The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Losing
43 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

On the Following Fair Taxation System(s).

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,631 times Debate No: 6076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (15)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the following taxation system(s) are fair. The proposition is NOT that they should be adopted by the United States - I affirm.

****************************

System 1 - Consumption Tax.

The main component of this taxation system would be the abolishment of the income tax. Historically, when you want less of something (pollution, imports) you tax them at a high rate. Why tax one's legal work? Do we want less people to work?

The government's revenue would then come from consumption tax. Several necessities such as food, living, and gas would be taxed at a much lower rate or not at all. Currently, there is no tax on essential foodstuffs. This should remain the case. The tax rate on consumption would rise considerably. However, people would have more money in their pockets to spend in the market, so this would be offset somewhat.

This system would also tax the rich and the poor equitably. Since the poor are actually in NEED of certain items such as basic foodstuffs and housing, they will be paying for tax-free or low-tax options. The rich, on the other hand, have more purchasing power and will consume not only more in terms of total products, but they will be supporting a better lifestyle and buying items that have higher tax rates to them. Thus, the poor retain a much greater proportion of their base income, and the rich spend more of their base income as they see fit, leaving us with an equitable taxation system and the means to tax the rich at a greater rate.

*************************************

System 2 - Flat Taxation

Instead of taxing the poor at 10% and the rich at 25%, it would be much more equitable to determine an approximate basic living stipend for the country, and then make all income earned below that threshold tax free. For purposes of argument, let us assume this to be $36,000 (or $3000 a month). All income (from legal work, capital gains, etc...) that under $36,000 would be tax free.

Above this threshold, tax would incur at the same rate across the board. The person who makes $36,001 would be taxed at 10% and the person who makes 3.6 Million would be taxed at 10%. Thus, all taxpayers pay an equitable amount of their income, and the poor actually retain a GREATER proportion of their base income than the rich.

**************************

A last component:

One additional component that would be beneficial to both these systems would be to tax imported goods at several times the rate of domestic goods - enough of a rate that it becomes cheaper for manufacturing companies to return their business to the United States. It makes no sense for the US to export raw material and import finished goods - that's what a colony does, and it's why Africa remains poor.

*************************

I believe the above two tax systems to be fair ways to tax citizens under a model similar to that of the United States.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro proposes alternative systems to be "fair" without even suggesting the definition of "fair." Bear with me as I develop a suitable definition. The reason that taxes exist at all is to provide for the necessary functions of government, such as the police, the courts, and the military. The reason that those government functions are necessary is that having them promotes the overall well-being of the country, and in particular the economic well-being. For example, if we didn't have a court system, contracts could not be enforced and overall commerce would be severely inhibited. Net prosperity increases by having a court system.

Government has legitimate non-economic functions as well as economic functions. For example, citizens may choose to provide welfare payments to the poor. Those functions will be most affordable if the economy as a whole prospers the most by most efficient use of whatever money is left in the private sector after taxes have been collected. Indeed, "fairness" may require helping the poor. However, that is fairness separate from the tax system. I am claiming that the fairest way to raise taxes is the system of taxation that allows the system to have the greatest overall prosperity. In other words, it is unfair to tax people so that the overall prosperity of the country is diminished more than it has to be. How the revenue raised by taxes is spent is a different question, which involves other issues of fairness.

This leads to the definition of "fairness" in taxation as:

The most fair tax system is the system that provides the needed revenue to government with the least damage to the economic well-being of the country.

In the definition "needed" means whatever the democratic process determines government needs, not what is needed on some absolute scale of need.

Under the definition offered, System 1 and System 2 as first stated seem to be reasonable efficient systems. What destroys any possibility of them being fair is Pro's "last component" of protective tariffs. Protective tariffs severely damage the productivity of an economy. This is well-established both in theory and practice. Protective tariffs (a) preserve inefficient industries by protecting them from competition, and (b) doing so ties up resources that would otherwise go to industries in which the country is genuinely competitive.

Relative to maintaining inefficiency, liberal economist Thomas Friedman's book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" gives many examples. In the auto industry after WWII, India and Japan took different approaches to developing their industries. Hindustani Motors was diligently protected by the Indian government, preserving all of the local jobs. Toyota and other Japanese companies had to slug it out in the competitive marketplace. The results were entirely predictable.

Relative to tying up resources, consider the fight to protect the textile industry in North Carolina and other parts of the South. The protection effort failed, and so jobs sewing shirts were lost to overseas. However, North Carolina is now considerably more prosperous than before, shifting resources to new industries like technology, pharmaceuticals, and banking. The proper role of government is to retrain people for new jobs and to facilitate transition, not to damage the economy by preventing it.

The argument that preventing competition from lesser-developed nations helps them is truly a puzzlement. Pro asserts that the U.S. has been doing manufacturing in Africa and that has kept the Africans poor. This is false because (a) there has been no such manufacturing in Africa, (b) Africa's economic problems are more due to experiments in socialism, both democratic and undemocratic, than to any other factor [carefully documented by Muravchik: "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism"], and (c) what Africa mainly produces for export, other than minerals, are agricultural commodities, and protective tariffs set up by the U.S. and Europe have inflicted substantial damage on those countries [Friedman, op cit].

The prime example of manufacturing jobs moving overseas is mainland China. Pro asserts that a lack of US protective tariffs should render them impoverished and effectively a colony of the developed world. That has not happened. Nor has it happened in Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan that would in Pro's thinking have been the first round of victims of this "colonial oppression." Nor is it happening in Malaysia, Thailand, or the current beneficiaries of free trade.

Keep in mind that US workers are consumers of manufactured goods. Thus increasing the price of manufactured goods hurts US workers substantially. So as their jobs sewing clothing are preserved, they get to pay more for not only clothing, but many other manufactured goods.

Pro's tax proposals are manifestly unfair because the protective tariffs unnecessarily damage the economy. A fair system does not punish citizens by unnecessary reducing their prosperity.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Unfortunately, what my opponent describes is a utilitarian tax system, not necessarily a fair one. I thought the resolution was clear from the arguments that a fair tax would be one that taxed both the rich and poor equitably or in an equal manner.

My opponent also somewhat concedes that the two systems are "reasonably efficient." He then contends that:

a) It preserves inefficient industries.
b) Doing A is a waste of resources.
c) Increasing the price of manufactured goods hurts US workers.
****************************

a) On inefficient industries.

My opponent uses the auto industry as an example. However, if one considers a company such as Toyota, the use of the tariff system becomes clear. There are major Toyota assembly plants in Huntsville, AL; Georgetown, KY; Princetion, IN; San Antonio, TX; and Buffalo, WV. None of the cars produced at these plants, even though designed in Japan would be subject to additional costs. Imported Toyotas from Japan would be subject to a higher tax rate. Thus, the import tariffs encourage foreign competitors to move production to the United States and create more jobs in this market, rather than risk losing the market of the largest consumer nation on the planet. And if GM can't handle the rising number of Toyota plants in the US, they will go under - showing an example of an inefficient industry that folded under this hypothetical model.

b) On the preservation of inefficient industries.

I'm not sure that my opponent's case for this is actually that logical. It seems to me that if the North Carolinians can make X amount making textiles, and X + Y amount making pharmaceuticals, the economic choice is clear. My opponent's example is simply a case of foolish or uninformed economic practices.

c) On the damage to US workers from increasing import tariffs.

If the cost of importing a good goes up, the sale price does as well. This is a simple way to get American companies like Proctor and Gamble to move their 31 plants in China to places like the same town where their headquarters is - Cincinnati. Import tariffs encourage US companies to pay US workers to make their products. This seems like a very good thing for US workers to me.

*********************

I must apologize for my opponents confusion in the following points... I was not arguing that this system would help lesser-developed nations. When I said "It makes no sense for the US to export raw material and import finished goods - that's what a colony does, and it's why Africa remains poor," it should have been read as stating:

1) Exporting raw materials and importing finished goods makes no economic sense.
2) Therefore, it makes no sense for the US use the model in 1.
3) The model in 1 is what a colony does.
4) The model in 1 is also why Africa remains poor.

Once again, my apologies for the confusion.

*************************

I believe I have shown that my proposed addition to the systems my opponent concedes are "reasonably efficient" will not have the disastrous effects he proposes. I would ask that he pay more mind to the systems themselves, and not the component of import tariffs though.

AFFIRMED.
RoyLatham

Con

Saying that the system "taxes rich and poor equitably" does not define what is fair. It begs the question. What is equitable? A Marxist would say that equitable means "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Someone with libertarian leanings would say that it is inequitable to take wealth away from those who create it to subsidize people who create less.

Pro characterizes my argument as "utilitarian." That is not an argument against it is being fair. I am arguing that a fair system does not waste the citizens' wealth. Note that Pro argues exactly that when he asserts with respect to the income tax that, "The main component of this taxation system would be the abolishment of the income tax. Historically, when you want less of something (pollution, imports) you tax them at a high rate. Why tax one's legal work? Do we want less people to work?" His only argument against the fairness of the present income tax system is that it is not utilitarian, and because of that it robs citizens of prosperity they could otherwise enjoy. Thus when criticizing the income tax he equates fairness with utilitarian efficiency, but when his own systems are held to exactly the same criteria, he rejects the argument as unsound. Pro offers no other measure of fairness or equity.

Pro is correct that I agree System 1 or System 2 without his protective tariff would appear reasonable. So, yes, the drink without the poison might be palatable. However, he does not offer it up without the poison, so therefore it fails.

a) Pro did not answer the argument that industries protected by tariffs become non-competitive. Pro claims that a protected industry would be competitive because foreign manufacturers would be allowed to produce domestically. Note that Toyota did not make Hindustani Motors competitive by setting up shop in India, nor have cars manufactured under protective tariffs in Russia or Taiwan ever become competitive. Overseas manufacturers are understandably reluctant to invest in protected economies, because they correctly understand that the whole purpose of protective tariffs is to prevent competition. Why invest in a country that demonstrates it does not tolerate competition, when the alternative is to invest in places that allow competition? Toyota only invested in US plants after they became established as a competitive player in the market.

Moreover, the protected domestic producer has no incentive to reduce costs to be competitive on international markets. Thus if Japan had protected high prices for cars within Japan, Toyota would never have been able to compete overseas. That would have deprived Japan of the immense revenue from international trade. India did protect Hindustani Motors, and they never became an international competitor.

b) Pro states that "It seems to me that if the North Carolinians can make X amount making textiles, and X + Y amount making pharmaceuticals, the economic choice is clear. My opponent's example is simply a case of foolish or uninformed economic practices." What Pro misses is that X includes the tariff protection money. Thus if A is the international price of textiles and B is the tariff support, X = A + B. Thus so long as X is greater than an alternative, the industry will not be abandoned. It should be abandoned when A is not competitive with respect to an alternative.

For example, in the late 1980's the international price of sugar was four cents a pound. To keep the U.S. sugar industry competitive, tariffs were imposed to keep the price at 23 cents per pound. No alternative use generating less than the artificially inflated revenue could displace the labor-intensive cane sugar industry. Subsidies were phased out in the 90's. That ended the cane sugar industry in Hawaii, however beet sugar producers in Texas and elsewhere adapted to the competition. Land in Hawaii was then freed up for other uses; growing coffee being one use. Point is, if the government protects an industry with tariff subsidies, it will not be abandoned in favor of something truly competitive.

c) "This is a simple way to get American companies like Proctor and Gamble to move their 31 plants in China to places like the same town where their headquarters is - Cincinnati. Import tariffs encourage US companies to pay US workers to make their products. This seems like a very good thing for US workers to me." It is very good thing for some workers. The result would be something like doubling or tripling the price of soap and household goods so that workers in Cincinnati can make non-competitive soap instead of participating in a competitive industry. However, every worker in the United States gets to pay double or triple the price for soap to support the non-competitive soap industry. That is bad for workers overall, and the alleged benefit is to keep a smaller number of workers stuck in jobs in an industry that has extremely growth potential.

If you doubt that prices would double, simply compare prices in countries having protected industries, like agricultural products in Japan.

Of course, P&G is an international company so only plants needed for U.S. production would be relocated.

Note that in a protected industry, an alternative to paying local workers is to automate. Automation is not always an alternative. No one has yet invented a machine that will automatically stitch pantyhose together. However, it is mainly labor-intensive jobs that are exported, an many of them can be automated at the right price. China is now starting to feel competition from automation. Imagine how workers in Cincinnati paid high wages for menial work would fare.

*******************
Pro asserts, "1) Exporting raw materials and importing finished goods makes no economic sense." This is false, because if it made no economic sense, it would not be common practice for profit-motivated companies. The economic sense derives from cheaper labor costs, unique technologies possessed by different countries, and the economies of scale in large operations. By Pro's argument, it should make no economic sense for Canada, a producer of aluminum, to ever import anything made of aluminum. It does make sense, because the small Canadian market cannot support the cost of design and the large scale manufacturing needed to compete economically in every market with the U.S. and Japan.

The paradigm presented is also false. The notion is false that raw materials for a product all come from one place, are manufactured, and then are sold back to the place where the materials came from. For example, it is common for semiconductors produced in the US to be designed into products by companies in Japan, and manufactured in China using components from all over the world. the finished product is then distributed worldwide. I challenge Pro to cite a half-dozen products where all the raw materials come from the US, are manufactured overseas, and then shipped back to the U.S. Off hand, I cannot think of one. If Pro can think of any, the challenge is then to explain specifically why it makes no economic sense to do it the way it is done.

As to Pro's model being the model for colonies, I challenge Pro to give current examples of this happening. Pro is proposing to cure a problem that does not exist. Actually, I don't think that was even the historical model. Colonies usually provided raw materials to the mother country, who then exported manufactured goods back to the colony. That was the model for the US back in colonial days.

I have previously refuted Pro's assertion that Africa remains poor because they perform captive manufacturing. Pro has not responded to any of my refutations.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

My opponent has some glaring inconsistencies in his argument, so I shall try to be concise.

First, "taxing the rich and poor equitably" is fairly clear to me. Equitable does not simply mean fairly, but rather "characterized by EQUALITY or fairness" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Indeed, the root EQU- from equitable and equal is no coincidence. Thus, an equitable tax system must tax the rich and poor by the same method or rule. The easiest way to do this is a flat percentage of some sort.

Second, my opponent mischaracterizes my proposals as an argument against the status quo, even though the opening argument specifically states: "The proposition on offer is that the following taxation system(s) are fair. The proposition is NOT that they should be adopted by the United States." His argument on this point is a complete red herring.

a) Con asserts that I did not answer the argument that protected industries become non-competitive even though I explicitly demonstrated a model by which the automobile industry would remain competitive even if protected. Much of his argument against this point stems from a misreading of the initial proposition. Foreign companies would still have incentive to place manufacturing in the US - there would be no import tax on manufacturing. How is one to import a factory? Factories are built on location....

Additionally, my opponent makes a grievous mistake in stating that protected industries have no incentive to be internationally competitive. In order to enter the international market, they MUST be competitive. This is why Ford sells cars in Europe with better CO2 and fuel efficiency than it does in the US (http://www.autobloggreen.com...).

b) My opponent still misses the point of import tariffs in this model. Suppose the international price of sugar is 4 cents a pound. However, on imported sugar, the return to the domestic economy is only 1 cent per pound. Also suppose that the price of domestically produced sugar is 4 cents per pound, but that 3 cents per pound benefits the domestic economy. Thus, an import tariff on sugar to boost the domestic benefit of IMPORTED SUGAR to 3 cents per pound makes economic sense if the nation is trying to boost domestic economy.

c) My opponents argument that tariffs essentially cause inflation is indeed worth consideration. However, in the long term, this would give motivation for innovation in the domestic market. Also, my opponent is not considering this point in conjunction with the first, consumption, based model. Items of this nature that cannot be produced competitively locally (soap is a good example) may be taxed at a lower rate or not at all, according to the first tax model in the opening argument.

***************************

I do indeed assert that exportation of raw materials and importation of finished goods makes no economic sense. My opponent states that profit-motivated companies practice this, and that Canada should never import aluminum. However, let us inject some common sense here...

If Canada is a NET producer of aluminum, then the value of the aluminum they export exceeds the value of the aluminum they import. In the case of the exportation of raw materials, it is often the case that the value of the exported material is LESS than the value of the imported material. And this IS the case with the US, as evidenced by our growing trade deficit with China.

Con has also contended that I hold that the US is practitioner of this exportation model. If the value of the silicon that is exported is less than the value of the electronics made with that silicon that is imported, then the US IS practicing this model.

Con's last paragraph on this matter makes no sense. He states that the model of "provid[ing] raw materials to the mother country, who then exported manufactured goods back to the colony." is not the model that I proposed, but then states that it "was the model for the US back in colonial days." There is an egregious disconnect here somewhere, and I'm not sure I even understand the paragraph. I believe we can conclude from "That was the model for the US back in colonial days." That the US was historically a practitioner of this economic model AND that it was a model for colonies.

As for a current example, South Africa exports 76.19 billion, yet imports 81.89 billion (CIA World Factbook). With just the United States, they export steelmaking and ferrous alloy-making materials, non-ferrous metals, and iron and steel. However, from the US, they import various cars, planes, machinery, and even machinery to help excavate raw materials (http://internationaltrade.suite101.com...). Sounds like this model to me.

I would suggest that my opponent read "The White Man's Burden" and "The End of Poverty" concerning the economic situation in Africa.

*****************************

I have refuted my opponent's claims, even though many of them stem from a misunderstanding of the application of import tariffs. I have also answered his claims about colonial economic models, and refuted his claims concerning Africa and trade deficits in general.

AFFIRMED.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro clarifies his definition his definition of fairness to mean "characterized by EQUALITY or fairness." Defining fairness as fairness is not a clarification. "Equality" means "The state or quality of being equal." or "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Thus fairness achieved through equality could only be achieved by having each citizen pay equal taxes, for example, everyone pays exactly $19,000 in taxes. That is not what Pro has proposed in either system. Pro implies that equality could be achieved by imposing the same system on everyone. A system of regressive taxation could be imposed equally on everyone, so that the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich. That would meet the definition of a system being equally imposed, but it would be unfair. We are left with the circular definition of a fair system being one that is fair.

If Pro intended that only a system that takes equal percentages is fair, and that therefore he proposed to win by definition, that should have been made clear at the outset. In that way the debate could have been entirely avoided.

Pro states "opponent mischaracterizes my proposals as an argument against the status quo, even though the opening argument specifically states: 'The proposition on offer is that the following taxation system(s) are fair. The proposition is NOT that they should be adopted by the United States.' " I did not use Pro's argument to claim that the status quo should be overthrown. I used Pro's statement "The main component of this taxation system would be the abolishment of the income tax. Historically, when you want less of something (pollution, imports) you tax them at a high rate. Why tax one's legal work? Do we want less people to work?" to make the point that a system that unnecessarily diminished the total wealth of the nation was unfair. By Pro's stated assertion, he acknowledges that a system that does that is unfair. Therefore, Pro's system of import tariffs, which unnecessarily diminishes wealth, is unfair.

a)"Con asserts that I did not answer the argument that protected industries become non-competitive even though I explicitly demonstrated a model by which the automobile industry would remain competitive even if protected." Pro offered a model that might work in theory, but which has been clearly shown never to work in practice. Did in fact Hindustani Motors or any of the other protected car companies ever become internationally competitive? They did not. Nor could Pro cite a single example anywhere of a protected industry becoming competitive. An answer that there is a method that has been tested and found to fail is not an answer. It is akin to arguing that socialism is a viable system because if the State allocates resources wisely it could succeed, but in practice it never does.

b) "Thus, an import tariff on sugar to boost the domestic benefit of IMPORTED SUGAR to 3 cents per pound makes economic sense if the nation is trying to boost domestic economy..." If the international price of sugar is four cents, but a tariff is applied to raise it to, say five cents, then consumers will be paying five cents a pound for sugar. this helps domestic sugar producers at the expense of every other consumer who is forced to provide the subsidy. That is a net loss to the economy, not a net gain. Moreover, it is completely unrealistic to suppose that protective tariffs only will protect industries that would otherwise be competitive. The whole point is to protect jobs in uncompetitive industries. competitive industries don't need protection. Tariff protection transfers wealth to non-competitive industries and damages the economy as a whole.

c) "However, in the long term, this would give motivation for innovation in the domestic market." Protection from competition never provides motivation for innovation, except insofar as it motivates industry to automate and eliminate the jobs that the tariffs were supposed to protect.

"Items of this nature that cannot be produced competitively locally (soap is a good example) may be taxed at a lower rate or not at all, according to the first tax model in the opening argument." Since Pro references the first model, I assume the tax that would be waved would be the consumption tax, not the import tax. Thus, Pro would raise the price of soap by by putting tariffs on imports, then subsidize the inefficient production of soap by taxing goods other than soap at a higher rate so as to subsidize soap. A government bureaucracy would necessarily be created to decide what products would be subsidized and which would be taxed extra to provide those subsidies. This is exactly the mechanism of gross inefficiency that characterizes protected economies. The net result is well known. the economy as a whole deteriorates significantly as a consequence. The fewer products that are protected, the greater the less the deterioration, but the practice guarantees that resources will be kept in inefficient industries rather than redeployed to efficient ones.

I relied upon Pro's statement that "Exporting raw materials and importing finished goods makes no economic sense." Apparently, Pro did mean for that statement to be taken literally as stated. Pro gives the example "South Africa exports 76.19 billion, yet imports 81.89 billion." So is Pro arguing that trade deficits should be prevented by raising tariffs until the trade balance is positive? That would be a disaster for the reasons cited. Then Pro adds confusion by citing sources that in general Africa is an economic mess. Of course, it is true that Africa is an economic mess, although South Africa, the country Pro cites as an example, has one of the best economies in Africa. There is no evidence that a lack of protectionism is the cause of economic woes in Africa. Africa has been hurt by socialism and dictators that mismanage their economies and prevent the prosperity that comes from free markets, and by protectionism in America and Europe that keeps out the agricultural products that Africa would like to export.

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

Protectionism has been well-tested. The Smoot-Hawley Act was passed by the U.S. Congress to raise tariffs in hopes of warding off the Great Depression. It failed miserably. According to the U.S. State Department,
"Smoot-Hawley marked the end of the line for high tariffs in 20th century American trade policy. Thereafter, beginning with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the United States generally sought trade liberalization through bilateral or multilateral tariff reductions. To this day, the phrase "Smoot-Hawley" remains a watchword for the perils of protectionism." http://www.state.gov...

It is fundamentally unfair to adopt a tax policy that hurts taxpayers by unnecessarily damaging the economy. Pro gave a theoretical argument as to why he thought it shouldn't damage the economy, but never cited a single example of a nation or industry that benefited from protectionism. I cited numerous examples of the harm that resulted to industries by preserving inefficiency and preventing the reallocation of resources from non-competitive to competitive industries, and I gave the reasons why it was so. A fair tax system should above all else preserve the goose that lays the golden eggs. Pro's tax system does not do that. Therefore the resolution should not be affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
lol - not sure I understand that comment...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Fair taxation is like non-discriminatory genocide. It doesn't make any sense :D
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I'm glad you do.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I affirm the resolution.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 1 year ago
UchihaMadara
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Firewings should have his voting privileges removed, lol
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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 Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: @Famous & Firewings - Just because voting standards were sh!t back then doesn't mean you should abuse that to alter the outcomes 5 yrs later
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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 falafel 8 years ago
falafel
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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 TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
JustCallMeTarzanRoyLathamTied
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