The Instigator
darkkermit
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

On balance, Capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

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 8 votes the winner is...
darkkermit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,393 times Debate No: 28215
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (8)

 

darkkermit

Pro

Resolution "On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism"

better for mankind - increasing the well-being
capitalism - an economic system where the means of production are owned privately
communism - an economic system where the means of production are commonly owned.

Debate rules:


1. No semantics.
2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.
3. No new arguments in the last round.
4. Text-only debate.
5. All source material must be easily accessable

badger

Con

Yes, I will debate this topic with darkkermit.
Debate Round No. 1
darkkermit

Pro

Introduction:

I thank CON for accepting the debate. I shall demonstrate that capitalism is a superior model due to a variety of factors. A communist society would be unable to produce the goods and services that society will want. This will lead to shortages and surpluses which are inefficient. The worse example, shortages that are a result of lack of food which cause death and starvation. It furthermore does not provide the mechanism that will increase wealth in society, which increase the well-being of society through increasing life expectancy, and happiness and reducing violent crimes.

1. The Social-Calculation Problem


In a Communist society there is no way to measure the value of goods and services. There is no way to figure out which goods and services should be produced, and which resources should be saved for capital use or for future demand. There is no system for producers to determine which goods and services to buy for their production facilities, and which are available. Figuring out how to “calculate” the value of goods and services is also an impossible task, since all goods and services are intertwine with one another due to substitute good effects, complementary good effect, and income effect. For example: How many shovels should society produce? Well one would need to know who needs it, why they need it, the resources available to produce the shovels, and what the alternative use these resources can be used instead of making shovels. Knowing how each person values a good or service is also impossible since one cannot know an individual’s subjective preference.

Capitalism solves the problem through allowing supply to equal demand. What this means is that producers produce more supply if prices increase and the opportunity for profit exists, while consumers consume more if prices decrease. This allows equilibrium to occur in which a quantity is produced at a specific price. Therefore, there are fewer problems with shortages and surpluses in a capitalist society, and people can obtain the good and services they desire based on their own budget. This system of supply equally demand allows welfare between producers and consumers to be maximized. This profit based-system produces information that can never be figured in a communist society. Producers know how much to produce because they are incentivizes to produce items that will create the most profit. If opportunities exist for a good or service to be produces that people demand, then entrepreneurs will take these opportunities in order to obtain a profit. Furthermore, these entrepreneurs can take advantage of specialized knowledge that planners do not know. Since anybody can be an entrepreneur, everyone can take advantage of their own specialized forms of knowledge.

Consumers will also cut down on consumption if the quantity decreases and increase consumption if the quantity increases. Therefore capitalism makes resource-management more efficient then a communist society ever could.

2. Empirical Evidence of the failure of communism and the success of capitalism

Nations that implemented communism have lower gross domestic production growth, and nations that were under communism tend to have lower gdp then capitalist nations.

Empirical evidence has shown that societies that have implemented capitalism have successful grown their economies. A few economic miracles have occurred: The economic miracle of Chile, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel and Singapore. These nations were originally poor nation but have become industrialized due to implementing capitalism policies. If one looks at a graph comparing highly capitalistic nation, those nations that rank the best under the “economic freedom index”, one can see that these nations have higher gross domestic production then those that do poorly under the economic freedom index.[1] North Korea, which is a communist society, is much poorer then South Korea despite the two nations being identical in terms of population, past culture, geography and natural resources.

Evidence of the social-calculation problem occurring also has empirical evidence. Massive famines and starvation has occurred in North Korea[2], China [3], and the Soviet Union [4]. People waited in long lines just to get bread [5].While China (video) remains more capitalistic, it still has communist elements to it. One result that has occurred is that China contains ghost cities which nobody inhabits [6].
Gross domestic production is a net benefit to society because it causes a lot of positive results that benefit society. People that live in wealthier nations tend to be happier [7]. Life expectancy increase as gdp increases, since people have access to healthcare and nutrition [8]. Higher gdp also correlates with a decrease in murders[9].

3. The Tragedy of the commons

The tragedy of the commons is the problem in which that if no individual owns property, there is no incentive to maintain the property. Thus property publically owned degrades quicker. If property is privately owned, then each individual has an incentive to maintain the land, because if they do not then it will lose its value. As John Stossel notes (video) [10], privately-held parks are better kept and maintained the public parks because the owner has a greater incentive to keep the area nice. Public areas, for example, public bathrooms are not maintained properly and smell badly. There are other examples in the real world where public ownership has created problems: for example, overfishing occurs because nobody owns the ocean.

4. Innovation incentive and productive efficiency

Capitalism incentivizes innovation since those that innovate obtain the profit from their efforts, research and development, and investment they put into R&D. It also creates a system in which producers minimize cost of input while maximizing output through use of prices. Engineers and business administrators are taught how to reduce costs of good and service and how to maximize output. Such calculations would be impossible under communism due to lack of a price system, and since there is no profit system there is no reason to do these calculations in the first place.

Furthermore, since the production method is decentralized, any person can experiment and put their theory to the test based on his/her own special knowledge. Bureaucrats are less likely to come up with a method since there are simply less of them then the billions of people in the world that can come up with an idea and produce it.

Conclusion

I have demonstrates many reasons why capitalism is a superior system over communism. I look forward to CON's rebuttal.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5]http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

[6]

[7]http://markhumphrys.com...

[8]http://tinyurl.com...

[9]http://thecivilisingmission.files.wordpress.com...

[10]

badger

Con

"I have demonstrates many reasons why capitalism is a superior system over communism. I look forward to CON's rebuttal."

No, you've talked a whole load of sh1t. And there was dirty tactics for you. So much for a text only debate, huh? And those appeals to emotion... Wow.

----------------------------------------

So basically, darkkermit is trying to make Communism out as for death, ghost cities and recessions, Iraquis and Afghanistanis and the like. And of course, it was always going to come to that, but he's been retardedly sneaky about it. He's pretty much done nothing more than put forward laughing idiots to deride and fear monger, offering nothing of worth, but all the while highly suggestive in their personality over text, and there you have solely appeal to emotion. Now this is just to say I'm not going to post videos, I'll make my own argument. And it would only be in accordance with his own rules for this debate that darkkermit himself would refrain from further use. And now with that bit said, I'll get to the idiocy of his arguments.

The Rule of Law:

In my opponent's second video, at the very end, we hear proposed a "rule of law" that is, taking in good faith its proponent, for the better of humanity. Argument is made for this with reference to Iraq and Afghanistan, nations supposedly outside of this rule of law, and, as such... fvcked. It was about as basic as that. There's your "Tragedy of the commons". In the first video we see some idiot standing outside some building laughing at his own idiocy. This was "The Social-Calculation Problem". My opponent makes arguments regarding empiricism and innovation, not understanding whatsoever what he's talking about. And all this adds up to Capitalism being better for mankind than Communism. What a joke.

And now I'm going to give my view on what I think Communism and Capitalism really amount to.

Our definitions:

better for mankind - increasing the well-being
capitalism - an economic system where the means of production are owned privately
communism - an economic system where the means of production are commonly owned.

Now. So it's private ownership versus common ownership. These two are in stark contrast and thus could be considered to comprise a dichotomy. There are no other modes of operation. It's either individualism or collectivism or some amalgamation of the two. Established.

And now let's look at the world for some empirical evidence.

Let's start with the slave trade. Would that not be primarily the fault of private enterprise? There's not so much collectivism there, or between the slave and their trader anyway. Which side of dichotomy takes real blame there? Obviously it is individualism over collectivism, private ownership over common ownership. And one can account for every atrocity in such a manner, and those are the definitions. Take murder. One man kills another. Private enterprise is it not? How couldn't it be? Let's drive it home and say he kills him and robs his wallet. There you go. There's your "rule of law". And let's look at China. And, now, I'm not such a buff for keeping up on current affairs - more a drug addict to be honest - but they are leading the world in exports still, aren't they? Zero crime. That's pretty fvcking impressive. Pointing at some deserted buildings and stating "China fvcked up" doesn't really cut it. I mean, the Devil makes work for idle hands, right? Who's killing who the most? And then China have to compete. Private enterprise takes a toll on a Communist society and it still fvcking owns. There you go. Separate states make for a capitalist world. And especially separate states so capitalist as what we're dealing with. And China still owns. BE AFRAID PUNY AMERICANS!! And then one could account for wars at the fault of private enterprise too, and all this is in accordance with the definitions for this debate. There's fear mongering.

And now, I suppose I'll pay some closer attention to my opponent's arguments against Communist functionality...

1. The Social-Calculation Problem

My opponent talks shite. He states that outside of capitalism there is no way to value goods and services. He seems to have completely forgotten about democracy, which is a system to do just that, and is common enterprise as opposed to private. We all want to be healthy, right? And there's health valued. You hungry? There we go, that's food valued. Come on... My opponent believes we simply cannot know how many shovels we need through trying to figure it out together. So much for that old saying "Two heads are better than one," right? Stupid. And then, well, Ireland is a relatively capitalist country, right? How come we've so many empty houses all over the place? I thought it was that private enterprise went wild and built unneeded houses all over the place, no? Yeah, it was. You guys don't have a whole load of empty houses over in America? Yeah, you do. So... Capitalism slipped up, right? I mean, this surplus was generated by the market, right? by individuals having made plays for interest that was to be made on market prices, right? And it generated a surplus. And then, look who's talking! Say, we all got together, tried to figure out how many of us there were, and how many houses we needed, is it inconceivable that we get it anywhere near right? Of course not, that's dumb. All we'd have to do is count and do it. There's capitalism as waste for you. And remember, China are competing with the rest of the world, largely as Communists, and are fvcking owning! Do you need a shovel?! Okay, that's 1 for a shovel!

2. Empirical Evidence of the failure of communism and the success of capitalism

More shite. True Communism has never been implemented. Again, the fact is that separate states make for a capitalist world. Communism is suffocated. Obviously, it's a slower method of doing things than capitalism, or in starting off anyway. I mean everyone for their own, grab what you can and make use of it, makes for an obvious jumpstart for industry, wherever. But, that's not at all to say it adds up to greater growth for humanity as a whole. Given the state of things, it looks like it's going to fvcking blow us up. I mean give a man likeminded to these bastards going on random shooting sprees a couple of hundred nuclear bombs and where does that leave you? Give him something worse. The 21st of December 2012 doomsday missile Illuminati magic hidden bastards missile, say. Fvcked! There we go. And conspiracy!! And now nobody's taking me seriously... but seriously, this is what you're dealing with. That's capitalism. So Communist priority number one is keeping you alive. Food and medicine. The rest of the world, all those other states are doing their own thing, fvck you. You're fvcked. You're not going to have any exports for a while, you're concentrating on the health and well-being of everyone, and the rest of the world gets the jump on you there, leaving their fellow man to die, rooting at anywhere there's power, or want, individually. And there's your weakness of Communism in a capitalist world, against separate and highly capitalist states. True Communism, as per our definitions, is pure and utter collectivization. My opponent has provided no empirical evidence of its having failed. But of course we get these examples of failings and dictatorships touting Communism nonetheless, as what is only fear mongering, and quite intellectually bankrupt. AMERICA FVCK YEAH!! Please... Did you see the Chinese at the Olympics? Holy sh1t. The Irish wrecked in boxing.

3. The Tragedy of the commons

What a stuid argument. I mean, really? And put forward with overfishing as an example. Wow. Overfishing is as a result of individual enterprise over collective. It has been born of inadherence to what's best for the collective, for what's best for what one could consider "mankind". I mean that term can only relate to the collective... There's capitalism. And I mean, wow what a stupid argument, right? How about "The Tragedy of a capitalist fvcking world" to describe where those left with nothing after everything has been grabbed up are left to starve, or to turn against their fellow man to survive. There's fvcking tragedy for you... The sheep died. Please. There was no way to stop overgrazing without allowing for absolute individual ownership of material? Sure there was. Split up the fields and maintenance without splitting up property rights. What a load of bullsh1t. And then one can easily imagine how completely sharing property might make for its better cultivation, as regards...ammm, fish, say, and selective breeding and other things like that. The sharing of information. One might consider that in end competition but robs us of opportunity. The Tragedy of the commons...

4. Innovation incentive and productive efficiency

Democracy can innovate. No need for the dog eat dog system of operation, the keeping of information from each other. My opponent talks nonsense. And I make no arguments for Bureaucrats, but collectivization.

And back to you, darkkermit.
Debate Round No. 2
darkkermit

Pro

Introduction

CON has sworn and ad hominem attacks that should cost him the conduct point. Examples include “No, you've talked a whole load of sh1t.”.

CON also believes that I broke the rules since I provided videos as sources. However, these are my sources and not my arguments. The videos are my source for #6 and #10. They do not need to be viewed to respond to my arguments, only to confirm the facts in my arguments. However, for future rounds, I will not add videos as sources.

1. The Social Calculation Problem

CON states that the solution to the social-calculation problem is democracy. However, there are multiple problems with democracy which I will state below.

a) Arrow’s Impossible Theorem [1]

Arrow’s Impossible Theorem is a proof that when voters have three or more distinct choices, it is impossible to create a voting system which reflects the preference of society. Since there are millions of goods and services, there is no way any voting system could be used to properly reflect group preference.

b) Rationally Irrational [2]

Based on research done by Bryan Caplan, voters tend to make systematic errors while voting. However, voters do not have an incentive to change their voting behavior since their vote will not affect the outcome of the election. The “cost” of their vote is diffused. However, benefits, such as feeling as one is making a difference, friends and families can have certain political beleifs, and the cognitive pain that comes from changing viewpoints and being wrong are some of the personal reasons why one would not want to engage in rational voting.

c) Special Interest groups

If a system is created where one penny was taken from every single person and given to one person, nobody would notice. However, that one person would notice. This is an example of the special interest group, in which special groups get benefits from a democracy at the expense of others. It is easy to extract resources from the group through special interests rather than have the resources go to the benefit of all.

d) Bundled goods

In a democracy, goods are bundled together. To make a system where they are not is near impossible since there are too many goods that there would be too many things to vote on. People cannot spend their entire day just voting on how resources should be distributed or allocated all day. Even those who spend all day voting, tend to vote on legislation that contains bundled goods. Most people tend to be dissatisfied with the candidates since the probability of a candidate agreeing with everything he/she agrees with is low.

e) Principal-Agent Problem

In a system of democracy, there will have to be agents that will have to make decisions on behalf of the people. However, the agents are also self-interested so will try to act on their own behalf instead of the people. For example, there are actually elections that occur in North Korea[3], but the agent (the Korean Government and Kim-Jong Un) rig the elections.

2. Empirical Evidence against Communism

CON states my examples are insufficient, and that true communism has not been tried. However, he even states just a few sentences over that “China are competing with the rest of the world, largely as Communists, and are fvcking owning!“. So this a direct contradiction of his original claim.

I will also make a rebuttal to this claim. China has had some market liberalization policies that is increasing its growth but still has some elements of communism in it. Previously, China was more communist and faired far worse. China also isn’t “owning” because it has only a gdp per capita of $8,387 while the US has a gdp per capita of $48,442[4]. While China has been increasing its economic growth, it’s easier for developing nations to increase their growth then developed nations. This is known as the “catch up” effect[5]. A lot of their economic growth is based on unsustainable practices of misallocated resources as demonstrated through the ghost city videos. The Soviet Union was thought to surpass the US in terms of gdp per capita, but the Soviet Union collapsed and it turned out they were not as wealthy as originally thought.

North Korea, China and Soviet Union have elements that would be classified as communism. They all have command economies, and restrict private property for the means of production. Stalin had a policy of enforcing collectivization of farm land so that no individual own the farms[6]. In Soviet Union, worker councils consisted of worker-elected delegates that would have legislation and executive powers in the Soviet Union[7]. Lenin followed the word of Karl Marx very closely and believed in his ideology. North Korea actually has elections. For a better example of a more democratic and a socialist nation that had poor economic growth as a result of socialist policies, India is good example.

Even if CON accepts that the nations I describe are not “true communist” these are as close a measure that one can find of communism. Therefore there’s no reason to believe that a true communist nation will not perform as poorly as the nations listed.

However, let’s say CON is right and “true communism” has never been tried. It is more likely that communism will not work out as predicted and fail. This is because any proof that it will be successful, will be based on speculation. Speculationis likely to be wrong since it is difficult to predict how human motives will interact with one another in a complex world and there are more ways to be right then to be wrong. In order for his system to work, all his assumptions and predictions would have to hold true, which is unlikely to be the case. Now we know that the system of capitalism has improved the lives of billions since before feudalism. Therefore, a priori we should accept capitalism as the better alternative to communism.

3. Tragedy of the commons

CON states that overfishing is an example of capitalism failing not communism. However, this ignores the idea that the oceans are not privately owned and communally owned. I’ve previously demonstrated examples of how private property succeeds. There are not problems of overgrazing despite land being privately owned. Nor is there a problem of deforesting, even though there is a demand for lumber. Contrary to popular belief, the amount of forests have actually been increasing. There’s more forests now then there are in the 1920s[8]. This is because people plant the trees that are cut for lumber since they want their land to remain profitable.

4. Innovation incentive and productive efficiency

Badger states that democracy can innovate, but as I stated they do not have the same incentive and structure that I described previously that increases innovation. Democracy has a lot of failures that make innovation difficult a I described earlier. For example, is the school system which is massively inefficient. A system where a teacher goes up to lecture to 30 students, when lectures can be massed produced for almost no cost is absurd. However any reforms to change the system are struck down due to teacher unions. This problem is made even worse, since one of the fallacious thinking that humans use is the “make-work fallacy”, in which people underestimate the value of conserving labor. Thus people in a democracy will more likely reject technology and improving efficiency since they believe it will destroy jobs.

Without a measure of using accurate price information to minimize input and maximize output, there’s no way one can do the calculations to increase productive efficiency or even know if the process is efficient or not. If one ends up using more capital resources at the expense of less operating resources, is that efficient or not? There’s no way to know without a price mechanism.

[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
[3]http://tinyurl.com...
[4]http://tinyurl.com...

[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6]http://tinyurl.com...

[7]http://tinyurl.com...
[8]http://tinyurl.com...

badger

Con

badger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
darkkermit

Pro

Introduction:

It seems as if CON has forfeited the round and closed his account. However, there are many arguments that I wish to address in cased he returns. I will be extended all my arguments as well.

Rebuttal:

1. Many travesties are the fault of capitalism

Con blames many travesties such as slavery . However, slavery has existed for thousands of years. It was the result of the industrial revolution took place that slavery was largely abolished. The industrial revolution was also a time in which strong capitalistic institutions flourished, including allowing financial institutions to charge interest.

Communism can also be seen as mass-scale enslavement. If one does not wish to work in a communist society, then that’s too bad one has to work anyways. Workers who refuse to work are either imprisoned or killed in communist nations. Communism can only work if people are forced to work, since then people wouldn’t work if property is not redistributed based on how much one works.

Con also states that murder is a “capitalist” institution. This is also an absurd notion. In hunter-gather societies, which are communist in nature, death rates caused through warfare are extraordinary high, much higher than in capitalist nations [1]. Murder is also illegal in capitalism so this point is completely moot.

I will go onto continue rebutting some of the further claims:

Arguments:

1. The Social Calculation problem

Extent my argument to the problems of democracy in solving the social calculation problem. While it might be easy to figure out that people desire food, it’s more difficult to figure out what type of food people desire. Capitalist nations have a higher standard of living to feed all its civilians. However, as stated before, communist nations have had famine epidemics. Different types of food come at different opportunity costs. For example, meat products need to be fed plants. These plants could’ve been used for human consumption as opposed to meat products. The farm land could be used for alternative uses as well. A factory could be used in the land, a park, and so forth. That is the social calculation problem that needs to be solved, since all goods and services come at an opportunity cost and scarcity exists.

CON also states that “two heads are better than one”. However, this argument is mainly a non-sequiter because it does not address anything I said and there are millions of different companies, so there’s more than just “one head”.

Con further explains that capitalism failed based on the housing bubble crash. However, it should be noted that there were actually tons of regulations in the housing industry. The US has its own “housing and urban development” department, had government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie and Fannie Mac giving out mortgage loans, the community reinvestment act, and deductibles for house ownership. The US government did everything it could to push home ownership.

Even if it is the case that these housing problems were the result of resource misallocation and distribution, this problem is nothing compared to communism where famines occur, ghost cities exist, and it takes hours to wait in line for bread.

2. Empirical Evidence of the failure of communism and the success of capitalism

Extend my arguments. CON’s arguments are incoherent so I cannot respond to many of them.

Give him something worse. The 21st of December 2012 doomsday missile Illuminati magic hidden bastards missile, say. Fvcked! There we go. And conspiracy!! And now nobody's taking me seriously... but seriously, this is what you're dealing with.

I’m sorry, the argument here is what?

3. The Tragedy of the commons.

Extent my previous arguments. He states that “those left with nothing after everything has been grabbed up are left to starve, or to turn against their fellow man to survive.”. This does not make sense because as I said previously the standards of living has been increasing. And it hasn’t been coming at the expense of poor nations, since poorer nations are also increasing the standard of living as well. As this graph shows[2], everyone is richer than they were in the 1800s, even present day African nations are richer than the US and Ireland was in 1800.

CON states that the solution is to “split up the fields and maintenance”. However, splitting up the fields is the establishment of property rights. Furthermore one does not have the incentive to do maintenance on any property except their own, since they will not benefit from their labor. One does not see people mowing another person’s lawn for free. You also can’t do maintenance on the land, one would just have to graze less.

4. Innovation incentive and productive efficiency

Extend arguments.

http://i30.tinypic.com...[1]

http://tinyurl.com...[2]

badger

Con

badger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
darkkermit

Pro

Vote PRO.
badger

Con

badger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
Lol @ WSA's rfd.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
And that, children, is why you shouldn't become an alcoholic.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Looks like Badger closed his account. Royal, you really bet on the wrong pony this time.
Posted by Oryus 4 years ago
Oryus
lol wow. Well, I can see who will be getting conduct points. XD
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
*socialism
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
capitalism = cruel
communism = idiotic
socially = cruelly unidiotic
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
brainwashed bastards
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
your failings of socialism are retarded. like what the fvck was north korea gonna pull off cutting itself off from the rest of the world? nothing. capitalism stifles socialism. brain drain, the idiot evacuation.....i really gotta get myself a proper title for that one. whatever!! fvck you all i'm going drinking!
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
nah mouthwash, load 'em on. feel free.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
I probably shouldn't say this, but there are a LOT of more specific examples of socialism's failure than the ones darkkermit just gave.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
darkkermitbadgerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "Badger has a history of defeating people AnCaps Sieben. I think he has this in the bag." Yep, sure does. He's not a brainwashed CAPITALIST, after all.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
darkkermitbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Good grief, someone find my shotgun, I need to go hunting stupid again.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
darkkermitbadgerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con peace'd out, but probably would have lost anyway.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
darkkermitbadgerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
darkkermitbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
darkkermitbadgerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: hi!
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
darkkermitbadgerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The AK-47-wielding frog employed substantially more cogent argumentation, which subsequently caused the alcoholic communist to flee.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
darkkermitbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF