The Instigator
Reasoning
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

The Minimum Wage

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 8 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,888 times Debate No: 13680
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (8)

 

Reasoning

Con

Minimum Wage laws are cruel and inhumane. They are racist laws and should be abolished.

"[T]he minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That's what the law says. The law says here's a man who would — has a skill which would justify a wage rate of $1.50, $2.00 an hour. You can't, you may not employ him. It's illegal. Because if you employ him you have to pay him $2.50. Well, what's the result? To employ him at $2.50 is to engage in charity. Now there's nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in a position where they can engage in that kind of charity. Thus the consequences of minimum wage rates have been almost wholly bad, to increase unemployment and to increase poverty. Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by minimum wage laws are the blacks. I've often said that the most anti-Negro law on the books of this land is the minimum wage rate." - Milton Friedman[1]

Minimum Wage laws are tools used by politically well-connected labor unions and big business to force their competitors out of competition. The economically ignorant with good intentions support the law because they foolishly believe that it is a help to the downtrodden, when it is precisely the opposite.

1 http://www.facebook.com...
FREEDO

Pro

== INTRODUCTION ==

I gratefully thank my opponent for the instigation of this exciting and controversial debate.

I find it proper to introduce a more precise definition for what exactly we are debating.

Minimum wage: The lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that employers may legally pay to employees.[1]

== COUNTER-ARGUMENTS ==

//[T]he minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That's what the law says. The law says here's a man who would — has a skill which would justify a wage rate of $1.50, $2.00 an hour.//

This is upon Milton's presupposition of what a "just" wage is. What amount of work justifies a rate of $1.50 an hour? By whose standard? Milton's standard seems to be whatever the employer wants and that this is just because it is "his" business. Allow me to offer some other standards by which "just" could be discerned and then allow me to ask my opponent what makes his standard any better than these others.

Living wage theory:

"Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, including shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition, for an extended period of time or a lifetime. In developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation." [3]

Thus they assert a wage which is high enough for the employee to have the necessities is what constitutes "just". They say that anything less than a living wage will result in wage-slavery.

"Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.The term draws an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and may refer to an "[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital", particularly where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops),or it may draw similarities between owning and employing a person, which equates the term with a lack of workers' self-management.The latter covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical social environment e.g. working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma or status diminution" [4]

"Profit is theft" theory:

Many Socialists and Anarchists assert that the profit which the employer makes off the the employee(sales-profit minus employees wages) is theft. They assert this because the amount for which the product which the employee made is what the market decided the employee's labor is worth yet they do not get paid what their labor is worth because their employer "owns" it and thus gets to decide how much of the fruits of their labor they get to keep. Virtually always the employer will keep more of the profit for himself than even all the employees combined.

Thus they assert, the higher the employee's wage is the more just it is because they are closer to being paid what their labor was actually worth in terms of what they produced.

Slavery theory:

"The first African slaves hit the shores of the United States in 1619 and were constantly imported into the US until 1860 even though importation had been outlawed in 1808. Over those intervening 246 years they contributed more than 605 billion hours of free labor"

"Another way to view the economic contribution of slavery to the US economy would be to assume that only 5% of the value of the slave labor was invested in the stock market in the year the labor was accrued. Five percent was chosen since this is the most common bottom line that is found in Fortune 500 income statements. Using market growth data provided by the Rittenhouse Trust data and the moneys are accumulated from 1700 through 1830 (the beginning of the Rittenhouse data), yields a value of $6.42 trillion current dollars. The subsequent moneys are invested at the time they accrued yields an additional $1.44 trillion. "
~ Waldron H. Giles, Ph.D [5]

Some would suggest that slave-labor is necessary for a thriving economy because it brings extra profit to the business to support it and help it grow. Thus, they assert, no wage at all would be just. After-all, there was an entire industry that collapsed along with slavery...the slave trade.

//But most employers are not in a position where they can engage in that kind of charity. //

Is that so? I'd like you to prove that. Tell me, does an employer, who is making profit off a business, have any more trouble than an employee, who make no such profit at all and who is so desperate for money that they must sell their labor for less than what they produce is sold for? And "charity" is it? Again, I ask, by whose standard? Whose is it to give--the employer or the employee? Who is to say from whom it is to be charity--is it not disputed?--and, may I ask you then, who is in the more financially stable position to give it?

// Thus the consequences of minimum wage rates have been almost wholly bad, to increase unemployment and to increase poverty.//

Is that so? What empirical evidence do you have to support this? Do counties/states with higher minimum-wages have higher unemployment? Lets take a look at that shall we....oh, fancy that....it's the other way around:

Lets look at the United States [6,7]:

Washington has the highest minimum wage($8.55) and an unemployment rate(9.0%) below the national average(9.6%)
Vermont has the fifth lowest unemployment(5.8%) and the 6th highest minimum wage($8.06).
Massachusetts has the 7th highest minimum wage($8.00) and an unemployment rate(8.4%) below the national average.

By contrast:

Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States, has a minimum wage of only $4.10, far below the states. Yet it also has a higher unemployment rate than any of the states (15.9%)
South Carolina is tied with many other states as having the lowest minimum wage($7.25, the national standard), yet has the 6th highest unemployment rate(11.0%)
Indiana also has has the lowest minimum wage in the United stats and has the 8th highest unemployment rate(10.6)

Now, lets take a look at countries[8,9]:

Denmark has the highest minimum-wage in the world(23,573 International dollars), yet has an unemployment rate(6.9%) below that of America(9.6%).
The United Kingdom has the second highest minimum wage in the world(22,597 International dollars), yet has an unemployment rate(7.8%) below that of America.

The list goes on much farther than this, for both states and countries, but sadly it appears I have run out room. I'll lastly add that, when confronted with empirical data instead of simple theory, no one can soundly conclude that minimum wage laws increase unemployment and, in-fact, an equal case could be made for just the opposite.

== SOURCES ==
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.nathanielturner.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Reasoning

Con

"This is upon Milton's presupposition of what a "just" wage is. What amount of work justifies a rate of $1.50 an hour? By whose standard? Milton's standard seems to be whatever the employer wants and that this is just because it is "his" business. Allow me to offer some other standards by which "just" could be discerned and then allow me to ask my opponent what makes his standard any better than these others."

FREEDO! You conflate justice with justification! The workers are today in hellish conditions and make but a pittance. This is the problem in search of a solution! It is, the labor problem of old, that has to be solved. The question then is not "do those in low-paying jobs deserve more" but how can we get more for them?

Unfortunately, the Minimum Wage laws do not help the situation. Just the opposite, they are a hinder and, if this is true you must agree, be done away with.

The downtrodden, those most in need of a job, are those that are afflicted with the curse of minimum wage laws. They are cast into unemployment.

Why? Suppose that there is a certain job that needs to be done. The employer, being a greedy moneygrubbing capitalist, wants the position filled as cheap as possible, ceteris paribus.

Now, he may hire three low-skilled workers, for $4/hour to fill the position. Or he may hire one higher-end, "middle class" worker who could do the job just as well as the other three for $13/hour. Surely, then, the employer will higher the three fellows in more desperate straights. But, what if the minimum wage is 7.25? Assuming the employer wants to employ legally, the low-skilled workers will not cost $12/hour but $21.75/hour!

And so they are unemployed.

There are many instances also of machinery being introduced to take the place of artificially expensive labor. Fast food restaurants buy plastic utensils instead of hiring dishwashers, grocery stores install E-Z Scans instead of hiring cashiers.

Such is the nature of the beast.

"Is that so? I'd like you to prove that. Tell me, does an employer, who is making profit off a business, have any more trouble than an employee, who make no such profit at all and who is so desperate for money that they must sell their labor for less than what they produce is sold for? And "charity" is it? Again, I ask, by whose standard? Whose is it to give--the employer or the employee? Who is to say from whom it is to be charity--is it not disputed?--and, may I ask you then, who is in the more financially stable position to give it?"

The employer will not give! We must be realistic. The employer wants to make as much money as possible. If you prevent low-skill workers from competing in the job market through a minimum wage law then you have done nothing to improve their lot.

"Is that so? What empirical evidence do you have to support this? Do counties/states with higher minimum-wages have higher unemployment?"

Foolish fool! Economic laws are ceteris paribus! You cannot compare different states with different economies to each other and expect the results to be authoritative. Nothing is more authoritative than the use of your own logic which shows the error in the humanitarians support of Minimum Wage laws.

Nevertheless, here is a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows a significant correlation between minimum wage laws and youth unemployment, especially blacks.[1]

If you are a humanitarian, you must support elimination of these inhuman wage laws. In addition to that, would abolish Social Security taxation robs 15.3% of their current wages from the worker. There are many other reforms that should also be made. But increasing the minimum wage certainly isn't one, abolishing it is.

1 http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com...
FREEDO

Pro

== COUNTER-ARGUMENTS ==

//Foolish fool! Economic laws are ceteris paribus! You cannot compare different states with different economies to each other and expect the results to be authoritative. Nothing is more authoritative than the use of your own logic which shows the error in the humanitarians support of Minimum Wage laws.//

I'm afraid you have missed the point of the statistics. They are shown to prove that a minimum-wage does not always, if ever, result in unemployment. It cannot be proven that minimum-wage laws have a result of unemployment and, even if it did, there's apparently a way to reverse it. The unemployment argument is not a valid argument, find something new.

//Nevertheless, here is a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows a significant correlation between minimum wage laws and youth unemployment, especially blacks.//

And here is a graph which shows that a lack of pirates is obviously causing global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not only can you not prove whether there is a real correlation (there are many things which would go up at the same angle on a graph) but you also can't prove causation. It's just as easily true that a high rate of unemployment may result in a higher minimum wage(since high unemployment often occurs in a bad economy and it may be more likely for the minimum wage to be risen during a bad economy).

== ARGUMENTS ===

1. Price to got to work:

A select few are very lucky to get a job in their neighborhood but, sadly, for majority of us this is not the case--we are forced to make the commute.

Do you have any idea how much gas costs now-a-days?

It is often in the $3/gallon range.[1]

Will most people even be able to get to work on 1 gallon of fuel? Probably not.

So how then could it be efficient or humane to pay less than the amount it takes to make it? All workers would be kept in a perpetual state of poverty, much like they are now but far more extreme.

2. The minimum wage encourages those on welfare to get a job:

What incentive would someone on welfare have to seek a job if they could only make less and with more effort? They wouldn't be making their situation any better so seeking a job would be futile to them.

3. Whatever "harm" a minimum wage does business is reversed.

Though it may seem that having a minimum-wage is to take out of the business' profits, just what do you think the employees will do with their higher pay? Eat it? Take it home and mount it on their wall? No. They go out into the market-place and spend it. Everything taken is given back, so you can't say it hurts business.

4. It helps to solve the income-gap.

The massive income gap is a huge problem all over the world. The rich are able to manipulate laws to their desires and are keen to endlessly abuse and take advantage of their over-whelming leverage on rest of society.

In America the top 1% of society own as much as the bottom 95% and own over 200 times as much as the bottom 40%. [2]

The minimum-wage helps to fight this by turning employer profit into employee profit.

Lets bring up Denmark again. They have the highest minimum wage in the world [3], so it's no surprise that they also have the highest income equality in the world [4].

== SOURCES ==
1. http://www.eia.doe.gov...
2. http://www.holtz.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Reasoning

Con

"I'm afraid you have missed the point of the statistics. They are shown to prove that a minimum-wage does not always, if ever, result in unemployment."

Your statistics have proven no such thing. You compared a number of different places with different economies. All economic laws take place ceteris paribus, that is, all other things being equal. All other things are not equal in your comparisons, however. Puerto Rico is not Massachusetts is not South Carolina. Your argument is negated.

"It cannot be proven that minimum-wage laws have a result of unemployment and, even if it did, there's apparently a way to reverse it."

It can indeed be proven. The greater the price, the less of it is purchased. This is the Law of Demand.[1] The more low-skilled labor costs, the less it will be purchased. This unemploys those that need a job the most. Your argument is negated.

"The unemployment argument is not a valid argument, find something new."

The argument is indeed valid, despite your assertions to the contrary. Your argument is negated.

"And here is a graph which shows that a lack of pirates is obviously causing global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

It shows a correlation, not causation. This is precisely why your above argument, claiming to prove that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment by comparing different places with different economies, holds no ground.

"Not only can you not prove whether there is a real correlation (there are many things which would go up at the same angle on a graph) but you also can't prove causation."

As you can see in the graph, http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com..., there is indeed a correlation between youth unempoyment and the minimum wage. This proves nothing in itself, however. We must give an explanation of why the two would be related such that the minimum wage causes the unemployment.

I have done so above. Namely, the Law of Demand which states the the higher the price, the less it will be desired. By imposing a minimum wage law you have priced teenagers out of he market. Your argument is negated.

"It's just as easily true that a high rate of unemployment may result in a higher minimum wage(since high unemployment often occurs in a bad economy and it may be more likely for the minimum wage to be risen during a bad economy)."

If all we had to go on was correlation then this might be true. This is not the case, however. The laws of economic prove that a minimum wage will increase unemployment. Furthermore, minimum wages are rarely increased during recessions because of the belief that it would further harm the economy, which is correct. Your argument is negated.

1: You further claim that workers should be compensated for gas prices. It is true that workers deserve more than they receive, this is why I support the abolition of the Social Security tax which is currently 15.3%[2]

My solution would increase the incomes of those currently on minimum wage and, due to half of that tax being nominally paid by the employer, it would increase rather than decrease employment.[3]

The Minimum Wage, however, can increase the wages of some workers but only at the expense of unemploying others. This is not justice, nor is it the class war. It is a war within the working class itself. Your argument is negated.

2: Your next point is that the minimum wage encourages those on welfare to get a job. Unfortunately, the minimum wage increases unemployment and this effect is certainly much greater than any incentive it gives to "welfare bums". Your argument is negated

3: You further contend that whatever economic harm is imposed by the minimum wage is corrected by the benefits of the minimum wage. This is absurd.

The minimum wage distorts the market and thereby causes resources to shift away from where they should be allocated to other, less efficient areas. Rather than have individuals wash dishes, which would be most efficient without a minimum wage, you buy plastic utensils, which are less efficient without the minimum wage. This difference between efficiencies is a loss.

Furthermore, you appear to be under the delusion that increasing the minimum wage will increase the amount of purchasing power the guy down-on-his luck will have. This is false, it will unemploy him and now he will be able to buy even less. Your argument is negated.

4: You claim is that the minimum age solves the income gap. It does no such thing. Unemploying those most in need of a job does jut the opposite, in fact.

One thing that would help with the income gap would be abolishing the Social Security tax, and there are many other things that should be done as well. The minimum wage is not one of them, however, because it does not help but instead harms the situation.

The minimum wage turns worker against worker. This is not what we need.

As for Denmark, correlation does not imply causation.[4]

The minimum wage causes unemployment. This is an unavoidable fact,it is called the Law of Demand. That is the last thing either of us wants, therefore we must oppose the minimum wage laws. There are things we can do to help the plight of low-skill workers. The minimum wage is not one of them. The minimum wage only exacerbates the problem.

1 http://www.investopedia.com...
2 http://money.howstuffworks.com...
3 http://www.conciseguidetoeconomics.com...
4 http://xkcd.com...
FREEDO

Pro

== LETS REVIEW THINGS, SHALL WE?==

1. Do minimum wage laws cause unemployment?

Based on theory, they should. In reality, I have demonstrated this to, at least, not be the case a large portion of the time. This is mainly because there are other policies in effect which reverse any unemployment that would be caused. So if we are to imagine that the work-place is a closed system where nothing else may intervene, then yes, it is likely that a minimum wage would raise unemployment. But there are many other variables involved that make this no longer an issue.

Furthermore, according to a paper by Fuller and Geide-Stevenson, only 45.6% of American economists in the year 2000 agree that a minimum wage increases unemployment among unskilled and young workers. [1,2]

2. Does my opponent have any other arguments besides those regarding unemployment?

No...it appears he does not. Read the debate.

3. Do I have any other arguments besides those regarding unemployment?

Absolutely. Besides my arguments against unemployment I have also argued that workers need to be payed more than the price of commute; I have argued that it encourages people to get off welfare; I have showed how any supposed harm made to business by paying higher wages is payed back by having more being bought from them; I have argued that it reduces the troublesome income gap; I have shown that there are other theories for what a "just" wage is, which my opponent unfortunately never addressed. Of all the arguments which my opponent did address he continued to yell "Unemployment, unemployment, unemployment!"

4. Theory aside, what empirical evidence does my opponent put forward for his case?

This:
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com...

This graph was presented in an effort of defending the case that the minimum wage causes unemployment. Unfortunately, such statistics do not prove causation, only correlation. So his point is moot.

My opponent then, in a strange twist, tried to accuse me of committing this same fallacy with my own statistics. However, unlike my opponent, the case my statistics were made for was not that of proving causation. Rather, I was showing that, even if the minimum wage does initially promote hiring less workers, it is not universal--that in some cases, even, the exact opposite of what one expects is seen. Thus I have committed no such fallacy, unlike my opponent.

Furthermore--GET THIS--the point made by his graph is not even entirely accurate. Why? Because it forgets to adjust for inflation. Inflation decreases the value of the dollar and thus, in effect, lowers the real worth of the minimum wage.

In this graph (light-blue) you can see that the real minimum wage has actually been going down:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
It has done this at the same time that unemployment has been going up, fancy that.

5. What if it really does result in unemployment?

My opponent was so desperate trying to prove that the minimum wage causes unemployment that he forgot to make any case for why that proves it to be unnecessary. Employment is not the only factor in an economy. Many believe that raising the wage floor is a great enough benefit to the working class to over-rule the sacrifice of higher unemployment. I'm not saying that's true but I am saying that the Instigator did not disprove or even address this, and it is he who has the burden of proof. It's not something I should have been the one to bring up.

== SOURCES ==

1. Fuller, Dan and Doris Geide-Stevenson (2003): Consensus Among Economists: Revisited, in: Journal of Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, Seite 369-387
2. http://www.reference.com...

VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Hey reasoning vote on this debate already.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
FYI, don't use facebook as a source.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Yes, I can. That example would mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If it is true that the minimum wage increases unemployment in general, then it is true that the minimum wage increases unemployment in every specific case, no matter what statistics you have. You have to respond to the argument about why the minimum wage increases unemployment in general--if you can't, then you're wrong, because the statistics you cite can easily be explained by other things.

If by "prevent/reverse unemployment caused by the minimum wage," you mean that there is a separate policy that decreases unemployment, while the minimum wage increases unemployment, then you've admitted that you're wrong. If that policy can be enacted with the minimum wage, then it can be enacted without the minimum wage, and unemployment would be even lower.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
You're missing the point. If there is ANY case with a place having both a higher minimum wage and lower unemployment than another place then you can't say it's say it's impossible to prevent/reverse unemployment caused by minimum wage.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
"You can't say it's impossible to prevent/reverse unemployment in places with higher minimum wage"
I can, and do. A minimum wage that has any effect at all (a minimum wage of 1c, for example, would do absolutely nothing), will increase unemployment.

", the facts show otherwise."
No, they don't. The selectively cited statistics you provided seem to, but the facts do not.

"There are places which have lower unemployment than countries with lower minimum wage, this is because there many factors in an economy."
That's exactly what I'm saying, and is why your statistics are completely meaningless. You cite examples of places with higher minimum wages than other places also having less unemployment. But because other variables come into play, those examples mean absolutely nothing. If a country with a high minimum wage has a lower unemployment rate than a country with a low one, then the country with the higher minimum wage would have even less unemployment without the minimum wage. If the theory is true in general, then no amount of anecdotal evidence can prove it wrong.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
You can't say it's impossible to prevent/reverse unemployment in places with higher minimum wage, the facts show otherwise. There are places which have lower unemployment than countries with lower minimum wage, this is because there many factors in an economy. Disagreeing with government policies which prevent/reverse unemployment is one thing but denying their existence makes no sense.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
That's not good enough--if an economic theory is true in general, then it is true in every specific case, unless you can explain why not, which you did not. Saying that other government interventions also distort the labor market isn't a refutation of economic theory, unless you can show why a certain intervention makes the general case of that theory not true for the specific case when X intervention exists.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I don't claim to know but certainly it would include many of the wide variety of government initiatives and laws that effect the market. Whether it's "validity" is comprised is a matter of a opinion but it can be seen by comparing it to empirical evidence that it doesn't reflect accurately in the real world, at least not in all cases.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
What other variables do you think weren't included, and how do they affect the validity of the theory?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
By closed scenario I mean it doesn't include all the variables. This is why it's not very easy to understand economics through simply theories such as these. It's not simply 1+2=3, it's 1+2+3+4+5, etc. It's not a world where only this imaginary employer and this imaginary employ exist. Does that make sense?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
ReasoningFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
ReasoningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
ReasoningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
ReasoningFREEDOTied
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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
ReasoningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
ReasoningFREEDOTied
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 
Vote Placed by DaveDiV 6 years ago
DaveDiV
ReasoningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
ReasoningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05