The Instigator
Alexby1
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Resolved: That the US should implement additional protectionist policies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 6/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,830 times Debate No: 8573
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (5)

 

Alexby1

Con

Amidst reports of a growing trade deficit, increases in outsourcing, and complete devastation for the US economy, there is a need for a serious debate about the implementation of protectionist policies.
While some believe that protectionism will make our economic worries disappear, I think otherwise.

DEFINITIONS
•Protectionist Policies: Laws and regulations designed to help the economy through tariffs, quotas, and discouragement of imports, outsourcing, and foreign investment.[1]

•"should": economic or political incentive

•Trade Deficit: A situation in which a country imports more than it exports

•Outsourcing: The relocation of jobs from within one country to another country, often in search of cheaper labor. These jobs can be manufacturing or service positions.

I will be arguing to keep the status quo, my opponent will be in favor of implementing new, additional protectionist laws.

My opponent may present his or her case first.

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
Lexicaholic

Pro

I thank my opponent for this intriguing debate opportunity. I am very busy with work this week, but I will try not to disappoint.

-The Fallacy of Comparative Advantage-

Comparative advantage, most simply stated, is the theory that a producer who can produce the greatest quantity of a good, without sacrificing quality, for the least expense, acts as an efficient producer of that good and has a comparative advantage to other producers. [1] Such a producer may be deemed a most efficient producer if the producer has no competition for the given product.

In theory, allowing the most efficient producing nation to have access to other nations should work out great. Provided that you have effective anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures in place, the goods you import from the most efficient producer would cost your consumers less and would not be less valuable in their displacement of comparative goods produced in your own country. Free trade is founded upon this theory.

There's just one catch: a country can only produce as efficiently as its cultural values, reflected in its business ethics and labor laws, allow. In a country such as the United States, for example, productivity is limited to the extent that it does not involve child labor, unconscionable labor hours, forced labor, or unsafe working conditions.

So what happens if a country does not have the same standards as we do? Well, they might produce the goods more efficiently, in a manner of speaking. [2] The problem is that the efficiency your consumers gain comes at the expense of the cultural value your buying power once maintained.

Here's an illustration: let's say that a Chinese child laborer (ccl) works for $0.10 an hour, whereas a U.S. laborer (usl) in the same field works for $8.00 an hour. Assuming the product is of the same quality, you can afford to hire up to 80 ccls for every one usl. Your efficiency is seemingly increased ten fold. Furthermore, if you wish to hire only 50 ccls, you might be able to get away with inferior production processes. Now you're efficient only because, compared to the consumer culture you are infiltrating, you are a criminal.

This is the problem with free trade: the countries that benefit from it most are the ones we should least want to support with our consumer dollars. When we do, we displace our cultural values within our society, at least to the extent of that singular product or service, with those of the provisionary society. This has two effects: (1) unemployment for the local competitive industry that is no longer deemed efficient and (2) gradual cultural shift and reduction of quality of life for the consumptive society.

Lower income physical laborers are usually replaced first; such individuals rarely have the expertise to find gainful employment outside of their specific field. Their unemployment reduces the number of consumers willing to pay for professional services they could not handle themselves, especially lawyers and accountants. The unemployment rate then spikes in these fields, which results in a massive loss of buying power within the consumer industry, paralyzing the consumptive nation's economy.[3] This will continue until the consumptive country's social values change to make the country as productive as the more competitive countries. In other words, some of China's values become ours. After all, imagine if a wealthy nation, like the US, paid child laborers ten cents an hour to work more productive machines. Could we put the ccls out of business then? Yes, but at a much higher cost than can be measured in money.

-Solution-

The solution is not to be isolationist, but to be protective. One is not necessarily the other. Tariffs, for example, can be used to offset differences between the labor costs of competing nations, where one nation is more efficient only because it is less humane. Setting a tariff on goods produced by ccls equal to $7.90 per labor hour used in producing such units would discourage the use of ccls only if as seems likely, if the goods are otherwise being produced through less efficient or safe production methods. [4] In this way, nations that are actually innovative would prevail, while those that used trade disparities would fail. Efficient producers who maintain comparative advantage through technological innovation should be encouraged. Those who do so through exploitation of their fellow man, discouraged. So long as tariffs are only protective in relation to labor costs, trade may and in fact, should, otherwise be free, to encourage innovation and improvements that lead to real advances in efficiency.

[1] http://www.teriin.org...
[2] http://www.fpif.org...
[3] http://www.allbusiness.com...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Alexby1

Con

I thank my opponent for his interesting arguments.

My opponent first states that the idea of comparative advantage does not really work in an environment of varying labor standards and unfair labor practices.

His first impact states that unfair policies in China and other nations will undermine the competitiveness of small businesses in the US. However, his economic analysis here does not hold up. He ignores one crucially important fact: when another country sells the US cheap goods, American consumers benefit enormously. The Congressional Research Service reported in January of 2007 that, "…low-cost imports [from China especially] have increased overall consumer welfare, enabling consumers to purchase other goods and services (and hence stimulating growth in other sectors of the economy)" [1]. Thus, as consumers are able to do more and more with their money, our economy only grows larger and larger, and the small businesses my opponent is worried about will benefit.

My opponent's second impact is that because of free trade, a gradual shift will occur in our societal values until we are as unjust with regard to labor policies as China. However, the tariffs he proposes will only exacerbate this potential problem. Let's look at it this way: when we trade with China (or any foreign nation, for that matter), both economies prosper. Why would American citizens continue to purchase foreign goods if it did not benefit them? If we restrict this trade, we will only hinder economic growth for both nations. If China's economy begins to lag behind, it's logical response would be to increase the use of unfair labor practices such as child labor; in the words of my opponent, China would be striving to become more efficient.
On the other hand, by allowing free trade with China, we can encourage economic development in China. With growing prosperity in their country, Chinese businesses would no longer be forced to commit unfair practices and Chinese leaders would be able to ban unfair labor practices without fear of economic downturn. Basically, if we allow China to grow economically, we will see a reduction in unfair policies. This is true of any developing nation.

Furthermore, China specifically is already working to improve labor conditions. In a speech at the Albert Shanker Institute in January of 2008, Li Qiang stated that, "…the Chinese government is attempting to improve workers conditions…" [2]. This is because of free trade with the US and other countries, not in spite of it. A protectionist stance now would only serve to reverse this positive trend.

We can also look to past experience to see that tariffs are never an effective solution. For an example, let's look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This protectionist legislation was intended to free the US from the grip of the Great Depression, but, as Paul Blustein of the Brookings Institution noted in December of 2008, the act "…is justifiably notorious for having triggered a disastrous cycle of trade conflict" [3]. When the US imposed restrictions on the ability of other nations to sell their products to Americans, the global community retaliated by imposing similar restrictions on US products. This trade war was detrimental to the US and other countries.

In the end, trade restrictions will only be counterproductive, and will never solve our trade problems.

[1] http://www.fas.org....
[2] http://www.chinalaborwatch.org...
[3] http://www.brookings.edu...
Lexicaholic

Pro

I am afraid I must continue to disagree with my opponent. My opponent states that "when another country sells the US cheap goods, American consumers benefit enormously. … as consumers are able to do more … with their money, our economy only grows larger …, and the small businesses [I am]worried about will benefit." My opponent appears to believe that consumers have pools of wealth that are diminished solely by the costs of consumption. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people, this is not true. Many people live on their income. [1] When their income dries up, their outlays don't disappear; they just drain more of the income earner's resources. Eventually, even one's savings, the pool that my opponent believes is the source of buying power, dries up. [2] Once one tier of service providers are no longer able to accept any more outlays, those –other- service providers who relied upon those outlays for –their- income will be unable to pay for their outlays, and so on.[3] Consumption is just one part of the valuation exchange we refer to as the economy. Failing to respect the need to maintain income sources is part of why we are where we are right now.

Additionally, my opponent claims that "when we trade with China (or any foreign nation, for that matter), both economies prosper." He also questions why "American citizens continue to purchase foreign goods if it [does] not benefit them." In response to his first, quite absolute, statement, the supposition that trade provides mutual benefit has been disproven throughout history. [4] In response to his second statement, American citizens continue to purchase –cheaper- foreign goods because it increases their savings, and most do not think to worry about their income as they assume that their jobs are relatively secure. Clearly, this is not the case. [5] American consumers have acted like the grasshopper in their spending habits, living for their immediate needs. Now that winter has come, they should realize that they ought to have acted like ants, and assured themselves of a way to survive in lean times. [6] In short, American consumers are impulsive. They do not consider the impact of their purchases upon their economy, but upon their pocket book. As I have already shown, that means they are only looking at one half of the problem.

My opponent has also stated that "if we allow China to grow economically, we will see a reduction in unfair policies. This is true of any developing nation… China specifically is already working to improve labor conditions … because of free trade with the US and other countries, not in spite of it." My opponent has apparently not read my sources. My second cited source in my original argument notes that "the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong asserts among its ‘universal principles' that ‘American business plays an important role as a catalyst for positive social change by promoting human welfare and guaranteeing to uphold the dignity of the workers and set positive examples for their remuneration, treatment, health, and safety.' But U.S.-based corporations are trying to block legislation designed specifically to improve the remuneration, treatment, health and safety, and other standards for Chinese workers." China is not attempting to improve labor standards because of free trade; it is attempting to improve labor standards because it has the wealth to do so, as the United States once did. The forces of free trade would prefer that labor standards remain the same.

My opponent then mentions the straw horse of free trade supporters, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was to protectionism what our current free trade practices are to free trade – too extreme. It placed extremely high tariffs on nearly every foreign import, including those from relatively trade benign nations such as Germany[7] and Canada [8]. In response, all of the nations we snubbed engaged in reciprocal trade restrictions. [9] We would not stand to lose very much if China or countries with similar labor standards ceased to trade with us. They do not import very much from us. [10] [11]

[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://blog.puppetgov.com...
[3] http://www.bls.gov...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.bls.gov...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.census.gov...
[8] http://www.census.gov...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org... and also http://www.state.gov...
[10] http://www.census.gov...
[11]http://www.isa.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Alexby1

Con

My opponent continues to believe that protectionism will save America from the clutches of the recession, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Contrary to my opponent's judgement, I do not believe that American consumers "have pools of wealth that are diminished solely by the costs of consumption." I agree that Americans depend on their income to fulfill basic necessities, but trade with China will not end this stream of revenue. My opponent has not yet truly shown that trade is as deadly as he seems to believe. There are two main ways in which trade is beneficial to the American economy: first, workers depend on this trade. Many American jobs exist solely because of this trade. A study by Morgan-Stanley found in 2007 that, "…four to eight million American jobs are closely associated with trade with China… Chinese exports have saved American consumers $600 billion over the past decade and nearly $100 billion alone in 2004…" [1]. Restricting or even eliminating this trade, as my opponent continues to advocate, would only serve to hurt the millions of workers whose livelihood depends on trade with China. Second of all, many companies depend on this trade. The Congressional Research Service found in 2007 that, "…low-cost imports [from China especially] have benefited US firms that use them as inputs for the production of other goods, thus making those firms more competitive" [2]. It does not make sense to implement tariffs when trade with China actually keeps many companies afloat. My opponent expresses concern with regard to maintaining income sources, and that is exactly what trade has done, does, and will continue to do.

My opponent next asserts that trade is not mutually beneficial, that China is gaining from American losses in this situation. However, this simply does not make sense, and my opponent does not adequately back up his claims. He states simply that, "…the supposition that trade provides mutual benefit has been disproven throughout history." His source for this succinct statement is a Wikipedia article on the Opium Wars, a conflict between Britain and China that occurred in the mid-1800s. I would appreciate it if my opponent would shed some light on how this pertains to trade issues. Despite his clams, trade is a positive occurrence for both the US and China. Morgan Stanley reports that, "…business and trade relations have … contributed to the growth… of… [both American and Chinese] economies" [1]. The Heritage Foundation agrees, and cites a 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which "…shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent" [3]. When the US voluntarily buys products from China, or any nation, the results bolster both economies. This kind of economic activity will be necessary to end the recession.

My opponent argues that China is working to end unfair labor practices only because it has the wealth to do so, and that American corporations are attempting to slow this process. However, we must disregard the current policy positions of companies, and look to the underlying factors that have allowed China to become as wealthy as it is today. Without American trade to improve China's economic status, that country would not have the wealth necessary to spur policy decisions moving towards a level playing field. The "forces of free trade" that my opponent frowns upon are actually the reason for the policy movements that China is experiencing today.

My opponent and I agree that tariffs on Chinese goods would likely start a trade conflict, as happened in the great depression with the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Act, but he denies that this would hurt the US economy. He asserts that we would not have that much to lose if we cut off all trade with China, or even if we cut off all trade with nations that utilize unfair labor practices. China may not have been very important to the US economically when the Smoot-Hawley act was passed. But today, China is America's third largest export market, [4] and provides valuable revenue that aids the US economy - especially in this period of economic turmoil. We need all the help we can get to end this recession, so it makes no sense to risk losing trade with such a large nation as China.

My opponent is proposing that we regulate, restrict, and risk losing trade not only with China, but with many other countries as well. What he overlooks is that this trade helps both American workers and companies, is beneficial to both China and the US, and will encourage fair labor policies around the globe. By imposing tariffs on Chinese products entering the US, we will only risk losing an important and valuable trade partner. In these troubling economic times, we cannot afford to suffer such a loss. Please vote in negation.

[1] A report by Morgan Stanley, quoted in http://online.wsj.com....
[2] http://www.fas.org...
[3] http://www.heritage.org....
[4] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...
Lexicaholic

Pro

While I thank my opponent for his steady resolve, I would like to note that he does have a tendency towards conflation. He assumes, for example, that I feel that trade is "deadly" rather than that unlimited free trade is undesirable. He also assumes that because a job is ‘closely associated' with a form of trade, that job must depend upon that associated trade. Moreover, the one source he cites to provide a direct benefit, claiming that "low-cost imports [from China especially] have benefited US firms that use them as inputs for the production of other goods" measures competition in terms supportive of an unlimited free trade system: unlimited global free trade competition. Of course a business that uses cheap production goods will be more competitive in an unlimited global free trade system. So long as all groups have access to the same market with no price controls, the cheapest seller wins … no matter how it decreases its prices. [1] [2] [3]

My opponent states that he agrees "that Americans depend on their income to fulfill basic necessities, but trade with China will not end this stream of revenue." My point is not that this trade ends in income stream annihilation, but rather extreme income stream diminution. There is no good reason to pursue wealth at such a great expense that our nation's industrial laborers are reduced to ccl laborer lifestyle standards, so they can not afford the services of our white collar laborers, and so on. It weakens us as a nation, and strengthens another nation with values adverse to our own.

My opponent has stated that "workers depend on this trade. Many American jobs exist solely because of this trade. Restricting or even eliminating this trade, as my opponent continues to advocate, would only serve to hurt the millions of workers whose livelihood depends on trade with China." Trade with China has already cost Americans around two million jobs. [4] [5] [6] [7] By jobs I mean good, high paying production or management jobs, not retail jobs at Wal-Mart or disguised government welfare. [8] [9] It's high time people started questioning what type of stimulus merely adding jobs, rather than good jobs, has on an economy. Personally, I believe that the answer is obvious. [10] [11] [12]

My opponent claims that I asserted "that trade is not mutually beneficial." This is not true at all. I was refuting my opponent's claim that "when we trade with China (or any foreign nation, for that matter), both economies prosper." My opponent actually *repeats* the claim, stating "when the US voluntarily buys products from China, or any nation, the results bolster both economies." This is an absolute statement of the benefits of trade that is not upheld by history. The opium wars are one example. We also have the slave trade to consider. Neither of these trade forms was beneficial to China or Africa.

My opponent asks that we disregard "the current policy positions of companies, and look to the underlying factors that have allowed China to become as wealthy as it is today." I disagree with the former statement and agree with the latter. China became wealthy because it undervalued its currency, ran its workers ragged and acquired US and other nations' manufacturing jobs on the cheap. Now it is trying to raise its labor standards so that it can be the New Superpower. It was a brilliant ploy and we were the fools that fell for it. [13]

What I am recommending is that we prove ourselves equally as cagey, and set a rising tariff schedule that will increase the costs of Chinese imports by a little bit more each year for four years until we have established a barrier against exploitive Chinese trade. Unlike the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, this method would provide enough notice for American multinationals to back out of China. China could start a trade war if it wanted, but it would hardly come off the good guy. [14] We have more nations on our side - freer, better, more democratic nations, which would side with us in defense of something more precious than money: liberty. The ascendancy of the United States has brought oppression, but it has also brought an expansion of human rights, worldwide communication, and international accountability for a nation's actions. What would the ascendancy of China, a dictatorial oligarchy, mean?

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.epi.org...
[3] http://www.finfacts.com...
[4] http://www.reuters.com...
[5] http://blog.aflcio.org...
[6] http://www.news.cornell.edu...
[7] http://www.nysun.com...
[8] http://www.usatoday.com...
[9] http://www.independent.org...
[10] http://www.atimes.com...
[11] http://quickdailyhits.wordpress.com...
[12]http://www.businessweek.com...
[13] http://www.nytimes.com...
[14] http://uk.reuters.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Alexby1

Con

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent once again for engaging in such an interesting debate with me. I wish him the best of luck during the voting period.

First of all, I apologize if I exaggerated my opponent's position. I understand that he does not truly believe free trade to be "deadly." I will refute his other claims pertaining to assumptions and conflation later in this round.

My opponent states that I have made an exaggeration about the extent of wage reduction because of trade with China. Excuse me. However, my point still stands, free trade will cause neither income annihilation nor wage reduction. Contrary to my opponent's allegation's, the US can both encourage economic growth and free trade at the same time. As I have already shown, our societal values will not necessarily change simply because China commits unfair practices and we trade with China.

My opponent has asserted that there is a difference between a job that is closely associated with trade from China, and a job that depends on trade with China. Beyond this, though, he does not make any real distinctions between the two. Let's look at it this way. If there are two businesses in a small town, and they are said to be closely associated with one another (that is, the success of one is linked to the success of the other and vice versa), the two establishments clearly depend on one another. The same is true of the millions of American jobs that are closely associated to trade with China. They depend on this trade.
My opponent next brings up the idea that trade with China has cost the US 2 million jobs. he specifically targets outsourcing techniques, the process of moving American jobs overseas. Though I agree that this may be true, the statistic he references here is a gross statistic, not a net figure. This mean that he is not accounting for the number of jobs that have been created by the economic growth that this trade has encouraged. If we look to a 2005 study by the economic forecasting company Global Insight, we can see that, ""[Outsourcing] lowers costs, frees domestic resources to pursue other productive ends . . . and increases labor productivity . . . These benefits flow through to lower prices, lower interest rates, and higher spending throughout the economy. . . . Increased economic activity creates a wide range of new jobs . . . over time, the U.S. economy operates more efficiently, [produces more], creates more than twice the number of jobs than are displaced, and increases the average real wage" [1]. This same study found that, for example, outsourcing had created more than 257,000 net new American jobs in 2005 alone. Obviously, this movement of jobs only encourages economic growth and in the long term is highly beneficial.

Again, excuse me if I misrepresented my opponent's position. My opponent seems to recognize that trade is mutually beneficial, but he then goes on to say that it has been proven not to be. I am somewhat confused by this contradiction. he then cites the Opium Wars and the Slave trade, stating that they are examples of when free trade has failed. However, the Opium Wars occurred because Britain was smuggling opium past Chinese borders, despite Chinese restrictions on drugs. This shows that restrictions and tariffs cause trade conflict. In the example of the Slave Trade, Europeans and Americans forced Africans into slavery. China is doing nothing that serious to America, so this example should be disregarded. Furthermore, trade restrictions could hardly have prevented slavery. My opponent also claims that I simply repeat the assertion that trade is mutually beneficial. I would like to point out that I had several sources to back this up; it is in no way an empty claim.

Even if China has committed unfair labor practices, these would not have made that country rich on their own. China needed one more ingredient to become wealthy: trade with the US. Without trade, China would still be poor and underdeveloped, ad have an enormous incentive to continue using unfair policies. Now that free trade has allowed for Chinese growth, China can afford to level the playing field.

My opponent next moves away from economic impacts and asserts that free trade, because it has allowed China to grow, will elevate China to the status of a superpower, and allow China to spread oppression. However, as China grows, it will be able to integrate itself into the global capitalist system, and will have a motive to decrease oppression and allow justice to reign. A developed China will be a free China. We are already starting to see this in Chinese trade practices.

Free trade is important not only to the US economy, but to the entire world. Tariffs will only hinder economic growth and development. Please vote in negation.

[1] http://www.globalinsight.com....
Lexicaholic

Pro

I thank my opponent for a well fought debate. My opponent has discussed with me the possibility of leaving this final round as a brief summary to conclude the debate, so that we both will have had equal argumentation time. While I am inclined to focus on some issues my opponent brought up, I will not cite sources or argue affirmatively for anything. I will just seek to clarify any confusion and end the debate.

My reasons for bringing up the slave trade and opium wars were simply related to dismissing a point made by my opponent that trade, seemingly all trade, was good. It is a terrible thing, I think, when people become more attached to a concept than they are impressed by the results of that concept in action. I believe that is what has happened with trade, and free trade in particular. To the extent that I felt my opponent was overly positive about trade, I felt the need to provide a reminder that not all trade is good.

That does not mean that free trade is bad though. Far from it. Free trade provides excellent opportunities for us to advance global communication and cooperation, which may very well lead to peace. Peace, however, can not come at the price of people, because the former relies on the recognition of the latter. Too many people are suffering from our hands-off approach to free trade. The time has come for us to recognize that efficiency needs to come at a cost of new research and development expenditures, not employees' lives or livelihoods.

So, friends, that brings us to the conclusion. The debate is over and the time has come to consider the real question: where do we go from here? In the end neither I nor my opponent can predict what *must* happen. We can only suggest what can happen using precedent. I think we have both done an excellent job of displaying the historical and philosophical underpinnings of free trade. I think we have also done a good job of showing what the consequences and benefits of free trade are. In this debate, neither of us were really arguing for or against free trade; we were arguing for or against a change in our trade policy. While that change is indeed protectionist, I do not believe it to be isolationist. I believe it to be rational. I hope you'll join me in voting for a change.

Thank you for reading, and thanks again to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Same. Now to see what everyone else thought. :P
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
I really enjoyed this one, Lexicaholic.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
As usual when dealing with serious debates, I'll wait for the votes to pour in before I consider my own. (I've learned not to not vote, as it seems that everyone does). Thank you for the debate, Alexby1!
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Should be "only if, as seems likely, not "only if as seems likely, if"
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Sorry for the delay (and the quality, to an extent) ... very busy week. X/
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
Lexicaholic--
take your time, don't worry
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I think DDO will take all the normal ASCII symbols like õ, œ, È, ², ½, š, ¤, etc... 
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Okay, I've taken it ... I'll be doing a bit of debate juggling, so don't be surprised if the argument comes in late.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Character Map

You'll see it come up as a graph with all the letters/numbers/symbols of a given font. Search there and you'll find it, and then you can copy it, copy paste on to here, etc.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Where can I find Character map?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by matthewbossle 7 years ago
matthewbossle
Alexby1LexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
Alexby1LexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Eros 7 years ago
Eros
Alexby1LexicaholicTied
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 JonathanCid 7 years ago
JonathanCid
Alexby1LexicaholicTied
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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
Alexby1LexicaholicTied
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