The Instigator
DenyEverything
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The Cato Institute does not deserve respect or credibility

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 7 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,753 times Debate No: 27369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

DenyEverything

Pro

The Cato Institute (www.cato.org) is a influential American think tank, headquartered in Washington D.C. According to the 2011 Global Go To Think Tank Index, Cato is the 6th most influential US based think tank, ranking 3rd in Economic Policy and 2nd in Social Policy. It was founded in 1974 by Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane, and Charles Koch. In this debate I will argue against the widespread respect it garners from the academic and policy communities and instead portray it as a bastion of simple propaganda and special interests.
socialpinko

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
DenyEverything

Pro

Introduction:
The problem I and many others have with the Cato Institute is the fact that it allows special interest groups (individuals, corporations and foundations) who fund it to hijack its message, even when that message is controversial. I will show three prominent examples of this, and then say why this matters to Cato's credibility.
Argument #1
Cato was a large proponent of the Big Tobacco industry, accepting large donations from Big Tobacco and in turn jumping on the Big Tobacco bandwagon.
Proof that Cato recieves funding from Big Tobacco: Source: Americans for Nonsmoker's Rights, August 2004.
"1. The Cato Institute received a $10,000 “philanthropic contribution” from Philip Morris in 1991.
2. Between 1995 and 1998 alone, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds jointly contributed at least $425,000 to the Cato Institute. One Philip Morris document budgets a $175,000 “policy payment” for the Cato Institute to focus on “Individual Liberties” and “Regulatory Issues”.
3. The Wall Street Journal quoted Cato analyst Jerry Taylor as stating that the Cato Institute received over $100,000 from tobacco giant Philip Morris and $50,000 from RJ Reynolds in 1995 alone.
4. According to a memo prepared and drafted by the law firm Covington and Burling for Philip Morris, entitled “1995 Tort Reform Program,” $600,000 was allocated for “National Think Tanks/Retained Consultants (e.g. Citizens for a Sound Economy, Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, Hudson Institute)” to reduce the potential legal liability of corporations, including tobacco companies, for wrongfully harming their customers.
5. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch sat on the Board of Directors at Philip Morris and the Cato Institute. Murdoch’s News Corporation owns numerous broadcasting and print media corporations, including Fox Broadcasting. News Corporation voted Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible onto its board in 1998."
So know we know that Cato got the funding. How did they pay Big Tobacco back? Source: (1-4: Same as above) (4-6): National Review (4/20/12)
"1. The Cato Institute has challenged credible science that links secondhand smoke exposure to death and disease and has organized opposition to smoke-free environments.
2. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, based on a report published by Public Citizen, stated that the Cato Institute was one of seven conservative think tanks that received at least $3.5 million between 1992 to 1995 from the drug and tobacco industries to “curb the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory powers.” Of the $3.5 million, Cato reportedly received at least $152,500 to counter the FDA’s regulatory process. According to the article:
The think tanks have used the money to produce a “steady stream of reports, fact sheets, op-ed articles and newspapers, radio and television advertisements purporting to document the FDA’s deadly overcaution and bullying of manufacturers.”
3. A 1995 Philip Morris document cites the Cato Institute as one of its “messengers” for relaying the tobacco company’s opposition to the FDA.
4. In July 2000, the Cato Institute co-filed a brief with the National Smokers Alliance in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit alleging that the Master Settlement Agreement violated U.S. antitrust law.
Philip Morris listed Cato VP David Boaz as one of its “National Allies in a 2000 memo.
5. Cato chairman Robert Levy, who today accuses the Kochs of turning Cato into “a mouthpiece of special interests,” once faithfully served the tobacco industry as a leading tobacco-death denialist. In his article, “Lies, Damn Lies & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths”, Levy claimed, “children do not die of tobacco-related diseases” and “there is no credible evidence that 400,000 deaths per year—or any number remotely close to 400,000—are caused by tobacco.” (In fact, tobacco use kills more than 5 million people a year worldwide.)
6. In 2001, a British-American Tobacco executive sent a thank-you letter to Levy and the Cato Institute, noting: “I was also pleased to learn after our meeting that our subsidiary company, Brown & Williamson, provided the Cato Institute with funding in 2000.”
Argument #2
Cato and many of it's scholars are outspoken climate change skeptics, and really take it to the next level.
Cato's actions on climate change/global warming: Source: (1-5: Greenpeace) (6: Wikipedia page on the Cato Institute)
"1. Cato is a member of the State Policy Network, a network of state level think tanks and policy organizations that act as a coordinated front for a variety of corporate priorities including delaying action to mitigate global warming. The State Policy Network has promoted climate science denial conferences hosted by the Heartland Institute and circulated unscientific reports from Heartland's "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change." Heartland's "Climate Change Reconsidered" reports are authored by career climate deniers such as S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso.
2. The organization's 2009 "Handbook for Policymakers" on global warming begins with the suggestions that Congress should "pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide" and "inform the public about how little climate change would be prevented by proposed legislation."
3. Robert Bradley, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is also a founder and the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research.
4. In 2007 the Cato Foundation gave $120,000 to New Hope Environmental Services, an "advocacy science consulting firm" founded and run by long-time climate science denier Patrick Michaels, who uses New Hope to publish his World Climate Report, a sort of ongoing journal of denial of climate science. Michaels is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, which paid him $98,000 to write a book, The Satanic Gases, with fellow skeptic Robert Balling. Over the years, Michaels' work has been financed by a number of coal and polluter interests, including the Western Fuels Association, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, and others.
5. In 2012, the Koch brothers sued the Cato Institute in order to exert more control over the organization. The lawsuit was dropped after an agreement was reached between the two parties, following months of highly-publicized attacks back and forth. David Koch remains on Cato's board of directors.
6. Three out of five "Doubters of Global Warming" interviewed by PBS's Frontline were funded by, or had some other institutional connection with, the Institute. Cato has often criticized Al Gore's stances on the issue of global warming and agreed with the Bush administratons's skeptical attitude toward the Kyoto protocols.
Rationale for these actions: Source: (1: Greenpeace article above) (2, 3: Wikipedia page on Cato) (4: Sierra Club Magazine)
"1. $1,285,750 received from Koch foundations 2005-2010 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2010: $5,535,750]
2. Charles G. Koch cofounded Cato, was chairman of the board, was a shareholder along with David Koch, his brother, who are both anthropogenic climate change skeptics.
3. David Koch is a member of Cato's board, and Kevin Gentry, employee and top aide to the Koch's also serves on the board.
4. Charles and David Koch own Koch Industries. "For Koch Industries, the amounts of money it can save by sabotaging environmental rules make the sums diverted to the think tanks that do the dirty work pale in comparison. The year 2000 was particularly rough for the Kochs. In January, Koch Industries agreed to pay about $35 million for violations of the Clean Water Act related to 310 oil spills in six states. Two months later, Koch admitted to environmental violations at its oil refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and was forced to cough up another $8 million in penalties. Then in July, it agreed not only to spend about $80 million to cut emissions from its Rosemount facility and from two other refineries in Texas, but also to pay a $1 million fine for air-pollution violations."
More examples to follow, but for now, out of characters.
socialpinko

Con

C1: Cato and Big Tobacco


Pro's first claim is that Cato has received donations from "Big Tobacco" and in return Pro alleges that the Institute tailored its content to reflect the interests of its donors.


1) The first problem with this assumption is that it fails to establish that Cato's content was substantially effected by the donations in question. He says that Cato accepted Big Tobacco donations " and in turn jumping on the Big Tobacco bandwagon." The earliest instance Pro cites of donations to Cato from "Big Tobacco" like donors was in 1991. However, Cato from its inception (in 1974, 17 years before the first donation in question) has been an opponent of government action to curb non-aggressive individual activities.


Things like smoking bans and corporate regulation are something Cato has always been opposed to, which would naturally put them somewhat in line with the interest of tobacco corporations. Pro needs to establish that Cato's content was posterior to the various donations and has failed to do so thus far.


2) On Pro's examples, he fails to show that the content must be biased. For instance, Pro says Cato "has challenged credible science that links second hand smoke exposure to death and disease and has organized opposition to smoke-free environments." On the first claim, Pro doesn't offer any substantive evidence to back the claim up. On the second claim, opposing "smoke-free environments" is incredibly vague. Is he referring to private residences and properties or is he referring to public places? The former is basic private propertarian ideology, something Cato supported before the 90's. The latter also needs backing up by Pro since he also failed to provide evidence supporting it.


3) Pro's claim attempting to link the Cato Institute's opposition to the FDA is also misleading. Since the FDA's main function is to regulate the output of private industry and Cato from its inception has been a predominantly free market thing tank, it's natural that Cato would be opposed to it. Therefore Pro simply saying Cato has spent money writing against the FDA fails to prove anything.


C2: Cato and Climate Change


1) First, Pro's only claim is that Cato holds to a certain position without actually even attempting to show why it should discredit Cato. Let's go out on a limb and say Cato (as a monolithic entity I suppose) wholesale denies climate change (not just certain aspects or the prospect of government intervention). Why should this wholly discredit the organization? Cato isn't just a scientific institution. It also deals with topics dealing with a large range of policy issues. Let's say Cato is wrong on climate change. That still doesn't fulfill the rather large burden of proof Pro has assumed in attempting to discredit the entire organization.


2) Pro has also been incredibly ambiguous on Cato's actual policy in regards to global climate change. He alludes several times to Cato's opposition to various State actions attempting to mitigate climate change but never actually mentions across the board beliefs of Cato scholars and writers. Of course I should repeat that Pro hasn't shown why denying certain aspects of global climate change should necessitate denying credibility to the institute.
Debate Round No. 2
DenyEverything

Pro

"C1: Cato and Big Tobacco"
1) I may have been a touch misleading here, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I am not arguing that the Institute is tailoring it's content to match it's donors interests in the way you just described, which, unfortunately, is difficult to prove without further evidence. I am not arguing that Cato exclusively accepted Big Tobacco funding to coincide with its anti-smoking efforts; I am arguing that the reason the Cato Institute exists is primarily to produce academic and legislative proposals that coincide with the interests of large corporations (note that they exist solely to make an economic profit) make those policies mainstream, and push them through Congress. What I am accusing Cato of is corporatism, and hijacking legislative policy to serve the interests of corporations, not citizens, not the public, not the world. It is no surprise ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, ChevronTexaco, Tenneco Gas, the American Petroleum Institute, the Amoco Foundation, the Claude R. Lamb Charitable foundation, the Charles G. Koch foundation, the Philip Anschutz foundation and the Atlantic Richfield Organization all fund the Cato Institute, to name the ties it has with the petroleum industry, but Cato also recieves funding from Big Pharma (Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.) Big Finance (Citibank, Prudential, Chase Manhattan, American Express, Salomon Brothers) and Big Tech (Verizon, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Verisign, Netscape, BellSouth). It was from its start as you correctly described in line with general libertarianism and the belief in individual liberties that put it against a smoking ban, the FDA, etc. The reason you and I should take note of this is because while Cato claims to be nonpartisan and independent, those are selective definitions of the real meaning behind the words. Cato is a bastion of policies that coincide with the philosophy of the largest multinational conglomerates. We later discovered smoking was a problem, along with secondhand smoking, and it was banned and regulated. This of course was a loss for the corporations and Cato. If people knew who was behind Cato, they would be more skeptical of its policy proposals, just as many people are today of corporation's proposals, and for good reason.
2) I suggest you read "Lies, Damned Lies, and 400,000 Smoking related deaths," (www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf) written by Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato's board of directors, and senior fellow emeritus of constitutional studies, which ironically has little to do with science, especially medical science.This article was later refuted by the American Council of Science and Health, whose two authors, Alicia M. Lukachko, and Elizabeth M. Whelan, who each have a Masters degree in Public health, and a Doctor of Science. Read an excerpt from their critique: "In the Fall 1998 issue of Regulation (“The Cato Review of Business and Government”), the Cato Institute published an article by Robert Levy and Rosalind Marimont titled “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths.” In their article, Levy and Marimont contend that the U.S. government’s estimate of approximately 400,000 annual premature deaths due to cigarette smoking is scientifically unsound and substantially inflated. The authors assert that “the war on smoking . . . has grown into a monster of deceit and greed, eroding the credibility of government and subverting the rule of law.” In this report, scientists at the American Council on Science and Health refute Levy and Marimont’s key arguments (presented below) as unscientific and inflammatory. ACSH’s critique concludes that the estimate of 400,000 annual deaths due to cigarette smoking is indeed reliable and may even be an underestimate.The authors make four primary assertions leading to their conclusion that the figure of 400,000 is inflated. Those four assertions and a summary of ACSH’s critique of each of them follow." Read the full critique here: "http://www.acsh.org... response to my second claim, public places is what I am referring to. Read "http://www.cato.org...; Note the title: Smoking bans are dangerous to free soceity's health. And there's more where that came from. Read “the case against smoking bans” "www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-4.pdf"
3)-Refer to above, where I underline why opposition to regulation not from the standpoint of society but instead corporate interests has a negative effect on society and is undeserving of respect.
1) First, Pro's only claim is that Cato holds to a certain position without actually even attempting to show why it should discredit Cato..."Umm... Because you have business interests tied to that, and other issues, which you have surreptitiously accepted funding to reaffirm your position. For example, read this headline: "http://www.guardian.co.uk...; "Patrick Michaels, fellow at the Cato Institute, claimed 3% of his funding came from industry, later revealed that figure to be 40%."
2) Oxford Handbook on Climate Change:
"The earlier-mentioned conservative resurgence began when wealthy conservative philanthropists such as Joseph Coors began to fund, typically through their family foundations, the establishment of conservative think tanks (CTTs) such as the Heritage Foundation towage a ‘war of ideas’ against the progressive gains of the 1960s (Himmelstein 1990; Lapham 2004). By the 1990s conservative foundations were funding a ‘conservative labyrinth' designed to implant conservative values and goals in academic, media,governmental,legal, and religious institutions (Covington 1997: 3). Particularly important is the network of well-heeled and influential think tanks that churn out an endless flow of policy proposals credited with moving the US policy agenda significantly to the right (Krehely et al. 2004) and—since the 1990s—influencing climate policy (McCright and Dunlap 2003, 2010). Major funders include foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife and David and Charles Koch (both drawing upon family fortunes stemming in part from oil interests). Besides giving generously to a vast range of CTTs and conservative causes, they are responsible for establishing the Cato Institute (C. Koch), Citizens for a Sound Economy, now Americans for Prosperity (D. Koch) and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or CFACT (R. M. Scaife)—three particularly crucial elements of the denial machine. ln fact, in recent years the Scaife and Koch families of funds may have exceeded ExxonMobil in terms of funding climate change denial actors and activities (Grandia 2009; Greenpeace 2010b; Mashey 2010). CTT‘s represent social movement organizations that typically serve as spokespersons and facilitators for conservative causes (Jacques et al. 2008; McCright and Dunlap 2000). While corporations like ExxonMobil have joined conservative foundations in providing generous funding for CTTs, many of the latter appear to oppose climate science and policy making for purely ideological reasons (McCright and Dunlap 2010: 109-11). CTT's are a fundamental and highly efective component of the denial machine, providing institutional bases for leading contrarians such as Patrick Michaels (a Cato Fellow), hosting anti-IPCC conferences (Heartland Institute), sponsoring ‘educational events‘ for politicians (National Center for Policy Analysis), assisting the George W. Bush Administration’s efforts to impede climate policy (Competitive Enterprise Institute), and producing and circulating a vast range of anti-climate change material via various forms of media (reports, press releases, press conferences, videos, radio and television interviews). among other activities (see e.g. Hoggan with Littlemore 2009; Lahsen 2008; McCright and Dunlap 2000, 2003; Oreskes and Conway 2010).
socialpinko

Con

C1: Cato and Big Tobacco

1) Pro has changed his main argument from the thesis that Cato tailors it's content as a result of corporate donations to the thesis that the reason Cato exists originally is in order to forward corporate interests. An interesting idea I suppose but Pro offers no substantiation. Pro just says Cato is backed by corporations. But his new thesis (brought in the last round) requires evidence surrounding the genesis of Cato, not with current affairs so just saying that Cato has received corporate donations is insuficient to show that the basis of its inception was to forward corporate interests. This requires Pro to offer evidence concerning the motivations of Cato's founders, something Pro hasn't even attempted to do.

Pro also fails to offer a rebuttal to my point that the policy proposals of right-wing libertarianism would in some instances naturally coincide with those of corporations, meaning the argument fails to prove that Cato's policy proposals are a result of corporate donations as opposed to the ideological bent of the organization. Pro responds by saying that Cato claims to be an independent organization which he claims is false. But why does he say this? Because their interests naturally coincide at some points with corporations. Even so this doesn't prove that Cato isn't independent since Pro hasn't established a causal link from the interests of corporations to the content of Cato. Otherwise it's just a natural coincidence of interests.

2) Pro still hasn't shown why Cato's claims are biased or false. He's just shown that there is opposition. However, even if he shows Cato to be wrong, this doesn't prove corporate-backed bias. Pro also elucidated on his smoking bans point in saying he was referring to public-place smoking bans. Of course, Pro still fails to offer substantiation on why this is (a) wrong, (b) necessarily a result of corporate interests, or (c) why even if it is wrong, why it warrants withdrawing credibility from an entire organization.

3) Pro still hasn't shown why opposition to the FDA or other regulator institutions must be the result of corporate influence and cannot be explained by the ideological bent of the organization since its genesis. See a more full refutation in Point 1 of C1.

C2: Cato and Climate Change

1) Pro fails to adequately respond to my point. Basically, Pro is saying that Cato scholars have a different opinion on climate change than him. Therefore they are undeserving of respect. Pro makes this claim without actually establishing why that should be the case. Now instead of backing up his claim in respect to the actual content of Cato's global climate change proposals, Pro is simply saying Cato makes its claims because of corporate donation. For full refutation of this see Point 1 of C1 above. Just because some third party has the same interests as X, doesn't mean X's actions must be the result of that third party. This is especially so in that Cato's ideological bent has been right wing libertarianism since its inception.

2) Pro's rebuttal here isn't actually a rebuttal at all. It's just more claims that conservative think tanks are generally biased. In failing to rebut my counter, Pro drops some important points. For instance, Pro hasn't shown which beliefs of Cato scholars are wrong or why if they are wrong, why that should destroy the credibility of an entire organization. Cato is a policy institute. Just saying that their policy proposals are wrong in one area doesn't show why wholesale loss of credibility is warranted. Of course Pro never attempted to show that their beliefs were wrong in this area so the point is moot I suppose.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Good grief, disagreeing with some position may be wrong, but the act of disagreeing is not unethical or incredible. Disagreement only "does not deserve respect or credibility" when you have raised your belief to the level of religious faith, where disagreement is apostasy. Cato, Brookings, and other think tanks argue and present evidence for their viewpoints. That is legitimate debate.
Posted by mike.daley06 4 years ago
mike.daley06
I can't Vote because I am a newb. However, I enjoyed the debate.

I would give the nod to Con, Because even though I agree with Pro both before and after the discussion I don't think he quite made the case.
Posted by DenyEverything 4 years ago
DenyEverything
Brookings is just as bad. Frankly most all think tanks nowadays are pretty awful, but then again so is today's political climate. http://www.nationalreview.com...
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
So long as we place the Brookings Institute on the same level, ok... whatever.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Yes, interesting.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Following
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
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: Pro argues that anyone who disagrees with him or gets money from someone he disapproves deserves no respect. He would have to show that money caused a change in beliefs rather than that the positions attracted money. Pro didn't come close to doing that.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I really was unaware if the CATO Institute was credible or not, so this was a good debate for me to look into it. For me, Con had the best arguments and refutations. Pro stated that CATO is in the pocket of big corporations, but did not explain how they were bad. When Con talked about how CATO is Libertarian and it attracts people supporting it, that helped him. In terms of corruption, Con pointed out that donations do not mean corruption. In addition, I did find Pro's style of typing difficult.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro changed his thesis in R2, and if it had been maintained throughout it would of helped his case more. Pro also did not fully address how Cato supports special interests -- one example was needed, but he only provided scant examples. Cato is naturally right wing, so this was hard to blame it's ideological leaning on corporate interests. Also Pro's form of writing, with long paragraphs and run on sentences made it more difficult to read than Con's case.
Vote Placed by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
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: Con pointed that cato's position on the main topics were basically libertarian, therefore not tied to donations. Then, in round 3, Pro clarified his position, saying cato exists to further the interests of large corporations. I found this confused Pro's position. Was this now a debate where I'm supposed to believe that it's obvious that big corporations were bad so I shouldn't respect cato? Then again in round 3, Pro states "corporate interests has a negative effect on society and is undeserving of respect". However, Pro didn't really address such a sweeping statement in this debate. Pro may have proved that cato does not deserve respect or credibility to liberals, but not to everyone in general. In other words, as Con pointed out, cato takes certain libertarian positions, therefore they attract certain types of funding.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
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: Awesome debate. First, Pros most convincing point is the corruption point. However, as con rightly pointed out, merely getting funding =\= corruption. Corporations might fund them because of their views. In other words, they already agree, so they fund it. They do not cause the opinions because of funding. Does that make sense? That seemed like the point con was implying at the end. Pro loses the point. The second point was climate change. Pro then says cato disagrees with him on AGW theory, irrelevant. But he notes corporations cause their view, so it's corrupt. That is relevant. Con again destroys, he says "Just because some third party has the same interests as X, doesn't mean X's actions must be the result of that third party." That sums up his overall C1 rebuttal and deconstructs pros case. Pro never offered direct evidence of cato being corrupt. As he never showed an example, the quote above is an adequate rebuttal. Pro, being pro, had the BOP pro failed to do so. Con wins.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought that this debate was a clear Pro win. Pro uses two topics, second-hand smoking and climate change, and demonstrates that Cato's insane positions on those two issues is biased by demonstrating the corporate funding behind the arguments. Pro even uses the Guardian source to demonstrate the Cato lied about its funding from industry as a means of hiding its bias. I didn't find Con's skepticism to be very convincing; he basically claimed that Pro never linked the genesis of Cato to the funding but that's a very silly position to hold because Pro never said it was founded to do this only that it is influenced. Con also says that Cato has always been right-winged, but this really does not refute the idea that Cato is biased; if it has always been staunchly right-winged regardless of the issue, then it is biased. Finally, Con says that Pro hasn't established that the issues are false, but that's irrelevant because Pro just has to prove that there is a link to the corporations.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 4 years ago
darkkermit
DenyEverythingsocialpinkoTied
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: Difficult debate to judge since there were only 2 rounds of debating. PRO fails to demonstrate that because corporations fund CATO means that CATO is bias. Pro doesn't prove that Cato positions are based on lies and deceit, just assumes it does because its positions are not mainstream and that it has corporation donors