The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,834 times Debate No: 17140
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Resolved: The home mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated in the United States


Home mortgage interest deduction: "Allows taxpayers who own their homes to reduce their taxable income by the amount of interest paid on the loan which is secured by their principal residence (or, sometimes, a second home)"

Eliminated: To remove or get rid of

Round one will be for acceptance only.


Thanks Pro for initiating this debate. I just wish to clarify that we are talking about eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction in the US today, or at least in the near future.

I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge!

The home mortgage interest deduction is one of the oldest and largest federal tax expenditures. The president’s fiscal year 2010 budget reports that this tax deduction will cost the treasury an estimated $131 billion in 2012 (1).

Proponents of the home mortgage interest deduction believe that it creates an incentive for home ownership. However, virtually all researchers have found that the current mortgage interest deduction is not a cost-effective tool for increasing homeownership. As two Harvard economists concluded, “Since the 1960s, the homeownership rate has barely budged, staying within a fixed band between 63 and 68 percent. Moreover, the changes in the rate that have occurred seem more related to the suburbanization of the economy than to the subsidy created by the deduction” (2).

It’s not surprising that the home mortgage interest deduction has failed to raise homeownership rates. As it turns out, the deduction’s main beneficiaries are not individuals on the margin between renting and owning. This is simply because the mortgage interest deduction is only available to itemizing taxpayers, who are most likely to be individuals in the middle and upper income tax brackets. As a 2008 study found, over 85.5 percent of individuals with annual incomes between $75,000 and $125,000 itemized. However, only 23.4 percent of those making less than $40,000 itemized (3).

Furthermore, the average value of the home mortgage interest deduction increases greatly with income. Individuals with annual incomes less than $40,000 who opt to itemize receive an average of only $91 from this deduction. However, individuals making $250,000 or more receive an average of $5,459 (3). Clearly, the home mortgage interest deduction has served t
o only increase economic inequality in the United States.

This deduction is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Doing so would actually benefit several Americans. As two researchers concluded, homeownership rates for adults between the ages of 25 and 34 would be significantly higher if this deduction were not in place (4).


The home mortgage interest deduction has not raised homeownership rates, as several intended it would. In addition, this deduction has worsened the existing economic inequality in the United States.

Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would promote financial responsibility and increase federal income tax revenue. This revenue could be used to pay down the United State’s excessive debt. Ideally, the home mortgage interest deduction would be phased out over a period of ten years. This would minimize any potential impact on homeowners.




I would like to start by clarifying that the resolution states the mortgage interest deduction (MID) should be eliminated. In Pros conclusion however she states that it could be phased out over ten years. Eliminating and phasing out have two different definitions, which has an impact the argument of choosing our best course of action. Although this point is not overly significant, it should be considered.

Impact on housing prices

A point that Pro and I agree on is that the MID does not appear to have an impact on home ownership rates overall. Although common logic would likely dictate that incentivizing people to buy a home would increase the number of people that would do so, there are 2 factors that would also need to be considered: First, people don’t buy a home for a tax break. Their decisions are usually much more emotional and personal then that. Second, anything which increases the ability of a person to buy a home, would also increase the ability for another person to sell that home. In other words home values are higher because of the MID, which means that eliminating it would have a negative effect on those same values.

Pro states that according to “two researchers” eliminating the MID would increase home ownership rates for adults 25-34. Pros source (#1 page 3) verifies this but it also states that it could cause housing prices to drop by as much as 10%. So yes that would give younger people an opportunity to buy homes but would not be good for the millions of Americans who own a home and are currently “under water”, and perhaps even considering foreclosure. This problem is right at the heart of where this recession began and is still struggling to recover which is where eliminating this deduction (or even phasing it out) would directly impact.

Economic Inequality

Pro suggests that the MID is contributing to economic inequality in the US. Her first illustration of this is to show that only 23.4% of individuals making less then $40,000 a year benefit from it. This however does not tell the whole story. Let’s look at her source in detail (#3, page 11):

Age____% Who Itemize

As we can see this 23.4 average is greatly brought down by the age groups of 50+. A very simple explanation for this is because at that age it would be expected that homeowners are entering the final stages of their mortgage where they pay very little interest, so there is nothing to deduct. This point however brings up the question of where the MID is being utilized. To take a deeper look at this I put together the following chart, as quoting too many statistics can get confusing. This compares by income group, the percentage of total federal individual income taxes paid to the percentage of MID received by those same income groups:

Income_______Taxes paid(1)_____MID deduction(2)
$10k - 20k…………….0%....................2%
$20k – 30k…………….2%....................5%
$30k – 40k…………….3%....................5%
$40k – 50k…………….4%....................7%
$50k – 75k…………….10%..................17%
$75k – 100k…………..10%..................16%
$100k – 200k…………22%...................25%

As you can see by this chart, not only does the MID not contribute to wealth inequality but it actually shifts the deductions down to the middle and lower classes. In all, American households making less then $200k a year pay only 51% of all federal income taxes, yet they receive 79% of the deductions.

The reason for this balance is simple. Households above $200k yr make up only 5% of all households in America and the MID has a limit based on a principle loan balance of $1 million and $500k for singles, so contrary to Pros assertions it is nearly impossible to be abused by the rich(3).

Cuts would be aimed at those who have lost the most

We all know that the housing market was severely hit in late 2008. Anyone who owned a home saw their net worth take a major hit, and for many saw it lost entirely. Those Americans who found themselves in a housing situation they should not have been in are most likely not homeowners at this point. But those who purchased homes responsibly and are still paying their mortgages are still working everyday to keep what they have worked for. Residential real estate is the main tool that lower and middle class families have to build their wealth and because of the impact on housing prices I mentioned earlier, eliminating these deductions would essentially be aiming budget cuts at Americans who lost the most through this recession. The “shift” in lower home values would also be passing the benefit to new homebuyers instead of the people who have already worked for them.

To further illustrate the impact of home values to lower class wealth allow me to show another chart put together by the University of California(4). This chart shows Net Worth vs. Financial Wealth. Just to ensure clarity, net worth is the value of everything a person owns minus their debts. Financial wealth on the other hand is often defined by economists as “non-home wealth” which is basically net worth minus the value of a person’s home. Financial wealth is intended to show how much cash a person has access to, as a home is not easily convertible.

Percentile_________Net Worth_______Financial Wealth
Bottom 80%.................15%........................7%

As we can see here once we take the value of a person’s home out of the equation, most American families have little else left. Now, I am not suggesting that eliminating the MID will drastically change a persons net worth, I just intend to show further that home values are much more important to most American families and we should not be aiming budget cuts at people who worked for what they have, and have already lost enough.

National Debt

I certainly do not argue that the budget is out of control and needs to be balanced. I would contend however that there are better ways to do it. If we are trying to increase tax revenue I would argue that a small across the board tax increase would be better then increasing the tax burden only on homeowners for all the reasons I mentioned.


I agree with Pro that homeownership rates will have little effect. However contrary to Pros argument, eliminating the deduction would only further increase economic inequality. It would also focus the cuts right at the heart of the recession and focus on those who have already worked to build their net worth in favor of new buyers. If we want to increase tax revenue there are much better ways to do it.

(1) (2008, table 3.5, column 4)
(2) (2008, table 2.1, column 79)
Debate Round No. 2


Housing prices:

My opponent claims that housing prices could fall by as much as 10 percent if the home mortgage interest deduction were eliminated. He claims that this value is consistent with my first reference in round one. However, this assertion is misleading at best.

My reference simply stated that, “At the extreme, Capozza, Green, and Hendershott (1996) estimate an upper-bound estimate of the effect on prices at 10 percent, assuming that the housing stock is totally inelastic.” However, as my reference acknowledges, this is an extreme upper limit. In reality, housing prices are actually relatively elastic.

Generally, the demand for a good is said to be elastic when the price elasticity of demand is greater than one in absolute value. As professors Topel and Rosen concluded, the price elasticity of housing supply is around 1.0 in the short-term, and 3.0 in the long-term (1). Thus, it’s extremely unlikely that house prices would drop 10 percent if the mortgage interest deduction were eliminated.

America’s net worth:

Housing prices would decline very slightly if the mortgage interest deduction were eliminated. However, this decline in prices, and its effect on household wealth, is likely to vary among different income levels. This is simply because individuals in the upper marginal tax brackets receive the greatest benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. As the following table demonstrates, this deduction reduces the after tax income of individuals in the top income quintile more so than any other group.

Percentage increase in after tax income (2):

Lowest Quintile...................................0.0

Second Quintile..................................0.1

Middle Quintile....................................0.6

Fourth Quintile....................................1.0

Top Quintile........................................1.3

Clearly, ending the deductibility of mortgage interest would have the largest affect on wealthier individuals. These people tend to own larger homes, and therefore, the most expensive homes would experience the largest decline in value.

Nevertheless, wealthier individuals would benefit from other affects of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. For example, as the subsidy for purchased housing ends, the value of other investments will rise. Wealthier individuals tend to place more of their wealth in other investments, as my opponent points out. Thus, any potential decline in housing prices would most likely be mitigated by changes in the value of other assets.

Economic equality:

Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would lower after-tax income by 1 percent for the whole population. However, the loss as a share of after-tax income increases greatly as income grows.

As Dr. Toder and his colleagues concluded, “Higher-income taxpayers lose relatively more as a group because they are more likely to own homes and claim itemized deductions instead of the standard deduction and because deductions are worth more to taxpayers in higher marginal rate brackets” (2).

Clearly, my opponent’s claims are not correct. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would indeed reduce economic inequality in the United States. This assertion is based on several experts' conclusions.

Financial Responsibility:

As extensive economic research shows, the mortgage interest deduction has encouraged several Americans to purchase larger and more expensive houses than they otherwise would have (3). This can have disastrous consequences. In the event of an economic downturn, these individuals would have larger mortgage payments to fulfill and fewer savings to rely on.

By eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, we are promoting financial responsibility by encouraging Americans to live within their means.


The home mortgage interest deduction is entirely unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason why the average homeowner should have to subsidize loans on houses worth up to a million dollars.

I urge everyone to vote pro!





Housing Prices:

Pro states that my argument on housing prices was misleading. I disagree but this is a matter of perception. I will go more into detail in this round to refute these assertions.

Pro gives us a generalization of what a high elasticity is to a low elasticity, then compares it to the housing market. This is a false method. To explain why I will quote the following sentence from the same paragraph as her quote cited from earlier in the round to make this argument:

“The deduction will raise prices more in densely populated areas with low housing supply elasticity’s and high tax rates”

Clearly the elasticity’s being discussed here are low when being compared to other housing areas, not to general economic theory. Her source would have obviously taken the actual elasticity rates into consideration when concluding that certain areas may loose as much as 10% of their housing values. I would also like to point out the very first sentence of the paragraph this whole argument comes from:

“The MID also has the potential to affect homeownership through its impact on home prices.”

Clearly it is recognized that housing values will be impacted. The National Association of Realtors research concluded that impact to be 15% nationwide average(1), although I admit that they are not exactly unbiased. Despite all the statistics we can sit here and quote, one thing that is obvious and can not be refuted is that eliminating the MID will have a psychological impact on the buyers. An action like this will be perceived as a hit on the housing market and since housing values are the result of perception, it will naturally be impacted.

As far as how much of a change in housing values this would have, it is clearly a highly debated topic but the main point I make with this argument is that it will have an impact. Pro clearly agrees with this general statement by her first sentence in “Americas Net Worth”.

Americas Net Worth:

Pro seems to confuse two different concepts into this argument. She discusses the value of housing prices being impacted more for higher income earners, and shows an income tax bracket as her apparent source for her point. Her argument appears to be that a decline in housing values would be felt more by wealthy Americans, and therefore serve to increase equality in overall Net Worth. If I am interpreting this point correctly I will just say that weather it increases equality or not, declining in housing values for wealthy Americans will in no way benefit lower class Americans.

As for the tax increase chart, Pros chart shows that the percentages will clearly be felt more for wealthier Americans. I don’t think this point is a great way to illustrate why eliminating the MID is beneficial, but I will point out that if we are talking about an action that increases the tax burden only on homeowners then it would be helpful to consider the impact only on homeowners. Naturally, Americans in that bottom bracket are less likely to own homes. The issue with this chart is that makes it look like homeowners in the bottom income bracket will not see any difference at all in their tax burden, by factoring Americans that do not own homes into the average. I don’t refute the general concept of equality this chart shows, but I simply point out that it does have some flaws which skew the results.

Economic Equality:

In the last round I posted a chart showing that the MID currently shifts the deductions down toward the lower classes. I did this by comparing very basic statistics given by the IRS. In addition to the income tax change chart posted by Pro, she also responds with a quote showing the opinion of 2 economists. I remind Pro and the readers that this is a debate and that simply showing that experts agree with a particular point is not a valid argument, especially in the face of a rebuttal.

However in the spirit of having an intellectually honest debate I will take a moment to point out the flaw in the chart I posted. This chart showed that Americans under $200,000 yr pay 51% of all income taxes but receive 79% of all the deductions. These numbers came from an IRS table listed under “interest deductions>home mortgage interest>paid to individuals.”

I assumed that “paid to individuals” meant that they had received this money. But these statistics are in direct conflict with Pros chart so after much research, I concluded that “paid to individuals” is not money “paid”, but rather the amount they were able to deduct from their income tax returns. So since the top income earners pay 49% of all taxes but only receive 21% of the deductions, that 21% means much more to them because of the high percentage of taxes they will be excluded from paying as the result of eliminating the MID. So it is understandable that higher income earners will be impacted more then lower income earners.

Financial Responsibility:

Pro states that the MID encourages Americans to purchase larger homes then they otherwise would have. I find this to be an unreasonable argument for eliminating the MID. I also find it unreasonable to read Pros 61 page source to understand the basis of this claim so I will simply refute it with common sense. The only reason Americans would buy larger homes then they would otherwise, is because of the money they will save with the MID. If they are buying homes they can not afford, or not taking the time to properly factor the MID into their financial obligations then this is a sign of personal irresponsibility of the buyer. Eliminating the MID will not change the responsibility level of the buyers in the market.


In terms of substance Pro and I have made very similar cases. The difference is mostly in how we view the facts. Pros round 3 conclusion sums up her general position that the MID is unnecessary and costs us too much so it should be eliminated. I will sum up my position with the following three points (my statements in this conclusion do not necessarily conflict with any statements made by Pro):

The MID has been in place since 1913. It is not a giveaway by any means because everybody in this nation has had equal opportunity to take advantage of it, and its impact has helped shape our current economy. I would say that Pros points make a good argument for why we should have never enacted the MID in the first place, but taking something away that is already in place is a completely different argument. I don’t feel Pro has made an effective argument for this and my next 2 points will explain why.

The MID does not cost us anything. To say that the MID will cost us 131 billion dollars is no different then saying that the US should raise everybody’s taxes by 10%, and by not doing so it will cost the US X-billion dollars. When it comes to increasing tax revenue, the whole argument is simply a matter of where to take the taxes from.

Homeowners are people of all income levels who have taken steps and worked hard to improve their own financial future by building their net worth. In addition to that, I will also like to simply point out that studies have shown homeowners to be more likely to involve themselves in programs that benefit the community, vote, maintain their community by better maintaining their residence, and are less likely to be involved in crime. So once again, I understand the need to increase our tax revenue but we should not be doing it in a way that increases the burden only on homeowners. Eliminating the MID would do just that.

Debate Round No. 3


Housing Prices:

My opponent claims that my source would have “obviously taken the actual elasticity rates into consideration when concluding that certain areas may loose as much as 10% of their housing values.” However, this assertion is downright wrong. My source stated that housing values would drop 10 percent only if “the housing stock is totally inelastic”. However, as I demonstrated in the last round, this is not the case.

Interestingly, another study has estimated that housing prices would not change at all if the housing supply was infinitely elastic (1). However, this conclusion is just as implausible as the suggestion that housing prices would fall 10 percent. In reality, no goods are totally elastic or inelastic.

Considering these facts, housing prices would probably decline slightly if the mortgage interest deduction was eliminated. However, this slight decline would have little affect on homeowners, especially if the mortgage interest deduction was phased out over a period of ten years (1).

Economic equality:

My opponent has admitted that the chart he presented in round two was flawed. He also conceded that, if the mortgage interest deduction was eliminated, “Higher income earners will be impacted more then lower income earners”.

Americans' Net Worth:

In the previous round I argued that Americans in the upper marginal tax brackets receive most of the benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Thus, I alleged that the more expensive homes would experience the largest decline in prices if the mortgage interest deduction was eliminated. Meanwhile, houses owned by individuals in the lower and middle tax brackets would not decline in value very much. Thus, the cuts would not be "aimed at those who have lost the most", as my opponent claimed in round two.

My opponent did not refute this argument. Instead, he suggested that increasing equality in net worth would not benefit lower and middle class Americans. However, this is a logical fallacy. Experts have highlighted several social and economic benefits of economic equality (2-3).

Financial Responsibility:

As I mentioned in the previous round, the mortgage interest deduction has encouraged several Americans to buy more expensive houses than they otherwise would have. Contrary to my opponents suggestions, this can indeed have disastrous consequences.

For instance, let’s consider two individuals who are looking at purchasing a new home together. Pretend that this couple has narrowed their choices down to two homes. One of the houses costs $150,000. The other home, with slightly more square footage and a more preferable location, is valued at $200,000. Although the $150,000 home meets all of their immediate and future needs, they decide on the more expensive home. Part of their rational for this decision was the tax savings they would receive on the extra $50,000, which would make their monthly mortgage payments more affordable.

However, when one of the two loses his or her job, the couple finds themselves in a financial bind. They obviously must continue to meet all of their financial obligations, including the $200,000 mortgage. Making matters worse, they also lose some of the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction. This is due to the fact that, with only one salary and possibly some unemployment, they find themselves in a lower marginal tax bracket. Clearly, the couple would have been better off if they had chosen to purchase the less expensive house.

The home mortgage interest deduction has also encouraged Americans to make financially irresponsible decisions by providing an incentive for them to refinance or take out home equity loans. This is simply because home mortgages are the only personal loans on which interest can be deducted.

By eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, fewer Americans would refinance their homes in order to pay off debt and make large purchases. Thus, these citizens would make more financially responsible decisions and build up more equity in their homes. This could help prevent economic downturns, such as the one we currently are in the midst of.

Therefore, my opponent’s claims cannot be correct. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would indeed encourage Americans to make financially responsible decisions. This, in turn, would clearly benefit the economy.

Income and Racial Segregation:

As I’ve demonstrated previously, the home mortgage interest deduction encourages spending disproportionately among the wealthy. This fact led two Harvard economists to draw the following conclusion:

“In essence, the home mortgage interest deduction acts to increase segregation by income. By creating incentives for the rich to spend more on housing, the home mortgage interest deduction creates incentives for the rich to live in fancier neighborhoods, which invariably means that the rich will tend to segregate more” (4).

Clearly, eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would act to decrease income segregation. This, in turn, could lead to a decrease in racial segregation and social cohesion.

Concluding Remarks:

Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction will lead to significant increases in tax revenue. However, contrary to my opponent’s suggestions, this isn’t the only benefit of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. Doing so would also reduce economic inequality as well as income and racial segregation. Furthermore, if mortgage interest was no longer deductible, many Americans would likely make more financially responsible decisions.

As I’ve demonstrated throughout this debate, very little burden would be placed on homeowners, especially those in the lower and middle tax brackets. Furthermore, the long-term benefits of eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction largely outweigh the minimal short-term costs. Thus, there is practically no reason why the United States should continue to offer the mortgage interest deduction.

Please vote pro!








In the last round I refuted my opponent’s points and then offered my concluding statements as to why we should not eliminate the MID. My opponent has responded by refuting my refutations, incorporating a new point into her argument, and restating her conclusion without even addressing my main point.

As far as rebuttals, we are at a point where we are going back and fourth about mostly small details that do not make the difference in this argument, so I will offer quick and simple rebuttals and then move on to my main argument

Housing Prices

I’m not quite sure what Pro was trying to assert here other then housing prices would not fall as much as I said so. But even she states that they would decline slightly. This is supported by every study that has been shown, and is the point of this argument.

Economic Equality

Higher income earners will be impacted more then lower income earners. Agreed.

Americas Net Worth

Pro states my assertion that these cuts “would be aimed at those who lost the most” is false. The people who lost the most throughout this recession are homeowners. The MID would directly raise taxes on homeowners. There is nothing false about that.

Pro states that my conclusion of net worth equality is a logical fallacy. Greater economic equality in net worth is a good thing in my opinion. But we should focus on achieving it by increasing the net worth of lower income Americans, not by reducing the net worth of wealthy Americans. Home values are a matter of perception. You can not take home values from the wealthy and give it to the poor. That is why lower class Americans have nothing to gain from a reduced net worth of wealthy Americans. This is not a logical fallacy.

Financial Responsibility

First of all I find it odd that Pro makes her case to be about how little the MID benefits most Americans, then gives us an example of a couple that suffers financially by losing the benefits of it. Aside from that, her entire argument here misses the point I made in the previous round. Irresponsible Americans will be irresponsible regardless of weather the MID is in place. In her own example the couple found everything they needed in the $150,000 home, yet they decided to go for the bigger and more expensive home. If only part of that decision was because of the MID then the rest of that decision was clearly irresponsibility.

I also find it interesting that Pro argues that home prices will not be affected while demonstrating how the MID can play a role in a couple deciding to spend more on there housing. Obviously if the MID can effect a couples decision on how much to spend, then eliminating it will cause them to spend less which will naturally impact housing prices.

Income and Racial Segregation.

Pro makes an entirely new argument here that I fail to see the relevance of. She states that eliminating the MID would lead to “a decrease in racial segregation and social cohesion”. It would be wonderful if we could all just get along, but this has nothing to do with tax policy.


I would like to point out that Pro again stated in the last round that we could phase out the MID to minimize the consequences. I brought up twice in this debate that according to the resolution we are talking about short term elimination of the MID and Pro has not addressed it. This point should be considered by the readers.


Pro and I agree that eliminating the MID would increase tax revenue, impact higher income earners more then lower income earners, and cause a slight decline in housing prices. But I have concluded each round with the point that eliminating the MID was not the best way to achieve the desired results. Pro has not addressed this point throughout the debate.

In the last round I showed why the MID is not a give away. Pro did not refute. I showed why the MID does not cost the US anything. Pro did not refute. I then stated that if we want to increase tax revenue then we should not do it only on homeowners. Pro did not refute. To make this concept even clearer I will illustrate further:

Suppose we have two people, one is a homeowner and one is not, and each makes $40,000yr. Even if we accept Pros downward estimations, eliminating the MID would cause this homeowners taxes to increase by $91 and lose a small amount of his home value, while the non-homeowner does not pay or lose anything. Now some would make an argument that increasing taxes more on wealthier individuals is justified but how do you justify increasing taxes on some people in the same income group and not others? Why should being a homeowner cause your taxes to increase?

I have also stated that an across the aboard tax increase would get us the same results without singling out homeowners, but instead it would ask everybody to share in the burden. If economic equality is the issue, then we can raise the percentage higher on wealthy individuals. Either way it is still better then targeting one specific group of people that are found in all income levels.


To decide that the MID should be eliminated is to decide that doing so is the best course of action. Yet Pro has not shown why eliminating the MID is the best course of action and I have shown how other options would be better by giving us the same results while being more fair. So once again if we want to increase tax revenue, we should not do it in a way that only targets homeowners.

I would like to thank Pro for a good debate and wish her the best of luck in the voting rounds and in future debates.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by QT 7 years ago
Sorry for the late response =(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: A very good debate, but difficult to judge because both sides accepted premises that home ownership should be promoted by government, and redistributing wealth is a goal. I'll leave it a tie.
Vote Placed by YYW 7 years ago
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Very interesting debate, both sides proffered excellent research and analysis. Con seemed to highlight and capitalize on Pro's weaker points and more effectively substantiated the need to maintain the MID rather than eliminate or phase it out. One of the more insightful debates I have seen lately, and I enjoyed learning both sides perspective on the matter. 4:3, Con.