The Instigator
Metz
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Views as expressed in the profile....

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,002 times Debate No: 6801
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

Metz

Pro

Let me Clarify the terms of the debate....

Anything in the BIG issues section of the profile is fair game.
However, anything listed as undecided or No opinion, etc cannot be debated.
However, while you may argue a position you do not agree with, i request that you allow me to argue and defend the position I give in my profile.
I will be taking Pro but that does not mean I am automatically required to take the PRO side of an issue, I will take whichever side I support in my Profile.

In this Debate my opponent will choose the topic then present his/her arguments in the first round.
Puck

Con

Topic: Socialised Healthcare.

Since you ticked all the right 'yay I'm a socialist' boxes, away we go.

The government has no place to force individuals, businesses and hospitals to carry the unfair burden of providing health insurance of those who are without. There is no right to obtain health care, or any value, at others expense. Any Attempt to secure an equivocated "right" to health care must by necessity violate someone's actual rights - those forced to pay for it. Socialised health care violates the rights of patients, businessmen and doctors to act on their own accord. In reality this produces an effect where their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services is stifled.

The errors that exist in social health care are bound to the altruistic principle that health care should be mandated according to patient need, regardless of ability to pay, regardless of risk to insurers, regardless of the expertise of the doctors and hospital staff. It is a stance that wishes to avoid reality.

It is not practical and even worse it does not work.

Socialised care is inimical to its goals. The UK and Canada are prime examples of such - the UK has a lower cancer survival rate than many other European nations. Why? Because the time for diagnosis is longer under national health care. Canada has an even worse Health Care system than the US. Despite advocating "free health care" - the reality is much more damning. Around 1/30 are on a waiting list for such limited medical care that is provided and such waiting lists are measured in months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.cbsnews.com...

The needs of one individual are not a moral claim on the production of another. Those who can not afford to pay for their own health care should rely on private charity - not on government compulsion of income earners, not on the theft of those deemed productive enough. It is government regulation that enforces insurers to insure no matter the risk, for all possible health services that raises the cost of insurance, not "greedy" companies. It is simply by necessity from the forceful action of the government that says - you will do our bidding in this - you will be a company but run as we demand - and this is fascism. We don't expect house insurers to insure the cost of planting a garden. The government has no business in demanding the equivalent of health insurers.

Rhetoric that such force is necessary to ensure affordable medical care is a farce. It is the government's extended interference in the market that has created the huge medical care costs. Any one individual truly apprehensive about the uninsured is more than welcome to aid them in paying for their insurance. Likewise anyone truly concerned with creating affordable health care should support not for more government regulation, but for an end to the government's interference in the field of medicine. Doctors are not slaves of the state. They earned the ability, the skills necessary to perform medical procedures. They should be free to practice to whom they wish, when they wish. Perform what procedures they wish to per their employment. Find employment in whatever sector they wish.

Instead of socialised health care, the only proper alternative is free market reforms that reduce costs and reward individual responsibility - and most importantly value individual rights. Early such reforms include eliminating obligatory insurance benefits, repeal laws that forbid the purchase of health insurance interstate, allowing individuals to use savings accounts solely for routine health services and expenses and to purchase low cost, catastrophic insurance for major expenses.
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Pro

I thank you to my opponent for picking this interesting topic... It is one I enjoy to discuss
I will go over what my opponent said and make any new arguments....

Yes, while a socialized Healthcare system may cost others money it ensures insurance for everyone, not Just those who can pay. Having health insurance reduces the mortality rates by 10-15%. There are currently around 45.7 million people without Healthcare. If you factor in the reduced Mortality rates you will find that it will cause a massive difference in the U.S. But really what are the negatives? people need to pay a little bit more, but remember these people will also be covered by the government and so will not have to pay for Health Insurance. So it is essentially a Win-Win scenario. Now My opponent is of the belief that this healthcare violates rights of the people paying, Buisnessmen and doctors. Now I do not see how, yes people pay a little extra, but people have to pay taxes, this does not violate rights, how does socialized Healthcare?

Now the fact is that under current U.S law, a hospital still has to treat you even if you can't pay or don't have insurance. So under a nationalized Healthcare system these people would be insured which would, in the long run, save hospitals money. how does wanting everyone to have the right to medical treatment deny reality? The thing is that under such a program what would be the risk to insurers? how would it even remotely change to expertise of the hospital staff? What it WOULD do is it would provide health coverage for people who otherwise would not have it.

My opponent has given these apparent Horror stories about nationalized healthcare, which are but two examples. In France and the Netherlands the Infant Mortality rate is lower than in the U.S and the Life expectancy Higher.(OECD)(World Health Organization) Also how is the U.S system be any better? The difference in Cancer rates? this is just because the U.S is a leader in Medical technology. The simpel fact is that waiting a month for a doctors visit is better than not getting one at all. The Emergency rooms would still function as normal and the health coverage of those already insured would not change, but it would make sure everyone HAS this coverage.

Now my opponent makes a grand statement saying that "Those who can not afford to pay for their own health care should rely on private charity " So we should back off and allow people to give money for healthcare? where has this gotten us? 45.7 million uninsured people? No, we need the government. Then we goes on to talk about the fact we would be stealing from those "deemed productive enough" so now we should decide who gets health, and in the long run, who gets to live based upon how productive they are? So essentially we would be telling these people, many of whom are below the poverty line, that they need to be able to work harder, get more skills or else they can't get medicine? That is a VERY bad way to run society. It infact embodies that almost anarchic idea of "survival of the fittest"

Now my opponent makes Nationalized healthcare out to be communism. now as I am sure you all now there is a large difference between the two. We would not force doctors to work in a specific sector, but merely provide everyone with the health they need. Doctors would be paid for their work and patients shall be treated.

Lets look again at why Nationalized Healthcare is a good and moral idea. 15.3% of the population is uninsured, or around 45.7 million. On top of this 15 million adults are underinsured. If we ensure them it will reduce mortality rates as well as ensure that everyone has the ability to be treated when in need and are not denied the basic right to life, merely by their economic standing
Puck

Con

"Yes, while a socialized Healthcare system may cost others money it ensures insurance for everyone, not Just those who can pay."

You fail to discriminate between health insurance and medical care. One does not by necessity give rise to the other. I may have my car insured, but it does me little good when 2000 others are forced to use the same mechanic as I at the same time. One who provides only limited outdated services mandated by the government.

"Having health insurance reduces the mortality rates by 10-15%. There are currently around 45.7 million people without Healthcare."

Insurance cannot. It can only make a solution possible, and under the system I proposed such solutions are cheaper and become more readily available.

"But really what are the negatives? people need to pay a little bit more, but remember these people will also be covered by the government and so will not have to pay for Health Insurance. So it is essentially a Win-Win scenario."

Contradiction. Those who pay for those who do not by necessity pay the costs for services they will never need. Those who can afford to pay their own insurance do not need to pay for others. Their only concern need be for themselves and whom they choose to support with their own funds. Those who cannot pay have no right to claim on those who can.

"Now My opponent is of the belief that this healthcare violates rights of the people paying, Buisnessmen and doctors. Now I do not see how, yes people pay a little extra, but people have to pay taxes, this does not violate rights, how does socialized Healthcare?"

Mandated force by the government on action of medical staff violates liberty. Specifically the freedom to act as one wishes in full accord with the respect of others rights - the engagement in free trade between patients and doctors. Secondly taxes - the use of force of government to pay for healthcare is a violation of property rights - those who are deemed productive enough by the government to pay for services of others that had no hand in earning.

"Now the fact is that under current U.S law, a hospital still has to treat you even if you can't pay or don't have insurance. So under a nationalized Healthcare system these people would be insured which would, in the long run, save hospitals money."

Which is essentially slavery; doctors become a tool of patient whim at state enforcement with no recourse to their own judgement and action. This in turn creates a system where doctors are literally swamped by patients - legitimate or not, whom by law under threat of prosecution, must spend time, resources and equipment seeing, whether necessary or not. It is a system that drowns the available work force under a load of endless non necessity. Health care quality decreases, waiting lists increase for basic and specialised care and just as importantly diagnosis. The number of professionals wishing to work under such a system decreases, as does the pay of those individuals (state run so state budgeted) putting greater load on those remaining. Fewer still, enter the field of patient care, until the system collapses.

"how does wanting everyone to have the right to medical treatment deny reality?"

Insisting the system can be maintained whilst providing 'universal' health care is. :)

"The thing is that under such a program what would be the risk to insurers?"

Because the law demands that most/all medical costs are covered by insurance companies, no matter the risk. People are paying for all services so they use that available option, costing the insurers money for basic procedures and visits, wasting time and resources of those medical professionals involved. It creates a loop that defeats both industries involved.

"What it WOULD do is it would provide health coverage for people who otherwise would not have it."

Again health insurance is not equitable to health service. And it is the very acts of government itself that raise insurance costs to unfeasible levels.

"My opponent has given these apparent Horror stories about nationalized healthcare, which are but two examples. In France and the Netherlands the Infant Mortality rate is lower than in the U.S and the Life expectancy Higher."

Life expectancy in the US is related heavily with obesity and resultant lifestyle. It is not a valid conclusion.

"The difference in Cancer rates? this is just because the U.S is a leader in Medical technology."

Read the article. The issue was waiting length for diagnosis and treatment. Both of which increase the heavier a systems care is socialised. State run, state expenditure, so profit margins are a basis for reducing pay, care, staff and available services.

"The simpel fact is that waiting a month for a doctors visit is better than not getting one at all."

False dilemma. It's precisely government action that reduces the availability of care. Length of time for diagnosis, when we are talking months as is the case, can often be the difference between fatal and non (either in diagnosis or treatment). Remember not only is the type of care reduced and partitioned, so too is the level technologically speaking (new procedures/drugs cost money, that's a big no-no in state run care).

"The Emergency rooms would still function as normal and the health coverage of those already insured would not change, but it would make sure everyone HAS this coverage."

Actually that would be bad as "function as normal" in the sense of what is happening is that emergency rooms are currently swamped due to laws prohibiting the turning away of anyone exhibiting in one.

"where has this gotten us? 45.7 million uninsured people? No, we need the government"

It is *precisely* the government that has gotten us to that point. If you wish to read a somewhat lengthy history on the matter feel free to read this article.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...

"so now we should decide who gets health, and in the long run, who gets to live based upon how productive they are?"

There is no 'we decide' in this regards. Those who are capable are; those who are not, have the resources of private charities. Individuals can choose how to live as they see fit.

"So essentially we would be telling these people, many of whom are below the poverty line, that they need to be able to work harder, get more skills or else they can't get medicine? That is a VERY bad way to run society. It infact embodies that almost anarchic idea of "survival of the fittest""

You are forgetting the premise includes the removal of *all* government interference. That includes taxes, freeing those funds up for health funds and catastrophic insurance. A society that produces wealth raises the levels of those in it, including the lowest income levels. Insurance becomes affordable because it represents what insurance should. Medical care decreases because competition is allowed to develop, and hospitals are free to negotiate with patients per case as they see fit.

"Now my opponent makes Nationalized healthcare out to be communism."

You slightly misunderstood. Nationalisation stifles advancement of new technologies, drugs and research hence limiting application in those fields.

"If we ensure them it will reduce mortality rates as well as ensure that everyone has the ability to be treated"

Again, insurance and receive of care is discrete; see the Canadian system.

"when in need and are not denied the basic right to life, merely by their economic standing"

No one is violating their right to life; individuals are free to act as they wish in accordance with others rights. Rights are a negative claim on action in social settings - right to life details one is wholly responsible for one's own. One cannot make a claim on others to be. There is no right to violate the rights of others.
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Pro

"You fail to discriminate between health insurance and medical care."

I agree they are different but both are part of a nationalized healthcare system.
The fact is that if we were to give people healthcare the lines would not become ridiculous, France for example does not have absurd waiting times for a hospital.

"insurance cannot. It can only make a solution possible"

and without insurance? Your proposed system really doesn't change much except takes the government completely out of it. When the Health markets compete we will always lose, it is sort of a double bind... Either the quality goes up and the price goes up or the quality goes down and the price goes down. With a Nationalized system the government can afford to have high quality and low price.

"Those who can afford to pay their own insurance do not need to pay for others."

so a person has no responsibility to society? you never know when you may need help paying, what if something goes wrong and you need an expensive operation? Nationalized Healthcare for those that can afford normal healthcare is then a Bulwark against future issues.

"the engagement in free trade between patients and doctors."

is this a right? if so I am not familiar with it... The Doctors get paid, the patients get treated... how is this an abuse of rights?

"the use of force of government to pay for healthcare is a violation of property rights - those who are deemed productive enough by the government to pay for services of others that had no hand in earning."

They are taxes, you have to pay for public education even if you don't have a child in public education. Does this abuse property rights? It is the same thoery, the person is covered by the government and his tax money goes into the health program. where is the Rights violation?

So essentially only those who are fortunate enough to have a good job, or a job at all in an economic situation such as one we have now, are entitled to healthcare? so If I am unlucky I don't get a doctor?

"Which is essentially slavery; doctors become a tool of patient whim at state enforcement with no recourse to their own judgement and action."

I was describing what we have now, and how Nationalized healthcare would solve that problem. under your plan we just turn people away if they don't have the money and leave them to die....

"Insisting the system can be maintained whilst providing 'universal' health care is. :)"
and the current Nationalized Healthcare systems??

"Because the law demands that most/all medical costs are covered by insurance companies, no matter the risk." The Government is paying, so where is the risk? It gives the Insurance companies customers and the doctors patients, how does this defeat both industries?

"And it is the very acts of government itself that raise insurance costs to unfeasible levels."
may I ask how so?

"The issue was waiting length for diagnosis and treatment. Both of which increase the heavier a systems care is socialised."

The U.S is a different country and those are two of the many examples of Nationalized systems. We have better medical technology. Also that is just how the study made it out to be, the actual reasons are impossible to tell for sure.

"False dilemma. It's precisely government action that reduces the availability of care. Length of time for diagnosis, when we are talking months as is the case, can often be the difference between fatal and non (either in diagnosis or treatment). Remember not only is the type of care reduced and partitioned, so too is the level technologically speaking (new procedures/drugs cost money, that's a big no-no in state run care)."

If there is such a problem open more hospitals, France, Switzerland, denmark, etc havn't collapsed, they don't have massive death rates....
In what way would nationalized Healthcare decrease R&D. I would think it would increase it as the government will have the excess money to invest in it with...

"It is *precisely* the government that has gotten us to that point"

Um actually the reason so many people are un-insured and don't have access to medical care is they simply can't afford it.

"removal of *all* government interference. That includes taxes, freeing those funds up for health funds and catastrophic insurance. A society that produces wealth raises the levels of those in it, including the lowest income levels"

Taxes=Government revenue
No Taxes=No revenue
Puck

Con

"I agree they are different but both are part of a nationalized healthcare system.
The fact is that if we were to give people healthcare the lines would not become ridiculous, France for example does not have absurd waiting times for a hospital."

Actually they've over spent on what funds they make available, i.e. the honeymoon period is over and the government is now having to increase taxes due to massive health care inflation. To maintain a semblance of socialised health care they are moving towards a more US style system. That is they are reducing the care available to hold off a system collapse.

http://www.businessweek.com...

"and without insurance? Your proposed system really doesn't change much except takes the government completely out of it."

As is proper. Insurance has a role in catastrophic rare unforseen events much like home insurance. Without government intervention the price of medical care decreases rapidly. Doctors/hospitals are free to accept as they deem, not demanded, enabling them to charge less for services. Patients are able to pay out of hand for services which is currently not allowed, and allows the free trade between customer and service provider to the maximum benefit of both.

"When the Health markets compete we will always lose, it is sort of a double bind... Either the quality goes up and the price goes up or the quality goes down and the price goes down. With a Nationalized system the government can afford to have high quality and low price."

Under nationalised health neither. The costs are higher - there is no competing drive to reduce costs of the procedures (artificially set to a budget) whereas in the free market there is (that is hospitals compete for the services of patients). Low price is laughable as nationalised healthcare is mandated through non voluntary insurance, forcing the cost of that to increase because all procedures must be subsumed through it. The level of care definitely decreases - state budgeted so the fewer costs the better. That includes lower wages, a mandate against new technology, new procedures, new drugs, better trained staff.

"so a person has no responsibility to society? you never know when you may need help paying, what if something goes wrong and you need an expensive operation? Nationalized Healthcare for those that can afford normal healthcare is then a Bulwark against future issues."

A society is nothing but individual constituents. There is no moral claim to help another simply because they demand it. If any one individual wishes to help another, great. If under my system those individuals who do not want to save for medical care (specific funds solely for that purpose) they must face the reality of that choice, the responsibility and reality of their actions. They must rely on what private charities there are, and that will include some hospitals no doubt.

"is this a right? if so I am not familiar with it... The Doctors get paid, the patients get treated... how is this an abuse of rights?"

It's against liberty. The law states that doctors cannot recieve payment directly from patients. Doctors are forced to see whatever patients present. Doctors are forced to enact procedures by law they would not by judgement.

"the use of force of government to pay for healthcare is a violation of property rights - those who are deemed productive enough by the government to pay for services of others that had no hand in earning."

"They are taxes, you have to pay for public education even if you don't have a child in public education. Does this abuse property rights? It is the same thoery, the person is covered by the government and his tax money goes into the health program. where is the Rights violation?"

The same principle applies. The use of force by the government to take ones property (money). Education should additionally be privatised, there is no need for it to be state run.

"So essentially only those who are fortunate enough to have a good job, or a job at all in an economic situation such as one we have now, are entitled to healthcare? so If I am unlucky I don't get a doctor?"

Fortunate? Skill acquirement is not something one just wakes up with. People earn the right to higher paid jobs through their time applied to learning relevant skills needed in a given market sector. Again, my system has no taxes, use that money for your health fund, buy cheap insurance for the rare unforseen.

"I was describing what we have now, and how Nationalized healthcare would solve that problem. under your plan we just turn people away if they don't have the money and leave them to die...."

Yes you described slavery, that it happens now doesn't change that fact. You are additionally ignoring the fact that charities will arise in greater number, this will include hospitals, or doctors will feasibly donate time to certain 'low cost' hospitals much like lawyers do. People like to help others - it's just not something that the law has any place enforcing.

"and the current Nationalized Healthcare systems??"

By its very nature cannot be self sustaining.

"The Government is paying, so where is the risk? It gives the Insurance companies customers and the doctors patients, how does this defeat both industries?"

Um no. Tax payers pay, not the government - the government is just the tax collector and accountant for the system. Insurance companies don't need claims on every possible medical procedure possible, it goes against the nature of what insurance is for. It forces them to make claims on funds for every time someone thinks they have any minor need to see a doctor. Which means the state must tax more, find more ways to cut spending. Additionally you are ignoring throughout that insurance does not equate to health care itself. It does little good when the services themsleves are limited and of poor quality.

See Massachusets for how much failure it can derive.

http://www.boston.com...

"may I ask how so?"

Insurers cannot turn away high risk customers. Premiums must rise to cover that risk. Insurers must insure for all medical services. Premiums must rise to cover the large amount of claims that will be made. People will be covered for everything so they use that option.

"The U.S is a different country and those are two of the many examples of Nationalized systems."

Same principle, same problems and you have utterly failed to show otherwise.

"We have better medical technology."

To a degree. That matters little when the government mandates its restriction and further development.

"Also that is just how the study made it out to be, the actual reasons are impossible to tell for sure."

It's quite simple. X diseases need to be diagnosed before Y treatments are less useful. Y treatments are less useful the longer X diseases progresses before treatment starts.

"If there is such a problem open more hospitals, France, Switzerland, denmark, etc havn't collapsed, they don't have massive death rates...."

They also tax much much higher and have a generally healthier lifestyle all around. :)

"In what way would nationalized Healthcare decrease R&D..."

Excess? Hardly. New tech, medicine, procedures and training all cost money it does not have spare to spend.

"Um actually the reason so many people are un-insured and don't have access to medical care is they simply can't afford it."

As detailed, insurance is not for every medical procedure, health funds are an individual responsibility. Governments massively inflate both insurance coverage and the resultant costs.

"Taxes=Government revenue
No Taxes=No revenue"

There are alternatives; state lottery, citizenship registration amongst other things. The proper role of government is a very reduced one. :)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
.. haha vote trackin
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Of the 45 million uninsured, 15 million are illegal aliens. Most of those are entitled to care in their home countries. Another substantial fraction are those qualified for Medicaid, but haven't applied because they don't need care. Still others can afford health insurance but elect not to buy it. So why do we need to put everyone under government control to cover an additional 4 or 5% of the population?

Con's arguments concerning the right to take from A to give to B were not addressed.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
"Since you ticked all the right 'yay I'm a socialist' boxes, away we go." This made me laugh...

Alright this should be an interesting topic...
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Thanks, Maya9. When time allows. :)
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
It's nice to see Puck back debating.
Posted by SquareOne 8 years ago
SquareOne
I could argue the late term abortion with you, but I know there cannot be a clear answer.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ThebigB 7 years ago
ThebigB
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
MetzPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05