -2.8 trillion

2007 deficit............... -400 billion

Total US liabilities both public and private and international -53 trillion

Projected deficit for 2009 -500 billion

Interest on national debt (Not part of fiscal year budgets) -412 billion per year and rising as nothing is being paid off. The govt barrows money to pay this interest on borrowed money this figure will triple over the next 5 years at the current rate of borrowing.

Stimulus plan in 2008 by Bush that did nothing to improve the economy using borrowed money -178 billion

Obamas' stimulus plan ........... -876 billion

Mortgage bail out .......................-78 billion

First bank bail out .......... -350 billion + another -350 billion total -700 billion with no effect on the economy.

First auto bailout ....................... -28 billion

second auto bail out another........-20 billion

Supplemental emergency spending ( Katrina, wars and natural disasters not included in fiscal year budgets) 2008 ...... -368 billion

Lets do the math for 2009 shall we:

2008 numbers are not yet available so I will estimate for 2009 using the figures from 2007.

2007 revenues 2.4 trillion. I will be nice and give 2009 the same numbers as we all know they will be less because the economy has been in the tank for two years and can not possibly be as high as 2007.

2009 revenues ................ 2.4 trillion

2009 expenditures FY budget only. Govt spending increases every year at a rate of about 4% so 2.8 trillion x 4% = an increase of 112 billion for 2008 and anther 116 billion for 2009 in addition to the previous year bringing 2009 expenditures to 3 trillion

2.4 trillion - 3 trillion = - 600 billion deficit for FY 2009

Now lets add all the new spending:

I will estimate that 1/3 of Obamas' stimulus will be spent in FY 2009 as it is over a 3 year period or is it 4? Who the hell knows. Anyway it does not matter 1/3 of 876 billion = 292 billion.

Mortgage bail out ............ 78 billion

Bank bail out part 2.......... 350 billion (The other 350 billion was paid out in 2008 FY)

Auto bail out # 2 ............. 21 billion

Interest on national debt 412 billion ( This number will be higher as I can't project what it will be with out knowing the figures for 2009 so I will use 2 year old numbers

Estimated emergency spending for the new insurgence into Afghanistan and the existing war in Iraq -300 billion

2009 revenues ................................................... +2.4 trillion

2009 expenditures............................................... -3.0 trillion
Stimulus plan.....................................................-292 billion
Mortgage bail out................................................. -78 billion
Bank bail out part 2...............................................-350 billion
auto bail out # 2 ....................................................-21 billion
Total estimated expenditures for FY 2009.................-3.7 trillion

2.4 trillion - 3.7 trillion = -1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2009 That is half of the total GDP now multiply this number x a minimum of 4% and then compound it over the next four years. Are you even starting to get the picture. There is no way in hell this plan will work.

My opponent clearly does not know the difference between govt make work projects and real jobs created by the private sector. It is the private sector that creates permanent jobs, the govt has never created a job. It only creates tax liabilities on the private sector through spending. That is all it has ever done and that is all it will ever do. Taking money from one part of the private sector to give it to another does not generate tax revenue it is always a wash. Yes one type of industry will benefit but another one will take a loss as they will have to flip the bill to pay for the make work project through higher and ever higher taxes. Govt can not just endlessly pay people to work, the private sector can not ever possibly meet the govt's appetite for money. My opponents only mention about how the Obama plan will work is nothing more than a govt subsidised attempt at creating alternative fuel sources. This will do nothing to stimulate the economy. As it stands now all current alternative fuel sources are heavily subsidised by the govt already as none of them are cost efficient or viable otherwise the private sector would be all over it. Almost all of the things in Obamas' plan will remain permanent tax liabilities. The rail road from LA to Vegas will never support its cost and up keep. There are strings attached to the bail out to the states. They have to expand welfare and eliminate any welfare reforms that now exist. The new expansions on unemployment and welfare will become permanent new budget base lines for all subsequent FY budgets both state and federal.

Nationalization of banks;
http://www.cnbc.com...

Govt control of health care: I site the recent passage of the increase of the SCHIP program that puts govt in direct competition with the private health care industry as it now offers free medical care to families making as much as 84,000 dollars a year. And I also site the new subsidising of COBRA insurance which is suppose to be temporary but we all know it will remain a permanent new base line for all subsequent FY budgets and will allow even more and more govt control over health care.

"India being a thriving example of socialism and capitalism" Are you freakin serious!!! That place is a third world sh#it hole. You only see what the media wants you to see. Walk three blocks in any direction from where the camera is and you will see filth and poverty beyond your imagination.

The only way to solve this problem is to let the inevitable happen. People who made bad business decisions need to lose there shirts. Banks that were fraudulent need to fail and the CEO's of those banks need to go to jail for life. And we need to let the capitalist free market do what it does best correct itself. And most of all, cut govt off at its knees and give the money back to the realy smart people and job creators the private sector. The govt is a corrupt useless pile of crap seeking ever more power over the people. If you trust the govt you are stupid and deserve to lose everything you have.

New gun control legislation or should I say "ammo". Just make ammo to expensive problem solved. yet another attack on the law abiding citizen and a flagrant violation of the constitution. Obamas' administration does not even care about the constitution, they just laugh at it. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves right now.
http://www.newswithviews.com...
trendem

Con

Rebuttals:
DEFICIT
First, I will modify Pro's deficit estimates in the face of new information. Obama's government is making plans to reduce the deficit by 2/3 (to $533 billion) before the end of Obama's term as president. "This reduction will come in large part through Iraq troop withdrawals and higher taxes on the wealthy." [1]

Moreover, even if Obama's plan fails and the government achieves a high deficit-to-GDP ratio, the government can then remedy it by reducing government spending and implementing a progressive tax system. [2] and [3]

Finally, whatever deficit we have to face, the current spending is necessary, because the alternative of sitting idly is far worse (which I will show later).

MIXED ECONOMY
Sure, India still has many problems, but look at the progress it has made! Remarkable. An average of 7.5% growth since the 2000s and surges in foreign capital investment. Since India's mixed system is doing a great job in improving the country, my opponent's assertions that a mixed econ will lead to an American downfall are unsubstantiated.

GUN CONTROL
The link you cited says nothing about how the "ammo records" will make "it too expensive" to own a gun. In fact, the ammo records are actually beneficial to society, as they allow police to easily track down who purchased the ammo for a given crime.

THE RESULT OF INACTION
I will quote Obama: "The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, MILLIONS MORE JOBS will be LOST, and NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES will approach DOUBLE DIGITS. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse." [4]
Another article with the same opinion can be found at: "No one is going to get exactly what they want, but getting nothing is a far, far worse outcome. It would be an act of extreme national stupidity not to enact a big stimulus bill at this point." [5]
SOURCES:
[1] "Obama plan would cut deficit by two-thirds in first term": http://www.iht.com...

[2] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...

[3] http://www.prospect.org...

[4] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

[5]http://www.boston.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

My opponent is just regurgitating the nightly news. He cannot mathematically show how Obama's plan will work as I can show how it will fail. Obama's plan is based purely on "hope" there is no plan. He is just winging it as he goes. He didn't even read the plan, no one read it, no one could. I was told at a very young age to never sign anything you don't understand. Here we are suppose to have the greatest thinkers in Washington, signing something they haven't even read let alone understand. This reminds me of a famous quote: " A failure to plan is a plan for failure" No one knows when anything is going to happen or going to start. No one can plan for anything. People won't invest in the banks because all they here is, "will the gov't nationalize the banks or wont they"? Obama doesn't know, he doesn't know the first thing about banking or economics he has never even been in charge of a pay roll or owned a business. Why do you think he let congress write the bill. He doesn't even have a clue. He just waits for the reactions and then listens to popular opinion from the left and goes with that.

Now rebuttals:
First, I will modify Pro's deficit estimates in the face of new information. Obama's government is making plans to reduce the deficit by 2/3 (to $533 billion) before the end of Obama's term as president. "This reduction will come in large part through Iraq troop withdrawals and higher taxes on the wealthy."

This statement is based solely and entirely on whether or not his plan works. There is no guarantee that this will happen. The past history suggests that is more likely to increase. You cant increase spending by 1.3 trillion in one year and then add subsequent spending increases over the next three years as Obama is going to do and then in the very same breath say you are cutting the deficit in half. This is a contradiction in terms. I don't know how he can stand there with a strait face and say it. What's even funnier is you believe it.

Lets put the numbers into perspective so you can understand it.

Total govt debt: 11 trillion

Short falls in Social Security and Medicaid. This is money that has been promised years into the future that is completely unfunded and not part of the FY budgets: 18 trillion

Annual interest on debt of 11 trillion: 412 billion

We have been selling bonds to other countries to pay the interest on the interest that is accruing on the 11 trillion dollar debt that we as a nation owe. So that means we have to pay back that money with interest which increases the debt exponentially. China and the other countries are no longer buying these bonds so we can pay the interest on the intrest on the debt. Now our wonderful gov't is just printing worthless money. What the gov't is now doing is no different than me printing counterfeit money. They are handing out IOU's backed by nothing but hot air and promises. That check you are going to get in the mail is as worthless as the paper it is written on and will also do nothing to stimulate the economy. It's just more debt. Printing worthless money also causes massive inflation thus cutting spending power thus cutting consumption thus cutting business thus cutting revenue thus cutting jobs and on and on. Then deflation will set in and any wealth that was acquired will also be lost. We are now going to enter the inflationary period of Obamas's plan.

11 trillion + 18 trillion + 412 billion divided by 134 million (That is the total number of taxable returns in the US at last count) = $212, 029.85 That is how much every single tax payer that actual pays taxes will have to pay just to get to a balanced budget. This number is going to sky rocket for the next generation, Your generation as a matter of fact. This is what you owe the federal gov't before you even start to work.

So you see, there is no money for Obama's plans, there is no money for social security, there is no money for gov't health care, there is no money for infrastructure, there is no money. Any money that govt gives is worthless debt that you will have to pay back with interest on intrest

Raising taxes is the last thing you want to do to small business. Small business employs 70% of the working population, it used to be 90% 40 years ago. Small business is the demographic that Obama wants to punish with high taxes, Those making 250 thousand a year or more. 75% of all small business owners make that much. When you tax them, jobs disappear and then revenue goes with it because small business lays people off to pay higher taxes. And the more people that get laid off spend less and again less revenue it's economics 101. A bigger tax base with a lower tax rate always without exception generates more overall tax revenue. Obama thinks just the opposite and he will soon learn his plans of economic growth will disappear and so will you. There is not a single incentive for small business in Obamas plan, only punishing, job losing higher taxes for them.
trendem

Con

The text of Obama's plan is available on the internet, and slandering Obama's economic knowledge won't change the brilliance of the plan.

"People won't invest in the banks because all they here is, "will the gov't nationalize the banks or wont they"? "
I have shown how the Obama administration has explicitly expressed a desire to avoid nationalization, and how temporary nationalization might be a good thing, even if Obama does it.

REBUTTALS:
"This statement is based solely and entirely on whether or not his plan works. There is no guarantee that this will happen. The past history suggests that is more likely to increase. You cant increase spending by 1.3 trillion in one year and then add subsequent spending increases over the next three years as Obama is going to do and then in the very same breath say you are cutting the deficit in half. This is a contradiction in terms. I don't know how he can stand there with a strait face and say it. What's even funnier is you believe it."
In my earlier argument, I cited the link that explained in general Obama's plan to reduce debts. Please rebut that link directly.
Moreover, I have argued that a higher-debt-to-GDP ratio can be controllable in the future with progressive tax rates and reductions in govt spending.
Next, a fiscal debt is not as bad as you think. We've had a huge debt for many years now, and Obama's plan only means a small percentage increase in our ALREADY EXISTING debt. Pro has failed to show why Obama's debt increase means bad things for the economy. Remember, whatever disadvantages Pro lists, WILL HAPPEN whether or not Obama passes the plan.
Lastly, extend my argument about why the alternative of doing nothing is much worse and untenable.

"Short falls in Social Security and Medicaid. This is money that has been promised years into the future that is completely unfunded and not part of the FY budgets: 18 trillion"
Any source for this number?

Regarding inflation: we're in the middle of a recession. A inflation is good.
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

"The text of Obama's plan is available on the Internet. "

My opponent has not read it and does not in the slightest idea know what's in it. Nor does he have the ability to explain it with any degree of financial intelligence. I have how ever supplied the readers with numbers and explained it in a simple to understand manner showing that his plans will saddle all future generations with debt that can't possibly be paid. My opponent makes no attempt to even show mathimatically how his plan will work. He doesn't even try to use projection numbers or even try to make some up. All of my numbers are from the CBO. That's the Congressional Budget Office.

"temporary nationalization might be a good thing, even if Obama does it." How is that a good thing? I know why it isn't. Maybe you can explain to me and our readers why that would be a good thing in your final round.

"In my earlier argument, I cited the link that explained in general Obama's plan to reduce debts. Please rebut that link directly." Everything I have said to this point is directly related to this link. No money will be saved pulling troops out of Iraq as he is now sending those troops into Afghanistan. Afghanistan is going to be a much more difficult thing than Iraq because Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure and is light years behind Iraq in the technology and intellectual department. That country lives in the stone age. I don't know what he plans to accomplish there as no details are given. But if it his intention to rebuild that country, it will take trillions upon trillions of dollars just to bring it to the same level that Iraq is in now.

"I have argued that a higher-debt-to-GDP ratio can be controllable in the future with progressive tax rates and reductions in govt spending." Taxing the rich has not now or ever created more jobs. It is a job destroyer. Businesses and individuals who know they will be taxed at a higher rate when their income reaches a certain level ( which is 250,000 in this case) will take steps to stop earning money as there is no incentive to do so. So they close up shop for the last month or two of the year or slow production and take on no new work. I would do this and so will they. What would be the point of breaking the $250,000 barrier if you are only be punished for doing so. The IRS will see many many tax returns that show a income of just under 250,000 when Obama starts taxing the so called rich. This is what Obama doesn't understand and this is what my opponent doesn't understand. They think people will just gladly put themselves into a punishing tax bracket to get soaked by the gov't. Obama is going to loose revenue and the economy will slow. History has proven every single time govt raises taxes the economy slows and revenues plummet.
Also Obama has already increased govt spending and has laid out a plan that increases it every year under his first term. His first budget is twice last years budget. And last but not least, the US gov't from day one has never not ever cut spending and Obama has already proven it won't start with him either.

Cap and trade: this is a huge tax increase on every single man woman and child in this country. Again you think it's a tax on the evil rich polluting corporations. To punish them and tax them for their evil carbon foot print that is destroying the planet. Guess what, this is the biggest trick in the book for a politician to raise taxes on everyone without saying they are. They all know that the corporations will just pass it on to the consumer in the way of higher prices or worse yet the company will just pack up and leave and take all the jobs with them to another country.

"Obama's plan only means a small percentage increase in our ALREADY EXISTING" Clearly math is not your strong point. I have shown in previous rounds what his increases are to this point and with the just released FY budget that came out during this debate it has increased exponentially.

"Short falls in Social Security and Medicaid. This is money that has been promised years into the future that is completely unfunded and not part of the FY budgets: 18 trillion"
Any source for this number?" "The Congressional budget Office"

"Regarding inflation: we're in the middle of a recession. A inflation is good." AHHHHHH YAAAAA "a inflation" would be a good thing. LOL I think the readers will get a big kick out of this statement. You have no idea what inflation means.
trendem

Con

I am strapped on time, unfortunately, so I concede the debate to my opponent, and thank him for a good debate!
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by erickishott 8 years ago
erickishott
And it is possible to have both social and capitalistic ideas: social democracies. http://www8.georgetown.edu...
Posted by erickishott 8 years ago
erickishott
Con should have used macroeconomics. Pro has a flawed understanding concerning fiscal matters.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Though Con conceded, I could not in good faith give all 7 points to Pro. I withheld conduct and spelling/grammar. Pro's case was going well when presenting the math, but in other areas his attitude was abrasive and a little demeaning. He also had lots of spelling mistakes.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
All points to pro because Con conceded the debate.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
This is how it is folks.

http://us.mc431.mail.yahoo.com...,
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
When gov't prints worthless money in a time of deflation, hyperinflation is the effect that follows.
Posted by 106627 8 years ago
106627
The idea that inflation can be brought upon by printing excess money is valid, but as of now we are actually experiencing deflation.
Posted by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
JOB CREATION
PRO says "It is the private sector that creates permanent jobs, the govt has never created a job... ever done and will do."
Isn't the govt giving money to the private sector? So it is indeed the private sector that is creating jobs.

"Yes one type of industry will benefit but another one will take a loss..."
Yes, and the govt has to decide which industry to promote. For eg., the govt plans to reduce the military industry in order to increase the alt energy industry. I see this as a good thing.

ALT ENERGY SUBSIDIES
Energy subsidies have been effective in promoting renewable energy. For eg., after the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the number of wind facilities installed in 2 years matched the number of facilities installed for the last 7 years. [1]

OTHER PARTS OF OBAMA'S PLAN
You claim that the rail line between LA and Las Vegas will be uneconomic, but you give no evidence (and I can't find any to the contrary. Admittedly, the rail line will be frivolous, but that's not the point here). You also claim that state welfare will be permanently expanded. What welfare are you referring to, and why must the change be permanent?

SOURCES:
[1] http://greenresearch.wordpress.com...
Posted by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
Oops... seems like my R2 failed to address some important portions...
First, I will thank my opponent for giving me the chance to enter this informative debate, on a topic which he knows more intimately than me.

BANK NATIONALIZATION
" "This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go, ensuring that they are regulated sufficiently by this government," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said." [1]

Obama's government has expressed an explicit intent of exhausting all other alternatives before resorting to nationalization. There are plans to administer "stress tests" to gauge the stability of banks, inject bailout money, and reform banking practices (for eg., by limiting executive pay). [2]

However, suppose that Obama does "nationalize" the banks. Specifically, he purchases the really bad banks, weeds out the bad assets in them, and sells the good ones to private owners. Just like Sweden so successfully did in the 1990's. Such an approach would be beneficial, not harmful! [3]

SOURCES
[1] http://www.breitbart.com...

[2]http://www.boston.com...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"If you trust the govt you are stupid" I would like to point out that I meant this as a generalization for all people who think govt can be trusted to do the right thing. It was not meant to be a personal attack on my opponents intelligence or meant to be a baseless personal insult. Forgive me if it was interpreted that way by anyone or my opponent.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by younstownsoldier 8 years ago
younstownsoldier
sadolitetrendemTied
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 erickishott 8 years ago
erickishott
sadolitetrendemTied
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 wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
sadolitetrendemTied
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 Kachow 8 years ago
Kachow
sadolitetrendemTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by ThE_SuPeR_GeEk 8 years ago
ThE_SuPeR_GeEk
sadolitetrendemTied
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 Seerss 8 years ago
Seerss
sadolitetrendemTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
sadolitetrendemTied
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
sadolitetrendemTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
sadolitetrendemTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadolitetrendemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70