The Instigator
The_Master_Riddler
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MassiveDump
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

This House believes that the United States Federal Government should add probiotics to all candy.

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 2 votes the winner is...
MassiveDump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,157 times Debate No: 43426
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

The_Master_Riddler

Pro

Hello everyone. I am proposing a motion that the United States shoould add probiotics to all candy. Round One is definitions and acceptance.
This House will be the FDA.
We will all go by the standard definitions of "add", "probiotics", and "all".
Candy will be defined as any thing that is passed out at Halloween that is not a natural product, or a toy.





Arguments in this debate will appear to be more trollish than they are.

.
MassiveDump

Con

I accept.

I will be arguing against the resolution using my opponent's definition of candy, which is both-

A. Anything that is passed out at Halloween that is not a natural product,

B. A toy.

For fairness's sake, I will also argue against the resolution with a definition that comes from a third party:

A. Sex

B. Something used to get sex

C. A drug. Particularly crack.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com...)

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

The definition of candy is supposed to be something passed out at Halloween that is not a natural product (something grown from the ground), or a toy. This was not meant to be a joint definition so toys do not constitute as candy.

To counter my opponent's definition, sex is natural, thus those two definitions can not coexist.
The something used to get sex definition is kind of an awkward definition and I don't believe that Urban Dictionary should be a valid source, and not all drugs should be used in this debate because as I stated earlier, it can not be natural. Since cocaine and marijuana are natural so they should be ruled out.

.
Thus, my definition is more superior than my opponents.

Contention One: Injecting probiotics into candy would deter children from eating candy.
What is probiotics? In a more simple term, it is medicine. This is very important to know because many children don't like to injest medicine. This would in fact repel them from eating candy because there is medicine in it. This would save many parents time and money from dentist appointments that come from the candy they eat.

Now does this mean that this would lead to the collapse of the candy industry, since most of the people that buy candy are people buying it for their children? No! In fact, that will lead to my second contention.

Contention Two: Injecting probiotics into candy would promote the purchase of candy for elderly people.
Probiotics have been very healthy. This however, is very hard to prove deeming you would have to do research on tons of people and find the results of such tiny organisms. However, one thing has been proven. That probiotics aid in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, also known as explosive diarrhea. Yes. Many older people suffer from diarrhea due to the medication they take. They either deal with the diarrhea or take medication for it. However, if we inject candy with probiotics, then they would consume it more to alleviate their diarrhea.

Now what does that have to do with all of the adults who are middle aged? How would this benefit them?

Contention Three: This would lower taxes.
This would lower taxes because many of the elderly people in America are on Medicaid. They get there medicine paid for by the government. However, if we inject probiotics into candy. then taxpayers will have to pay less money because that is less money the government will have to pay in taxes.

Now what about the children who will most be affected by this?

Contention Four: Children will be healthier.
As stated by the first contention. children will either stop eating candy, which will help their dental health, or they will continue to eat the candy. If they do, they will not feel the effects of diarrhea. Having diarrhea is a bad feeling, a feeling that should not be wished on anyone.

For these reasons, the affirmative should receive a pro ballot.
http://www.cardiomyopathy.org...;
http://www.csnews.com...
http://uhs.berkeley.edu...

MassiveDump

Con

Definitions

My opponent clearly provided two definitions. His exact words were, "something passed out at Halloween that is not a natural product (something grown from the ground), or a toy." The comma in the sentence separates the two definitions he provided. My opponent advocated the addition of probiotics in non-natural Halloween goodies and toys, and is now trying to back out of it because he realized he cannot defend his own resolution.

Furthermore, he rejects my own definitions for the following reasons:

The Claim That Sex is Natural

My opponent says that my definition of candy as "sex" is incorrect because sex is supposedly "natural." He said this directly after he defined natural as "something grown from the ground."

Let me be very clear. Sex does not grow from the ground.

My opponent should find it to be self-evident that sex is not something grown, and should therefore accept my definition.

Invalid Source

My opponent went so far as to accuse my definition of being invalid because "he does not believe" that Urban Dictionary should be a valid source. Frankly, he thinks this entire debate orbits around his opinions. After all, he made up the definition he presented. Why can't I be allowed to provide a source from a third party website for a definition if he can go and invent his own?

In fact, his definitions should be thrown away entirely because they don't come from a source at all.

Thus, my opponent's definitions are actually inferior to mine.

Preventing Children From Eating Candy

My opponent actually thinks that kids will stop eating candy because probiotics are medicine and kids don't like medicine. In reality, this does not follow at all.

Not only does it not make sense because it implies that all children hate medicine, or even because it implies that all children know what the word "probiotic" means. It doesn't follow because children already eat food with probiotics in them. Yogurt is a very popular snack food among children[1], and yogurt is loaded with probiotics[2].

If my opponent wants to make the claim that kids won't eat probiotic candy because it's medicine, he has to prove that children across America aren't eating Go-Gurt because it's medicine.

Giving Candy to the Elderly

My opponent now wants to give probiotic candy a chance to help senior citizens with their explosive diarrhea. He makes the suggestion that we use this candy as medicine to cure the elderly of this ailment.

He proposes this solution, paying no mind to the fact 20 percent of Americans over the age of 65 have diabetes[3]. On top of that, in a medical study, when 143 people at an average age of 63 were given candy and told to memorize words, the results came back substatially less fruitful[4].

My opponent wants to give food that is detrimental to the health of the elderly... to the elderly. The disadvantages simply outweigh the benefits.

Lowering Taxes

Next, Pro goes on to say that infusing bacteria into candy would lower taxes. The problem is, it would do quite the opposite.

The resolution dictates that the Federal Government should add probiotics to all candy. My opponent seems to think that's not going to cost the government any money to enact. If the government is going to mandate probiotics being put in every piece of candy (and every toy, sex, item used to attain sex, and drug) from every company, they're going to have to set up an administration to fund and mandate it. This administration is going to cost millions if not billions of dollars. (An example of the complexity of funding an entire administration can be seen here[5].)

That money money has to come from somewhere. And the only place the government can get extra money is by raising taxes. My opponent's advocation will not lower taxes, but make taxes higher.

Health of Children

This contention is no different than my opponent's first contention. It's only saying that children will stop eating candy, and therefore will not experience these health defects. It can be debunked with the same response.

Government Intrusion on Business

The very principle of having a government that supports free enterprise is that the government does not make mandates in business when it's not necessary. Pro's plan intrudes on the free enterprise principle by forcing businesses to make unnecessary changes against their will. In essence, what Pro is advocating is unconstitutional, and obviously, therefore shouldn't be initiated.

Pro's Sources Do Not Support His Argument

As expected, Pro cited a few sources at the end of his argument. These sources, however, do nothing to construct what he's trying to argue. For starters, the sources are not numbered, so there's no way of knowing what he's trying to use to support what.

On top of that, two of his sources, when clicked on, show nothing but "Error 404." This means that these sources do not exist. The third source is nothing more than a .pdf that explains what probiotics are. It does nothing to advocate the use of probiotics in candy, or anything of the sort.

(A small side note, putting probiotics in toys is not beneficial, and putting probiotics in sex is impossible.)

For all these reasons and more, a Con vote is just and warranted.

Sources

[1] http://www.stonyfield.com...;
[2] http://www.webmd.com...;
[3] http://www.diabeticcareservices.com...;
[4] http://www.diabeticcareservices.com...;
[5] http://1.bp.blogspot.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his reply to this debate.

I was told that to indicate two separate definitions within a specific phrase, a semicolon (;) is to be used. If a comma is to be used, it indicates a list, which is what I was trying to indicate.

The Claim That Sex is Natural
First, I would like to recognize that the usage of natural in that context has a different meaning than natural in regards to food. A counter definition for natural will be existing in or caused by nature.

Second, I would like to ask why sex and drugs are related to this debate, especially when my opponent has not stated any significant arguments that makes sex and drugs related to his side of this debate. That alone should make his definitions invalid to this debate.

Preventing Children From Eating Candy
My opponent stated that children might still continue to eat the candy. I understand that and in fact stated in my fourth contention that if they still decide to eat the candy they will receive health benefits. He did not argue this point and thus still stands.

Lowering Taxes
The money would in fact come from the money they would spend on medicine for diarrhea.

Giving candy to the elderly
20% of the elderly have diabetes. This is not the average person, but on that note many people who have diabetes suffer from hypoglycima, 90% to be exact. This would raise their blood sugar to moderate levels.

Many types of candy in particular are beneficial to health.
Mint has digestive benefits and increases short term memory, and dark chocolate can help reduce heart risk just to name a few.
These health factors are beneficial to elderly people and should be recognized in this debate.

Government Intrusion on Business
My opponent seems to contradict himself in this entire debate so far.
First he makes arguments in the support of people's health and then says that this is unconstitutional while holding the fact that the US doesn't interfere in business for things that is not important. He makes it very important to advocate for health, has not stated anything that probiotics are not beneficial to Americans, yet states that the it is unconstitutional to make foods healthier. Making foods healthier is something that is very important and necessary, thus it is constitutional.

I will re post the link. There was an error in the copying and pasting of the link.

Pathophysiology by Mcance & Heuther, 2006
Viegas, Jennifer. "Candy Canes Fight Germs, Settle Stomachs".
Scholey, Andrew. "Chewing Gum Found to Increase Brain Power".
http://www.csnews.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.emedicinehealth.com...

I think you are a great debater and eagerly await your next response.


MassiveDump

Con

At around thee to four hours until my argument was due, the webpage crashed, requiring me to have to start my argument over. Please allow me another twenty-four hours to retype my argument. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

Oh by all means, you can have an extra 24 hours.
I know how it feels for the internet to crash on you.

:D
MassiveDump

Con

I apologize for these arguments being out of order. This is due to the webpage crashing and me still having a few contentions on my clipboard.

The Elderly


Diabetes

My opponent makes two premature statements. The first is that because the 20% of people over 65 with diabetes aren't "the average person," they should be disregarded entirely. While it's obvious why this statement is absurd, I will explain anyway.

Our government will be spending our money engineering this candy diarrhea medicine that 20% of the purchasing population can't even use. That is a waste of taxpayers' money.

The second premature claim my opponent makes is that 90% of elderly people have hypoglycemia, and this candy can get their blood sugar levels back on track.

First of all, that statistic is not true. Secondly, even if it were true, low blood sugar is an acute happening. Someone who has hypoglycemia at one moment could have high blood sugar the next if he doesn't take care of his diet. You can't expect people to be thinking about their blood sugar attacks and their digestive system at the same time.

"Healthy" Candy

My opponent then argues that some candy has minor medical benefits. For starters, he gives no research to back up these statements. How much does dark chocolate benefit the heart? How much do you have to eat? One? A Hundred? These candies are still high in calories, fat, and sugar. Anything beneficial in candy is counteracted quickly by the obvious factors.

Also, if mint is already beneficial to the digestive system, then why would we waste money putting something beneficial to the digestive system in it? It's pretty simple: we wouldn't.

Definitions

My opponent is just now, at the end of this debate, suggesting that a semicolon separates ideas in a definition. This cannot be accepted this late in the debate, and thus the original intention of the definition will be maintained. Also, this rule comes from no reputable source, but once again from my opponent's opinion. Therefore, toys should be included in my opponent's definition of "candy."

Pro then wants to change his definition of natural at the end of the debate as well. Voters should vote based on his original definition, that candy is anything given out at Halloween and not grown out of the ground. This includes sex, things used to get sex, and crack.

My opponent suggests that I have not mentioned these elements in the debate, even though I clearly pointed them out in a side note at the bottom of Round 2. This shows that my opponent is not clearly reading my argument.

My opponent cedes and therefore agrees to the fact that my definition of "candy" is from a source while his is made up, and therefore should be used.

Children

My opponent's first and fourth point about children contradict each other. First, he says that children will be healthier by not eating candy because it's medicine. Then he says that children will be healthier by eating candy that's medicine. I have proven both contentions to be false.

First, I proved that children eat yogurt, which has probiotics in it, debunking my opponent's claim that children will stop eating candy. My opponent concedes to this.

Second, I explained (and will explain further) in my contention about the elderly that the unhealthy factors in candy (fat, calories, sugar, etc.) far outweigh the benefits.

Taxes

In Round 2, I explained that funding an entire administration to mandate probiotics in candy would cause a significant increase in taxes. My opponent refures this with no more than one sentence.

"The money would come from the money they would spend on medicine for diarrhea."

This sentence is incoherent. It suggests that we'll get money... from money. It in no way refutes the fact that a national mandate of this magnitude has to be funded somehow, and raising taxes is the only significant way to do this. This mandate will raise taxes, end of story.

Government Intrusion on Business

My opponent misunderstands this argument entirely. There is no contradiction here, nor is there any comprehensible reason to see one. I'm saying plain and simple that forcing a business to put a specific ingredient in their product is unconstitutional. He tries to refute this by saying that mandating probiotics in candy is constitutional because it betters the public health, which I have already proven to be false. Either way, his refutation does not properly address my argument.

Government is constitutionally barred from telling businesses what to do unless it is an absolute necessity to ensure public safety. We are not dying due to lack of probiotics, so this is not a matter of public safety at all.

In essence, my opponent's arguments, while weak in the first place, have been fully refuted and then some. The resolution will raise taxes, yield no benefit, and is unconstitutional.

For all these reasons, only a Con vote is warranted.
Debate Round No. 4
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

I will go line by line based on what my opponent has said in his previous speech.

My opponent makes two premature statements. The first is that because the 20% of people over 65 with diabetes aren't "the average person," they should be disregarded entirely.

I never said they should be disregarded. In fact, I never even disregarded them. I simply stated that 20% of people is not the average person and that is it.

Our government will be spending our money engineering this candy diarrhea medicine that 20% of the purchasing population can't even use. That is a waste of taxpayers' money.

First, they will be able to use it because 90% of them suffer from hypoglycmia, low blood sugar levels. This is because of the medicine they take that drops their blood sugar too low on diabetes medication. They will be able to use it.

The second premature claim my opponent makes is that 90% of elderly people have hypoglycemia, and this candy can get their blood sugar levels back on track.
First of all, that statistic is not true. Secondly, even if it were true, low blood sugar is an acute happening.

This statistic is true. (Pathophysiology by Mcance & Heuther, 2006)
If acute happening means almost never happens, that is entirely untrue. 90% is a super majority.


You can't expect people to be thinking about their blood sugar attacks and their digestive system at the same time.
With this plan, they wouldn't have to because as I stated, the candy would help their problems with diarrhea, digestive issues, and would spike their blood sugar levels to the appropriate levels. (Viegas, Jennifer. "Candy Canes Fight Germs, Settle Stomachs".)

My opponent then argues that some candy has minor medical benefits. For starters, he gives no research to back up these statements.

---->(Viegas, Jennifer. "Candy Canes Fight Germs, Settle Stomachs".) (Scholey, Andrew. "Chewing Gum Found to Increase Brain Power".)

Also, if mint is already beneficial to the digestive system, then why would we waste money putting something beneficial to the digestive system in it? It's pretty simple: we wouldn't.

Well, actually constipation and diarrhea are a bowel problem not a digestive problem. http://www.webmd.com...;


My opponent's first and fourth point about children contradict each other. First, he says that children will be healthier by not eating candy because it's medicine.

These two statements are not contradicting. As noted by my opponent, there will be children who will eat the healthy candy. So in response, I stated that of children were to still eat the candy, they would not suffer from diarrhea. This is not a contradicting statement. It is a statement that proves that it would even benefint the minority and majority.

First, I proved that children eat yogurt, which has probiotics in it, debunking my opponent's claim that children will stop eating candy. My opponent concedes to this.

I will concede to this statement.

Second, I explained (and will explain further) in my contention about the elderly that the unhealthy factors in candy (fat, calories, sugar, etc.) far outweigh the benefits.

First, in the fourth and second round, you never specifically state anything aboout calories, fat, and sugar. All you say is this.

He proposes this solution, paying no mind to the fact 20 percent of Americans over the age of 65 have diabetes[3]. On top of that, in a medical study, when 143 people at an average age of 63 were given candy and told to memorize words, the results came back substatially less fruitful[4].


My opponent wants to give food that is detrimental to the health of the elderly... to the elderly. The disadvantages simply outweigh the benefits.

I have stated earlier that mints , a type of candy, in fact helps boost memory and candy is beneficial to diabetics, who mostly suffer from hypoglycima, low blood sugar.

In Round 2, I explained that funding an entire administration to mandate probiotics in candy would cause a significant increase in taxes. My opponent refures this with no more than one sentence.


"The money would come from the money they would spend on medicine for diarrhea."
That money money has to come from somewhere. And the only place the government can get extra money is by raising taxes.

We already have two agencies that deal with health: the FDA and the CDC. This plan wouldn't cost an extreme amount of money. This money would be coming from the money we would have spent on diarrhea medicine.

This sentence is incoherent. It suggests that we'll get money... from money. It in no way refutes the fact that a national mandate of this magnitude has to be funded somehow, and raising taxes is the only significant way to do this. This mandate will raise taxes, end of story.

My opponent has completely misinterpreted this statement in the essence, What I was trying to say is that we will receive the money for this plan from money we would save on buying diarrhea medicine.

I'm saying plain and simple that forcing a business to put a specific ingredient in their product is unconstitutional. He tries to refute this by saying that mandating probiotics in candy is constitutional because it betters the public health, which I have already proven to be false. Either way, his refutation does not properly address my argument.

Government is constitutionally barred from telling businesses what to do unless it is an absolute necessity to ensure public safety. We are not dying due to lack of probiotics, so this is not a matter of public safety at all.

This is entirely untrue. First example would be with fast food companies. They were forced to label their fast foods. This was not because we were "dying to a lack of information". It was because the information could be used to better one's health. The common person does know and doesn't need to be told that a hanburger is unhealthy. It is obvious (if this needs to be supported with evidence, a documentary Fat Head). His entire argument that the government has no power to enforce such rules is not true.

I urge a pro ballot.

Happy debating and I wish you luck on future debates MassiveDump.
MassiveDump

Con

I will devote this round entirely to rebuttal. This round explains why a Con vote is the only warranted option.

The Elderly


Diabetes

My opponent attempts to defend his disregard for the 20% of senior citizens with diabetes by saying that he merely said that "this wasn't the average person." If that statement doesn't imply that diabetic senior citizens should be disregarded, then this statement means nothing, and concedes to the fact that taxpayer's money will be wasted on a "medicine" that 20% of recipients won't be able to use.

He then attempts to refute the fact that it will be useless by using the statistic that 90% of users have hypoglycemia, ignoring my refutation that diabetes and hypoglycemia come hand-in-hand and is an acute condition, not chronic.

For my opponent's sake, acute means it is not a condition people are bound to for life. It's a condition that happens suddenly (i.e., a seizure). Being acute, hypoglycemia can happen to any diabetic, but isn't guaranteed to. When a diabetic is not experiencing hypoglycemia, the candy medicine is useless and will end up being a waste of money.

Here's where it gets fun:

The next statement my opponent makes is him arguing against himself. He mistakes his own argument for something I said, and furthermore disproves it. I never said that candy had minor health benefits, that was him in Round 3. In Round five, my opponent refutes his own argument, on top of the refutations I already made against it.

"Healthy" Candy

My opponent's argument about mints has strayed far off course from the resolution. He's resotred to nitpicking about what mint does for what, completely ignoring my argument that disadvantages to candy outweigh the benefits. My opponent no longer knows how to defend the resolution, and is resorting to red herrings.

Children

In Round 2, my opponent said this:

"Injecting probiotics into candy would deter children from eating candy."

Now, he quite specifically says:

"there will be children who will eat the healthy candy."

My opponent has conceded his entire first point. Furthermore, this contradiction is followed up with a verbal concession. My opponent has forfeited his first contention both implicitly, and verbatim.

Pro goes on (back to the elderly) to say that because one type of candy benefits the memory, then no type of candy is detrimental to memory. Furthermore, he provides this argument without evidence, as opposed to the argument I presetned from the Huffington Post. My opponent has no basis for either his elderly claim or children claim.

Taxes

My opponent only goes in circles to try to defend that this plan will not raise taxes, only after conceding that it will not lower taxes. After I explain that his "we will get money from money" statement is incoherent, he rephrases it:

"We will get money from the money we save on buying diarrhea medicine."

The government isn't buying diarrhea medicine. Even if they were, they wouldn't be spending near the billions of dollars on it as it would cost to mandate and fund probiotics in every piece of candy from every factory across the nation. Besides, candy can't be a total replacement for diarrhea medicine, because there's still that 20% with diabetes which my opponent chooses to believe doesn't exist. My opponent's plan is not only idealist, it's completely illogical.

Government Intrusion on Business

My opponent's claim is that because the government mandated nutrition facts on fast food, that it can mandate probiotics in candy. Here's the difference: printing nutrition facts doesn't cost billions upon billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Definitions

My opponent forfeits to my definitions, meaning that he left, sex and drugs uncontested, technically meaning that he forfieted two thirds of this debate.

Thus, a Con vote is the only warranted decision.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Graylunchbox74 3 years ago
Graylunchbox74
ha jk
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Who are you?
Posted by Graylunchbox74 3 years ago
Graylunchbox74
well this is weird... IK MassiveDump in real life... considering he stole his username from me... (although not offended) BTW Massive (Idk if i should call you by your real name) I made a new profile because i believe omar would be offended if i stuck with my last profile... so yeah you should add me or just debate me... your choice
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I think when it comes down to it, I'm asking myself a few basic questions by the end. 1) is this feasible, 2) is it beneficial, and 3) does it cause unintended harms? It's because the answers to those questions are probably not, maybe, and yes that I'm voting Con.

Pro assumes that there is a massive amount of money going towards diarrhea that will all transfer. Con points out that he's overestimating this funding, but there's also the fact that diarrheal diseases won't be solved by this, meaning most of that money is going to have to stay there. So there's a cost problem, both on the governmental and individual level (the product is likely to become more expensive, making candy difficult for the poor to obtain). That's not to mention that I still have no idea how this would be implemented. There's no discussion of the issues involved with efficacy of probiotics in candy, but that's important here as well.

The benefits remain muddled to me. Why do these benefits only exist in a world where candy contains probiotics? Why aren't they happening now? I see some possibility that kids might have more and that some seniors might keep them around for emergencies, but that's relatively small and not meaningful. Why can't those seniors just carry around candy and probiotics now? I don't see that being argued, but again, it's Pro's burden to show this.

Lastly, unintentional harms. I've already addressed some of these, but I think Con's rights argument, though thin, manage to get at the issue of how this affects government relation to business. If a government can modify this product for improved health, then why stop there? Fast food, alcohol, tobacco, sodas, energy drinks, all of them could experience similar interventions. It's a precedent, and while it's possible to defend this outcome, it has to be addressed.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
If I don't manage to finish this argument in time (school back in and all), could we accept a tie?
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Well, that could be part of your policy direction. You could argue from the perspective of a candy company making this gesture, which I think is easier since it's probably a lot easier to recruit a probiotics company to an idea like that. It can be done starting from a probiotic company, but convincing a candy company to get involved wouldn't be simple.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
Thanks, I never thought of defining it as an actual company that creates probiotics. But then it would have to be an actual company connected to all candy manufacturers.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
...Alright then.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Oh, nevermind. Resolution says "USFG". Go about your business.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
But can you please not add that in the middle of this debate? My argument is already half-finished.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
The_Master_RiddlerMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro contradicted himself and Con refuted Pro's arguments better.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
The_Master_RiddlerMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.