The Instigator
Jerry947
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: The USFG should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 91543
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Jerry947

Con

This is a part of famousdebater's tournament.

The resolution is "The United States Federal Government should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax."

-Pro argues that the United States Federal Government should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

-Con argues that the United States Federal Government should not replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

Rules...

Round 1:
-Con gives definitions and sets up debate
-Pro provides opening argument

Round 2:
-Con gives opening argument and refutes Pro's Case
-Pro refutes Con's Case (feel free to address rebuttals as well)

Round 3:
-Con responds to what Pro argued
-Pro responds to what Con argued

Round 4:
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.

Definitions:

United States Federal Government (USFG)-Government established by the Constitution of the United States (http://definitions.uslegal.com...).

Should-"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions" (https://www.google.com...).

Welfare-"Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves" (https://www.google.com...).

Negative Income Tax-"a system of income subsidy through which persons having less than a certain annual income receive money from the government rather than pay taxes to it" (http://www.dictionary.com...).
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for the challenge and wish him good luck in this debate.

Contention 1: Freedom of Choice


For a better explination of the NIT (Negitive Income Tax) is shown above where the simple equation of (Income*0.25)-$10,000 to reveal what the family would owe in taxes each year. For this to come out we can see that the average income in the US is actually $51,939 [1]. This would show and disprove that a great deal of Americans would be receiving this kind of income, but it would still have massive affects on the US financial institute.

The United States was founded on the aspect of Democracy and a key aspect of that is the ability to vote. The ability to vote with your money is key as it helps generate economic profits and helps to tell producers what the consumers want and these things are made as a response. A huge problem with Welfare is several of the government programs with it. One of which is SNAP, or more commonly known as Food Stamps. The issue behind SNAP is that it distorts the market by forcing those who recieve them to purchase only healthy foods even though there's a demand for junk foods and other items that are not permitted under SNAP [2]. This forces the market to have to move away from its true equalibrium as under the normal market without SNAP the Demand Curve would shift outwards, but under the status quo, Equalibrium has not been met and there is a market ineffiecency due to the government intervention. NIT would eliminate Food stamps as people would be able to spend their money on whatever they please. This would increase market effiecency as they would buy anything they want and many things they would have been unable to buy under the status quo. Doing this would allow the market to effectively be able to communicate prices and in doing this, people would become more informed as to what to buy and what not to buy based on the increase on prices that would not have occured under the status quo. The reasonsing is that the lack of demand would mean that the product for each set of production would have been bellow what it should have been and the new and actual demand would force these producers to increase production to the market Equilibrium which it should have been. This would cause a rise in prices which would make consumers go to other products and the cycle of increased demand and Equilibrium in the market would persist.

Another baffle in the system of welfare has been that of Section 8 Housing. The system started off with good intention, but has began to degrade as waiting lists became longer and the Neighborhoods that they were moved into became poorer and poorer and filled with more and more violence [3]. This has become extremely problematic as people under this program are suppose to be moving away from this. The Bureau of Justice has reported that this poverty in these areas has doubled the crime rates as areas where there is a Medium or rich neighborhood [4]. NIT has been shown to help increase migratory rates as it was shown in the Seattle-Denver Expirament that this rate was 50% higher than normal cities [5]. This has helped increase people moving into better neighborhoods which has not only made them safer, but has created a better living envirnment for them.

Contention 2: Welfare Trap

Over the years, welfare has been gathering more and more people ensnared in the welfare trap as many found it better to not work and stay in poverty. Much like the "Welfare Queen" who recieves over 1 grand a month on welfare people do not find it reasonable to get off welfare once they begin to recieve benefits. Now we know that not everyone on welfare is as lucky as her nor in the same sitaution. The DoHHH has reported as of 2011, that 23% of the US was on welfare which is the highest that they have ever recorded [6]. Mathematically, a single person on welfare can get up to $1,400 a year while a family of 4 can get $16,800 [7]. Both of these are under the poverty line, but people are still finding ways to survive under this prgram. When people begin to work, they loose their benefits and the only jobs that may take them is those for unskilled labor which might not even equivalate up past their benefit levels which harms the average person on welfare, so they elect not to go and find a job as it would decrease their income.



NIT provides an incentive to work while they may still recieve benefits from the government. While on comparrison, at no income, they would recieve $10,000 vs. welfare's $16,800, assuming it's a family of 4, but as the work increases, the NIT stays and they earn additional income while they would normally lose welfare. We could see, using the Phillip's Curve, we can see that by reducing unemployment under this plan it would raise inflation [8]. Normally people would object to this, but we do have to realize that the Federal Reserve is currently trying to get inflation rates back to their normal rates as they are way below expectations as they are only 1.1% [9]. By instigating NIT, more people will have more money and this would increase the amount of money available in the market and people would create more jobs to increase production, effectively reducing employment, creating an endless loop.

Wealth Inequality by Race

Under the status quo, many minorities are well under much of the white populace in income. According to a Pew Research on income inequality it has shown that not only is the gap between white and minority income is widening, but the average minority family has an income that is under the average Family 4 welfare that I had brought up earlier [10]. Under the NIT system, the medium Affrican-American family would recieve $7,250 while the Hispanic-American family would recieve $6,575. Both of which would help these families out of Poverty. This is a key thing and would be doing more to help in the "War on Poverty" than the program we currently have. This would help move these minorities out of poverty and begin to create equality in a way as it will help better the US.

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
4. (http://tinyurl.com...)
5. ( http://tinyurl.com...)
6. (http://tinyurl.com...)
7. (http://tinyurl.com...)
8. (http://tinyurl.com...)
9. (http://tinyurl.com...)
10. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
Jerry947

Con

Thanks for the argument Pro.

The main problem with a negative income tax is that takes away incentives for people to want to help themselves. Professor Friedman even said that "like any other measure to relieve poverty, it reduces the incentives of those helped to help themselves" (https://mises.org...). A negative income tax would not solve this problem. While the current welfare system has a similar issue, the whole point of this debate is to show that a negative income tax should replace the current system. I mean, since a negative income tax guarantees a basic income that disappears as taxpayers earn more money, it takes away reasons for people to work.

Another major problem with the negative income tax is that it cannot provide an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits already available to many welfare recipients in the United States. Jodie Allen, a senior writer with U.S. News and World Report, wrote that "the welfare system already provides a package of cash and in-kind benefits that, in many states, is worth considerably more than any likely NIT" (http://www.econlib.org...).

My opponent starts off their argument by saying that "NIT would eliminate Food stamps as people would be able to spend their money on whatever they please. This would increase market efficiency as they would buy anything they want and many things they would have been unable to buy under the status quo."

While food stamps have led to some problems, taking them away would create a whole new set of problems. If people choose to spend money on things that aren't food, and then they need food, there will have to be some other system to fix that problem that the negative income tax couldn't. So I wouldn't say that taking away food stamps increases market efficiency. It would still create that huge problem.

My opponent then states that "Another baffle in the system of welfare has been that of Section 8 Housing. The system started off with good intention, but has began to degrade as waiting lists became longer and the Neighborhoods that they were moved into became poorer and poorer and filled with more and more violence."

I happen to agree with that statement. However the negative income tax would not do anything to fix the problem. The Seattle-Denver Experiment's problem is that while it did think about welfare programs already in place, "the generosity of most of the tested plans made them unlikely to be replicated on a national scale, and more complicated to analyze" (http://www.econlib.org...).

The Stanford Research Institute actually analyzed the Seattle-Denver findings and they apparently "found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives" (http://www.econlib.org...). So it has been proven that the negative income tax creates the problem of people no longer desiring to work.

The Stanford Research Institute also found that that "instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup." So the negative income tax has more problems then its advocates realize.

My opponent asserts that "NIT provides an incentive to work while they may still receive benefits from the government. While on comparison, at no income, they would receive $10,000 vs. welfare's $16,800, assuming it's a family of 4, but as the work increases, the NIT stays and they earn additional income while they would normally lose welfare."

I fail to see the logic here. Maybe I am misunderstanding something but if the welfare system is replaced by the negative income tax, what government benefits is my opponent referring to that would somehow be an incentive for working?

Lastly, my opponent writes that "Under the NIT system, the medium African-American family would receive $7,250 while the Hispanic-American family would receive $6,575. Both of which would help these families out of Poverty. This is a key thing and would be doing more to help in the 'War on Poverty' than the program we currently have."

My opponent is going to have to do a lot more than to give a bare assertion like that in order to prove his point. The problem with the minorities is that they are getting less pay. The main issue here isn't that their benefits aren't good enough. My opponent wants to give the minorities 6,500 dollars but that hardly does anything to solve the main issue they pointed out in the first place. We need to balance the wages; not give more benefits that only temporarily fixes the problem. Besides, giving people around 6,500 dollars does not get anyone out of poverty.

In conclusion, the negative income tax does not deserve to replace the current welfare system since it really doesn't solve many of the problems that already exist. I thank my opponent again for a good round and I look forward to the next one.

Sources:
a. https://mises.org...
b. http://economics21.org...
c. http://www.nationalreview.com...
d. http://inequality.stanford.edu...
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments and this round I will try to address his all of his arguments.

My opponent quotes Milton Friedman from Mises website, but if you read further in the sources you'll see that Friedman states, "it does not eliminate that incentive entirely, as a system of supplementing incomes up to some fixed minimum would. An extra dollar earned always means more money available for expenditure. [1]" We can thus see, by my opponent's own arguments, that NIT would solve this issue. In this debate we are debating whether or not NIT should replace Welfare, not whether or not NIT is good. Even if NIT is a horrible idea, if I can show that it's better than welfare, I would win the debate by doing so. People would have plenty of incentives to work as, unlike welfare, they can still earn NIT if they work a part time job, unlike welfare where you'll lose your benefits. This would encourage work and help boost the economy.

If we look at the quote my opponent has provided and if you read a little bit further you'll see "(though at the cost of excluding large groups of the poor—such as two-parent families—from eligibility) [2]" We can see here that a great deal of people are actually excluded from Jodie Allen's statement and these are the people we need to be looking at. Excluding these people are harmful to evidence and it should be thrown out of the debate as to this. This actually helps me more than my opponent as it shows that with these people included, NIT is better than welfare.

My opponent states that getting rid of food stamps would create a whole new problem, but this is false. People are rational beings and will make Rational Choices in the market, especially when it comes to their survival [3].

The sentence above my opponent's quote reads, "These experiments more carefully integrated existing welfare programs and offered more generous NIT plans.[2]" This explains the reasoning behind my opponent's quote. This shows the fact that the way the expirement was executed makes it impossible to be replicated on a national level due to certain controls in the expirament which would not occur under the new change in the system as under the purposed system, welfare would not be a factor at all.

One of the things that people have with the Seattle-Denver expirament was there was a ton of unknown factors, like increased higher-education. Not to mention that the source that you linked had also stated that not only was this the case when certain groups of people were excluded or the fact that there was a great deal of different factors involved. The source had also stated that it was impossible to reproduce it on a national level with the intermixing NIT with welfare. This would not have happened under the proposed resolution.

Glen Cain, on the NIT expiraments showed that for single mothers, that this increased their likelihood of them getting married in order for them to increase the amount of benefits they would recieve [4]. This increases family unity and increases marriage unity under NIT unlike that of Welfare.

The incecntive for working would be increased as you could keep working and still make more money. The numbers I provided where at a zero income, but as soon as you start working, welfare drops off to zero while NIT would still be there to help the family. I have also showed in my last contention that it can help lift people under the poverty level while welfare keeps people under the poverty line.

My opponent tries to offer a Red Herring by offering a balanced wage policy argument, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. He then states that giving people that much doesn't get people out of poverty, but I'm simply adding the NIT equation to the minority wages which shows that it gets the individual out of poverty.



Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
4. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
Jerry947

Con

My opponent states that "We can thus see, by my opponent's own arguments, that NIT would solve this issue. In this debate we are debating whether or not NIT should replace Welfare, not whether or not NIT is good. Even if NIT is a horrible idea, if I can show that it's better than welfare, I would win the debate by doing so."

First of all, that part of the quote was not in my original argument. That said, I was hoping that it might be brought up. The negative income tax would not fix the incentive problem since people would always get some kind of fixed income. This means that people will always get a certain amount of money and they wouldn't even have to work for it. Sounds like a work eliminating incentive to me.

Then my opponent states that "People would have plenty of incentives to work as, unlike welfare, they can still earn NIT if they work a part time job, unlike welfare where you'll lose your benefits. This would encourage work and help boost the economy."

That is not true. You have to make a make a certain amount to get money from the government. According to the graph that my opponent originally provided, if you made 20,000 dollars, you would get 5,000 dollars from the government. In other words, if you get a job and make over that set amount, you would pay taxes and would not receive any money. So a person in with no money would receive 10,000 dollars and they would loss that benefit if they were to get a job. So the benefits still get lost with the negative income tax just like what happens with our current welfare system.

My opponent then says that "We can see here that a great deal of people are actually excluded from Jodie Allen's statement and these are the people we need to be looking at. Excluding these people are harmful to evidence and it should be thrown out of the debate as to this. This actually helps me more than my opponent as it shows that with these people included, NIT is better than welfare."

The whole point was that while the current system does exclude people, a negative income tax could not provide "an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits already available to many welfare recipients in the United States" (http://www.econlib.org...). Yes, the current system excludes people but replacing the system with a negative income tax would not do any better. That was the whole point of the article.

My opponent then asserts that "People are rational beings and will make Rational Choices in the market, especially when it comes to their survival."

I think the fact that it has never fully worked this way proves my opponent wrong. People makes rash decisions when they aren't thinking straight. People also make terrible choices in the market everyday. I don't think I have to prove a link to prove that point. I think it is very likely that people will not spend the money they are given on food and then therefore the government will have to deal with the same problem.

My opponent then states that "the source had also stated that it was impossible to reproduce it on a national level with the intermixing NIT with welfare. This would not have happened under the proposed resolution."

The problem is that all of the claims my opponent has made based off that experiment remain void considering the experiments results are faulty. Asserting that things would be okay if this actually were to happen is a bare assertion.

Lastly, my opponent says that I gave a " Red Herring by offering a balanced wage policy argument, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate."

I think my opponent misunderstood me. They claimed that "Under the NIT system, the medium African-American family would receive $7,250 while the Hispanic-American family would receive $6,575. Both of which would help these families out of Poverty. This is a key thing and would be doing more to help in the 'War on Poverty' than the program we currently have."

My point was that increasing the benefits of the African-American does not solve the wage problem. The only thing that would solve the problem would be to offer equal wages. I wasn't trying to change what the debate was about. I was merely showing that the negative income tax would not solve the problem that they brought up.

I thank my opponent for another good round. Only two more to go!
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for being patient with me in this debate.

The quote may not have been appart of my opponent's argument, but if we finished the quote that he was quoting from Milton Friedman from the very source he got it, we can see what my opponent is saying isn't entirely true. With his own source saying differently, we cannot take his argument to be completely true especially when it states it's not eliminated entirely as there will still be incentive. My opponent brings up how NIT will detter incentive to work, but how would that not occur in the status quo? Under NIT people can still work and recieve benefits and in doing so, the more they work, to a certain utility, will increase their own income and as their work more, their income will increase. Under the status quo, if you start working, you lose your benefits, so that would more likely deter work incentive than NIT would.

My opponent is minconstrewing the graph I had posted. Sure at some point benefits cut off and you start having to pay taxes, but isn't this done in the status quo with welfare? Except welfare, you start working, you lose your benefits while under NIT, you don't. This would be more benefitical to the economy and the average American as they would have more money on hand as they would be able to afford more and help with extra expendatures. If a person has no job under NIT they would get $10,000, but as they earn money, they don't lose their benefits. Let's say they increase their income to $20,000 a year. With NIT, they wouldn't lose their income, but instead they would gain $5,000 from the government, while under the status quo, you wouldn't recieve anything.

My opponent's article excludes a huge sample size of people who are poverty stricken. Such an article is moot as it excludes people who are really on the base of welfare/NIT and excluding them will reach changed results.

Granted people may make rash decissions, but we do have to realize that due to the Rational Choice theory, that each and every person, under extreme circumstances and/or measures, will make the decission that maximizes the greatest possible benefit for them [1]. You may think they do this in some circumstances, but they will still make rational decission when face with certain circumstances. It is almost obvious that they would help factor and favor feeding themselves and their families.

Even if we cannot find anything evidence on it, we can still see that it works a lot better than welfare and in this debate, that's what matter's most.

Even if what you are saying is true, I could simply come in and argue for 100% taxation of the rich to resdistribute to the lower class. This would solve the issue, but has nothing to do with this debate. We can see here we have to focus on the debate and the subject at hand and it shows that this helps minorities escape the poverty line while the current welfare program would ensure they stay there. NIT solves for this issue while welfare ensures to make sure this issue persists.

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
Jerry947

Con

I will quote what my opponent wrote and then I will respond to what they said underneath of it.

"With his own source saying differently, we cannot take his argument to be completely true especially when it states it's not eliminated entirely as there will still be incentive."

I never said that it takes away the incentives completely. I just said that it takes away incentives and Friedman agreed with me. So this argument is pretty solid.

"My opponent brings up how NIT will detter incentive to work, but how would that not occur in the status quo? Under NIT people can still work and recieve benefits and in doing so, the more they work, to a certain utility, will increase their own income and as their work more, their income will increase. Under the status quo, if you start working, you lose your benefits, so that would more likely deter work incentive than NIT would. "

I acknowledge that the current system also provides reasons for people not to work. But that is my point, the negative income tax doesn't do any better. Therefore there is no reason to replace the welfare system with the negative income tax. You loose your benefits with both systems as soon as you start making a certain amount at work.

"My opponent is minconstrewing the graph I had posted. Sure at some point benefits cut off and you start having to pay taxes, but isn't this done in the status quo with welfare?"

My opponent seems to think that I misinterpreted their graph. But they never explain how I did this. So I will leave that up to the voters to decide. And yes, the same thing is done with welfare. But that again is my whole point. The negative income tax isn't any better than our current system. My opponent's job here is to convince people that the negative income tax is better than welfare. But as we an clearly see, it isn't.

"With NIT, they wouldn't lose their income, but instead they would gain $5,000 from the government, while under the status quo, you wouldn't recieve anything."

This is not true is all cases. States have the ability to set all of their welfare rules. The main issue with welfare is that people abuse the system and get benefits that they shouldn't be getting. But again, the negative income tax would not do any better.

"My opponent's article excludes a huge sample size of people who are poverty stricken. Such an article is moot as it excludes people who are really on the base of welfare/NIT and excluding them will reach changed results."

Again, my opponent has not addressed my argument at all. I repeat, The whole point was that while the current system does exclude people, a negative income tax could not provide "an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits already available to many welfare recipients in the United States"(http://www.econlib.org...). Yes, the current system excludes people but replacing the system with a negative income tax would not do any better. That was the whole point of the article.

"Granted people may make rash decissions, but we do have to realize that due to the Rational Choice theory, that each and every person, under extreme circumstances and/or measures, will make the decission that maximizes the greatest possible benefit for them."

Okay look, if people were rational then we wouldn't need any kind of benefit system in the first place. Poverty is a result of bad decisions made by people (not always be those in poverty though). So if all people were rational, then we wouldn't need a negative income tax or a welfare system.

"Even if we cannot find anything evidence on it, we can still see that it works a lot better than welfare and in this debate, that's what matter's most."

If anything, I think my opponent has not showed that the negative income tax is better than the current system. But I will leave that up to the voters to decide.

"Even if what you are saying is true, I could simply come in and argue for 100% taxation of the rich to resdistribute to the lower class. This would solve the issue, but has nothing to do with this debate."

My opponent was originally saying that the issue could be solved by giving benefits to people. My point was that the negative income tax wouldn't solve this issue like my opponent indicated. I rest my case.

I thank my opponent for a good round. I thank him for being patient as well since we were both probably busy these past few days.
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for this great debate, but unlike all things, this too must come to an end.

This argument isn't solid, because if you continue to read the rest of Friedman's statement, you'll see that he argues that it does give incentives and doesn't take them all away. Do remember that Con did state that they took away incentives in the very first sentence of his R2 argument.

My opponent doesn't address the argument on how you still get benefits even when you are working which makes people actually want to work when compared to the current system. My opponent has dropped this and I would like to extend it across the board.

My opponent never explains how this is worse than the status quo. We can see, as stated before, that you still recieve benefits while working and you get more than welfare. This is a simple fact that my opponent drops in this debate.

Again, my opponent has yet to actually address my point again on keeping your benefits. People may abuse the system of welfare, but NIT reduces that chance as people would actually want to work and this point has been dropped.

No matter how much my opponent wants to bring it up, we have to discard it. The poor and small families are huge amounts of people who get welfare and if you exclude them, then the stats are going to get improperly blurred and it's simply not a true representation of the actual reality.

My opponent makes the misconception that if people were responsible then we wouldn't need a benefit system. THough this cannot be true as there will always be businesses that go out of business, layoffs, firings, and people have temp unemployment. These are simple facts of economics and even if people were responsible, it wouldn't change these simple facts. My opponent himself advocated against the reduction of benefits and yet he talks about abolition here as an argument. 100% unemployment is simply impossible.

My opponent has dropped my argument here on how it can help get minorites out of the poverty level, while his only response has been to provide an off-topic debate argument on it. Please extend this argument across.

With that I thank you and I urge the voters to please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Udel 11 months ago
Udel
Pro argues people making less than a certain amount should get money back from government, instead of them paying taxes and getting government benefits back. He says people should be able to vote with their money, and when they use government programs they are affecting the market demand by putting that money only toward certain resources and inflating demand in certain areas. He claims well intentioned programs have bad effects, like section 8. Pro says welfare is a trap but NIT still gives you an incentive to earn. Con disagrees and says people won't want to help themselves. He says it won't incentivize people to work when they are guaranteed a certain income. Pro says no under the status quo (welfare, which he argues is worse) people lose benefits when they start working but people have an incentive to keep working and increase income under NIT which Con does not negate in the final round. Con says the NIT isn't better but Pro proves it is better because people have an incentive to work whereas without welfare they do not. Pro also argues NIT will get minorities out of disproportionate poverty. Con says he doesn't see why giving minorities money will get them out of poverty, which doesn't address Pro's point on promoting racial equality thorugh class equality. Arguments to Pro. Great debate! I will have to award sources to Pro not only because Pro included more sources that were relevant (economic graphs), but because Con used lots of appealing to authority with his sources, claiming that since Friedman said it, then it must be a "solid argument" without explanation. And Pro was able to use Con's own sources against him by extending the context of what Friedman said, so that was clever on Pro's part and he used better sources more strategically to solidify his case. Again, a very good debate. I look forward to reading more from you 2.
Posted by missbailey8 11 months ago
missbailey8
Interesting... I'll try to vote on this when it's finished.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Sounds good.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I'll accept as soon as I have my case built.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ballpit 11 months ago
ballpit
Jerry947lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is for the VU RFD = https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UzuDZ71QcpG3qBC5FeaTMbrQcnW1C27nL6JVaoU-ZWM/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Danielle 11 months ago
Danielle
Jerry947lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD can be found here: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/88225/
Vote Placed by Udel 11 months ago
Udel
Jerry947lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: comment section RFD