The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,423 times Debate No: 4399
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

First, parameters.

Universal Health care: any system of health care that the federal government pays for for all citizens

Other than that, I think we're fine. If you feel other parameters are necessary, let me know.

My case: The question that is important in this situation is: "What is the purpose of a government?" The answer to this question is that a government is supposed to protect the rights of the people. The people form governments to escape the so-called state of nature, in which they are completely free, but their rights have no protection. In a state of nature, one would have all the rights in the world, but they would have no protection. One's right to own property becomes useless when it can easily be taken away by a corrupt individual. So, governments are instituted to protect people's basic rights, limiting freedom as necessary so that the government can ensure that the people have basic rights.

With this in mind, it becomes very clear that in no way is the federal government obligated to provide universal health care. Universal health care is in no way necessary in order for us to protect rights, and funding it requires raising taxes, and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms. Because of this, I have but one contention.

Contention 1: Government health care is not necessary for the protection of rights, and therefore should not be provided.

The purpose of universal health care is to help those who cannot afford health insurance pay for health care. People obviously do have the right to live healthily, and the government must ensure that they can exercise this right, sure. But, universal health care goes far beyond this point. There is no need to give the 90% who can afford health insurance the benefits, nor is it necessary to foot the whole health bill for those who can pay for at least some of the costs. Paying for health care in the form of welfare, that is, only giving people what they need is much more appropriate, so, in short, universal health care is the wrong idea.
gahbage

Pro

I accept the parameters. I will address my opponent's argument and then provide my own.

" . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . "

Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P

" . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . "

What unnecessary restrictions?

"There is no need to give the 90% who can afford health insurance the benefits, nor is it necessary to foot the whole health bill for those who can pay for at least some of the costs."

Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live.

Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free?

"Paying for health care in the form of welfare, that is, only giving people what they need is much more appropriate, so, in short, universal health care is the wrong idea."

Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable.

===============================================================================

Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to:

1) Protect citizen rights
2) Maintain order and safety
3) Maintain economic stability
4) Provide necessary public services

With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care.

Of course, you may ask, "What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress.

I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Okay, this should be easy... just kidding... maybe...anyhow:
"' . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . '

Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P"

Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level.

"' . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . '

What unnecessary restrictions?"

Taxes, read above, genius...

"Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live.

Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free?"

Because Johnny's health insurance is probably provided for free by his business. Even if it's not, he can afford to choose his health insurance. Since Bobby works at fast food restaurants, he is kinda lacking health care, which is necessary to have if one wants to live and practice one's rights (that's why any health care should be provided). Anyways, Johnny pays the same difference if he gets universal health care, as the extra taxes he pays go to giving Bobby health care. Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care. My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs. Bobby, who can't afford any health insurance gets to buy basic health insurance. In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is "one size fits all" and it is given to people who don't need it. Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan.

"Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable."

I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff.

"Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to:

1) Protect citizen rights
2) Maintain order and safety
3) Maintain economic stability
4) Provide necessary public services"

You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights.

"With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care.

Of course, you may ask, "What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress.

I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people."

As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive. Also, the example of Jack is important. Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff. Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments! While this may not seem like a huge deal, the point is, you lose stuff with universal health care that you don't if you simply pay for what people need.
gahbage

Pro

"Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level."

OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money.

"Taxes, read above, genius..."

This is what you said:

"...and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms..."

You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius.

"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care."

Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems.

"My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs."

There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters.

"In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is "one size fits all" and it is given to people who don't need it."

According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance?

"Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan."

I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care.

"I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff."

Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused.

"You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights."

It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word "right" as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to "right" to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it.

"As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive."

Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care ("Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.").

"Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff."

So? What allows the government to say, "We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the "right to life" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it.

"Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments!"

Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the "right to life" would be their choice of health care.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Wow, you really may be retarded... just kidding! Maybe...

"OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money."

I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead.

"You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius."
Typo, smart one...

"'Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.'

Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems."

Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself.

"'My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs.'

There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters."

Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care.

"'In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is "one size fits all" and it is given to people who don't need it.'

According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance?"

Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours.

"I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care."

You were saying that it isn't fair to give Bobby free health care and make Johnny pay. That's the classic anti-welfare argument.

"'I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff.'

Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused."

It's pretty simple, I am not giving more welfare to people, I am simply paying for their health costs if they can't afford it.

"It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word 'right' as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to 'right' to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it."

Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy.

"Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care ("Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.")."

That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that?

"So? What allows the government to say, "We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the "right to life" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it."

Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet.

"Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the "right to life" would be their choice of health care."

So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me.

Why you vote CON:
1. PRO has not shown why universal health care is any better than my plan that only pays for those who cannot afford health care.
2. People end up paying more and getting less under a universal health plan.
3. Universal health care is much less efficient and cost-effective as my plan is.
gahbage

Pro

"I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead."

Same to you - I can still apply the same argument to that. What if your "limit" of taxes has been reached, and the government decides it needs some minor funding for a highway project? Then the taxes will have been raised beyond the "necessary limit". I could go on with many different examples, so you see my point; you can't say this is a consequence of just health care.

"Typo, smart one..."

I realized that obviously...

"Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself."

OK, so Johnny wants a better health plan than Bobby, so he gets it. Bobby wants it too, but he can't have it, because he's broke. How do you think Bobby feels?
According to this whole "equal rights" thing we've been talking about, Bobby deserves the same health care as Johnny. So why shouldn't he get it? Especially if he was born into a position where he can't change his situation easily.

"Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care."

I'm not saying the government should make decisions for us, you're over exaggerating it. I'm saying that we should all use one health plan, that covers common problems. Any additional problems can be given by his job, like he said. But basic needs should be given to all people. In fact, this way, since not as many things will be covered by a universal health plan (for example, uncommon things like tornadoes will not be included, but common things like surgery will be), it won't cost as much. Add in the fact that only 10% of the people will get the benefit and it will not monetarily affect the rest, and it's not that bad of a tax raise.

"Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours."

Well I do have a C or D in English...damnit! XD Oh well, back to the debate. Fine, I'll list the Pros and Cons of each plan.

Pros of Universal:
+ everyone gets it

Cons:
- tax increase

Pros of Non-universal:
+ no tax increase

His plan doesn't have more Pros, but it has less Cons. However, let's analyze it further for a minute. His main benefit is that Bobby will get his free health care, while Johnny's is supplied by his job and covers his specific needs. Now, in a universal plan, everyone gets basic needs, and nobody would get specific benefits. However, Johnny's job can give him the extra benefits he needs. So instead of the job having the burden of providing ALL health care benefits, it only needs to provide the ones specific to that job. Also, everyone starts with an equal amount of health care (equal rights). So in a universal plan, less pressure is put on specific jobs, and everyone starts with equal protection. The only "problem" is a tax increase. However, it can be worked into the budget in place of something else to even it out.

"Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy."

Exactly. That's why one of the purposes of government is to stabilize the economy. But a stable economy cannot be compared to free speech for example; free speech is a fundamental right that cannot be limited. Economic stability, however, is just necessary to establishing good living conditions. It makes life good. It's not like the government doing a bad job with the economy would be taking away a right; it'd just be a bad government.

"That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that?"

Like I suggested earlier this argument, the job can provide any extra benefits Jack needs. He already gets common protections, though. So they are not getting less. And Bobby is getting more. That's the point of it.

And for the record, your example sucks; why would you get free spa treatment with your health insurance? lol

"Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet"

No, he would get the basic health care from the government, and then his job would give him the friggin' sweet part. So what he doesn't pay out normally (the unsweet part) would go back in taxes. No gain, no loss. Sweet enough?

"So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me."

Did you notice that people who pay more for their houses, have bigger houses? Maybe that's why they pay so much. Rich people pay more, because they get more.

Vote Pro because:

1. I have shown why universal health care does not mean paying more and getting less.
2. Universal health care keeps current health care bonuses while providing more care to those who need it.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Apparently RFDs aren't important... :(
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
This is true.

25 characters limit exceeded
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I know him in real life, so I can do that sort of thing.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
I love the personal attacks from Con...
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
What's with you and not deciding if you're joking or not?
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
Yeah I think I clicked on "new debates" at the right time.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
That was fast...
25 character limit met
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by youseeovermyhead 9 years ago
youseeovermyhead
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by alpha 9 years ago
alpha
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
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