The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Resolved: The United States ought ban all forms of pornography.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,575 times Debate No: 23087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Con

First round is for acceptance
royalpaladin

Pro

It has been a while since I have debated on a side that I disagree with, so I accept this debate. I will define key terms since my opponent did not bother to.

Pornography is defined as the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter.

Ought indicates a moral obligation. Since we are discussing whether or not the U.S. has a moral obligation to ban pornograpy, Constitutional arguments hold no water in this round since the Consitution is not necessarily moral. Slavery was once permitted in the Consitution, for example, and slavery was not moral.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Pro

Ok, he forfeits the first round . . .
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Con

I was going to apologize for forfeiting this round since I thought I had more time, and for the forfeit, my opponent can take the conduct point because of my poor punctuality. I will argue CON.

Observation 1: The wording of the resolution implies that the federal government is the actor banning because it states that the United States as an entity is banning it. This means that references to the Constitution and foundations of American law and justice are applicable in this debate.
Observation 2: The focus of this debate, however, is still on morality of the decision, and the determining factor in who wins this debate is which debater better supports morality.

In my case, I will be looking at morality through the following perspectives:
1. Consequentialism
2. Justice
3. Harm principle

With these parameters listed, I move on to the iteration of my case.

Contention 1: Pornography poses no threat to society.
Pornography has no harms and aids to society.

Sub-point 1a: Pornography does not destroy perceptions of men or women.
Simon Louis Lajeunesse, a postdoctoral student and professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Montreal, found the following in his research on the effects of pornography on perceptions of men and women: "
All test subjects said they supported gender equality and felt victimized by rhetoric demonizing pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship...Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star," says Lajeunesse. Lajeunesse refutes the perverse effect often attributed to pornography. "Aggressors don't need pornography to be violent and addicts can be addicted to drugs, alcohol, gaming and asocial cases are pathological. If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation."
Milton Diamond substantiates the claim in the International Journal of Law and Psychology: ""Indeed, the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes... Lastly we see that objections to erotic materials are often made on the basis of supposed actual, social or moral harm to women. No such cause and effect has been demonstrated with any negative consequence."

Sub-point 1b: Pornography provides jobs and is beneficial for the economy.
The pornography industry is heavily profitable, reaping about $100 billion per year. Because of the heavy demand of pornography, it maintains jobs for those participating in pornography and those producing it in order to supply it into the public. These are the direct profiters of the industry, whereas indirect profiters would include computer companies that create technology specifically designed in order to place blocks on Internet pornography. All of this together--the provision of jobs for younger populations and the spending by industry--pushes the investments part of the GDP up.

Sub-point 1c: Pornography can reduce sex crime rates.
While I'm not keen on the idea of legalizing child pornography, the idea that its legalization was able to reduce sex crime rates empirically shows the effect of maintaining a legal status for pornography: "
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan...The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose."

Contention 2: Pornography is just.
Considering that the actors in the pornography consciously agreed to engage in the actions depicted in pornography and because people have a right to their property (including their bodies), I contend that pornography is perfectly justified.

Sub-point 2a: Pornography is free speech.
Pornography is figured to be a form of speech, and as a form of speech, it is protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, meaning that the United States federal government has no right to make any such bans on pornography lest they wish to violate the Constitution. This was a case tried before: "In 1983, two of the most prominent anti-pornography feminists in the United States, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, drafted an anti-pornography ordinance at the behest of the Minneapolis Council. A similar ordinance was passed by the Indianapolis City Council in 1984, but later overturned on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, on the grounds that the ordinance violated pornographers First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Importantly, the ordinance did not seek to impose criminal prohibitions or sanctions on pornography: it did not seek to make the production, sale or consumption of pornography a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment."

Sub-point 2b: Pornography is not forced in any way.
Not only this, but pornography is not forced on the public and is held to be private.

Sub-point 2c: Bans on pornography would be a violation of human rights.
Bringing this back to a moral perspective, it would be unjust to ban pornography considering the fact that the actors in question are denied the right to do with their body as they please with it as long as it doesn't harm other people. By denying them employment in the pornography industry, it takes away their freedom of choice for employment and takes away the right to control their own bodies, contradictory to principles of human rights (as they would be iterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Contention 3: Censorship can be devastating.
"They point to the difficulties involved in formulating a legal definition of ‘pornography’ that will be sufficiently precise to minimize the danger that censorship laws targeting pornography will be used (intentionally or unintentionally) to censor other unpopular material, including valuable literary, artistic and political works. Censoring pornography may thus place us on a dangerous "slippery slope" to further censorship of other material; and may have a general "chilling effect" on expression, making people reluctant to say or publish things that might be construed as pornography and for which they could be prosecuted. (For further discussion see Williams 1981, Schauer 1982, Easton, 1994.)

Works Cited
"Are the Effects of Pornography Negligible?" ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 01 Dec. 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com...;.
Bartley, Bayode. "Pornography and the Economic Benefits." Web. <http://www.abdn.ac.uk...;.
"Homo Consumericus." Pornography: Beneficial or Detrimental? Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com...;.
"Legalizing Pornography: Lower Sex Crime Rates? Study Carried out in Czech Republic Shows Results Similar to Those in Japan and Denmark." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com...;.
"Pornography and Censorship." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu...;.





royalpaladin

Pro

Framework
I would like to note that none of my opponent’s links worked, so I was unable to access any of his evidence besides the Stanford Encyclopedia Article.
Case

Contention 1: In its production stage, pornography violates the theory of informed consent. In order for any sexual act to be considered morally permissible, all participants in the activities must grant informed consent, or “informed, voluntary, anddecisionally-capacitated consent.” [1] Informed consent is a direct extension of the right to property. If an individual has control over his or her body, then she has the right to use her body in any manner that she deems fit. This justifies almost every type of fornication between adults. However, if any part of the “consent” process is violated, it is the moral duty of the state to prohibit the activities. For example, children cannot consent to have sexual relations because they are not rational enough to make informed decisions.

One key requirement for informed consent is that there is no external pressure or coercion that factors into the decision-making process. This is known as the non-domination principle. “The idea here would be that no one should be under the arbitrary control of another and that informed consent requirements help to prevent such arbitrary control.” [1] The non-domination principle, for example, is the reason that health care providers must give patients the choice as to whether or not to participate in drug trials. Non-domination itself has a variety of components, two of which are violated in the pornography production process. The first component is freedom from undue inducement, “a term of art usually meaning that something is being offered that is alluring to the point that it clouds rational judgment, for instance cash in hand or airline tickets in return for kidney donation. Attention is fixated on the benefit, disallowing proper consideration of the risks from, say kidney loss or trial participation.” [1]. The second is “only bad alternatives”. Consent cannot be granted if there is a “ lack of decent alternatives to accepting a bad offer, a so-called no-choice situation (Wertheimer 1987, e.g., p. 13), is said to make us forced or compelled to choose the offer (Cohen 1979), or to undermine voluntariness otherwise.” [1].

Becoming a porn star is highly lucrative. The average female star makes $100,000 to $250,000 a year, causing them to ignore the risks of obtaining STDs, which are significantly higher among porn stars than other individuals [2]. Thus, the porn industry often preys upon indigent women who find the job offer highly lucrative and who are more likely to ignore the negative effects of participation.

Moreover, many stars in the production process are forced to commit acts that they do not consent to. Shelley Lubben, a former pornography performer, has publicly testified: “Women are lured in, coerced and forced to do sex acts they never agreed to do…[and given] drugs and alcohol to help get through hardcore scenes…. The porn industry is modern-day slavery.” [3]

Contention 2: Pornagraphy has overall negative impacts

Note that many of these arguments directly clash with the arguments that my opponent provides.

Negative Perceptions About Women
Pornography increases negative perceptions about women and promotes the objectification of women.
A study conducted by Dr. Zillman of San Diego University notes, “Exposure to “massive pornography” (4 hours and 48 minute) leads to changes in beliefs and attitudes. For example, reduced support for the women’s liberation movement, reduced belief that pornography needs to be restricted for minors, reduced recommended jail sentences for rapists, increased callousness toward woman, and beliefs of increased frequency of pathological sex (such as sex with animals, and sex with violence).” [4] Moreover, pornography introduces negative and harmful attitudes about women’s views on rape. J. Check discusses the negative effects of violent pornography in the International Journal of Women’s Studies, “The first group who had seen a woman aroused by sexual violence was more likely than the second group who did not see that to say that the woman in the rape pornography suffered less, enjoyed it and that women in general enjoy rape. “

This directly contradicts my opponent’s contention that it does not affect women. The studies that I have provided are not confounded by alcohol or other drugs, as he suggests, because the researchers controlled for those factors ahead of time.

His next argument is that pornography is profitable. Just because something is profitable does not mean that it is just or moral. Slavery was profitable, but it was neither just nor moral. The modern sex trade industry generates $31 billion per year, but that does not mean that the U.S. government should legalize the sex trade. Economic inducements should not be considered in this debate.

Sex Crime Rates
I would like to note that child pornography constitutes a violation of rights because it forces children, who cannot consent to sexual activity, to participate. Thus, any results that he provides are false because an increase in child pornography increases the abuse of the children participating in it.

Pornography causes an increase in rape. “The Federal Bureau of Investigation found that eighty percent (29 of 36) of recent mass murderers used pornography extensively and used it as an integral part of their murderous sexual activity, which often included serial rape-murders.” [6] J. Court of San Diego University notes, “In South Australia they liberalized the pornography laws and saw a 284% increase in rape. During the same time period in Queensland, Australia, they had conservative pornography laws and they experienced only a 23% increase in rape. In Hawaii, pornography laws were liberalized and then became more restrictive and then were liberalized again. The rape curve followed the same pattern of increasing, then decreasing when the restriction on pornography occurred and then increasing again when the restrictions were lifted.” [4] Prefer my evidence over his because it is more inclusive. He only examines child pornography, while mine examines pornography as a whole.

Free Speech

First, like all aspects of the right to liberty, free speech is limited by the rights of others. A terrorist cannot kill or rape other people even if he does so to express political rage, for example.I have demonstrated that the creation of pornography necessarily violates the principle of consent. Thus, it can be banned even if it is speech.

Note that pornography is distinct from erotica. Erotic”a is works of art, includingliterature, photography, film, sculpture and painting, that deal substantively witheroticallystimulating orsexually arousing descriptions. The term is a modern word that describes theportrayal of thehuman anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations, differentiating such work from commercialpornography”[6]. Since erotica is distinct from pornography, and the affirmative world still permits erotica, no right to speech is violated.

My consent analysis answers back “forced” analysis and the “human rights” analysis. Censorship is justified if the work in question leads to criminal activity and the degradation of women,so he loses that argument as well.

Sources
1.http://plato.stanford.edu...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://www.salvationarmyusa.org...
4. https://docs.google.com...
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Sources: With the known anticipation that my links would not work, I provided my opponent with a full citation of my evidence with titles, names, and dates in order for him to be able to find the information that I looked at. If my opponent has any questions about my sources, I will be completely happy to answer them.
Principle of consent: What my opponent is essentially saying is that principle of consent requires that the offering is not so alluring that it clouds reasonable judgement and that there are not only a provision of negative alternatives to making such a decision. First of all, while my opponent states that pornography violates both of these principles, he only really iterates about how it affects the first one with the alluring decision being so great that clouds reasonable judgement. Second, I directly question the kind of principle he's trying to promote when he's saying that just because the opportunity seems so alluring that this clouds the judgment of the person giving consent, this means that it is wrong. This is incredibly arbitrary. My opponent's principle eliminates any regard toward personal responsibility. It's one thing where a conscious decision cannot be made and another when one simply just doesn't use reasoning because the options are so alluring. In looking at my opponent's point on the treatment of pornography performers, I ask if this is ALL industry doing this or some?
Negative perceptions about women: The reason why the judges will look at my evidence over my opponent's in the regard of perceptions of women is because my study was more comparative. In my study, it analyzed groups of people that had beforehand had positive outlooks on women's liberation movements and whatnot, and after the study, the perceptions of the people in the study over women were exactly the same as before. The same goes for his evidence about rape. When it comes to the methodology of our experiments, mine seem more credible because mine is more comparative.
Profitability: It all depends on what kind of perception of morality we're looking at, and when we analyze this from a consequentialist point of view, one of the perceptions of morality with which I'm evaluating this case, profitibality does indeed add to the moral justification of pornography at some level. Furthermore, this brings up the point that my opponent has no scope nor framework at which to evaluate morality, so it is implied that this debate is following my framework.
Sex Crime Rates: Let us make note that I'm not in any way supporting child pornography. However, the fact that its pornography and it has had an effect on the society in some way according to my evidence, then it's still a valid scope at which to evaluate pornography. When you look at my opponent's case, we realize that he puts up a lot of statistics and correlations, but none of the causations. He implies that the increases to rape were as a result of the liberalization of pornography, but if I find even one scenario where pornography hasn't necessarily caused an increase in sex crime rates, it implies that there are other lurking variables in the scenario. Just to expand on the scope of pornography in this case, I provide the following data:

" The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth...University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit. I say that's the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight—the prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level."

"
While that is far from a ringing endorsement, it does at least seem to indicate that pornography isn't contributing to sex crimes. While some naysayers may point out that most offenders in prison have been exposed to porn, the fact of the matter is that nearly every male -- and a good number of females -- is exposed to pornography at some point. It stands to reason that most offenders have viewed porn. But other studies found that being punished for porn use might contribute to someone becoming a rapist, and not the porn use itself. Indeed, continues The Scientist, a repressive religious upbringing might be more of a factor in rape than porn:
Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males."


Marquit, Miranda. "Could Porn Be Good For Society?" Could Porn Be Good For Society? 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 05 May 2012. <http://phys.org...;.
Landsburg, Steven E. "All That Internet Porn Reduces Sex Crimes. Really." Slate Magazine. 30 Oct. 2006. Web. 05 May 2012. <http://www.slate.com...;.


royalpaladin

Pro

Principle of Consent
He concedes the property rights analysis that explains why consent is necessary for any type of sexual activity. Informed consent is directly an extension of property with the caveat that they have full understanding of the situation and are rational enough to understand the implications of those actions. This is why children cannot consent to sexual activities: they are not rational enough to understand the implications of their actions. He concedes the argument that if this process is violated, the state has a moral duty to prohibit those activities.

One key component of informed consent is the non-domination principle, which is violated in the pornography production process because of undue inducement. Essentially, the monetary rewards for participation are so high that they cause people to ignore all of the harms associated with the pornography production process (extend the dropped evidence that porn actors are more likely to be exposed to STDs than the average adult). The second harm is the “only bad alternatives”, which argues that every other alternative is bad, meaning that there is not really an ability to consent. His first response was that I am reiterating my argument. This is false. There is a distinction between the two principles, and I explained the distinction. Insofar as he drops the second principle entirely (only bad alternatives-meaning that pornography preys on indigent women), you can extend that cleanly across the flow. The impact is that pornography violates the second principle, meaning that the actors cannot consent and the state has a moral duty to prohibit it. He attacks the first principle by contending that I am eliminating personal responsibility. The problem is that personal responsibility requires a rational calculation of the impacts of an action. This is why a toddler would not be held responsible for theft and why insanity is considered a mitigating factor in courts. I am not destroying the concept of personal responsibility; rather, I am protecting it by ensuring that it is not abused to unfairly dominate others. This is why selling kidneys is not permitted by the state: the process abuses individuals who are indigent and thus who are unlikely to rationally examine the harms of their actions because of their circumstances.

The harms clearly do outweigh any “benefits”. The average life expectancy for a porn actor is 37.43 years, less than half of the average expectancy of a normal American. [1] This information is not given to workers, as is required by law, when discussing occupational hazards [2]

His response to the Lubben evidence about how women are coerced into performing acts against their will is a question: “Is this happening in all of the industry?” The answer is yes. These are standard practices used to induce women to commit actions that they otherwise would not perform as a means of “breaking them in”. [3]

Negative Perceptions
He claims that my sources are not comparative while his are. This is completely false. If you take a look at his Lajeunesse source, you can see that it was just a survey, which have reporting bias [4]. Moreover, the source itself admits that it was not comparative because there was no control group [4] (stated in the first paragraph).
The Zillman and Check evidence I provided reference lab studies and control groups. My sources are thus more accurate. Ergo, I have won the “negative perceptions” argument. Pornography degrades women and is thus harmful.

Profitability
Against his “profitability” analysis, I argued that just because something is economically good does not mean it is just. He claims that it is moral under a consequentalist framework. This is an oversimplification of consequentialism. Teleological frameworks examine all of the consequences before making any such determinations. This argument does not do that. In addition, he claims that it fits within the boundaries of his framework. His framework is contradictory because he is using three different standards (deontology with the liberty analysis, Justice, and teleology), and all of these frameworks contradict. There is no reason to accept any of them. He says I have not provided a framework. This is false; my case clearly rested on deontological analysis of consent. Just because I did not explicitly say it does not mean that I did not provide it. Accept my framework because it is consistent; he is using three theories that contradict each other. From a deontological perspective, profitability has nothing to do with justice. Extend the slavery analysis and the profitability of sex trafficking as a clear example of this.

Sex Crime Rates
He drops the analysis about how his evidence provides a false negative because the production of child pornography itself constitutes rape and sexual abuse.He also drops the argument that my evidence is more inclusive because it studies the effects of all types of porongraphy, and not just one.

He attacks my statistics and studies by claiming that they demonstrate correlation and not causation. This is false. My evidence comes from comparative analysis that controls for mitigating factors such as culture by examining a specific area over time and also examining similar areas. The Australia evidence was a comparative study that studied two areas with similar cultures that varied significantly only is liberalization of pornography. There was a 284% increase in rape in one area and a 32% increase in the other. The Hawaii evidence controls for those factors by examining the same area over a vast period of time.

He next says that if he finds even one scenario in which pornography did not increase crimes, there is no causation. This is absolute nonsense for a few reasons. First, it ignores the fact that causation is a result of a complex interplay of a variety of variables. Porongraphy is obviously not the sole cause of rape, but that does not mean it does not cause it. (His argument is the equivalent of saying that one of the many genes that control eye color has no causative effect on eye color because there are other genes that affect it). If I prove that pornography tends to cause sex crimes, then I have proven my points true. Second, his argument ignores the fact that there are different motivators for different people. While some may not be affected by porn, that does not mean that most are not or that porn has no effect. If a drug in a cancer trial reduces cancer for a majority of people but does not work for everyone, that does not mean that the drug is not effective. It means that there were mitigating factors present in those other people.

The new evidence he provides does not account for the fact that gender violence is being increasingly demonized and that the state is cracking down more on rapes.His studies are proving correlation only. In fact, his studies are flawed because they only observe this trend for teenagers, a group that the author admits have limited access to porongraphy and who are probably unable to rape anyways, as evidenced by the fact that the average age of a rapist is 31 years. His source also does not account for the fact that the younger generation (15-19) is also more likely to have inherently more positive attitudes towards women as a result of feminism and are thus less likely to rape women anyways.

His last piece of evidence is unsourced and the article no longer can be found.

Extend the FBI evidence that notes that 80% of serial killers use pornography in their murderous sexual activity.

Free Speech
This was entirely conceded by my opponent. It was dropped, please extend it and take it out of the round. Do not let him give new arguments related to this in the final round.

Sources
1. http://www.shelleylubben.com...
2. http://www.shelleylubben.com...
3. http://www.shelleylubben.com...
4. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Pro

Extend all of the arguments. I cleanly won the consent analysis as well as the the degredation of women analysis, so you can vote pro based on both deontological and teleological grounds.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Microsuck 2 years ago
Microsuck
what a surprise to see ScarletGhost forfeiting. Anyway, here is my RFD.

1) Conduct

This is rather simple. Go through and see that con ff'd more. Because of the FFs, Con loses.

2) Arguments

Pro obliderated con in all areas of arguments. For one, con dropped his arguments on free speech and Pro rightfully pointed out that there are some things which must be limited - including free speach.

Moreover, I feel that Pro had better arguments all through the debate. She showed that people in the porn business are forced to do things they do not want.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Did you really need an observation that the resolution refers to US law when the res. is US specific? Sounds like wasted space to me....
Posted by thejmanjman 2 years ago
thejmanjman
WTF that the production of child pornography is not a sex crime against children? WFT???
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
Kermit, I completely disagree with the side that I am arguing. However, I have not argued for a side that is against my views for over a year, and I wanted to try it again.
Posted by darkkermit 2 years ago
darkkermit
wtf? Are you serious about this royal?
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
If he forfeits again, I will put my case up.
Posted by thejmanjman 2 years ago
thejmanjman
I'd take it but I don't "match the criteria".
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
@Ron Paul

me
Posted by IntelligentFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
I am not for this, but I could argue the Pro side.
Posted by GenesisCreation 2 years ago
GenesisCreation
I wouldn't. I just accepted a debate by this user. He plagiarized an MSNBC news report and then forfeited each round by letting the clock run out. Thoroughly unimpressed.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396royalpaladinTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 FFs in a 4 round arguing time (one acceptance)
Vote Placed by Microsuck 2 years ago
Microsuck
ScarletGhost4396royalpaladinTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate to both of you. Pro, I must hand it to you, you did very well. Analysis in comments.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
ScarletGhost4396royalpaladinTied
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: Hey lookie here! Scarlet FF'd. What a surprise.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 2 years ago
Mrparkers
ScarletGhost4396royalpaladinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
ScarletGhost4396royalpaladinTied
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: Surprise Surprise, scarletghost forfeited!