The Instigator
stschiffman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
42lifeuniverseverything
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Would a $15 an hour minimum wage hurt our economy?

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 902 times Debate No: 90444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)

 

stschiffman

Pro

I will be arguing that yes, a nationwide $15 an hour minimum wage would damage our economy as a whole, and Con will argue the opposite, that it would help.
First round is for acceptance only.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

I accept. I have studied both Micro and Macro economics on the college 101 level in AP Courses so I do know economics. I am interested to see which way you take this.
Debate Round No. 1
stschiffman

Pro

I think this meme will make my opening point for me.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...

It's a fact of life that is becoming even more apparent as computers get better; the higher the minimum wage gets, the more major corporations will turn to machines. Every self checkout machine at the grocery store helps prove my point.

And automation isn't the only way business skirt around high minimum wages. For example, instead of opening a factory in America, they could open a factory in China, or other countries where minimum wage does not exist. Or, they could simply lay off unnecessary workers, thus creating higher unemployment all across the board.

Believe me when I say that minimum wage kills jobs. Listen to this story and then tell me you still support the fight for 15. About ten years ago, my dad, who is a chiropractor, left the clinic run by his a-hole boss and started his own clinic. Because he wanted extra help, he hired a secretary to handle some of the day to day stuff. But as any doctor will tell you, starting your own clinic is hard for the first few months, and for a while he wasn't making much money, so he had to fire the secretary, his only employee, just to stay in business, and wasn't able to hire a replacement for months. Now, imagine if the minimum wage wasn't so high, imagine if it was only five or six dollars. My dad would've kept his only employee, she would have kept her job, and his patients would have been treated to better service. But instead, he lost his one and only employee, she had no job, and the few patients he had didn't have very good service at all. You may think this is a rarity, but it's not, thanks to minimum wage, it happens all the time.

As I've said, minimum wage does not help the economy, it just leads to more unemployment, more sweat shops overseas, and more robots. So, unless you just so happen to be a robot manufacturer, you should not support a higher minimum wage.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

42lifeuniverseverything forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
stschiffman

Pro

Also, the entitlement aspect comes into play. Is someone really entitled to $15 an hour for doing what a robot can do? That puts a huge strain on employers. Is it worth it? And no, I am not just trying to hate the poor, I am just trying to be realistic.
By the way, you're not the only one who has taken economics classes. I've never taken any college level classes, as I'm not in college yet, but I've taken numerous economics and business classes at the high school level.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

Hey sorry that I forfeited round 1, the 48 hour time to post arguments caught me by surprise. So this will be a loooong response to your points. Hope your cool with that.

Lets talk about definitions first. Specifically, define the state our economy is in now. This state is vitally important to understanding whether we need a minimum wage increase, or not. So what is the economic state? A couple points.

1. The economy has been run by foreign labor for decades. You act like this phenomenon could be stopped by simply removing the minimum wage. Really that is not why foreign labor is prevalent. Regulations other than the minimum wage, make corporations want to take labor overseas, and production overseas. Not the wages themselves. They play a part, but not a major one. The economy was beginning to be dominated by foreign labor in the 1960s, and the minimum wage was NOT AROUND NATIONALLY in the 1960s. So your argument there doesn't hold with the current economic state.

2. The economy has been going through a serious bout of inflation as of late. Why is this important? Because inflation means the need for higher wages in order to keep jobs at the same value. If the US economy inflates, but wages don't increase with the rising prices, then businesses are either a) ripping their employees off for more money or b) being forced to keep wages the same due to other factors. I have a feeling that since very few businesses actually wish to make more money off their employees rather than pay them decent wages, that b is the correct answer in this context. So what is pushing businesses to not pay fair wages?

3. Small business regulations are the real reason that a $15 minimum wage is needed. This point is a little trickier to follow so bear with me. If small businesses are regulated to killing extents (which they are right now) then they cannot make enough money due to regulations to stay in business. This is why we have had to create a national holiday for supporting small businesses. They are failing, all over the nation. Why is that important? Because the alternative to the small business, is the large corporation. Our economy is slowly becoming an economic oligarchy of the corporations, and prices are going to soar higher than ever with increasing unemployment and homelessness unless we raise the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage will give the workers that still work the money to buy the goods they need, with today's prices. The small business dream is going away, so if that is the direction the economy wishes to go, take it with the fewest hurt lives as possible by raising wages.


Now a couple of responses.

1. You might say in response to def 3 that if we raise the minimum wage, corporations will just increase their prices right? Wrong, that reflects a basic misunderstanding of supply-demand principles. If corporations raise their prices too high to make the same large economic profit off of their workers and customers, then too few people with by the too expensive products. If the minimum wage at McDonalds increased to $15, then your hamburgers began costing $10, would you buy them? Of course not, not even if you make $15 would you buy them, becuase that is an outrageous 100% increase from McDonald's prices now (dollar menu prices). So my point is seen through the example.

2. Technology taking over the workforce is inevitable anyway. If you want to hire machines, no one is saying you can't. Because there are few regulations in this area, workplaces are using machines. Big deal. If all manual labor is dealt with by machines in this country, that could free us up to pursue academic like pursuits, or skilled labor jobs machines cannot do (like Chiropractor). So the economy would just evolve, labor would not die. It may take time to get to the point where more people are doing more literary and knowledge related jobs, but that point is coming at the current tech rate. Raising the minimum wage helps all of us in the meantime before we reach that point.

3. Jobs are harder to find. Sure, maybe they are. I could concede that. But if you can't find work here and don't like the fact that you can't work here, you can move elsewhere.... just saying. So I don't see the big deal. If you can't move, and can't find a job, either get an ssn, or better yet, look to improve yourself so people will want to hire you. If you aren't willing to put in the work to make yourself valuable, and you aren't willing to maybe be a businesses in and of yourself, then don't come to me saying that the minimum wage hurt you. Morel likely laziness did. Now that sounds a little calloused, but I personally am tired of people complaining about jobs they can't get because of minimum wage layovers. If you want the job, prove it to that employer. Be the best employee. That is how the real world works.

4. Don't use memes to prove points.

5. As for your example. I can understand the struggle your dad maybe went through during the period with no secretary. However he still made money from his job right? Lots of money? So why do you care about the secretary? Also sounds like your dad hired a secretary at minimum wage, so you want to hire her cheaper and make her life miserable by making her do a 9-5 job on $4 a hour? You have compassion issues, and you also once again, clearly don't understand supply and demand. If your dad couldn't afford a secretary at a wage of $7.50, then your dad could not afford a secretary. He would have found NO ONE who would do a job like that for $4 to $6 and hour. NO ONE. Keep that in mind

Finally want to conclude by saying this. I understand that you might take economics too. If you have, then you know that the biggest argument you need to attack is my *hint* definition argument. Until you remove that, you cannot say that no minimum wage is good for the economy, without showing that you side with employers who would pay their employees like dogs so they could be super rich.

I personally am against the minimum wage (not a reason to vote against me voters, no bias please). But I believe that the way our economy is headed, it is necessary to raise the minimum wage to $15 to avoid much suffering that could result from no minimum wage. Pro wants an economy that promotes industrial labor. I want one that promotes allowing people to pursue the job they want, without fear of not earning enough. Is that too much to ask? Also I don't want to regress back to the old economic ways (late 1800s, or what my opponent advocates whether he realizes it or not), because that would be a transition full of economic fallout that we don't want.

Stay realistic and smart, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
stschiffman

Pro

"The economy has been run by foreign labor for decades."
That whole paragraph is proof you didn't understand my point. My point was not that minimum wage invented foreign labor, my point is that it is putting more foreign labor in demand. Every "Made in China" label is pretty much proof of this.

"The economy has been going through a serious bout of inflation as of late."
Not nearly enough to justify $15 an hour. Maybe in twenty or thirty years it will be, but as of now, inflation has not been so bad we have to double the minimum wage. Unless the dollar becomes half of what it is right now, that would be grossly unnecessary.

"Small business regulations are the real reason that a $15 minimum wage is needed. "
This whole paragraph made no sense. I agree small businesses are dying, but that still isn't enough to justify $15 an hour.

"If corporations raise their prices too high to make the same large economic profit off of their workers and customers, then too few people with by the too expensive products."
Not necessarily. In any of the economics classes you bragged about, did you ever learn about elastic and inelastic goods? In case you didn't, I'll explain it. Inelastic goods are goods that could go up in price without losing sales, like food, water, and medicine. Think of things you need, things you really couldn't live without, things that can't easily be substituted. Those are inelastic. Elastic goods are things that would be hurt by a price increase, like professional services.
The point you made only applies to elastic goods. If the minimum wage goes up, corporations could easily up the price of inelastic goods to compensate.

"If all manual labor is dealt with by machines in this country, that could free us up to pursue academic like pursuits, or skilled labor jobs machines cannot do (like Chiropractor)."
I hate to break it to you, but this is pure day dreaming. If someone gets replaced by a robot at a factory, all of them aren't going to think to themselves "Awe well, better be a doctor or a lawyer now." Unless they can find a new job at another factory somewhere, most of them are just going to end up on welfare.

"But if you can't find work here and don't like the fact that you can't work here, you can move elsewhere."
Again, you're missing the point. First and foremost, moving is that as easy as you make it out to be, second, when minimum wage goes up, jobs are going to be harder to find everywhere, not just in any one specific place.

"Don't use memes to prove points."
This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It's when one of the debaters tries to disprove the source instead of the content. Say what you want about memes in general, but that meme is proof of my point. If you disagree with it, disprove the content in the meme, not the mere fact that it is a meme.

"However he still made money from his job right? Lots of money? So why do you care about the secretary? Also sounds like your dad hired a secretary at minimum wage, so you want to hire her cheaper and make her life miserable by making her do a 9-5 job on $4 a hour? You have compassion issues, and you also once again, clearly don't understand supply and demand."
To address the first part of this, from "However" to "about the secretary", you're right his clinic did make money, but he would have made more if he had a secretary, and he would have had less work he had to do himself. If you ever run a business like he did, I'm sure you'll understand then.
Now to address everything from "so you want" to "supply and demand". How is it a compassion issue to want her to have a job and my dad to have an employee. Or are you one of those "No job is better than a job that's beneath me" people our generation is famous for? It was a good job, and if she made $4 or $5 an hour, isn't that better than making nothing?

Closing statement: $15 is way too much money to ask employers to pay people for manual labor, and if it becomes the law, it would do harm to our economy. Less people would have jobs, and sweat shops in other countries would become even more of a problem. My opponent, while claiming to know about economics, clearly doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, as he has offered little actual evidence, and has an "I'd rather have no job than a job I don't like" mentality, based on him saying "...so you want to hire her cheaper and make her life miserable by making her do a 9-5 job on $4 a hour?" in round 3.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

I'll just respond to your responses, and let the voters decide at the end who wins this round.

"My point was not that minimum wage invented foreign labor, my point is that it is putting more foreign labor in demand." Well then why did you not explain how foreign labor demand is bad? People in other countries do need jobs too, and just assuming that it is not in our economic interest for all our manual labor to be handled by foreigners, is an assertion that has no supporting warrant. You can't automatically assume that foreign labor, would bankrupt our economy, instead give reasons for why that is.

"Not nearly enough to justify $15 an hour." and "Unless the dollar becomes half of what it is right now, that would be grossly unnecessary." Hold on a second, since the national minimum wage was in place, we have seen it jump from roughly $4 per hr to $7.50 per hr. And your telling me that those increases are not necessary, or have produced a terrible economic result? The standard of living in this country is much higher than that of the rest of the globe. If you raise wages so people can spend more, and make more, then that standard of living increases further. As for an acceptable level of inflation for the wage, according to this quote from the Pew Research Center and The Economist, it says otherwise. "Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America…to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.” http://www.pewresearch.org...


"This whole paragraph made no sense. I agree small businesses are dying, but that still isn't enough to justify $15 an hour." Well i am sorry it did not make sense to you, but it made sense to me, and makes sense if you take the time to understand it. It is a difficult concept to explain, so I couldn't water it down sufficiently enough for you I guess.

"Not necessarily. In any of the economics classes you bragged about, did you ever learn about elastic and inelastic goods?"
I did.

"Inelastic goods are goods that could go up in price without losing sales, like food, water, and medicine. Think of things you need, things you really couldn't live without, things that can't easily be substituted. Those are inelastic. Elastic goods are things that would be hurt by a price increase, like professional services.
The point you made only applies to elastic goods."

I know this. Why are you lecturing me? I see what your point is and my response is that the majority of corporations that would be forced to keep wages the same is the elastic goods corporations. But you forget that competition between corporations is why some inelastic goods have trouble going up in price, because if Kay raises the price of their necklace I want, I can go get a cheaper one at Jared (an example). So I really don't see how my point is not valid.

"I hate to break it to you, but this is pure day dreaming. If someone gets replaced by a robot at a factory, all of them aren't going to think to themselves "Awe well, better be a doctor or a lawyer now." Ok, noted. But I don't think you are entirely correct. Remember that you brought up how our workplace is increasingly being run by machines. If that is where we are headed, then why don't we get there faster? That was my point, so obviously it was not responded to by you.

"Again, you're missing the point. First and foremost, moving is that as easy as you make it out to be, second, when minimum wage goes up, jobs are going to be harder to find everywhere" You took my sentence out of context. I added in a sentence after that acknowledging that moving might be difficult for some people. Also, are you asserting that a global minimum wage will happen when the US institutes the $15? Because that is obviously what you implied. If you want work and you can't find a job because you did not better your skills, then move elsewhere without a minimum wage where you will easily find a job. My point still stands.

"This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It's when one of the debaters tries to disprove the source instead of the content." Maybe I did, but you can't be asserting that memes hold academic credibility. I can easily disprove the meme, see under all my arguments I made under technology and the tech progressing workplace. That directly addressed your meme.

"How is it a compassion issue to want her to have a job and my dad to have an employee. Or are you one of those "No job is better than a job that's beneath me" people our generation is famous for? It was a good job, and if she made $4 or $5 an hour, isn't that better than making nothing?"

The last sentence is what it all boils down to. I am starting to believe you have not studied economics seriously, or rather ignored some of it. The law of economic profit with one's time, completely invalidates your claim that a $4 to $5 an hour job is better than nothing. It isn't, because a $4 to $5 hour job is a waste of time plain and simple. She can be cashiering and making more than that. So why wouldn't she?

$15 is way too much money to ask employers to pay people for manual labor, and if it becomes the law, it would do harm to our economy.

What harm? This still has not been specified. If its jobs lost, then how is that bad? Also you still have not directly addressed my response that jobs are available elsewhere. Also, The Economist magazine, made up of well-advised economic writers, disagrees that a minimum wage closer to $15 and hour is too much to ask.

"sweat shops in other countries would become even more of a problem." The minimum wage increase does not make sweatshops worse, sweatshop owners make sweatshops unbearable. Fix the owners, then talk about whether or not it is the minimum wage's fault.

"My opponent, while claiming to know about economics, clearly doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, as he has offered little actual evidence, and has an "I'd rather have no job than a job I don't like" mentality"

This whole quote is veiled Ad Hominem. I will readily admit to testily responding to your arguments in this argument I am building right now, but you just attacked me with full belief in the attack and no doubt. I do know economics, and the Voters can see that I do with my arguments. I did just offer some evidence in this evidence-less debate (besides the meme which does not count compared to my quote). So ultimately because of arguments, conduct, and spelling.

VOTE CON


Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
With regards to your later statements, I'll briefly address them. I didn't report either of these votes. I haven't reported a vote for several months now. My workload is large enough that I don't feel the need to add to it any more than I have to, and I certainly don't go around to random debates looking for votes that don't meet the standards.

I recognize that the current system doesn't take into account the debaters' feelings on whether votes on that debate should be moderated and to what degree. I'm sure such a system is possible, but it will take some structure and effort to make it simple to use and effective for the purpose. We could discuss how that could be done, but for now, the system is what it is, and it is objectively applied to every vote reported on debates that aren't exempt from vote moderation for one reason or another.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Sir maximus needs to know that even non partisan sources are politically biased.

I do like how Con makes screwing the little guy work for him though, by advocating for it near the beginning of round 2
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Alright, let's go through them, then.

On Rosalie's vote:

We don't have the ability to remove portions of a vote, though in this case, the voter only awarded points in one category. Even if the rest of the explanation is entirely reasonable, there are specific requirements for each category, particularly for arguments. Part of that requirement is to assess specific points made by each debater. Not meeting those requirements is reason enough for removal.

I'm not clear on your question. It would be great if voters used a weighing mechanism, and they certainly should. Many voting guides on the site explain how to employ them. It is required that the voter compare points made by the two debaters to explain the outcome, so that is part of what's assessed. I don't see how that's making it harder for voters on the site. You might be referring to something else, so if you can clarify, I'll respond.

On SirMaximus's vote:

There were two problems here. The first was that bias was the only reason that the voter used to determine whether or not a source was reliable. Merely stating "this source is biased, and therefore less reliable" isn't good enough, since it doesn't evaluate the contents of the source. I agree with you that your source had better content, but if the voter really is just comparing sources between the two debaters, then that content needs to be a part of that evaluation. While a voter does, indeed, have some discretion to decide points like these when they aren't discussed in the debate, their analysis still has to meet the basic standards of assessment. This vote did not meet those standards, assessing the site's overall bias instead of any of the content.

The second problem is that he brought in external evidence to prove that one source was more biased. He clearly brought in sources to make his point allocation more sensible, and in the process, basically made arguments for you. That's problematic in and of itself.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Well let me address both.

First, I can see the issue with Rosalie's, however I cannot understand why only one mishap in logic can disqualify an entire vote. Some of the points awarded might have been deserved. Also under the more convincing arguments point, why is there no weighing mechanism? Do you want to make it harder for voters on this site to weigh arguments? Because if there is no weight mechanism for arguments, then how can voters find the acceptable reasons that would qualify an argument as better? I am still perplexed by this.

Second, I want to clarify what is the problem with removing Sir Maximus's vote. When you ask on the elo system to evaluate sources based on reliability, then DDO is implying that voters have to find on their terms what qualifies as reliable if and only if the debaters themselves do not agree on what defines a reliable source. Because stschiffman and I both did not debate what constituted reliability in a source thoroughly, there was no way for Sir Maximus to use our understanding of it for sources. So in many ways, Sir Maximus was completely correct to seek outside help. Honestly whiteflame my source was better in both content and outside credibility, because I cited a think tank. stschiffman cited a meme. I had a quote from knowledgeable people on minimum wage, while stschiffman had only a common meme as evidential proof. So I request that Sir Maximus's vote be reinstated because it makes perfect sense.

I will not argue the first vote's reinstatement, because it was a difficult RFD. I am disappointed that even after putting all that work in the RFD though, you still reported Rosalie. That is a crying shame.

With this I have said my piece. I respect the vote moderators on this site, and love the job you guys do as volunteers. But I wish you would be a little more considerate of debaters like us, who just want an outcome that accurately reflected our performance.

Thanks,

42
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
@42lifeuniverseverything

I provided the reasons for removal below each vote. Are they not clear? I understand that you're upset with the change in the outcome, but I can at least clarify the reasons they were removed.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
I am outraged. What the heck. Why did those votes not qualify? The reasons for reporting of them are lame, and now it is a tie..... really. I wanted either a win or loss, not a stupid tie.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SirMaximus// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: The only source that Pro used was The Gateway Pundit, and the only source that Con used was Pew Research Center. The Gateway Pundit is a right-wing source, acknowledged by itself (On thegatewaypundit.com/about/, it says, "Today The Gateway Pundit is a leading right-of-center news website.") This indicates that it might have some bias against minimum wage hikes. Pew Research Center, on the other hand, is nonpartisan (On en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center, it says that "[t]he Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank" and that "[it] does not take explicit policy positions.") This shows that Con's source has less bias than Pro's source. Therefore, Con wins for reliable sources.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does go to great lengths to explain the decision here, the voter also seems to be bringing in outside information in order to evaluate the sources. The sources should be evaluated based on their substance and not solely based on bias, however well that view is upheld by other sites. Less bias doesn't mean more reliable.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Rosalie// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. For some reason, when I submit my vote, symbols are appearing.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. In this case, the voter covers a point made by Pro, but fails to analyze any specific points made by Con, instead just stating that his rebuttals were "successful." That makes the vote insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Thank you for your vote anyway fire_wings. I highly appreciate the constructive criticism, and will use it in my future debates. Thank you!
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
I couldn't finish the whole RFD, I couldn't finish Con's arguments. I did read the debate though. Very confusing. I thought of giving points to no sides, but I thought Con did a better job. Pro was not arguing in the topic, he argued the the MW was useless. At least Con was on topic. Sorry for not finishing. I saw there was one hour left, and I screwed up. If you want me to finish my RFD later on, I can do it.

The debate was very confusing. I like clear arguments, rebuttals, I think every voter does. The whole point for the debate is for the voters to see who won. If the debate is confusing, less people will vote on it. Writing this RFD was hard.

Anyways, I would have voted Con, but I don't have time, so I would go neutral.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
stschiffman42lifeuniverseverythingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I couldn't finish the whole RFD, I couldn't finish Con's arguments. I did read the debate though. Very confusing. I thought of giving points to no sides, but I thought Con did a better job. Pro was not arguing in the topic, he argued the the MW was useless. At least Con was on topic. Sorry for not finishing. I saw there was one hour left, and I screwed up. If you want me to finish my RFD later on, I can do it. The debate was very confusing. I like clear arguments, rebuttals, I think every voter does. The whole point for the debate is for the voters to see who won. If the debate is confusing, less people will vote on it. Writing this RFD was hard. Anyways, I would have voted Con, but I don't have time, so I would go neutral. Anyways, RFD is in comments. If you want me to complete my RFD, let me know. I might complete it in the future. I am voting neutral, because it is unfair to just stop here and vote for Con.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
stschiffman42lifeuniverseverythingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQ1AKLhClGmDaB2jsJKQ1cjoUPihqkjyEcUWiFTZ2DU/edit?usp=sharing