The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Resolved: Cities should deny Chick-Fil-A from expanding their franchise into their perimeter.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,512 times Debate No: 24878
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




For those who don't know who I'm talking about, the articles regarding the matter are the following:

First round would be acceptance.


Can you give one good reason?
Debate Round No. 1


In this debate, I affirm the resolution and stand on the PRO.

Thesis: The freedom of speech can be limited (philosophically) in circumstances where its exercise causes harm to society or inhibits democracy. Because Chick-Fil-A's stance on gay rights issues brings an obstruction to the establishment of justice and detriments a minority in the community, cities not only have the permissibility but the obligation to deny the restaurant franchise.

Contention 1: The freedom of speech can be limited in certain scenarios.
Free speech is the overarching subject of controversy in the debate for cities denying Chick-Fil-A expansion of franchise because the decision for which cities wish to deny construction lisences is because of Chick-Fil-A's acceptance of Christian principles, including ones that are explicitly anti-gay in nature. Freedom of speech lies in a philosophical plane because of its nature, and it can be inhibitted if it causes harm to society or inhibits democracy.

Sub-point 1a: Democractic principle provides a limitation to the freedom of speech.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: "To argue the case above, one has to dilute one's support for freedom of expression in favor of other principles, such as equal respect for all citizens. This is a sensible approach according to Stanley Fish. He suggests that the task we face is not to arrive at hard and fast principles that govern all speech. Instead, we have to find a workable compromise that gives due weight to a variety of values. Supporters of this view will tend to remind us that when we are discussing free speech, we are not dealing with speech in isolation; what we are doing is comparing free speech with some other good. For instance, we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm. I suggested early in this essay that to begin from a principle of unregulated speech is to start from a place that itself needs to be vigorously defended rather than simply assumed. Stanley Fish is of a similar temperament and suggests that we need to find a balance in which “we must consider in every case what is at stake and what are the risks and gains of alternative courses of action” (1994, 111). Is speech promoting or undermining our basic values? “If you don't ask this question, or some version of it, but just say that speech is speech and that's it, you are mystifying—presenting as an arbitrary and untheorized fiat—a policy that will seem whimsical or worse to those whose interests it harms or dismisses” (1994, 123). In other words, there have to be reasons behind the argument to allow speech; we cannot simply say that the First Amendment says it is so, therefore it must be so. The task is not to come up with a principle that always favors expression, but rather, to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech." [1]

Sub-point 1b: Constitutionally, the freedom of speech is limited.
" Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[32] However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected." [2]

Contention 2: The expressions of Chick-Fil-A exceed the limitations of free speech.
Chick-Fil-A aids to underminining the essential rights of homosexuals through their support of anti-gay organizations that stand adamantly against same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues. In addition, the message the organization spreads and the justification for it is mainstream in the ideology that causes negative effects in the gay community.

Sub-point 2a: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens.
The systematic discrimination of gays via denial to recognize their rights designates gay people as second-class citizens of inferior status. Because of this treatment, they fit the qualifications of what is characterized as the second-class citizen:

A person considered inferior in status or rights in comparison with some others (The American Heritage Dictionary)
a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society (Collins English Dictionary)

Sub-point 2b: Denial of gay rights causes negative social effects.
The CDC speaks on the effects of the denial of gay rights and equal recognition: "
Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
  • Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
  • Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
  • Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
  • Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
  • Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health

The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

  • 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
  • 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
  • 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
  • 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex



vanmaxon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend all arguments across the flow.


I asked for one "good" reason. Instead, you provided a lot of assertions and arguments that don't make a lot of sense to me. So I think I need to address what you wrote.

Response to your "Thesis"
How exactly is Chick-Fil-A's stance "an obstruction to the establishment of justice"? You also said their stance "detriments a minority in the community" Please provide some evidence of how exactly it "detriments" gays for some people to disagree with being gay. To me it seems that millions of Christians hold the exact same stance. Why not, therefore, ban all businesses with Christian ties from opening? What makes Chick-Fil-A any different? Muslims are anti-gay too. In fact, they go much farther than the Christians and proudly execute gays in public. Should we ban Muslims from opening their shops too? After all, they're obstucting justice, right? Why don't we take it one step further and just ban Christians and Muslims outright? If you're going to be consistent in your position, you need to go after all people that don't agree with being gay, not just Chick-Fil-A.

Response to Contention 1
I acknowledge that freedom of speech can be limited (by force or threat of force). But who decides when something is a "harm to society" or "inhibits democracy"? You don't bother to provide a definition of either or to identify who evaluates. Also, I doubt you would ever use these phrases in a discussion with someone about offensive speech. 'What you just said inhibits democracy!' Can you imagine? The slippery slope: anyone that disagrees with "government policy" is inhibiting democracy. How do you avoid ending up with thought police?

Next you quote (out of context) from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You don't explain what "case" they are discussing but seem to imply that the points made in the quote can be applied to take away freedom of speech from the folks at Chick-Fil-A. The excerpt discusses "equal respect for all citizens", giving "due weight to a variety of values" and argues against "a principle of unregulated speech". Again, who decides when not enough "respect" has been shown or which "values" apply to specific statements? Who is the 'regulator' that 'decides'?

I'm going to quit with the rhetorical questions because I already know the answer. The "who" must inevitably be "lawyers" (so-called). You think that "law" folk have the "right" to decide which forms of speech are acceptable and which forms are not. I don't accept this premise. Why should anyone be able to tell anyone else what noises can and cannot come out of their mouth? Where do they get such power?

I agree with you that there have to be "reasons behind the argument to allow speech". How about the argument that not 'allowing' speech is oppressive? I'm not relying on the "First Amendment" (so-called) or "Constitution" (to preempt point 1b) for this position. People can write their scribbles on pieces of paper if they want to. You can ascribe whatever meaning you want to them. I just think humans should be allowed to say what they think for the simple reason that we are usually capable of thought and generally have the ability to speak. You're trying to stop something that's natural because your favored group (gays) have had some other people disagree with their choices. Rather than appeal to reason and discuss the issue, you would prefer to take the easier path of restricting their ability to disagree.

Response to Contention 2
Ok, the only real point here is "same-sex" marriage. Bringing up "anti-gay organizations", "other gay rights issues" and "negative effects in the gay community" provides nothing of substance for your argument. What specifically are you talking about? How exactly does opposing same-sex marriage "exceed the limitations of free speech"?

Response to 2a
"Denial of gay rights"... which "rights" (so-called)? Do you mean same-sex marriage? Can you be more specific?

Response to 2b
I don't agree with violence or discrimination toward gays. I don't think the guys at Chick-Fil-A do either. We don't need to discuss that here. "Rejection by friends and family". Again, should people not be allowed to reject friends or family if they disagree with them? "Discriminatory acts" like what? Which "laws and policies" and what effects do they have?
You go on to discuss "health care", "income", "employment status" and 'bullying in school' and how discrimination can affect gays. Is Chick-Fil-A advocating any of these forms of discrimination? I haven't read much about it but I thought they were just opposed to gay marriage.
You also wrote about "poor mental health", "unhealthy behaviors" "ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships" and difficulty being "open" with others. Again, has Chick-Fil-A been associated with these things? To me, this seems like you're looking for someone to blame for these problems other than the people that doing them. 'I can't maintain my long-term relationship because I've been discriminated against'. How does that work?
At the end you bring up some statistics about higher rates of suicide, depression, use of drugs and risky sexual encounters in some gay populations and the link to "strong rejection from their families". What does this have to do with Chick-Fil-A? How is stopping Chick-Fil-A from opening some businesses going to help families reject their gay children in a way that's less "strong"? I know that was a little pointed but the stats you're providing are of no relevance to the discussion.

I usually try to go out of my way to agree when someone makes a good point. I find that this keeps the debate more friendly. I have not changed this strategy. I just could not find much to agree with in what you wrote. I encourage you to get more clear and specific about what it is that you're trying to say. The generalizations sound good but don't hold up. For example, 'In modern society, those that would seek to deny equal rights to minority groups, such as homosexuals, present a grave danger'. There's nothing of substance.

My Arguments
1) We should seek to protect speech that is unpopular. Popular speech doesn't need protection because people like it. The essence of freedom is being able to say what you think, regardless of how many people disagree with you or want to kick you out of "the community" because they don't like what you say. The people at Chick-Fil-A are only presenting us with an opportunity to support their freedom.

2) You mentioned "second-class citizens" in your argument and provided the definition: "a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society". I have to take a moment to remind you that life isn't fair. People have disagreed with being gay for thousands of years and will probably continue to do so until our species goes extinct. We're going to have class and caste. You can't "regulate" it away. If it does change, it's going to be because we all come together (extremely improbable) not because someone wrote a "law" somewhere.

3) What this whole thing really comes down to is that you don't think people should be 'allowed' to be free. An owner of a business should not be allowed to publicly oppose gay marriage at the pain of having his stores banned. Your position places you in opposition to freedom. You can try to justify it with terms, phrases and quotes but in the end you want to take away someone else's ability to say what they think because you don't like what they have to say. I think that's a position of weakness. If you don't like what they say or who they donate to, don't eat there. Easy.

By the way, I also thought I'd mention that I have gay friends, support gay marriage, disagree with discrimination, don't eat Chick-Fil-A or agree with their position and think that a lot of hardcore Christians are deluded. We're only in disagreement about the freedom to disagree without retaliation. Maybe that will simplify things.
Debate Round No. 3


[PRO Case]
Contention 1: My opponent argues against this contention with no real sense of organization, so I will structure my rebuttal with the hopes that I can hit every single one of his points in a presentable manner.
Who decides? I never meant to imply that some sort of authority (other than perhaps the government in some circumstances, such as when the Supreme Court must make rulings on cases of individual liberty) determines what is or isn't an obstruction to democracy. The only point that I was making is that if such an obstruction to democracy exists (and the source I cited relatively explains the conditions at which free speech can come in conflict with the principles of democracy), the inhibition to the freedom of speech is justified in that sense. If anything, this debate puts us in a hypothetical scenario and world where the principles of free speech and liberty are in question, and my opponent and I are the interpreters of this scenario. In my C2, I explain why Chick-Fil-A's speech exceeds the limitations of the right thereof based on the principles that I have outlined. This debate is like a courtroom where my opponent and I are attorneys, and using my gathered evidence, I provide my interpretation and argument as to why Chick-Fil-A abuses its right to freedom of speech. I am providing all due respect to both sides of the values in this debate, but as I've explained, the values that represent my opponent's defense are detrimental to a minority and undermine principles of justice for all people.
Where do they get such power? For the sake of being able to respond to the argument, let's say there is indeed an authority that overlooks the limitations of free speech if my opponent indeed wants to look at a real-life scenario. My opponent himself has stated that there are limitations to free speech. If this is so, some authority must exist in order to ensure that people do not abuse their right to free speech. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point to limitations because there is no one to enforce the limitations. The government, as I would argue, is endowed with the responsibility to protect the foundations of the country and the rights of the people therein, and as I've shown, Chick-Fil-A provides a form of speech that compromises the nature of democracy. Hence, it is the duty of the authorizing body that would overlook the limitations of free speech to cease the threat.
Reasons for Speech: By saying that he doesn't look toward the Constitution nor any document or warrant in order to validate his beliefs, he's shown us one thing: his argument is unfounded. My opponent seems to be having fun with the rhetorical questions, so I will provide one with my own: How do you prevent oppression of words when the words used are inherently oppressive? My opponent's misunderstanding comes in by his narrow perspective of what entails "speech." Expression is considered part of the umbrella of freedom of speech, and while Chick-Fil-A has every right to disagree, the expression of funding organizations that actively lobby and work toward diminishing rights of gay people destroys the rights of a minority and also oppresses others. I leave with another rhetorical question: should the rights of someone be inhibited when the certain someone is using them to destroy the rights of another?
Contention 2: While same-sex marriage is what Chick-Fil-A has openly stated they're against, they're donating money to organizations whose work doesn't stop at same-sex marriage. Opposing same-sex marriage by itself doesn't exceed limitations, but by expressing the opposition by providing money to organizations actively working toward diminishing gay rights, this provides a compromising threat to the establishment of gay rights.
Sub-point 2a: When I say gay rights, I'm using general terms. Gay rights is a wide terminology that includes same-sex marriage, but also gays in the military, gay adoption, gay employment, etc.
Sub-point 2b: I also don't think that Chick-Fil-A endorses harms of any sort against gay people (hopefully), although I would argue that their basis of denial for gay marriage is discriminatory and uses religion in order to provide a false justification. What my sources in this sub-point explain is that these negative results stem from the perpetuation of an ideology that brings destructive consequences--an ideology that Chick-Fil-A helps to pass around with its support of anti-gay organizations. As my Constitutional case explains, such speech exceed limitations of the rights thereof because it causes imminent harm.
Thesis: My second contention goes into depth as to why Chick-Fil-A's actions provide an obstruction to justice. Not only is Chick-Fil-A creating support for organizations that work toward laws that create second-class citizens, but the ideology they help permutate physically and psychologically destroys the gay community. Contention 2 provides all the answers. Everything else about banning Christians and whatnot are really just red herrings irrelevant to the scope of this debate because we're talking about Chick-Fil-A specifically.

[CON Case]
1: My opponent states this in his first point, but earlier in the argument of my case said in his own words believes in limitations of free speech, and such limitations would include speech that is not popular based on their nature. If there's anyone being vague in this debate at all, it's my opponent for not providing any sort of threshold as to where those limitations begin, unlike me, as I've explained through my own evidence from the interpretation of the American Constitution and the philosophy of the freedom of speech.
2: This argument is akin to saying that we shouldn't make a cure for cancer because cancer is always going to exist. My opponent contradicts his earlier statements. He says that gay people should not be discriminated nor committed violence against, but then implies that gay people are just considered to be second-class citizens and there's nothing we can do about it. At the point where government agrees that they're just second-class citizens, as Chick-Fil-A is attempting to do, we truly have reached a level of oppression that my opponent stands so vehemently against. In the face of so many problems with the gay community and inequality committed by the society, my opponent implies that we should just do nothing.
3: Again, it's one thing to be able to say what you think and another to provide money so that others can't be able to do what they think (or in the case of gay people, do what they're attracted to). As my opponent agreed, there is a limitation to freedom of speech, and my argument isn't that Chick-Fil-A shouldn't have the freedom of speech, but that their actions exceed the limitations. It's evident my opponent completely misunderstands my case.

This probably seemed to be a lackluster rebuttal, but then again, the rebuttal that my opponent provided was more of a questionnaire filled with personal positions with no warrants rather than a rebuttal that knocked down anything I said. His questions seemed like things I've already answered when I wrote the case.



You brought up the way my response was organized a few times. Since most of what I wrote followed your outline, this just seems like an attempt to discredit my debate skills. I prefer that you focus on content.

'Inhibiting' Speech that "Inhibits Democracy" is "Justified"
In my last resonse I noted that you didn't "bother to provide a definition". You did not respond, so I'll make an attempt. One definition of "democracy" is: "a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." It seems that you have the idea that it's possible for someone to "inhibit democracy" by talking. I disagree with this premise. By definition, the real threat is not allowing people to have an "equal say", which is exactly what you're attempting.

Q1 How does limiting free speech promote "democracy"?

CFA's Stance is "detrimental"
I asked you to "please provide some evidence of how exactly it "detriments" gays for some people to disagree with being gay". You failed to respond and still discuss it as fact.

"Authority" for Oppression
You wrote that CFA's position "compromises... democracy" thus "the authorizing body" has a "duty" to "cease the threat". I take issue with you clinging to "democracy" as a basis for encroaching on free speech. I imagine people in Russia or China using the exact argument to silence dissent. Censorship is the hallmark of oppression. Saying my argument is "unfounded" because it "doesn't look toward the Constitution" implies that freedom of speech is not universal and that we can't say what we want if we don't have approval from pieces of paper.

Q2 Why do you think we need pieces of paper to say what we think?

"When the words used are inherently oppressive"
I don't think words can be "inherently oppressive". Words reveal what people are thinking and possibly intending to do. They can be hateful, rude and intimidating. But, in reality, words are just noises. They cannot oppress anyone. Look at the things Martin Luther King accomplished. He stood up to racist folk a few generations removed from slavery. If words can be "inherently oppressive", then MLK was certainly oppressed. I can only imagine the slurs and death threats. However, a cursory glance at history shows MLK was not oppressed, he was free. He used the power of logic, argument and truth. He responded with love, not censorship.

Q3 If words are "inherently oppressive" how do you explain instances where people are not oppressed by hateful words?

"When the certain someone is using them to destroy the rights of another"

Q4 What "rights" are being "destroyed" by CFA?

"Giving money" is worse than just "opposing"
CFA is willing to put their money where their mouth is. They're just being consistent.

Q5 Why is it ok for CFA to be "opposed" but such a huge offense when they donate money?

Later on, you write that CFA's position causes "imminent harm" and has "destructive consequences".

Q6 What "immenent harm" or "destructive consequences" are you referring to?

"The ideology they help permutate physically and psychologically destroys the gay community"
I don't think this can be supported by evidence. Gay people have faced opposition for thousands of years. Today, they appear to be doing better than ever before. BTW, permutate means "to arrange (items) in a different sequence". I think you meant to say "perpetuate".

Q7 If the gay community is "destroyed" by "the ideology", why are they thriving despite centuries of it's use?

"Banning Christians... just a red herring"
You're free to think so. To me, it's just a logical extension of your position. You don't like what CFA says so you'll ban their stores. I just substituted different groups to show the implication of what you're supporting.

"Case 1"
You wrote, "My opponent himself has stated that there are limitations" and said I was "vague" for not providing "a threshold as to where those limitations begin". To be clear, I said that freedom of speech can be limited by coercion or threat of coercion. There's a big difference. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done or that it has to be done or that we can't avoid doing it (inherent limitation). I also stated that unpopular speech needs to be protected and asked "Why should anyone be able to tell anyone else what noises they can and cannot allow to come out of their mouth?" You did not answer this question and, instead, you misrepresented my position. Either you did not understand what I was saying or you are trying to make it appear as if I support your argument. I don't.

"Case 2"
You're trying to create a contradiction where there isn't one. Just because some people look down on gays, doesn't mean "there's nothing we can do", as you conclude. I never said that. I just don't think banning stores from opening is effective, fair or reasonable. To be more clear, I meant that it's unrealistic to expect to completely eliminate discrimination against gays.
You've also created a false either/or scenario... 'either we ban CFA's stores or we "do nothing"'. There's plenty of more effective and interesting options as demonstrated by MLK in his own struggles against discrimination.

"Case 3"
You wrote, "It's one thing to be able to say what you think and another to provide money so that others can't be able to do what they think". I think I've already dealt with the idea that saying something and donating money are so drastically different that it would allow you to ban stores and limit free speech. You again discuss limitations. I don't think there are "inherent limitations" to free speech. Humans can talk and think, therefore humans should have the freedom to say what they think. Also, in the interest of grammer, I don't think "can't be able to do" is proper English. You could have used "aren't able to do" or "won't be able to do" or "can't do" instead.

You wrote, "This probably seemed to be a lackluster rebuttal". I can't help but agree. You've ignored a lot of what I wrote and distorted some key points as outlined above. You also call my rebuttal "more of a questionnaire filled with personal positions with no warrants rather than a rebuttal that knocked down anything I said". I ask questions because either a) I don't understand what you're saying b) I don't agree with a statement and I'm trying to understand why you said it or c) I'm trying to get the readers (and you) to think about what you're saying. The number of questions I asked has nothing to do with the validity of my rebuttal.
Also, I'm not trying to knock down what you say and I apologize if it came across that way. I'm trying to use reason and logic to argue against your position. I don't think knocking down what others say is very nice and that would include the people over at CFA. I fully support your freedom to say what you think. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree.
Finally, you wrote that "[my] questions seemed like things [you] already answered when [you] wrote the case". It may seem that way but you have not addressed a few of my questions in either of your posts. For example:

a) To me it seems that millions of Christians hold the exact same stance. Why not, therefore, ban all businesses with Christian ties from opening? What makes Chick-Fil-A any different?

b) How exactly does opposing same-sex marriage "exceeed the limitations of free speech"?

c) Is Chick-Fil-A advocating any of these forms of discrimination (you mentioned)?

d) Also, I wrote "in the end you want to take away someone else's ability to say what they think because you don't like what they have to say." I said that placed you in "opposition to freedom" and informed you that "I think that's a position of weakness". This is my key point and you have not responded to it at all. This leads me to ask:

Q8 Why do you think it's more effective to use coercion (banning stores) instead of logic and reasoning or non-violent protest?

Debate Round No. 4


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.


Since you did not respond I will not take advantage of round 5. I will merely restate my most important point: In refusing to allow free speech or the opening of stores you set yourself up as an enemy of freedom. And since your lack of response could be misconstrued as an admission of defeat I will also stand up for you. I have forfeited rounds mistakenly in the past because sometimes things happen in life. Therefore, I assume that your forfeit was a mistake and encourage all readers to do the same.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
Pro's argument: Companies who disagree with gay marriage should be restricted.

"I do not agree with the owner of this company's point of view so I will restrict it."

Now THAT is discrimination.

PS: Screw KFC, Chick-fil-a has better chicken.
Posted by vanmaxon 5 years ago
The topic is functional, it's just going to be very difficult to defend it.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
How on Earth can any retarded sado-masochistic idiot support the ban of a company for expressing its own legitimate viewpoint? Hm... Let's ban Ben and Jerrys from expanding because they have liberal views.

Some people needed to be born 70 years ago in Poland.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
But their chicken is so good!
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
I will admit....their chicken is pretty damn good.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
I may be considering cancelling this debate. Please tell me if the topic is functional.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
I'm not a fan of discrimination but in all seriousness, Chick-Fil-A is the best fast food chain in the country. I'm talking by a wide margin. Why did it have to be Chick-Fil-A?!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See Ron-Paul
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con forfeit. Arguments to con because he proved that CFA was within its bounds to present the comments and that the cities cannot rightfully punish CFA because they have not broken any laws.