resolved that in the realm of economics freedom ought to be valued above equity
Debate Rounds (5)
because I agree with john Boehner on this point and because I believe that an individual is far more likely to succeed when economically free, I stand firmly resolved: in the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued above equity. Because eco. freedom best provides human right.
Before going any further, let"s define a few key terms:
Economics: "The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth." " Oxford English Dictionaries Online, "Economics," " 2014 Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com....
Economic Freedom: "Economic freedom is the key to greater opportunity and an improved quality of life. It"s the freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others" rights to do the same"- economicfreedom.or
Value is defined as: "A principle considered most important; moral code." " Wordsmyth English Dictionary, "Value," " 2014. http://www.wordsmyth.net....
Equity is defined as "A fair and reasonable way of behaving toward people, so that everyone is treated in the same way." By the Macmillan English Dictionary and as "The quality of being fair and impartial" by the oxford dictionary
fair- agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable. Merriam dictionary
Human Rights: "Fundamental rights, especially those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc." " Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on the Random House Dictionary, "Human Rights," " Random House, Inc. 2014. http://dictionary.reference.com....
I will be advocating the value of Human Rights throughout this debate round. The most important human rights are the rights to life, liberty, and property. All Other civil, economic, political, and social rights sprout from one of these three human rights all three are codified in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees that,
The United States Constitution, Amendment V. Available online from: http://www.archives.gov....
"No person shall deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
One of the best ways we can protect human rights is through the criterion which is a focus on economic freedom. Let"s examine how these two concepts work together through the following contentions.
Contention1- equity violate liberty and freedom of thought
Liberty is a human right and is defined as - the freedom to think or behave in the way that you want and not be controlled by a government or by other people.
It is the basic idea that a citizen can do whatever they want as long as it doesn"t violate the human rights of another person. This is almost exactly the definition of economic freedom. Economic freedom and liberty are the same thing but a lot of times we over look the human right of liberty. Here is what it boils down to we have the right to opinions and it doesn"t matter if those opinions are incorrect. we have the right to be partial and to not be fair.
Now I"m not saying that I condone those actions but what I am saying is that the government isn"t our parent who we call in every time someone isn"t nice to you or perfectly fair. fairness can"t be legislated instead it has to be a personal decision . When the government tries to legislate equity we get cases like the one in Colorado where baker jack Philips refused to make a gay wedding cake under religious objections and was sued for it. This is a real life example of where societies idea of fairness and impartiality were crossed by a citizens freedom of religion and the state of Colorado chose equity over human rights
Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project said:
"While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one"s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers. No one is asking Masterpiece"s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple."
This case right here is exactly why you must vote affirmative because when we are valuing freedom we are valuing human rights but when we value equity over freedom we can violate human rights.
So to sum this point up equity says you can only express you religion and your thoughts in the economy as far as it doesn"t interfere with what society considers fair and impartial! And it is very important to remember that.
Contention 2- equity hurts human rights
It is easy to think that, if human rights such as property are so important, the government should become involved in securing equal access to human rights for everyone. This type of thinking, however, forgets that human rights are protected from the government, not proactively created by the government. When the government begins to believe it is its responsibility to provide equal access to human rights, it usually ends up hurting those rights, instead.
For example, consider the root of the 2008 collapse of the financial market. Beginning in the 1970"s, the government began enacting legislation that directed banks to extend more home loans to low income and minority families who would not otherwise qualify. So long as the housing market continued to expand, the market could support the rapid increase of subprime mortgages. In 2007, however, the housing market bubble burst, leaving lenders holding over $1.5 trillion in toxic subprime loans. The market fallout sparked a worldwide recession, the effects of which are still being felt today. Quality of life (due to recession), freedom (due to increased regulation) and property (due to massive foreclosure rates) all suffered as a result of the government trying to inject equity into the market.
Contention 3- economic freedom supports human rights
Not only is economic freedom and liberty the same thing but also when we value economic freedom human rights are better accessed and supported.
Anthony b. kim from the heritage foundation said in his article "the link between economic freedom and human rights":
"Economic freedom is essentially about ensuring human rights. Strengthening and expanding it (eco. free.) guarantees an individual's natural right to achieve his or her goals" he goes on to say "Higher economic freedom also has a strong positive correlation with the United Nation's Human Development Index, which measures life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. Reinforcing each other, greater economic freedom and better access to ideas and information combine to empower people, improve their quality of life, and expand opportunities for nations to benefit from global commerce."
Now let look at the final point.
Contention 4- economies work themselves out
When my father found out that the gas company Exxon supported abortion we stopped buying from them as much as we could. And that"s how the economy works when we don"t like something a company is doing we boycott them and if enough people also feel that way they will go out of business this is how we create the kind of economy we want. If someone doesn"t sell to you because you"re a Christian you go to another store we don"t need the government to step in when competition will just put the unfair business out of business. The economy naturally works itself out.
Because human rights should be the highest value and because equity harms human rights I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
I didn"t see any rules so I will assume that Pro has the BOP. I will then respond to what she perceives are "arguments" and the voters will judge if I correctly denied her claims.
R1 : Response to : Contention1- equity violate liberty and freedom of thought
First of all, I absolutely do not deny Pro"s definition of equity, but since she precised that this debate is limited to the realm of economics, I assume that we have to be talking about the economic definition of equity for this to make sense :
" Equity or economic equality is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly in regard to taxation or welfare economics. More specifically, it may refer to equal life chances regardless of identity, to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to increase funds and commitment for redistribution.(1) "
I will start by denying Pro's initial postulate :
" Economic freedom and liberty are the same thing but a lot of times we over look the human right of liberty. ".
Pro states that the " freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others" rights to do the same" " is the same thing than " the freedom to think or behave in the way that you want and not be controlled by a government or by other people. " only based on the provided definitions. Pro assumes that both concepts " Economic freedom " and " Liberty " are the same thing because the definitions seem to have the same goals. The problem is that " Economic Freedom " do not only refer to a general definition. It refers to an economic system that intends to reach that definition(and in my opinion utterly fail to). It would be easy to find many, many quotes of economists that have defined what economic freedom is, I will provide a simple one :
" On one side of this debate have been those philosophers and economists who advocate an economic system based on private property and free markets"or what one might call economic freedom(2) "
Pro utterly fails to recognize the difference between liberty as human rights and the economic freedom as an economic system. By believing falsely that they are the same thing, she then argues that following equity in economics deprives people of liberty. While equity does contradict an economic system like economic freedom, it does not deprive anyone of liberty.
Pro did define Liberty as : " the freedom to think or behave in the way that you want and not be controlled by a government or by other people. "
I agree with that definition, now I am patiently waiting for Pro to prove how progressive taxation and welfare state deprive someone of his liberty.
I read the example given by Pro and I was completely baffled by how irrelevant it was. Her own title states explicitly : " In the realm of economics ". Her example may oppose religious freedom and freedom of expressions(As pro stated herself!), but it is completely irrelevant to the present debate about economic equity and economic freedom and I will ask the voters to ignore that example.
Finally, I do not have to prove that equity do not violate the freedom of thought since Pro utterly failed to make an argument on the matter.
R2 : Response to : Contention 2- equity hurts human rights
Pro"s second argument works completely in my favor.
Her whole argument consists of one example :
" For example, consider the root of the 2008 collapse of the financial market. Beginning in the 1970"s, the government began enacting legislation that directed banks to extend more home loans to low income and minority families who would not otherwise qualify. So long as the housing market continued to expand, the market could support the rapid increase of subprime mortgages. "
First of all, there is absolutely no link between equity and these particular legislations. The reasoning is actually the opposite : Bankers wanted to have the freedom to loan to more americans even if these loans would be riskier. These same americans didn't think that the government should limit their freedom to take loans even if they should not qualify.
As Paul Krugman(Renown economist) said :
"The bankers " liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn"t believe in regulation " responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.(3)"
It was by removing restrictions on loans and with subsequent deregulations(which, the point of deregulation is to prevent government intervention, thus enabling total economic freedom) that the problem of subprimes was created. The intervention that Pro argues against was an intervention to remove state intervention and enable economic freedom.
Thank you Pro for giving me arguments !
R3 : Response to : Contention 3- economic freedom supports human rights
Pro didn't show any evidence of that claim. She merely quotes an author from a Conservative Research Think Tank(You can hardly find more biased than that, I would like the voters to take this into account) that says there is a link between economic freedom and human rights. How so ?
I, on the contrary, have objective information. The years between 1940 to 1970 has been considered as a golden age since it is the period of the fastest economic growth of all time. Coincidentally, it is the period where the complete economic freedom started to be more and more regulated. It is the period of the welfare state. Of Keynesian economics. Could we really doubt the link between the best economic period and the changed economic policies ?
French economist Jean Fourasti" defines " Les Trente Glorieuses " :
" No matter how the thirty-odd years after the end of World War II were characterised by Europe's various cultures, they stand out as the period of the fastest economic growth in the continent's history. In retrospect, the years between the late 1940s and the early 1970s have been seen as a Golden Age, when the foundations of future prosperity were established on firm ground.(4)"
R4 : Response to : Contention 4- economies work themselves out
Pro"s personal example will once again work in my favor as it actually shows a good concept on a very small scale :
" If someone doesn"t sell to you because you"re a Christian you go to another store "
And thus, the economy is based on demand. When people like Pro demand for some goods, then market will indeed respond to that demand. The problem is, what happens when people like Pro can no longuer afford it ? What happens during a crisis ? The cause of it is not important, it could be an oil shock or an economic bubble. The thing is : When the economy fails and people lose their job, when money devaluates and inflation keeps being an issue, how can we get outside of that kind of situation ? And the answer is : through government intervention, by stimulating demand, investing, creating jobs : using the multiplier. These are principles that a famous economist, John Maynard Kaynes, proved a long time ago(5).
There are of course other ways intervention proved to be necessary as the economy did not "work itself out". The regulations that prevention an economic crisis as described in Contention 2 is a good example of it.
Your turn Pro !
a.Re- equity definition
My opponents and my definition of equity are basically the same they are both centered on the idea of fairness he just gives some ways fairness is executed in the economy.
I would also like to look at how these ideas that he presented in his definition of equity violates human rights and economic freedom by looking at the second part
"More specifically, it may refer to equal life chances regardless of identity, to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to increase funds and commitment for redistribution.(1) "
What he is saying here is that equity requires the government to step in and take money from some and give it to others to create a more "fair" economy which violates the human right of property. To show the importance of this let"s look at some countries that have enforced the socialist idea of redistribution to create fairness, for example Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe the governments decided it was unfair that the white people made so much money on their farms and the government decided that they were going to create more opportunity for their black inhabitants by taking the white farms and giving to the black people. In 2000 ,before the government started to redistribute the property, the agricultural industry produced 4.3 million tons of agricultural products coming out at 3.3 billion U.S dollars in products This output has declined to just over 1.348 million tons of products in 2009, worth some US$1 billion"a decline of 69 percent in volume and a decline of 70 percent in value.
Redistribution of wealth just makes everyone equally poor.
b.Re-Liberty is not economic freedom
I didn"t explain this idea well enough what I meant was that economic freedom is the economic expression of liberty thus when we value economic freedom we are valuing liberty in economics. When we look at the definitions we see that both of these ideas are based on the ability to do what one wants will being limited by human rights as i said before economic freedom is just a more specific example of liberty.
I also believe that my opponent is confusing the idea of economic freedom wit capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system which values economic freedom highest. Economic freedom is a value not a system.
Contention 2- equity hurts human rights
a.You sound just like my debate coach! The government loosened the regulations to be fair to minorities and people who wouldn"t normally qualify it was all an attempt to be more fair!
Contention 3- economic freedom supports human rights
The main reason the economy bloomed during this time is because wars always cause economies to bloom also this was about the time that we really started to make advancements in technology it wasn"t because of equity is was because of our ability to invent!
Also to look at his claim of bias I would have to say I agree that the website is biast because everyone of us are biast in our own way. All thought they are biast that doesn"t mean their research was necessarily incorrect. Independent Women's Forum director and Goldwater Institute senior fellow, Carrie Lukas, once said;
"Economies prosper when innovative thinkers are able to put their ideas to work, creating new advancements in technology and productivity, making it cheaper and easier to create and sell products that we need and want."
It only makes sense that when people are able to do what they need to do then economies would prosper.
Contention 4-economies work themselves out
Money devaluation and inflation are caused by the government printing too much money because they got themselves in a pickle. Much like what is going on in America right now. since the year 2000 American money has inflated by 37% because the government has spent more money than they had, on things like welfare and the like if the government would stay in the lines set for them in the constitution we wouldn"t have failing economics and the economy could easily work itself out
Thanks for responding in a very orderly manner. However I think most of your problems with economic freedom are not founded in reality.
As far as I can see, Pro completely dropped her argument about equity violating liberty and the freedom of thought. She instead brings a new argument: She claims that equity violates the right of property. This isn"t the continuation of contention 1, and my intention in this debate was to deny the initial arguments from Pro. As a token of good faith, I will still answer every new arguments.
I initially agreed that a violation of liberty or freedom of thought would have a negative moral value (the standard with which we judge the importance of equity and economic freedom in this debate). The right of property is different, since it is not an absolute right and restricting it or making use of it for the general interest is in agreement with our human rights.
Our international standard on human rights in the present day is the European Convention on Human Rights, and I will quote the section pertaining to our present debate :
" Protocols 1 article 1
ARTICLE 1 Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.(1) "
The article seems clear enough to me, as it defends the right of a State to "control" the use of property. For those who are still doubting what could be included in the right of a State, the guide to the implementation detailed this point even further :
" The entitlement to a pension or other welfare (social security) benefits is also capable of falling with the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has stressed in the Stec and others v. the United Kingdom case that in the modern, democratic State, many individuals were, for all or part of their lives, completely dependent for survival on social security and welfare benefits. Many domestic legal systems recognised that such individuals required a degree of certainty and security, and provided for benefits to be paid " subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of eligibility " as of right. Therefore, where an individual had an assertible right under domestic law to a welfare benefit, the importance of that right should also be reflected by holding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to be applicable.(2) "
The same guide refers to this as " Permissible restrictions ", arguing that the protection of property is not absolute.
Pro still argues that deregulation was a product of economic freedom, without showing a single evidence. As it stands, deregulation consists of several government intervention that prevented economic freedom by directly restricting what banks could do, here is a small history of it :
One of the best example was probably the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. The Federal Reserve explained the intention of Glass-Steagall :
" Congress saw the need for substantial reform of the banking system, which eventually came in the Banking Act of 1933, or the Glass-Steagall Act. The bill was designed "to provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes.(4) "
We can thus understand how the repeal of such an act couldn"t be motivated by equity. It was at the behest of the big banks that it was removed(5). Surely, Pro do not believe that these banks were motivated by equity instead of economic freedom, since that act did in fact restrict possibilities from them.
It seems that pro decided to also drop this argument, since she does not attempt to show evidence that economic freedom supports human rights. Instead, Pro decides to argue against my counter-argument, she now abandoned 2 of her 4 initial contentions.
I will respond by stating that this particular economic boom started during the french reconstruction, it couldn"t be attributed to anything else than the way this reconstruction took place, with state intervention and in the interest of equity :
" to pre-war levels by 1947. This was largely achieved by a number of initiatives. Firstly, there was the active role of the state in industry oversaw the nationalisation of public utilities (e.g. CDF - Charbonnages de France; EDF - "lectricit" de France; GDF - Gaz de France), airlines (Air France), banks (Banque de France) and many other private companies like the Renault car factory (R"gie Nationale des Usines Renault).
As a result of these nationalisations, France became the mos state-controlled capitalist country in the world. Another factor behind economic recovery was the Marshall Aid Plan an American initiative which gave grants, loans and subsidies to struggling post-war nations(6) "
Pro didn"t respond to my counter argument, but decided to bring a new one : that the government was responsible for the devaluation of money and the inflation by printing to much of it since the early 2000. Which is, she believes, the actual problem in the united states. Her claims are easy to deny, the united states barely changed her production of money :
Also, the value of it"s currency barely changed at all(This shows the value of the US dollar compared to euro).
Hopefully, pro"s next claims won"t be as imaginary as these one"
I"m not sure when the con proposed the standard but I disagree with your value of moral value for multiple reasons starting with:
a.No such thing as absolute moral rightness
First of all we must all agree that not everyone agrees on what"s morally right so in some tribes it is morally right to eat humans while in America it morally right. Thus if we make moral rightness the standard then no one can achieve it.
b.It isn"t the government"s job to insure moral rightness.
It would only make sense that the government is the actor in today"s round seeing as they are the only entity that could make a serious difference in economics. With this in mind we also see that we don"t want a government that ensures "moral rightness". Hitler and much of Germany thought they were morally inclined to purify the human race. Instead we want a government who sole purpose is to protect our human rights (which is my value or standard today. A value or standard helps decide who wins based on who best achieves this) thus not having an ability or freedom to violate our life, our freedom of religion and/or liberty.
We seem to have some confusion on what human rights are. There are three main human rights life, liberty and property. All other rights such as freedom of the press and such spring from one of these three rights. Things like health care are not a human right. Human rights are things that all humans are born with and they can be violated by a tyrannical government such as property is violated when the government takes your money and gives it to some who they think deserves it more. No matter what stealing is wrong it doesn"t matter if the government is the one stealing.
Just because the European Convention on Human Rights says its right doesn"t make it right. Under English law in the mid 19th century women weren"t allowed to own property that doesn"t make that violation of property right just because some aw says so.
As the pro I argue that the government deregulated in order to create more fairness seeing as the poor weren"t able to qualify and I didn"t post any proof but I will do so presently. When talking about congressmen franks attempt to create fairness by lowering the standards for getting a loan:
"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."
It all started in 1992 the government made the rule that 30% percent of loans had to be subprime. Over the years it slowly increased until in 2007 bush passed a law that 55% of the loans that the banks bought had to be subprime loans. The article goes on to say
"By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million sub-prime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis."
THIS WAS A DRIVE FOR EQUITY BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO THE POOR AND IF WE WILL REMEMBER THE DEFINITION OF EQUITY WAS THE QUALITY OF BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
I stand by the fact that the bloom was caused by war and innovation but to look at what your argument we can see you aren"t arguing equity v freedom you are arguing government intervention v freedom which as the affirmative I agree with the government can help if the economy is failing what we are arguing is whether or not the government should limit our freedom for what they consider fair thus your whole argument to my third contention is irrelevant.
Again this is irrelevant to today"s debate round we aren't arguing whether or not the government should have no hand in the economy but whether or not they should be able to force their morals on us in the economy.
what this debate is really asking is weather or not or human rights to liberty should be limited for such a vague idea like equity.
I will quote Pro"s first post : " I stand firmly resolved: in the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued above equity. Because eco. freedom best provides human right. "
Based on this claim, I proved that economic freedom did not indeed best provide human rights but on the contrary : The international standard suggests that restrictions are necessary and that equity(There referenced as general interest) was a legitimate concern.
Pro doesn"t seem to go anywhere with her argumentation. Human rights are defined by humans, and Conventions are the legitimate ways to define and protect them. Pro may as well argue that she believes the sky is red and that the name or definitions we give to every objet, idea or belief is a social construct and a social convention : it is. The simple truth though is that we wouldn"t be able to have any debate if we were to throw every convention out of the window and say stuff like " This is subjective and the usual convention does not represent properly the idea ". Well then, what does ? Does Pro believe she is more qualified than the members of the European Convention On Human Rights to define the human rights ? Then, where is her argumentation about her own standard ? Surely she doesn"t think that her mere disagreement is enough to discredit a convention ?
Pro now digress and doesn"t seem to understand what deregulation is. Fannie and Freddie and her whole argumentation is completely irrelevant with the debate. She also doesn"t show her sources, since they are most probably very biased.
" It all started in 1992 the government made the rule that 30% percent of loans had to be subprime. "
And these are just plain lies, what the hell is Pro inventing now" Does she know the difference between subprimes and affordable housing ?
" THIS WAS A DRIVE FOR EQUITY BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL "
What the hell ? Why does Pro even make a link between equity and banks buying subprimes for their own profit ? Or Pro believes that banks are not interested by profit but by equity ? Does she relieve believe such nonsense? I can"t wait to see that argumentation..
Of course I am arguing with government intervention since they are motivated by equity. And of course we have to oppose economic freedom with government intervention, there is no other way to have a debate about that subject.
This is hilarious, I am responding to Pro arguments and she now says that it is irrelevant.
I see now that Pro dropped all her initial contentions except for " Equity hurts human rights " that she argues using false arguments and by inventing facts.
abbygm forfeited this round.
I can't do much research these days, you should try somethig
abbygm forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because of the forfeiture. Pro's arguments were primarily based on a contingent moral justification for equity apparently violating "liberty". Pro's arguments were based on confusion and unsourced bare assertions, such as "It all started in 1992 the government made the rule that 30% percent of loans had to be subprime", which Con demonstrated was actually incorrect and, thus, a false bare assertion. Pro frequently committed the ipse dixit fallacy by barely asserting various moral and economic factors, while Con managed to refute all of them. Pro's forfeiture severely hindered their ability to counter Con's arguments. Ultimately, Con was the only one who managed to properly and adequately defend their cases and their side of the resolution, thus arguments to Con. I shall not judge S&G and sources because I do not have enough time to read through that, but the overall debate is, nonetheless, in Con's favor.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.