The Instigator
progressivedem22
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
frankienstien
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

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 5 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 46420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

progressivedem22

Con

Rules:

1. Pro may begin his argument in Round 1, but must post "No round as agreed upon" in Round 5.
2. Cite your sources.
3. The burden of proof is shared.

This comment is a quote almost verbatim that Pro made in our last debate. I am challenging him now so that he can defend it.
frankienstien

Pro

This debate stems from a Reaganomics debate. I'm going to treat it as a supply side economic debate, with the possibility it could be a debate about tax policies leading to the question of who is better at spending the money (which would be the government vs anyone with money they earned to spend.)

Any government can become a part of a supply side economy. Many economies are supply side and they are regulated by a government . The role of the government is usually to hold the economies back to a stable level. Government regulation adds huge costs to the consumers, and cripples an economy that has a lot of competition already.

If you give a bunch of poor people money all you will see is inflation, not real growth. That is why the US has been seeing high inflation since the war on poverty.
Debate Round No. 1
progressivedem22

Con

I would like to remind Pro that this is not a debate on supply-side economics per se, but strictly on a comment that he made in our last debate: that we should promote policies that place the vast majority of money into the hands of wealthy people, because that produces the best economic benefit. This is not a debate on inflation or regulation, per se, those I can see how those topics may make their way into our discussion.

Before I move into countering the resolution at hand, I would like to point out the factual inaccuracies in Pro's initial arguments. One, he claims that "if you give a bunch of poor people money all you will see is inflation, not real growth. That is why the US has been seeing high inflation since the war on poverty."

This comment is inaccurate. In fact, the current inflation rate is about 1.6 percent [1]. This rate is below the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent [2]. However, even now the Federal Reserve has began tapering asset purchases, reducing them by $10 billion per month [3] in light of an improving economy. Moreover, with interest rates in the zero lower bound, we are in a situation comparable to Japan [4]: it isn't possible to reduce interest rates any further and receive from that a stimulative effect, and even under current policy, it is extremely difficult to inflate because banks are not loaning, investors are holding cash, et al. We're in this situation right now [5], so may the records show that runaway inflation is not a looming threat. The fundamental distinction that I would like to highlight is that inflation is an increase in prices relative to a base year [6], not an increase in the monetary base. It is possible for the monetary base to increase, but inflation to stay low and stable, as it has [7].

The next comment from my opponent that I would like to disprove is his notion that giving poor people money will not generate real growth. First, we have not been doing this. Has Pro forgotten about 1996 welfare reform passed by Bill Clinton, which included harsh work requirements, limits on the amount of years beneficiaries could be on the program, and allowed states to initiate "family caps" that would significantly harm mothers [8]? Although poverty fell during Clinton's term, largely as a result of a growing economy and growing labor force participation rate, extreme poverty -- defined as households living on $2 per person per day -- grew [9]. Here's an illustration from this same paper:



Next, is my opponent forgetting about the attacks on social programs under Ronald Reagan's term -- including efforts to define ketchup as a vegetable in order to cut school lunch programs [10]? How about Republican efforts to cut food stamps recently? They've made several attempts to this end, at one point demanding a 5 percent cut in the farm bill legislation [11], while at the same time supporting subsidies to affluent corporate farmers? How about the sequester started which booted 57,000 children off Head Start [12]?

My point is that it is a lie that the federal government has simply been throwing money at anti-poverty programs. To the contrary, the federal government subsidies affluent farmers, the Big Five oil companies, and affluent investors, such as Mitt Romney, who was able to pay about 14% of his income in taxes on millions of dollars in income. The system is inherently rigged in such a way that it allows the truly affluent -- many of whom made it there themselves, but still some by a rigged system -- to avoid taxation, whether it be by offshore tax havens or inordinate tax breaks, and slams the poor and those struggling to make ends meet.

But let's move back to the premise of our last debate that you challenged me to. For those who don't know, the debate was on the impact of Reaganomics over the past 30 years [13]. My opponent chose the title, which meant that he accepts that the core principles of Reaganomics [14] -- lower taxes, less regulation, lower inflation, less spending on social programs, more spending on the military -- have been policy for this period of time. And to a large extent they have, as I have just shown you. Therefore, we have a case study on whether these policies of ensuring that the very rich do well, with the aim that their wealth will "trickle down" have been effective. Here are our results:

1. Productivity has nearly doubled, while wages have stagnated and, since the Great Recession, fallen. Here's a chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [15]:



2. Tax rates are near historic lows for affluent people -- thus we have in fact had policies where the rich had most of the money -- yet people are still very poorly-off [16] -- largely because of the ability to ship jobs overseas to avoid taxes, or to hide one's money in offshore bank accounts:



3. While median wages have fallen, 95% of the gains since the recovery have gone to the top 1 percent [17].

4. Beginning around the late 1970s -- and from thereon spiraling out of control after Ronald Reagan took office -- distribution of income thoroughly refutes trickle-down. Let's look at another graph from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality [18]:



What we learn from this graph is that the top 20% of income earners have done better, while the bottom 60% have not. It demonstrates that we already have the system that Pro has been advocating, and yet it has not made everyone better off.

Let me now offer my alternative. Following WWII, we had tax rates between 70 and 91% [19], including in the 1950s under Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, and yet the economy boomed--growing 37% [20], which can be attributed to investments in the Interstate Highway, science and technology, and the G.I. Bill.

The point that I'm going to introduce now, and expound on later, is that my opponent's gravest misconception is not in his world view. I have no doubt that he wants most people to prosper and views his proposed economic system as the most utilitarian. However, he is overvaluing supply and underestimating demand. Corporations and high-income individuals are not suffering from a lack of productivity, and thus due not need tax cuts. Rather, they are suffering from a lack of demand for their goods and services. We know that because studies, such as this one from the EPI that I encourage you to read [21], tell us that the issue is lack of sales, not lack of "regulatory certainty." Even business surveys (chart shown below), the Wall Street Journal, Ben Bernanke, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Bruce Bartlett agree with this view [22].

As for the business surveys, here is the chart I spoke of [23]:



Here's another one [24]:



And I have another one, this one from the National Federation of Independent Businesses [25]:



And I'm out of characters. Back to you, Pro.

1. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...
2. http://www.federalreserve.gov...
3. http://money.cnn.com...
4. http://www.princeton.edu...
5. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
6. http://www.investopedia.com...
7. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
8. http://usgovinfo.about.com...
9. http://www.npc.umich.edu...
10. http://abcnews.go.com...
11. http://www.slate.com...
12. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
13. http://www.debate.org...
14. http://www.investopedia.com...
15. http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com...
16. http://static5.businessinsider.com...
17. http://money.cnn.com...
18. http://www.stanford.edu...
19. http://www.salon.com...
20. http://www.shmoop.com...
21. http://www.epi.org...
22. http://mediamatters.org...
23. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org...
24. http://mediamatters.org...
25. http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org...
frankienstien

Pro

The war on poverty follows the same time line as the "Reaganomics" so there is no real way to know which policy was the failure. I've have been trying to find information on how tax policies helped the Russian Federation, but I have a life to live as well.

I'm not sure what your trying to defend. I can only assume you think government spending is necessary based on your arguments. I also see some equality issues. The government consumes large quantities of money in order to provide any sort of service. Business have to pay large sums of money to comply with any form of regulation. All business pass the cost on to the consumer. They have to or they would not exist.

I think anyone that thinks the role of the government is to create wealth is nuts. The government might want to increase it's revenue, but it sole purpose is to hold us back. That really is the whole point of any economic model. It was to decide who gets use of limited resources.
Debate Round No. 2
progressivedem22

Con

"The war on poverty follows the same time line as the "Reaganomics" so there is no real way to know which policy was the failure."

Actually, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" is attributed to 1964 [1], whereas Reaganomics began with the election of Ronald Reagan. As I pointed out, reductions in social programs began under Reagan and continue until today, so to say that we have fighting a perpetual war on poverty in incorrect. Moreover, it was Reagan's policies that have continued to today that have broadened the income gap. The chart I showed, for instance, shows relative percent increases in distribution of income spiraling out of control beginning roughly after Ronald Reagan took office and dropped the top marginal income tax rate.

Let's examine the core logic. We had tax rates between 70 and 91%, and yet the economy grew. Was it because of high tax rates? Not necessarily. Those tax rates, however, allowed the government to make critical investments which bolstered aggregate demand and, ultimately, made lives better for the average person, rather than merely the very affluent.

It's interesting that you have opted not to defend your comments on inflation.

"I've have been trying to find information on how tax policies helped the Russian Federation, but I have a life to live as well."

If you didn't have enough time for an extensive debate, it may have been wise not to accept it.

"I'm not sure what your trying to defend."

The resolution was clear, and I clarified it for you last round, as well. You made the statement in our last debate that you believe that, when rich people have control of the vast majority of the money, everyone is better off. This debate was created so that you could defend them. I'm arguing that this policy has already been in place in the United States, and it has not worked. Moreover, we've had policies that were much different in the past -- three decades following WWII -- and yet, we had a stronger economy and less severe income inequality. I agree with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich when he says that the very rich would do better with a smaller share of a growing economy than a larger share of a stagnant economy. If the middle class cannot purchase the goods and services provided by affluent people -- and I've demonstrated that lack of demand is the core issue right now -- especially because middle-income people are likely to spend most if not all of their income (in comparison to the rich, who are more inclined to save a larger percentage of their income), businesses cannot grow, expand, and hire.

"I can only assume you think government spending is necessary based on your arguments."

I do, because it has worked historically, whereas austerity, by and large, has not. Austerity by definition shrinks aggregate demand and begins a vicious, self-reinforcing deleveraging cycle where lack of demand begets unemployment begets lack of demand begets more unemployment.

"I also see some equality issues. The government consumes large quantities of money in order to provide any sort of service."

As I've demonstrated, tax rates are near historic lows, yet businesses are still not investing. In fact, corporations are sitting on -- literally hoarding -- $2 trillion in capital [3] that they are not investing because the economy is so poor and demand is still so weak. With zero bound interest rates, it is actually a good investment to hold cash.

The argument that I think you are tacitly alluding to is Say's Law -- the idea that supply creates its own demand -- which hinges on Say's Identity, that savings equals investment. Thus, if we take promote policies that promote savings, the theory goes, we are promoting investment. Again, there are a number of assumptions interwoven into this argument, and the fact that corporations are hoarding money amid a depressed economy is evidence to the fact that this theory cannot hold. Is there perhaps a point where taxes could be too high and thus stifle investment? Yes. But according to the EPI, the top effective marginal tax rate that will maximize revenue is 68.7% [4].

The publication also says the following [5]:

"Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth"private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity"nor on overall economic growth rates."

A Congressional Research Service study found similar results [6].

"Business have to pay large sums of money to comply with any form of regulation. All business pass the cost on to the consumer. They have to or they would not exist."

As the EPI study from my last argument demonstrated, lack of demand, not lack of "regulatory certainty," is the primary issue businesses are dealing with right now. The business surveys echo this view. You haven't provided any evidence disproving these studies, but are merely making an assertion without any backing.

As for "passing on the cost onto the consumer": Even introductory-level microeconomic models display consumers and producers sharing the cost of, say, a tax. But as I have demonstrated, lack of productive capacity is not the issue right now -- lack of demand is. Therefore, many businesses can simply absorb the cost of regulations.

Also, please point to a regulation that you believe is stifling job creation. Merely saying that regulations kill jobs is one thing. I'd like to see if you can prove this assertion.

"I think anyone that thinks the role of the government is to create wealth is nuts."

Well, I don't believe that is the role of government. I think the role of government is to act as a vehicle that ensures equality of opportunity, that levels the playing field and provides people, no matter what point they started at, the opportunity to succeed. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That means that while I support a strong safety net and universal health care and education, as many European countries have, I do not believe that the government can magically turn me into Bill Gates. I will most likely never as wealthy as Bill Gates, and I do not have a problem with that.

"The government might want to increase it's revenue, but it sole purpose is to hold us back."

We fundamentally disagree on this, but just let me say that this is quite a cynical view of government. Do you have anything to back this up?

"That really is the whole point of any economic model. It was to decide who gets use of limited resources."

It is true that the core problem examined in economics is how to allocate scarce resources within a framework of unlimited wants. But how does this connect to your view that government is holding us back? Is your case that government inefficiently allocates resources, and the market can do it better?

If that is your case, I'd like to introduce the concept of a market failure. Pollution is one. Factories can pollute and thus pose a negative externality on others. At the same time, they're exacerbating the looming threat of anthropogenic climate change. Yet. because this practice is profitable, it will continue, even if it ultimately makes our lives worse because, without a clean environment and livable Earth, it's difficult to imagine that we would be able to have this conversation. Though we're not to that point yet where the Earth is uninhabitable, some real damage has already been done. It's quite difficult -- and I would argue nearly impossible -- to address a problem of this nature by simply relying on the profit motive, self interest, and the free market.

1. http://www.ushistory.org...
2. http://robertreich.org...
3. http://www.ibtimes.com...
4. http://www.epi.org...
5. ibid
6. http://www.foreffectivegov.org...
frankienstien

Pro

I wonder why you chose a graph that starts with 1945. That is very misleading as to the history of tax rates in the US. When people can't buy things they need for many years , such as the time of WWII, A huge boom would follow in the economy would follow. I would think implementing high tax rates in such an economy would do little to harm it. If anything the high tax rate could serve to keep growth at a sustainable level.

There are to many things that fell into the 70's to know for sure just why things were getting bad. Recent shift to Fiat currency, Women's liberation, Peak oil production per capita, ect

You haven't sited the primary authorities on the issue. I have not found any to cite as well.

I found the articles on the success of the Flat Rate tax in Russia at the Hoover Institute website.

French movie star Depardieu renounced his citizenship over insane tax rates. The rich will leave countries and go to others depending on the rates. Keeping the rich in one's country is like keeping a skilled worker at your factory, and it takes incentives to keep either.
Debate Round No. 3
progressivedem22

Con

"I wonder why you chose a graph that starts with 1945. That is very misleading as to the history of tax rates in the US. When people can't buy things they need for many years , such as the time of WWII, A huge boom would follow in the economy would follow."

That simply happens to be when the plurality of studies of tax rates have been conduced. It would be deceptive to show a snapshot before WWII, in fact, since the Great Depression had been ongoing until the military buildup -- not to mention, the tax was implemented in 1914, and was still fairly new.

Here's another graph that goes back further. The implication with this one, of course, is that it covers marginal income tax rates alone, rather than effective tax rates. Effective rates are what matter. Nevertheless, we know from the data I provided earlier that rates are quite low relative to what they were historically. Even marginal rate analysis reflects this [1]:



Business Insider used several sources, also, to assess tax rates over the past century. They came to similar conclusions as the other studies, in fact. Here's a direct quote [2]:

"Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality."

Also, your argument doesn't make much sense at all. Indeed the Depression of the 30s was a time of deleveraging; but are you making the case that high tax rates warded off an inflationary spiral? First, this case undermines your argument that money ought to go to rich people in order to expand -- which, mind you, is our resolution. Second, inflation during and after WWII is part and parcel of what got us ought by chipping away at nominally denominated debt burdens, as Paul Krugman pointed out [3]. Third, are you denying that the buildup for WWII is what ended the Depression?

"There are to many things that fell into the 70's to know for sure just why things were getting bad. Recent shift to Fiat currency, Women's liberation, Peak oil production per capita, ect"

You should provide sources for these and connect them causally to the poor economy. I'm sure you know, for instance, about the 1973 oil crisis. However, income inequality didn't begin to become noticeable until the late 70s, and then spiralled out of control in the 80s. Several studies that I've provided -- Economic Policy Institute, Congressional Research Service, and Business Insider -- all say the same thing: tax cuts have virtually no impact on growth, but do increase income inequality. I have data on my side, while you have failed to provide any to substantiate your case.

You haven't sited the primary authorities on the issue. I have not found any to cite as well.

Whom do you deem the "primary authorities?" I've cited the Wall Street Journal, Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman, Bruce Bartlett, the National Bureau of Economic Research, etc. You haven't provided any sources at all. I see this comment as an attempt to initiate a false equivalency.

I found the articles on the success of the Flat Rate tax in Russia at the Hoover Institute website.

Well, were you planning to post (and cite) your findings?

French movie star Depardieu renounced his citizenship over insane tax rates. The rich will leave countries and go to others depending on the rates. Keeping the rich in one's country is like keeping a skilled worker at your factory, and it takes incentives to keep either.

First of all, Depardieu left France when its president wanted to raise the top tax marginal tax rate on over a million euros to 75% from 41% [4]. Tax rates in the U.S. are not even close to 75%, so this argument is a strawman. Also, this is not evidence, but an anecdote. It is a non sequitur to say that because one person left his country -- which, mind you, is quite different from the U.S., anyway -- that tax rates, ipso facto, will make others leave. That's an assertion, but not a fact. I've shown you that rates would need to be much, much higher for people to lose their incentive to work.

In fact, the OECD in 2009 conducted a study of U.S. tax rates relative to global rates. Here were the results [5]:



This shows that the U.S. is the 32nd-most-taxed industrialized nation. The study concluded, in essence, that effective tax rates are at historic lows. Andrea Louise Campbell concluded that "U.S. tax revenue is not only low but also consistently low, having equaled roughly the same share of the economy for 60 years" [6].

I continue my contention that you have not refuted any of my arguments -- you've ignored them, in fact -- and have not cited a single source thus far to prove your point.

1. http://www.businessinsider.com...
2. ibid
3. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
4. http://finance.yahoo.com...
5. http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
6. ibid
frankienstien

Pro

I had no idea I was suppose to wright a research paper. This is a debate, and I have never seen a debate where people cite sources.

First off you miss the point of the debate you challenged me to. " I trust the rich, before I trust the government ",said me.

The Depression was caused in part by a banking collapse, but it was the dust bowl that that made things horrible. The "Dust Bowl " was a result of government policy failure. What caused the " Great Recession?" Most would agree the government programs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the cause.

When ever the government get involved the people lose. Just ask the Soviets, or the North Korean citizens. China and Cuba and the Russian Federation are all going down the path that excludes social equality, and there economies grow .

I would consider the International Monentary Fund or IMF as the primary authority on repairing or growing economies. They do what is right, not what the people think is right.
Debate Round No. 4
progressivedem22

Con

At this point, I would like to remind Pro that he is to post "no round as agreed upon" for the final round to ensure that we both have the same amount of arguments.

"I had no idea I was suppose to wright a research paper. This is a debate, and I have never seen a debate where people cite sources."

There's a reason that one of the criteria for these debates is "most reliable sources." You cannot simply say that you found data on the Russian Federation, and expect both me and our voters to believe you. You need to back up your claims with facts, which you have not done.

"First off you miss the point of the debate you challenged me to. " I trust the rich, before I trust the government ",said me."

Actually, I did cover this point extensively. I pointed out in Round 1 that we've essentially been following the type of policies that you would advocate -- trusting the rich -- but yet, their wealths have increased whilst others have been doing progressively worse. You have not proved your point.

"The Depression was caused in part by a banking collapse, but it was the dust bowl that that made things horrible. The "Dust Bowl " was a result of government policy failure."

It's true that the Dust Bowl was a severe hardship in the 1930s, though you can hardly say that it, ipso facto, is what "made things horrible." You have not proved that. Moreover, how was it a result of policy failure? You haven't connected that point, either. Should the government have had policies in place in attempt to circumvent it -- by regulating the farming techniques that led to it (plow-based farming, largely)? Perhaps. But that is a case that is contrary to your argument because it involves trusting government. You're arguing for more government here, not less government, which significantly undercuts your case.

Actually, most would not agree that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the Great Recession. Sure, they played a role. However, the main cause of the Recession w as deregulation -- that began under Ronald Reagan and continued through Clinton and Bush Jr. -- that deregulated derivatives and repealed the Glass-Steaggal Act (enacted in the 30s to separate commercial and investment banks so that banks couldn't become too large, too overleveraged, and gamble with depositor's money). Naturally -- and this is quite similar to the Great Depression, following the laissez-faire policies of Herbert Hoover -- banks extended credit to people who had no hope of repaying their mortgaged, using complex financial tools that they could not understand, and took on far too much risk. As a result, they blew up the global economy, and relied on a taxpayer bailout -- only to pay out large bonuses to themselves after the fact. Yes, the "rich" whom you trust clamored for a bailout, then paid themselves bonuses.

"When ever the government get involved the people lose."

Then explain to me why that didn't happen in the three decades following WWII, as I pointed out earlier. You have not refuted my counterexample.

"Just ask the Soviets, or the North Korean citizens. China and Cuba and the Russian Federation are all going down the path that excludes social equality, and there economies grow ."

This is a massive reductio ad absurdum. There is absolutely no comparison between the Soviet Union and North Korea, and the United States.

You brought up China, Cuba, and Russia and of course have not backed up your arguments. I'd like to key in on Russia though, because it's an interesting case.

There have been studies done on the Russian flat tax, actually, and there is no evidence that it led to a substantial productivity gain ). The only genuine finding was that it increased tax compliance, only because tax evasion was rampant prior to it.

A main conclusion of the paper (http://www.eurekalert.org...) was this:

"The adoption of a flat rate income tax is not expected to lead to significant increases in tax revenues because the productivity response is shown to be fairly small. However, if the economy is plagued by ubiquitous tax evasion, as was the case in Russia, the flat rate income tax reform can lead to substantial revenue gains via increases in voluntary compliance."

Therefore, there is no evidence that the supply-side arguments for the flat tax hold.

"I would consider the International Monentary Fund or IMF as the primary authority on repairing or growing economies. They do what is right, not what the people think is right."

Actually, the IMF was a big proponent of austerity, until it saw the destruction it had on the eurozone periphery. They had an "oops, I guess we were wrong" moment. So, effectively, by endorsing the IMF, you're endorsing stimulus spending -- contrary to your position.

Conclusion: You have not proven that putting the vast majority of money into the hands of rich people is better for the economy. You have no cited any sources in favor of your position, and I have disproven all of your arguments and provided you with a counterexample.

Sources:
http://economistsview.typepad.com...
http://www.eurekalert.org...
http://www.theguardian.com...
frankienstien

Pro

http://www.bloomberg.com...

The effects of the austerity are questioned, as another country is out performing Greece, and some feel Greece needed tougher reforms.

Your mistaking the recent IMF statement about what should be done in certain instances, and they are placing a higher emphasis on equality now. Equality doesn't equal a stronger economy in terms of dollars. Should we consider social equality? At one time I thought so, but now I don't see it that way.

" Hansen and Libecap show that if farms had been 1,500 acres, farmers individually would have adopted the very practices that were subsequently imposed by soil conservation districts. This is important because the preponderance of small farms in the Great Plains was itself largely a legacy of federal policy- The Homestead Act, which limited claims to 160-320 acres." Daniel K. Benjamin You can read this at HTTP:// perc.org This is proof of the government policy failure that led to the Dust Bowl being as severe as it was.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
progressivedem22frankienstienTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needless to say did not take the debate seriously, additionally Pro broke the rules of the debate. A such conduct points to Con. Regarding arguments, it seems Pros arguments are based on personal beliefs and are not backed by any facts. Its difficult to take these one line argument seriously when there is evidence that shows it is false. As such argument points to Con. S&G goes to Con and source points go to Con.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 3 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
progressivedem22frankienstienTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct automatically goes to Con for Pro's round 5 argument. I saw a great argument from Con, and the charts were great resources for his argument. Pro did not rebut Con's arguments well. Pro seemed to not care as much as Con. That is why I gave Con the convincing arguments vote. Con used many sources, while Pro did not use any.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
progressivedem22frankienstienTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Rule violation in R5.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
progressivedem22frankienstienTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- pro ignored the round 1+5 rules
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
progressivedem22frankienstienTied
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: The demographic charts presented by Con did a better job in supporting his stance as it gave the clear picture in understanding his case. Most of the "arguments" of Con went without contest as Pro did not put much effort in the debate. The "arguments" made by Con were supported by reliable "sources". Thus "Arguments" and "Sources" to Con.