The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Pick your own debate 3!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 12/29/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,782 times Debate No: 10599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

Kleptin

Pro

1. Submit at least 4 resolutions of at least 3 different categories (see the forum). Include your position for each resolution.

2. In R2, I will respond with my choice.

If I am PRO, I will respond with only my choice. My opponent will then use his R2 to acknowledge my choice and invite me to begin. Debating will begin with me in R3 and end with my opponent in R5.

If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my opponent in R2 and will end in R5. My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate.

BEGIN!
RoyLatham

Con

In accordance with Pro's conditions, here are four resolutions in three categories

1. Entertainment: The anime "Kamichu!" is a better exposition of the teen goddess theme than the anime "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumia." I am PRO.

Kamichu! is summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org...! Haruhi at http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Entertainment: The anime "Initial D" is as much about the role of passion in life as it is about auto racing. I am Pro.

"Initial D" is summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Society: The concept of a "water footprint" is an important one that should be reflected positively in how we live." I am Con.

Among advocates are waterfootprint.org http://www.waterfootprint.org... which also defines the concept.

4. Politics: "The Stimulus Plan was bad legislation." I am Pro.

For the purposes of this debate, "bad legislation" is defined as "legislation not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose."

Have at it!
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I'll select the last one, regarding the Stimulus plan. I'll let my opponent make his first post. I shall end the debate in R5 and my opponent will not post an argument in the last round.

Let's begin :)
RoyLatham

Con

The Stimulus Plan is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org... is the U.S. law passed in February for the announced purpose of stimulating the economy.

The Stimulus Plan is bad legislation because:

1. The money is spent too slowly to provide needed immediate stimulus to he economy. To be "stimulus" the money must be spent quickly so it gets into the economy while it is needed. A fraction of the stimulus money is slated for tax cuts, but the bulk of it is reserved for the alleged "shovel ready projects" that were in fact not ready.

The Congressional Budget Office told Congress ahead of time that the money would not be spent quickly,

"Assuming enactment in mid-February, CBO estimates that the bill would increase outlays by $93 billion during the remaining several months of fiscal year 2009, by $225 billion in fiscal year 2010 (which begins on October 1), by $159 billion in 2011, and by a total of $604 billion over the 2009-2019 period." http://econompicdata.blogspot.com...

So only $93 billion of the $787 billion was planned for FY 2009, when it would actually act as stimulus.

The government claims $158 billion was "allocated" in FY 2009 http://blogs.abcnews.com..., but that doesn't say how much is actually spent. X dollars may be allocated to build a bridge, but there is no stimulus to the economy until the money actually arrives in someone's pocket. Even all $158 billion were actually spent, it would not be "stimulus" in proportion to a $787 billion package.

2. The legislation requires that government pay union wages for Stimulus Plan projects. This means that 30% to 50% fewer projects could be funded and 30% to 50% less employment than if this restriction were not imposed.

"Los Angeles County officials who received $8 million in Community Development Block Grant money to weatherize homes for low-income people said they typically bid the job low and pay about $15 an hour for a worker to caulk windows. However, under union scale, that job pays $25 an hour and $5 in benefits, so instead of repairing 100 homes, they might do 50 homes for the same price." http://www.foxnews.com......

3. The legislation is used to discourage state governments from cutting spending, which states ought to do to meet the financial crisis. "The Obama administration warned states it may withhold millions of dollars if they use stimulus money to plug budget holes instead of boosting aid for schools." http://www.usatoday.com...

This is in part a pay off to unions who supported Obama. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...

4. The money is going unfairly to Obama supporters. "Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows." http://www.usatoday.com...

5. Obama promised that the bill would be pork free, but the legislation spends money foolishly on unneeded pork barrel projects.

"Veronique De Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center ... argues that the bill is overflowing not with needed infrastructure spending, but with hundreds of billions in pork."
http://www.usnews.com... The article goes on to cite examples.

6. Most of the money has gone to government jobs, specifically to pay off unionized teachers whose unions donate heavily to Democrats. "Of the 640,329 jobs cited today, White House officials said 80,000 were in the construction sector and more than half -- 325,000 -- were education jobs, despite President Obama's claim in January that 90 percent of the stimulus jobs would be in the private sector." http://blogs.abcnews.com...

7. The legislation is not being accurately tracked or accounted n recovery.gov as promised. The errors include jobs created in non-existent Congressional districts, and absurd errors in attributing jobs created. http://www.lvrj.com...

8. The Stimulus Plan did not meet its announced goal of keeping unemployment below 8% Unemployment has risen well above 10% http://blog.heritage.org...

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

The Stimulus Plan was bad legislation rushed through under false pretenses. It was claimed to be needed to provide immediate stimulus to the economy. The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his prompt response and will begin arguing.

Before I go on to my opponent's points, please note that in making my points, I will be as blunt and straightforward as possible. Please do not interpret this as rudeness or lack of etiquette, I just believe that the issue is better tackled without excessive verbiage.

Now, straight to the point. My opponent has included many sources and many accusations, but let's not lose sight of his main argument: The ARRA (Stimulus plan) did not do what it said it would do. This is the heart and soul of the debate. The ARRA itself has a statement of purpose, which was provided in the wiki article my opponent posted. This is what we will be talking about. Please see this source and look for Statement of Intent:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If I said that the Stimulus plan would sprout wings and fly away, and it hasn't, then does this make it bad legislation? Absolutely not. Because this is something that I state. Please note that in almost all of my opponent's points, he points to something *SOMEONE* said would occur with the Stimulus plan. Not once does he state what the Stimulus Plan's statement of intent is. This brings me to my counterpoints.

1. The word "stimulus" is thrown around by my opponent to mean "immediate action". I would like to point out that the actual legislation is titled: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This sounds rather boring and rather slow, as is the case with most "recoveries". We know it as the "Stimulus" package only because it was marketed as the stimulus package. If my opponent wants to attack this point, he should have lashed out at the people supporting the legislation and giving false advertisement. The legislation itself mentions nothing about time, speed, or immediacy.

2. The Congressional Budget Office source my opponent makes is a follow up of this point. Purely by my opponent's own interpretation of what "Stimulus" means, he discredits the legislation. I repeat: The legislation does not show any time limit. It does not declare that it is a quick, one-shot wonder. It announces itself as a Recovery act.

3. Same point. My opponent argues that until the money arrives in civilian pockets, it isn't stimulus. First, the legislation is a recovery act that is called a stimulus act. Second, it doesn't say when the stimulation will occur. No broken promises.

4. In reference to Union wages, I ask my opponent to suggest an alternative. Union labor workers getting paid more will have more to spend. Remember, the main goal is to stimulate the economy, not weatherize homes. Weatherizing homes is a side effect. The only alternative would be to hire illegal immigrants who would shuttle the money back to their homeland, further hindering the economy.

5. Cutting state spending at this time is what every state wants to do. Without this restriction, states will undoubtedly cut education, which is detrimental as this recession may last a long time. Without education, unemployment problems will compound.

6. In reference to Obama supporters getting more, did the ARRA actually mention that this would not be the case?

7. Pork- My opponent should read his source with a little more detail. The hundreds of billions stated were not in pork, but on *POSSIBLE* unnecessary spending. As for the examples: Green vehicles for federal employees, Green technology, ship building, renovation of public facilities, etc. My opponent sees these things as frivolous and unnecessary. I see them as excellent ways of creating jobs that people with few qualifications can do. Besides, this is what Obama said. Does the legislation itself say that it is free of pork-barrel spending?

8. Tracking of the plan is not included in the plan. Again, this is what Obama said. The legislation itself does not state that it will be tracked with 100% accuracy.

9. The Stimulus plan did not announce any goal for unemployment. My opponent's source stated that "The White House" made that particular claim. Nowhere in the actual legislation does it mention the exact benefits of unemployment. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the legislation did not help unemployment. It could be that the Whit House simply could not foresee the massive amount of unemployment. Without the stimulus package, unemployment may be even higher.

In summary, my opponent's argument mainly attacked external views and promises of the legislation. My opponent defined "bad legislation" as "legislation not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose." I suggest my opponent begin attacking what he should be attacking: The purpose stated in the ACTUAL legislation.

I anxiously await my opponent's response. Thank you.
RoyLatham

Con

The President and every supporter in Congress called it a "Stimulus" Plan. The President said it must be passed within a month, "We can't afford three, four, five, six more months ..." Speed in passing the bill was so important that Obama sent a plane to fetch Sen. Sherrod Brown from Ohio on a Saturday to vote on Saturday night and then return the Senator home in time for his mother's funeral on Sunday. Lawmakers were given half a day to read and analyze the 1000 page bill before voting on it. http://www.cnn.com...

It is completely appropriate to judge the success of a bill by what it's supporters claimed it would do. Con's idea of "no intent" is not shared by anyone. By July, liberal-to-a-fault Time Magazine proclaimed:

"Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure

"... two of [Obama's] chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983."
http://www.time.com...

Con claims "The legislation itself mentions nothing about time, speed, or immediacy." Con's claim is false. The bill has a statement of intent to provide rapid stimulus, which includes:

"The President and the heads of Federal departments and agencies shall manage and expend the funds made available in this Act so as to achieve the purposes specified in subsection (a), including commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management." http://www.debate.org...

My points 1, 2, and 3 show the included goals were not achieved. Points 5 and 7 demonstrate the goal of prudent management was not met.

The purposes specified in subsection (a) are "(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. (2) To assist those most impacted by the recession. (3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. (4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. (5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases." The purposes do not include doling out pork, rewarding Obama supporters, or punishing Republicans.

[4] Con queries, "In reference to Union wages, I ask my opponent to suggest an alternative." The alternative is obviously to give work to the lowest-cost qualified bidder. That was allowed under Federal aid bills prior to the Stimulus and it worked fine. That provides more jobs and creates more infrastructure for the same amount of taxpayer money. Those are the goals stated by supporters and given in subsection (a).

[5] Con argues "Without this restriction, states will undoubtedly cut education, which is detrimental as this recession may last a long time." Cuts could be done by cutting administrative spending, maintenance, or pension benefits without necessarily reducing the education delivered to the student. However, it is bad legislation to risk forcing states into default for the purpose of preserving high cost union jobs. Education is not served by[6] bankruptcy, because education suffers even more when that happens.

[6] Con asks, "In reference to Obama supporters getting more, did the ARRA actually mention that this would not be the case?" Yes, the bill specifies "prudent management" and it does not include "paying off supporters" as an objective in subsection (a).

[7] Con points out that pork may be considered a good thing by someone. I agree, it surely is loved by whoever proposed it. The question is whether things such as funding glorified electric golf carts, $150 million for parking improvements at a Little League facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico, and $6 million for a "snowmaking and maintenance facility" at Spirit Mountain ski area in Duluth, Minnesota are within the bounds of prudent management. They are not because they do lead to many long term jobs or much productive infrastructure. Instead, Congress might have given $100 billion to venture capital firms for innovative startups. The bill includes virtually nothing for small business, who are cash-starved and provide more than half the jobs in the country.

Con argues that while the bill is corrupt and inefficient, it shouldn't be considered "bad legislation" because the bill itself doesn't exclude those purposes. Well, the bill does exclude them, and if it did not, it should be fairly judged against the promises made by its supporters when it was rammed through virtually unread.
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his prompt response.

Again, I will try to be blunt and to the point. Overall, I would say that my opponent's last round rebuttals tended to be either the result of clever wordplay, or a missed important detail.

1. My opponent said that since everyone was calling it a stimulus plan, and since the President was in a rush, then we should judge the Stimulus plan as a failure because it hasn't worked yet. When a patient shows up with a disease, we want to treat it right away. However, the recovery period may be months. My opponent has simply shown that there was an urgency in getting the plan passed so that the problem could START to be solved, but my opponent did not show that there was any intention that the actual recovery be immediate.

2. My opponent and I seem to be at odds. Bad legislation would be legislation that is not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose. The official stated purpose is in the actual legislation. See the "Statement of purpose".

Now, supporters of the bill can say whatever they want. I support the bill, if I claim that it can grow wings and fly away, does it make it bad legislation? No. It is completely absurd for my opponent to say that legislation is bad simply because it doesn't do what OTHER people say it will do. The bill itself states its intentions, and this is the only objective thing we can go by. It is good legislation because it tells us what it is going to do, and it does it. Plain and simple.

3. My opponent says that my claim that the Act states no immediacy in the stimulus is false and provides a source. Let me point out that my opponent's points 1,2, and 3 only complain about time. He has provided no evidence that shows that there was a lack of prudent management. I argue that the delay in expenditure is essentially due to the fact that they do not deem it prudent to throw money at things as quickly as possible.

My opponent's entire point hinges on the notion that faster is better, and his entire notion that faster is better comes from his assumption that speed is stated in the Act, when in reality, no such thing is stated in the act! It is stated "speed, but with prudent management". Thus, my opponent's point is nothing but a chain that goes all the way to an incorrect assumption, leading the entire chain to fall apart.

Furthermore, he has made a blanket statement that the points 5 and 7 demonstrate imprudent management, yet, he has no argument for that.

4. Union wages. Guess who the lowest priced bidder was? Unless you expect random minimum wage workers or illegal immigrants to auction themselves off on the floor of Congress in the manner of the slaves of the south, you can expect a union of workers to win the bid.

5. And how do you propose to teach students with poor facilities, no administration, and no teachers since no one will teach without pension? Schools have little enough money as is but it is the biggest target for cuts since it only affects the future. Short-sighted people need some restrictions in order to think a little harder on how to not solve problems the easy way.

6. Of course, my opponent has no argument on why the management was not prudent, nor can he prove that Obama was paying off supporters and not giving money prudently.

7. Let's take a look at the article. Of the $787B, the article complained about $3B in non-green technology, $144B allotted to state governments discretion. The rest of the things my opponent talked about made up less than a fraction of 1 percent of that $787B. Who is my opponent trying to fool? The $3B in non-green technology sets up long term research jobs and the $144B is heavily restricted in its usage, according to the site.

So really, my opponent's complaints are meaningless except for the $144B in discretionary state money. Even if we assume (as I believe my opponent wants us to) that state governments are 100% corrupt, only 20% of the Stimulus money would have been gone. However, this is absurd. A more reasonable statement would be that 10% of state money is wasted, leaving approximately 95% of the entire stimulus bill to be toward useful means.

And $100B to small businesses? The bill did one better. How about $275B in tax cuts or every employee in America? And the further tax cuts that will come from the $145B in state spending? Not enough? Every penny left goes to works that in some way, eases the pocket of the generation now and the generation to come.

I feel that the package was good legislation, it's just that my opponent is far too preoccupied with the here and now to realize that the plan is made for the long haul.
RoyLatham

Con

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. I'm sure he was deeply inspired by President Clinton's remark that all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Here, it was about "bad."

The Stimulus Plan is corrupt, inefficient, did not provide significant stimulus, and has not achieved the goals proclaimed by its proponents. Con argues that, nonetheless, the sole criteria for determining whether it is bad legislation ought to be whether it has met objectives stated within the legislation. Even if Con's concept of narrowly reading the legislation is accepted, Con has not explained how the bills failures are consistent with the bill's written objective of "prudent management" nor can he point to "paying off political allies" among the five written objectives. I showed that even liberal supporters agree that the claims made for the bill should be used to judge it.

1. Con attempts an analogy, "When a patient shows up with a disease, we want to treat it right away. However, the recovery period may be months." I'll go with the analogy. If the physician says, "You must take this expensive medicine immediately. There is no time to answer any questions. In fact there is no time to even read the prescription. Trust me, you will be cured immediately." It then turns out that the patient mainly suffers harmful side effects for a year, and the physician says, "Trust me, you'll get better next year." That's the correct analogy, with the question, "Is this good medical practice or not?" When proponents ram through legislation with allowing it to be read, it is reasonable to judge it on their claims. In fact, there is no alternative.

2. "I support the bill, if I claim that it can grow wings and fly away, does it make it bad legislation?" Yes, it makes it bad legislation if (a) you control passage and you don't allow anyone to read or study it and (b) it fails to meet it's your claims. Separately, it is properly judged as bad legislation if it includes payoffs to political allies, not stated as an objective of the bill. Payoffs are both unethical and inefficient, "bad" by any definition.

3. "[Pro] He has provided no evidence that shows that there was a lack of prudent management." I showed that the bill demanded that the money be spent both quickly and prudently. Con does not contest the fact that it was not spent quickly. That it was not prudently managed is evidenced by my points 4, 5, 6. 7, and 8. The money went 2:1 to Obama supporters, it went to pay off unions at great extra expense, it included wasteful pork, and it was not properly accounted for on recovery.gov.

4. The legislation demands that union wages be paid, providing less infrastructure and fewer jobs. Con argues "Guess who the lowest priced bidder was?" I don't understand Con's response. The individual projects are put out to bid by local governments. If the law did not require union wages, the evidence is that more work is obtained for less taxpayer money spent. That's the way past state aid has worked. So is Con arguing that union wages are typically below market wages? If so, that would require extraordinary evidence to prove. Con has provided no evidence.

5. "And how do you propose to teach students with poor facilities, no administration, and no teachers since no one will teach without pension?" I would propose that state legislatures ought to e allowed to decide if they can get by without the parking lot being repaved, with 25% fewer administrators shuffling papers, an with teachers retiring on 60% of salary rather than 75%. It is grossly inefficient for Congress to attempt to preclude such cutbacks during a recession.

6. "Of course, my opponent has no argument on why the management was not prudent, nor can he prove that Obama was paying off supporters and not giving money prudently." The arguments were clearly presented and supported by sources in points 4, 5, 6. and 7. Con can dispute the points, but it is unacceptable to claim that no arguments were made.

7. The pork might only be a trivial matter (?) of a hundred billion, it might be more. The fact remains that there was an explicit promise of no pork, and therefore imprudent management not to have excluded pork. I claim that it clearly inefficient to be spending on a parking lot for Little League, when the bill had virtually no money for small business and none at all for venture capital.

8. Con did not attempt to defend the gross errors in expenditure tracking on recovery.gov. It stands as bad management.

9. The Stimulus Plan was sold on the basis of the claim that it would keep unemployment below 8%. We should reasonably expect the President to know and to state the objectives of the legislation, and to jug success based on those claims. The bill failed to meet those objectives.

The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent and will now conclude. As per accepted conduct, I shall offer no new arguments this round, only offer counterpoints and conclude.

My opponent states that I have not explained the failures of the bill in regards to prudent management. Indeed, I have. The problem is that my opponent defines prudent management as "immediate results" when this is simply not the case. Prudent management, as quoted, reflects the need to avoid rushing to provide immediate results at the expense of foresight and planning. My opponent thus, has absolutely no reason to assert that the plans implemented were not prudent management. Yes, they might not have had immediate effect, but this is certainly due to factors that make immediate action impractical.

Furthermore, my opponent mentions the bill "paying off political allies". The bill promises to give money where it is needed. My opponent has no evidence showing that the money was not distributed in accordance with this, he just erroneously assumes that if there is an inequality, then it breaches the bill. It does not.

1. My opponent has not provided any evidence claiming that the bill proponents promised any immediate results, only that the plan must be implemented immediately. He also has no proof that the unemployment rate would have been lower if the stimulus plan were not implemented. The disease could have just been far worse than the doctor could foresee, it does not necessarily mean that the medicine is causing the increased symptoms.

2. I disagree. My opponent cannot up and change the agreed-upon definition of "bad legislation" in the last round. My opponent has stated that bad legislation is defined as: "legislation not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose." Its official stated purpose is in the Bill. I myself have spent about an hour max looking at the bill and I can already conclude that it is not meant to be an immediate relief plan. If an amateur such as myself could figure that out in 1 hour, then Congress had plenty of time. My opponent's point doesn't make sense.

3. The bill demanded that the money be spent quickly unless imprudent. Imprudent uses would go against stated intentions. None of my opponent's points show that any of the uses were imprudent. The 2:1 spending doesn't violate any of the 5, and my opponent cannot prove that the pork was wasteful. I have shown that the amount that is possibly wasteful is nearly insignificant. Proper monitoring was also not a part of the bill. None of these points are relevant.

4. No extraordinary evidence is needed, only common sense. Local governments submitting the bidding would take bids only from organizations or large companies. Unions represent the cheapest of these since most of the plans are rather large-scale. Furthermore, the point is to stimulate the economy. Union workers paid in benefits will use those benefits. Services rendered will boost the economy. Infrastructure comes #2.

5. My opponent has offered no evidence to show that such things are enough, and teachers retiring on 15% less salary is a huge blow, especially since the recession hit and teachers are in high enough demand as is. I have trouble believing that schools really allocate that much money to administration.

6. The arguments provided were based on invalid assumptions. To reiterate, my opponent is trying to equate imprudence with non-immediacy. Simply stating that they were imprudent is meaningless since none of what my opponent complains about violated what the Bill's stated purposes were.

7. My opponent still misses the point. Pork-Barrel spending is definitively useless. None of the things he listed were against the goal of stimulating the economy, not a single one. Each use of money has its merits. Little leaguers could use a nice parking lot, and dozens of people could use the job of building said parking lot. My opponent also completely ignored my point about the tax cuts, which is even better than giving lump sums to small business or as venture capital. Tax cuts apply to EVERYONE.

8. It stands as bad management, but not bad legislation. My opponent should have stayed on topic.

9. My opponent has no proof for this claim. The Plan was passed the same way any plan is passed, through deliberation and analysis by our leaders. The plan made no statements regarding guaranteed results, nor did it make any statements about immediacy.

Through the entire debate, my opponent was focused on what was estimated, what the media stated, what we thought it would do. He focused on small points, got caught up in side matters, conjecture, guesswork, and the POSSIBILITY of abuse, offering no objective proof. The stated purposes of the bill were included in the bill and my opponent failed to show that the bill violated any of them.

As such, my opponent did not uphold the burden, and I have made my case. Please vote accordingly.

Thank you.
RoyLatham

Con

Per the terms of the debate, we have each presented three rounds and the debate is concluded.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I'll definitely do that next time Roy. Especially since the resolutions that i've been getting from these debates are really weird.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I might just do this! Give me a second to go have some dinner and I'll get back to this if the challenge is still here :)
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
You didn't say "forum categories" or "debate categories" so I thought you had invented your own in a thread. Yo could just list them with about the same number of words.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
lol

When you click "Forums" it brings you to the categories. Art, Science, Religion, Politics, etc.

XD

This is what happens when you spend all your time debating and not in the forum Roy :P
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I couldn't find a forum topic that explains the categories. No reason to give out any clues that would reduce the challenge.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
famousdebater
KleptinRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
KleptinRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Kleptin's vote bomb against himself.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
KleptinRoyLathamTied
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 Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
KleptinRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by CRL 7 years ago
CRL
KleptinRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
KleptinRoyLathamTied
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:06