On Campus Concealed Carry
Debate Rounds (4)
1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade.
2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers.
3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else.
To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.
Contention 1: Concealed weapons permission is unnecessary on campus. Although many point to such incidents as the Virginia Tech shootings to justify the need for concealed weapons, most college campuses are relatively safe compared to other areas in the United States. In 2002, the Justice Department discovered that crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age category as college students, and that 93% of the violence that occurs against students takes place off campus. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......). This means that, as a whole, students are more while they reside on campus than they are in the outside world. This has two impacts. First, it demonstrates that concealed carry laws are absolutely unnecessary on campus because the crime rate is extremely low. Since there is no need to solve a problem that does not exist, concealed carry permits should not be extended to the campus. Second, it actually demonstrates that concealed carry laws have an increase in crime; most college campuses are safe without the concealed carry provision, but the outside world, which permits concealed carry, is not as safe as college campuses are. This means that concealed carry provisions may be the reason that crime is higher in the outside world, so increasing the number of guns on campus could potentially replicate the disaster. Gary Kleck, a gun-carrying advocate, concedes, "Both gun carrying and gun violence are thus phenomena almost entirely confined to the world outside schools."
Contention 2: Crime would increase on campus. Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and dangerous than their nonviolent peers. While the college rates for illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental instability is high, studies have shown that individuals who are prone to carrying guns on campus are likely to be more involved in such debauchery than the average student. Two studies of college students discovered, for example, that students with guns more likely to engaged in such risky behaviors as binge drinking, use of crack and cocaine, having DUIs, vandalizing property, and clashing with the police. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......). This means that the students who will actually benefit from the law will be those prone to felonious behavior. Given that most students will not carry guns, and that the students who do possess them will not possess the proper mental faculties to rationally prevent themselves from committing crimes, and that these students are more likely to engage in risky, illegal behavior than the average non-gun carrying college student, crimes on campus will be much easier to commit than they were previously. This means that giving risk-prone students access to weapons could potentially increase violence and other felonies on campus. Since this violates the rights of all, this is a reason to reject the gun laws.
Contention 3: Concealed weapons would detract from the educational environment of the school. Given that the mission of colleges is to provide a safe, comfortable environment for a student to obtain an education, and that guns create an aura of fear on campus, permitting concealed weapons on campus would foster mistrust and detract from a student's ability to gain an education. Rather than proving that the campus is safe, the students at a college would attempt to minimize interactions with other students for fear of inciting them to emotional violence. A study conducted to determine the fear of the dissemination of guns discovered that 71% of people would feel threatened by the increase of guns in their community, and that 85% of non-gun owners were opposed to the spread of guns because they felt that it would foster mistrust and lessen their security. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......) This increase in fear would decrease educational freedom by minimizing educational interactions, so concealed weapons should not be permitted on campus.
Contention 4: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion and thus foster a greater loss of life. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A shooter enters campus and threatens a student, who proceeds to pull out a weapon of his own to confront the aggressor. Students nearby also begin to arm themselves and enter the ensuing fray because they feel that their friends are in danger (we cannot assume that students will only arm themselves against the shooter.) By the time the police arrives, the officers can never reliably know which student instigated the conflict, which students are actually dangerous, and which students were trying to defend themselves. This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat. However, if only one shooter had been armed, the police could easily identify the individual and arrest him, thus minimizing the likelihood of his escape and decreasing the potential loss of life.
So, because concealed weapons are unnecessary and detrimental to safety and security, you should negate.
First, he mentions Virginia Tech and Columbine as reasons that guns should be permitted on campus. While these incidents were horrific, the reason that the public knows about them is that they are unique. The media does not cover every day shootings in the poor downtown areas because these are expected to happen, while crimes on campus are often covered because the stories are unique and sensational. This means that although he can provide you with a few specific, well-known incidents, we should prefer my statistics in the first contention that explain that most campuses are safer than other areas of the United States, meaning that while a few incidents do occur, on the whole, concealed weapons are unnecessary. Moreover, you can cross-apply my fourth contention about confusion here, because the incidents would have been magnified if some students had engaged the shooters in a conflict. Finally, this problem does not require guns to solve; more incidents can be prevented by increasing the amount of police security and support for students on campus (directly solves his "police" argument.)
In his second point, he mentions that some campuses with permits have not had any major incidents. First, this could be explained by the fact that most college students do not wish to own guns, and that they cannot have such permits anyways because they need to be 21, so the prevalence of guns on campus is probably very slim. Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......)
Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit.
Finally, he claims that only those individuals who could carry weapons elsewhere would be permitted to have weapons on campus. Turn this against him because most students across the nation cannot obtain concealed weapons permits until the age of 21, meaning that the majority of college students could not even defend themselves in the case of a violent felony anyways. Second, this increases the likelihood of felonies as individuals outside of campus with permits would be able to safely roam onto campus with their weapons, meaning that they could easily use them against students.
Thus, negate and reject concealed carry permits.
http://www.disastercenter.com......). In fact, looking at college campuses where concealed carry is allowed, there has been no significant increase in crime since the colleges started allowing students to carry. Therefore, based on statistics, there is no reason to believe that adding concealed carry to college campuses would negatively impact student life.
Rebuttal to Contention 2: My opponent claims that "Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable". I don't know where my opponent gets that from but I've never seen any indication that that's true. Also, we are not debating who should own guns, only whether it should be legal to take them on a college campus. My opponent then cites two studies mentioned in a Brady Campaign article about the behavior of students with guns. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the studies mentioned by my opponent and I would appreciate it if he could post a link directly to the studies or if he could say where and under what name the studies are listed. My opponent then goes on to talk about how unstable and risk prone gun owners are. Since I couldn't find the studies con got these claims from, I have no reason to believe them. Also, if someone is prone to break the law, why would they care if a law is passed allowing concealed carry? They would carry regardless of what the law says.
Rebuttal to Contention 3: The study my oppenent referrences asked whether or not people would feel safer if more people owned guns. The debate isn't over where or not more people should own guns, it's about where people who already own guns should be able to take them. Therefore the study really has no relevance in this debate. Additionally, my opponent's claim that allowing students to carry concealed will foster an anti-social fearful environment is unsubstantiated by off-campus society, where people in states with loose carry laws are no less social than people in states with strict gun laws. In fact, the gun shows that I have been to (where EVERYONE is packing) are some of the most social places I've been.
Rebuttal to Contention 4: In my opponent's final point, he claims that having multiple people having guns will cause a shooting incident to become confusing to students and the police. I have yet to come across a similar shooting incident where police couldn't differentiate between victim and assailant. In fact during the UT tower shooting, students armed with their own weapons were able to pin the shooter in the tower until police could arrive and take over. At no point was there confusion over who the police needed to deal with and the students were able to help take control of a very dangerous situation. Con also says that police could potentially shoot an innocent CHL holder. While it is a slight possibility (I say slight because as I said before, there's no history of it happening) it's a choice that the CHL holder makes. Just as a police officer makes the choice to put himself in danger by accepting the job, a CHL holder makes the concious decision to accept the risk that comes along with it. Also my opponent says, "This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat." Hypothetical situations in no way constitute evidence and shouldn't be relied upon to demonstrate "facts" that don't actually have any evidence to back them up.
"Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies."
I never said that CHL holders never commit crimes since that's not what this debate is about. I said that CHLs have not added to the crime committed on campuses that allow them.
"Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit."
If I'm not mistaken, the University of Arizona did not allow students to carry concealed at the time. So how exactly did CHLs being banned on campus keep him from shooting his professors?
As for my opponent's final rebuttal, just because not veryone can carry to protect themselves doesn't mean that nobody should be able to.
Additionally, please remember that eliminating guns on campus does not mean that students will not be able to defend themselves; there are other means that students can use to insure their safety, including campus and city police officers, other hand-held weapons, friends, etc.
Finally, using guns will not prevent any loss of life in "self-defense." Public health researcher David Hemenway concludes that "[g]un use in self-defense is rare, and it appears that using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action," and notes that no "evidence seems to exist that gun use in self-defense reduces the risk of death."
David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
Thus, even if you drop all of my statistics, you still cannot vote for him because gun holders do not save any lives, so there is no need to have guns on campus.
Let's look at the second impact about increasing crime rates. In fact, CCW states actually DO have more crime rates than other states. According to the disaster center sources that he cited, in the city of Chicago, which does not permit concealed carry, the violent crime index per 100,000 people was 1,195.7 (http://www.disastercenter.com......) , while in Dallas, the index per 100,000 people was 1,333.2 http://www.disastercenter.com....... Given that the population of Dallas was 1, 715, 800 smaller than that of Chicago in 2005, we would expect more crime in Chicago. However, the city that permitted CCW was more dangerous and violent than the city that did not permit concealed guns. He will try to respond to this with a "correlation does not equal causation argument", but please remember that needs to prove alternate causation in today's round in order to prove this true.
His response to Contention 2 was twofold. First, he says that he cannot reject my claim because I did not cite the study. This is false because he could have easily researched the position and tried to provide counter-statistics. Second, Harvard University study study I used is quoted and cited below.
"According to the only previous national survey of firearm possession at college, 6.4% of male students and 1.5% of
female students had a working firearm at school. In addition, students with guns were more likely than students without guns to have alcohol-related problems, such as getting into fights attributed to drinking alcohol and being arrested for drinking while intoxicated."
According to that same study, only 1/2 of college gun owners said that they had guns for protection, meaning that the rest use the guns for nefarious purposes.
His second response was that "we are not discussing who should own guns." This is fallacious because if we are discussing whether or not CCW should be permitted, we also need to discuss who will benefit from those laws; if these are risk-prone criminals, then CCW will pose a security threat and there is no reason to affirm.
He also claims that these students would break the law anyways. While this is true, it is more difficult and more expensive for them to gain access to guns currently than it would be if CCW were permitted because gun companies would begin targeting college-aged children as buyers. This would allow criminals to purchase guns more easily than they currently can, making the prevalence of dangerous weapons on campus more likely.
Against Contention 3, he claims that this study is irrelevant. He misses the point of the study, however, because it explicitly demonstrates that the people do not wish to have guns because they fear for their safety; guns would increase on campus as a result of CCW. He then refutes my evidence with anecdotal evidence that can neither be verified nor proven false. Prefer my hard evidence over his anecdotal evidence because he there is no proof that his statement is true, while mine is actually backed by statistics.
He makes a MASSIVE concession against my first point against his case; I demonstrated that the fact that he can name a few college shooting incidences proves that shooting is not prevalent on campuses because the media covers sensational and spectacular stories. He had ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE to this argument meaning that this proves that crime is not prevalent on campus, so CCW are not even necessary in today's college societies.
Against my second point, he says that CHL holders "never commit crimes on campus." First, look to the Harvard study that I provide earlier; if gun holders commit crimes on campus, and many gun holders have CHL permits, then CHL permit holders contribute to crimes on campus. Second, against the UA example I provided, he says that this is not relevant because UA did not permit students to have guns. This is fallacious because this individual, WHO MURDERED HIS PROFESSORS, POSSESSED A CHL PERMIT. So, even if the campus did not allow it, a COLLEGE STUDENT WITH A CWL PERMIT SLAUGHTERED INNOCENT PEOPLE. This is exactly what I have been trying to prove throughout the debate.
He also concedes that most campuses do not have major incidents BECAUSE ONLY 4% of students CURRENTLY OWN GUNS (http://www.riskandinsurance.com......). This means that campuses are safe because STUDENTS DO NOT OWN GUNS. Insofar as this is true, any evidence that he provides about "no major incidents" is flawed because it does not take this fact into account.
Finally, I mentioned that most students would not be able to have guns on campus anyways because license holders must be 21, and most students are under that age, so the only people who would benefit from this law are criminals who will be able to legally bring guns onto campus. His response is that "just because some cannot have them does not mean that others should not be able to defend themselves." He is missing the point of the argument, however. The entire premise of his case is that students will increase safety with guns, but if they cannot have them anyways, then they will be unable to improve their security by owning CWL permits. These permits are therefore useless on college campuses and should not be permitted because they will not help the students defend themselves anyways.
"...college campuses are already secure, meaning that there will be no positive impact to the safety of the students."
While my opponent does validly point out that a majority of attacks occur off-campus, it should be noted that there is a difference between "no impact" and "a small impact". If there is an amount of safety to be gained and no evidence of a significant risk (I refer again to the college campuses that now allow CHLs and haven't had an increase in violence as a result of that) then based on a cost-benefit analysis, allowing CHLs on campus is the way to go.
"there are other means that students can use to insure their safety, including campus and city police officers, other hand-held weapons, friends, etc."
First of all regarding the campus and city police, there is a common phrase in the gun community "When seconds count, police are only minutes away." Put more bluntly, police aren't and can't be everywhere all of the time. If a person's life is in danger, it isn't very practical to have to rely on someone who isn't in the same place as you. Second, by "hand-held weapons" I have to assume my opponent is referring to tasers or pepper spray. The primary problem with most "non-lethal" weapons is that it's a bit of a guess as to whether or not they will completely stop an assailant. Tasers have been resisted after a mere few seconds in police tests and in Arizona in 2007, of the 150+ uses of tasers by police officers, they failed to subdue the assailant once in every 5 instances. Also, the stronger police issue pepper spray is illegal and common citizens are left with a weaker version that can be resisted outright or protected against by simple glasses. A gun however, is much more likely to stop a person if they are hit and many times prevents an assault before the assailant can do any harm.
"Finally, using guns will not prevent any loss of life in 'self-defense.'"
That is downright not true. http://www.pulpless.com... That is a breakdown of a 1994 Florida State University study of real life scenarios in which guns were used in self-defense.
The statistics from that link directly contradict my opponent's quotation from David Hemenway that "[g]un use in self-defense is rare,". While my opponent's quote is a bare assertion, my link shows that "the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year". I would definitely consider that to be a significant impact.
"in the city of Chicago, which does not permit concealed carry, the violent crime index per 100,000 people was 1,195.7 (http://www.disastercenter.com.........) , while in Dallas, the index per 100,000 people was 1,333.2"
If my opponent expands to a 3 city comparison, D.C. which also has a history of strict gun laws had a violent crime index per 100,000 people in 2005 (the same year as my opponent's stats) of 1,459. If you add another loose gun law city like Phoenix, you see a violent crime index per 100,000 people of 729.4. As you can see, there isn't really a pattern showing that more guns equate to more violence. In fact the stats seem to indicate the opposite.
"First, he says that he cannot reject my claim because I did not cite the study. This is false because he could have easily researched the position and tried to provide counter-statistics."
I would remind my opponent and readers that it is his responsibility, not mine, to provide sources for his claims.
"...students with guns were more likely than students without guns to have alcohol-related problems, such as getting into fights attributed to drinking alcohol and being arrested for drinking while intoxicated."
While I can't read the article that my opponent refrences (his link doesn't go to a specific study) the lack of alcohol induced gun violence among college gun owners indicates that this is an inconsequential statistic that really doesn't provide a reason not to allow more college campuses to allow CHLs.
"According to that same study, only 1/2 of college gun owners said that they had guns for protection, meaning that the rest use the guns for nefarious purposes."
This is probably the most dishonest assertion in my oppenent's argument. Con assumes that there are no other reasons for college students to own guns. He clearly forgets about weapons owned for hunting, target shooting, and school competition teams. Those other uses, particularly hunting, account for very, very large reasons to own a firearm.
"...if these are risk-prone criminals, then CCW will pose a security threat and there is no reason to affirm."
As has been argued in the past, criminals commit crime. They won't obey laws against violent attacks or murder, so why would they obey laws about where you can bring a gun? The reason to affirm is that the only group that will increase in number of weapons carried are those that would normally not do so because they follow the law.
"He also claims that these students would break the law anyways. While this is true, it is more difficult and more expensive for them to gain access to guns currently than it would be if CCW were permitted because gun companies would begin targeting college-aged children as buyers. This would allow criminals to purchase guns more easily than they currently can, making the prevalence of dangerous weapons on campus more likely."
1) I don't know what Con means by "college-aged CHILDREN" but only 21 year old adults are legally allowed to have a CHL.
2) If a company discovers that there is a greatly increased demand for a product, they are more likely to increase the price than decrease it. Since most people can afford a small, concealable handgun, companies would want to raise the price of said weapons in order to bring in a greater profit.
3) As I've said, we aren't talking about who get guns, only where they can be taken so I don't know how guns are more difficult to obtain than they would be.
"...it explicitly demonstrates that the people do not wish to have guns because they fear for their safety; guns would increase on campus as a result of CCW. He then refutes my evidence with anecdotal evidence that can neither be verified nor proven false. Prefer my hard evidence over his anecdotal evidence because he there is no proof that his statement is true, while mine is actually backed by statistics."
His study refers only to how people feel about an increase in weapons in peoples' communities. Since there are already the same amount of guns in the cities where these campuses are located as there would be if CHLs on campus were available, the statistic IS irrelevant. I wouldn't consider my opponent's assertion that guns cause lessened social activity backed by statistics because he hasn't shown that there is a precedent for guns reducing sociability in the real world.
"...this proves that crime is not prevalent on campus, so CCW are not even necessary in today's college societies."
While my opponent is correct in saying that the large, sensationalized shooting rampages are not common, they still happen and are avoidable. Also, what my opponent lables as crime being "not prevalent on campus" is his subjective view. What I consider to be an acceptable level of crime and what he believes is acceptable are two different things. I believe there is crime that could be reduced by allowing CHLs and as I have shown, they don't statistically increase danger.
Con claims that I said "CHL holders 'never commit crimes on campus.'" I don't believe I ever made that claim and I would appreciate it if my opponent would only put quotes around things I actually said.
I have shown how CHLs do not increase crime and guns are used in self defense often. Therefore, there is more benefit than risk when allowing CHLs on a college campus.
Let's go to the case.
Remember that I previously proved that since the majority of attacks occur off-campus (which my opponent conceded), there is no reason to permit guns on campus because it will not have a major impact on safety. His response was that there could be a small improvement in safety. First, keep in mind that this assumes that CHL permit holders will themselves not commit crimes on campuses, which as my Robert Flores Jr. example proved, is empirically false (see previous round.) Moreover, the Harvard gun study that I cited explicitly notes that the individuals who own guns on campus are more likely to be involved in risky and criminal activity, meaning that permitting all students to hold guns will only facilitate crime because the people who will be impacted by the proposal, i.e. the students who are prone to risky behaviors, will be the ones purchasing the weapons. (As stated before, the same study notes that only 4.7% of students own guns, so most students are not even interested in the weapons.) Finally, keep in mind that he conceded that he would not expand the age at which students could obtain permits; he only wished to allow students over the age of 21 to use guns on campus. Given that the majority of college students are younger than 21, the CHL proposal will not actually benefit students because most of them will not be able to own guns. This was dropped in the last speech, so please extend this and vote negative based on this argument. Even if you ignore everything else I say, you cannot vote affirmative because his plan will not even achieve the ends that he hopes to obtain since students will still not be able to purchase the weapons.
Next, he quotes the part of my analysis in which I stated that there were alternate means to promote security. The response to the "police" argument is that the police are not always nearby. This, however, can be fixed by increasing the number of policemen and security officials assigned to college campuses. Moreover, modern security systems on campus have rendered this obsolete because police can often respond within moments to distress signals sent out by students on blue boxes. Moreover, his taser analysis is irrelevant because I never mentioned specific non-lethal weapons, and he never cited any sources on his claims of ineffectiveness, so so his statistics are unbacked and unwarranted.
Next, he attacks the David Hemenway analysis by claiming that it is just an unwarranted assertion. If he actually read the source, however, he would have realized that the analysis is from a book written by a Harvard professor who researched the problems and provided statistics to back up his claims. Moreover, the book was published in 2006, so it is more recent than his evidence and is thus more acceptable because it is more likely to represent the repercussions of guns in modern society.
Our disaster statistics are a wash, at best, so neither side gains offense from them in this round.
I gave you the study which explicitly proves that only 6.4% of males and 1.5% of females at college own guns; he claims that this is my burden, and I provided him the study. Second, he does not even bother to refute the study, so you can extend it through the round.
He then claims that my assertion that most students own guns for nefarious purposes is dishonest, and he asserts in turn that students can own weapons for hunting, target shooting, and school competition teams. Keep in mind that most campuses do not have the facilities to promote these activities, and that only 47% of students own guns for self-protection. This means that at least a chunk, if not most of the remaining 53% use their guns for nefarious purposes.
Ne next claims that people will break gun laws anyways, so there is no reason to actually have them. First, just because some people will not follow the law does not mean the restriction should not exist. Murderers have been violating laws against the slaughter of others since the dawn of civilization, but that does not justify eliminating murder laws. Second, the law will still act as a deterrent for most people, so even if some choose to break it, at least we maximize safety by minimizing the likelihood that people will actually purchase and use firearms.
Next he claims that companies would raise the price of weapons to make a profit. That statement is ridiculous because companies would have to keep in mind that the students that they are targeting need cheaper prices; if they raise the prices, then students will not purchase guns and they will make less profits than if they make guns cheaper and target students. This means that according to "free market theory", more students will have guns because companies will target them in prices and advertising (guns are not essential items so they will not be able to increase prices without repercussion.)
Finally, let's go to the massive concession that he made that proves that crimes on campus are rare and that is why they are sensationalized. Although he brings up a new response, which is illegal, I will refute it anyways. He claims that the shootings still happen and that they are avoidable by having CHL permits. First, remember that as I have proven, guns increase the amount of crime on campus and promote insecurity because people do not wish to have them around (he has no substantial response to this.) Moreover, keep in mind that the shootings are excessively rare because most students do not own guns, so a reverse in the trend would result if more students owned guns. Remember that I also gave examples of shooters who owned CHL permits; since shootings are excessively rare, and shooters own CHL permits, we can assume that the problems of campus shootings are caused by those individuals who own CHL permits.
So, because there is no net benefit to having CHL on campus, and they decrease safety and increase anti-social behavior, I strongly urge a negation of today's resolution.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Please only cite neutral sources where possible. However, lddebater540 provided a link to the old debate where sources could be found. This should have been done in round one.
Vote Placed by wierdman 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
Reasons for voting decision: i gave pro the majority of my point because although his case was smaller, it was still much stronger than con's case.