The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,609 times Debate No: 20085
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




First round is for acceptance only.


I would like to thank Pro for this debate, which I gladly accept.
I would like to submit the following topic for debate:

"Capitalism is an overall better economic theory than Socialism."

I would also like to submit the following definitions:

Socialism- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [1]

Capitalism- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. [2]

Better- more advantageous or effective. [3]

Once again I would like to thank pro for this debate, and look forward to hearing what there is to be said.

Debate Round No. 1


Defense Point 1: Capitalism allows for the vast majority of people to live comfortable lives. It allows for the free (as in the right to) growth of wealth.

Defense Point 2: Capitalism allows for the consumer to ultimately decide, what products should be produced and how many products that consumers will buy. Then the market sets an equilibrium price that allows for the consumer to one, shop where prices are cheaper, and two, get a say in what a particular price should be. This efficient system allows for shortages and surpluses to be eliminated in a timely fashion. This system allows for the consumer to decide what he wants.

Defense Point 3: It allows for the country's economy to grow, thus increasing both consumer wealth and business wealth, which in turn allows for consumers to buy more of the products that they want and the businesses to make more of the products that consumers want.

Defense Point 4: As consumers and businesses get more money through overall economic growth, this allows the businesses to pay higher wages to their employees, which allows their employees to buy more products from companies, and the cycle constantly repeats with businesses getting richer and more successful and consumers to get richer and to get more of the products that they want.

Defense Point 5: It allows for the poor to help their situation by allowing them to choose which job pays the most, which increases his wealth.

Attack Point 1: In most socialistic countries, most of the people are in poverty, and are not free to grow wealth for the government sets a maximum amount that people can save, and just tax the rest.

Attack Point 2: Socialism only allows for the Government to decide what is produced, how much is produced, and at what price the products will be sold at. This means that consumers have to take what the government gives them, and they may or may not end up with the products that they want or how many of that product they can buy. This in turn makes shortages and surpluses rampant. In most countries, the price of essentials is too high, and the number too few for the efficient transfer of resources, which makes poverty.

Attack Point 3: Neither consumers make much more money, for the Government taxes it all, and the businesses are not allowed to make profits, the profits go to the Government, which does not let the business expand and grow, and the businesses can not keep up with consumer demand.

Attack Point 4: Since businesses aren't allowed to make a profit, businesses can not increase employee's wages, which in turn, can not cycle more money into the business. Economic growth is cut off.

Attack Point 5: Since most employees are stuck at the same job most of their life, only a Government motion can increase wages, since the employee is not allowed to look around for higher wages, nor can the business make profit which in turn. the business can not increase wages. And that Government motion comes rarely.


Pro states the following:
- "In most socialist countries, most of the people are in poverty, and are not free to grow wealth for the government sets a maximum that people can save, and just tax the rest."

The nation of Finland, internationally renowned as "THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE"[4] is a very successful model of Socialism and how it can be implemented correctly [5]. In an ideal society, people do not mind giving their EXCESS wealth to the State, for they know that it is for the greater common good.

- "Socialism only allows for the Government to decide what is produced, how much is produced, and at what price the products will be sold at..... shortages... surpluses.... etc;"

You notion is correct. The Government would decide what is produced, how much, cost, etc... and this would indeed be a tragedy and lead to economic ruin if not for the fact that our economy is completely global. If any economic government decision led to a massive shortage, suppliers from other nations would gladly step in to satisfy the demand. Meanwhile, a massive surplus would lower prices on exported goods, making them more desirable to international buyers.

- "Neither consumers make much more money, for the government taxes it all, and the businesses are not allowed to make profits...."

Once again, you are correct. The government taxes roughly 50% or more of the income of its citizens, however this leaves the citizens far less fiscally responsible for themselves. Classes are virtually eliminated, and with the government managing healthcare, the economy, and security people can focus on the aspects of life that make them happy.

- "Economic growth is cut off."

I'm afraid you'll need to elaborate on why this is a bad thing. In the United States there is a notion that economic growth is necessary, but few people can explain why.

- "Since most employees are stuck at the same job most of their life....."

Socialism does not mean one is locked into one job. Granted this is how the Soviets handled it, which was a mistake, but it is not an integral factor of socialism. Even if it were, citizens are selected for jobs based on where their strengths lie. This means that the workforce would be comprised of the most competent people in every position, however this is NOT necessary in order for Socialism to exist.

My Attacking arguments:

Capitalism rewards competition, which always results in a winner and a loser. While the competition may fuel forward progress, forward progress is worthless to the "losers" who don't reap its benefits.
The competition involved in the Capitalist system also provides an incentive for cheating and corner-cutting in order to get ahead and make a greater profit. This results in substandard products (which become the norm) available at a lower retail value, fueling the competition further until cheating MUST be done for a business to stay afloat. [6] The economy grows, yes, but at the expense of the citizen. Any major growth is artificial, and this becomes apparent as the capitalist economy falters (as it is now).

Debate Round No. 2


Response Point 1: In Finland, the people don't mind giving their wealth away? Does anybody recognize the flaws in this statement? Think of it this way: You mow 10 yards and earn $150. Now how would you like it if $100 of that was taken away? I'm sure you won't be happy. And plus, socialism ONLY works in small countries (a.k.a the Scandinavian Counries). And it still does not work as well as Capitalism. It is very inefficient.

Response Point 2: Again, you think the foreign countries are going to give their profit to save a country by making the price of their product lower? Really? Think of it this way: You mow 10 yards and earn $150. Now would you then go and freely give that profit away to help a business or government that ruins itself through bad decisions? I don't think so. And plus, two things; one, the Government ruining of a business happens all to often (look at us). This would happen at least once a month because Socialists are terrible at economics. And two, increasing supply will decrease prices, but then, the law of diminishing marginal returns, then negative marginal returns sets in, and you begin losing profit, then making a loss. Believe me, businesses know how to maximize profit. They are at equilibrium quantity for their product. They will NOT make more or less becuase it would eat into their profit.

Response Point 3: Again, fiscally responsible? Having more money does not decrease fiscal responsibility (unless of course, you are the US Government). And classes are eliminated; is that a good thing? Plus, with the Government managing unconstitution healthcare and using stupid economic policies (like us), do you again think that this is a good thing?

Response Point 4:
"In economics, economic growth is defined as the increasing capacity of the economy to satisfy the wants of goods and services of the members of society":

In other words, economic growth puts more money into the Americans, it means there is no recession, it means that businesses are becoming more efficient, it means that more American jobs are being created, and it means that the economy is getting stronger. Clear?

Response Point 5: Yes. But it is a aspect of hard-line Socialism that will come into being sooner or later in the Socialist state. With people getting to decide where they work for is better than the Government getting to decide, even if the person looks "qualified" (this is very subjective), the job market is more efficient.

Defense Point 1: Forward progress is good for all. For the poor and rich. What happens when the CEOs of businesses and top 1% get richer? It means that more Americans are getting the products that they want. It means that employee's salaries are being raised. It means that there is Economic Growth.

Defense Point 2: Competition is great. It lowers prices, which is good for the consumer, and amazingly, bad for the 1% (because they have to sell their product for less).

Defense Point 3: Having generic, substandard products makes the higher-quality products have lower prices. It helps the poor by being able to get an alternative that is still very good, and it helps the middle class by making the higher-quality products have lower prices so that they can buy them.

Defense Point 4: Businesses can not stay alfloat by selling substandard products. That is impossible in a Capitalistic society. Impossible. Why? Becuase consumers will always buy the higher-quality product (so long as they can afford it).

Defense Point 5: As in the same reasons mentioned above, economic growth is good for all.

Attack Point 1: "It's a mistake to think that poor people get the benefit from the welfare system. It's a total fraud. Most welfare go to the rich of this country: the military-industrial complex, the bankers, the foreign dictators, it's totally out of control. [...] This idea that the government has services or goods that they can pass on is a complete farce. Governments have nothing. They can't create anything, they never have. All they can do is steal from one group and give it to another at the destruction of the principles of freedom, and we ought to challenge that concept.": A Ron Paul Quote.

Attack Point 2: "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!": A Ron Paul Quote.

Attack Point 3:; a great analogy. Please read and debate if you want.; Please read and debate if you want.; Please read and debate if you want.


The following are my rebuttals to:
-Pro's Response Point 1: You mow 10 yards, and earn $150. $100 of that is taken away, and given back to you through free healthcare, education, insurance, etc; The money you keep pays for your food and leisure items.
Also, the fact that Socialism works perfectly in Scandinavian countries is irrelevant, as this debate has nothing to do with nations. The argument at hand is "Capitalism is an OVERALL better economic theory". Not "Socialism/Capitalism is best for nation _______."
Pro's statement is purely speculative, and is completely uncited. I would like to ask Pro to back up his statements with evidence.

-Pro's Response Point 2: "Ruins itself through bad decisions". Once again, speculation without evidence. He asks that I "believe him" on his word, instead of providing source. To put it simply: his argument shows know knowledge of economics. I will dismiss it until it is proven relevant.

-Pro's Response Point 3: I am not quite sure what Pro is saying here, but I am assuming it to accuse me of implying that "Having more money makes one fiscally irresponsible". I do in fact believe this statement to be true.
Please elaborate more on this point.

-Pro's Response Point 4: The only article cited was wikipedia, which is an unreliable source (I could go to the "Economic Growth" page and input false information if I so desired...) Pro also included other articles, which I assume he is trying to make me read. I would ask for Pro to make his own arguments, please.
"Economic Growth puts more money into the Americans": Why would we want to put more money into America at the expense of the rest of the world? The money has to come from somewhere.... A Socialist State needs not grow, and therefore it can be completely self-sufficient.
*Also, the United States of America is completely irrelevant to this debate on economic policy

-Pro's Response Point 5: "yes.".... Yes to what?
This argument baffles me: Please explain at greater length, as I am unsure of what exactly your argument is.

-Pro's Defense Point 1: Forward Progress is NOT good for all, only some, because money you make must come from someone else's pocket. Until you are importing/exporting with ALL nations equally, there will be a worldwide economic imbalance between all nations. Also, I would ask you to elaborate on what economic "progress" is.
I would like to define it here:

"Economic Development: Progress in an economy, or the qualitative measure of this. Economic development usually refers to the adoption of new technologies, transition from agriculture-based to industry-based economy, and general improvement in living standards." [7]

By this definition, progress is the RESULT of a strong economy, and not the driving force behind it. Socialism is not driven by a need for progress, rather it occurs because people have more freedom and less money. Once again, there is a clear reason why Finnish people are the happiest in the world despite high taxes: Because the high taxes are more than worth it, and they need not worry about their own finances when it comes to education and healthcare.

Pro's Defense Point 2: All Pro has done is refute my statement without support.

Pro's Defense Point 3: Completely false. There are hordes of people buying substandard, foreign manufacture products because they're cheaper than the legitimate brands.

Pro's Defense Point 4: Evidence to support the claim, please.

Pro's Defense Point 5: ?

Response to Pros' Attack Points:

Quoting Ron Paul from wikiquote? I don't think anyone can use a politician as a source and still maintain credibility.
I would once again ask that Pro make his own arguments, instead of relying on Ron Paul and a collection of articles which he expects me to read. I elected to read them so I would have something to argue, since Pro neglected to make any valid points.

Pro Article One:
The Ant and the Grasshopper: Any economic system, including capitalism, would collapse if the entire population stopped working. Humans are biologically designed to function in groups [8] - In a Socialist Society people work for the good of their fellow people. The only way Socialism would collapse is if everyone took on the selfish, capitalist mindset and began to care for no one save themselves. You would be waiting for the day that a majority of the population disregarded their own personal responsibilities in order to become hedonists. I would call this theory "unlikely" at best.

Pro Article Two:
The Free Market: For an example of a Free market, I will use the United States from 1817 to 1929 [9]. This is the only time the U.S. had an economy that was unregulated by the government. This is also the period of time when we made the most advances in technology. This was ALSO the time of tenement housing, child labor/work accidents, Robber Barons, and of course The Great Depression. In the purest form of Capitalism, management of the economy is given to the people who, as described before, are forced to compete. This creates an incentive to win, therefore a reason to cheat, resulting in faulty business practices and the endangerment of the lives of workers. Power to the People, though it sounds quite romantic, is a terrible idea when the people have no clue how to use it properly. This is why the people choose the most qualified seeming men and women to manage affairs for them. Qualified men and women who have dedicated their lives to learning these skills. America has not been truly capitalist since 1929, when it was quite apparent that capitalism (even if it DID work effectively) left too many people poor, hungry, and miserable.

Pro Article Three:
Why Socialism is Bad for America: This debate has nothing to do with the United States. The debate is not whether Socialism is good for America, but rather it is good for the entire world.

Please cite any claims you make in the future, so I can determine the difference between your own opinion and proven economic facts. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3


Response Point 1: I wouldn't give a single cent to substandard Government healthcare, substandard education, and substandard insurance. In America, all three of these things, under Government supervision, have turned to be complete disasters and massive debt increases. Heck, Obamacare is so bad that it is expected to increase the debt over 5 trillion in the next 25 years. It is so bad that it is unconstitutional. And the education is so bad that homeschooling has turned from a few kids into millions, and increasing very rapidly. And Government Insurance is so bad that it either raises the debt by trillions, or cheats Americans. Think of it this way now: "You mow 10 yards and earn $150. $100 of that is spent on healthcare, education, and insurance (private or Government). He has two choices: A very low priced and great coveraged healthcare and insurance, and great education, or, he can pay into the Government, and then pay for it again with taxes, and the services are terribly substandard. I take Choice 1.

Response Point 2: "Ruins itself through bad decisions". What do you think that means? It means that if a Business is stupid enough to run itself in to bankruptcy, the Government has no responsibility or obligation to bailout that business. And it means that if a Government is stupid enough to run itself in to bankruptcy, the citizenry has no responsibility or obligation to give money to the Government. They will just make another Government that actually abides by the Constitution.

And here is a crash course in economics: Businesses make the number of products and sell them at the price that maximizes profit. Businesses are very smart. After years of quantity and price probing, they finally settle on an equilibrium price and quantity that more or less of each would lower profit. Either two only changes with a Consumer demand or market change. Business WILL NOT make more of a product just to prop up a failed nation's economy if it will lower their profit. Here is another example: If your neighbor's neighborhood car wash fails becuase it's prices are too high, are you going to give it money so it can stay afloat? Are you this bad at economics and logic?

Response Point 3: I am saying that more money does not decrease fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, it increases fiscal responsibility. Why do you question facts? Here is an example: You make $50,000 a year, then next year you make $55,000. Are you going to put more into your savings accounts? Of course you would.

Response Point 4: Wikipedia is one of the most reliable and non-biased sources on the internet. Anyway, you are saying that Economic Growth is bad? That is probably one of the stupidest statements I have heard in a long time. I had a good laugh whe I first read it. If Economic Growth outpaces inflation and population increase (which it usually does), then the regular consumer is making money. More money. More buying power. And logic destroys your comment that the money must come from somewhere: Practically every single country has had economic growth between the year 2000 and 2010. The citizens are richer. The money certainly does not come from them. And if the socialist country does not grow, then it's citizens get poorer.

Response Point 5: Allowing the individual business to decide who they hire is a lot more efficient than the Government either deciding directly who is going to be employed by who, or placing quotas on minorities (such as your employee base must be at least 7% Hispanic). Individual businesses decide who's best because they know what they want for their business. The Government does not necessarily know, and a lot of times, can not make wrong decisions.

Response Point 6: Refer to my response to your point 4. I do not have room to repeat paragraphs. But for the part not included, the definition of a strong economy is not a general improvement in living standards necessarily. It is an effect of economic growth. But it is not and should not be the goal of Capitalism.

Response Point 7: Competition can not logically either increase prices or decrease product quality. That is impossible. If a company makes a higher-priced, substandard product that is not as good as other alternatives, the company will go bankrupt. By nature of it's definition, competition can not do the things you say. Again, impossible.

Response Point 8: Again, refer to my response to your point 7. And the people that buy the substandard product can not afford the legitimare, higher-priced brands. There are three types of products, substandard, normal, and rich. We will focus on the first two since the latter is rarely ever bought. One, substandard products are not bad if the people that buy them can not buy the legitimatly priced normal product. And two, most products are more expensive not becuase of quality, but of name. Like Italian suits are better than the normal suit. But they are by no means better.

Response Point 9: Refer to my responses to your points 7 and 8.

Response Point 10: Scrap this point. It is being covered in other points.

Response Point 11 (Ron Paul Quote 1): To elaborate, it is something that I like to call the "welfare effect": "It states that "once a person is on enough welfare to sustain themselves for a long period of time, most people, even once their financial situation improves, will not want to go back to work because they can just get free money from the Government, and they don't even have to do anything". More simply, if you worked a hard job and earned $50,000 a year, then you became unemployed, and got $45,000 in unemployment benefits per year, would you give that up and go back to your job? No. Why? Becuase you get money for nothing."

Response Point 12 (Ron Paul Quote 2): "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." I only wanted to put this in because you can not condemn Capitalism for the American Economy's (i.e. The Recession, The Stagflation of the 1970s, and the Great Depression). America has not been purely or even half way Capitalist for over 80 years. And the last 40 or 50 have been Socialist.

Response Point 13: I don't think you read this article. First the article, then the rebuttal. The article was saying that the Socialistic idea of being lazy should not grant you free welfare. If you don't store food for the winter, you shouldn't expect someone else to freely give you food. Now the rebuttal. People can not and will not get out of the greed mindset. In pure Capitalism (as in the 1800s), everyone works and does not expect something for nothing. That hard working mindset has destroyed this nation, and it is all because of Socialistic ideas.

Response Point 14: People knew how how to use power properly in the 1800s. In this era, there were no big recessions, unemployment, or economic collapse. And, the technological improvements in that era were astounding. Competition destroys your whole argument. People only starved more because of the standard of living. Now it is better.

Response Point 15: Scrap this. Apparently you don't like debating something that you can not think of a comeback for. That is understandable.



"Without competition Apple would have never created their Ipod, Microsoft would have never created Windows, and Google would probably be non-existent. Competition is essential because it leads to one very important thing, innovation.":


This destroys your Finland arguments: "Finland has a highly industrialised, mixed economy with a per capita output equal to that of other western economies such as France, Germany, Sweden or the United Kingdom.": Finland's economy is by no means Socialistic. Only a few policies are.

More sources to come, but out of room.


Response point to Response Point 1:
Substandard is a matter of perspective. Education in Scandinavia is not substandard by any means. Nor healthcare. Nor insurance. You once again use the argument "In America... [uncited opinion]". This debate IS NOT ABOUT AMERICA. Please realize this and look at it globally. "So Bad it's unconstitutional", whose constitution? Please leave YOUR country out of it, unless the examples you give can make a case for or against either system, independent of that country. America is not Socialist, therefore you cannot rate Socialism on the success/failure of America's social programs.

Also, you claim that "you can pay [insurance] into the Government, and then pay for it again with taxes."
^Wrong. You pay taxes, and you get education and insurance AS A RESULT. It's essentially the same as paying a health insurer or college yourself, but the government manages it for you.

A Socialist government does not bailout businesses that fail. You have no evidence to support your claim that it does, either.

Let's keep this civilized, please.

If you make $50,000 a year, then next year you make $55,000, are you going to put more into your savings account? Yes. Will that cycle your money back into the economy? NO. In fact, banks circulate your money through loans and investments, creating a financial gap with the money that ACTUALLY exists and the money that exists in computers. [10]

"Wikipedia is one of the most reliable and non-biased sources on the Internet" = False
"The citizens are richer" = also false. They have more money, this does not make them richer by any means. In fact, when you factor for inflation, you'll see that income has stayed fairly constant compared to the income growth of the infamous "1%" that capitalists take no issue with. [11]

If Government owns the business, would they not have the right to hire who they like? In this regard, is the government owning a business in any way different from individuals owning a business? Are there not incompetent business owners?

In Capitalism, the driving force is competition, and you acknowledged this earlier in the debate. Now you state "it is not and should not be the goal of Capitalism". Regardless of whether or not it is the goal, it creates substandard business practices for the benefit of getting ahead. It is a byproduct of Capitalism that wears it down over time.

Competition does not increase prices, greed does. If BOTH competitors are greedy, prices will go up regardless. As for your argument about Substandard products, in a choice between quality and price most consumers pick low-cost items because they are cheaper. Walmart is a fine example of cheap, foreign-made goods ousting local business through unethical practices.

You speak as though people will only purchase what they can afford. This is false. Many buy items well-beyond their spending limit through credit cards and such, while others buy the cheap option to save themselves money, even if they could afford better.

the "Social" programs the United States government is enacting are by no means examples of successful socialism. In the Socialist state, people are not GIVEN anything as they are in the U.S.- they WORK for it. The difference is that you technically work FOR the government: It creates a new relationship (that of employer/employee) between the government and the citizen. This could be partially responsible for the tendency for extreme nationalism in Socialist states, but that is a mere speculation of mine.

I am not CONDEMNING capitalism by any means. I am suggesting that socialism is a better option.
Capitalism works, but it's only short-term in the best of cases.

Didn't pure capitalism lead to business tycoons, robber barons, tenements, hoovervilles, and the Great Depression? I think that these examples of the results of pure capitalism are reasons enough to not use it. What "destroyed" America (You've got some nerve saying its destroyed when countries like Somalia and India are impoverished while we're buying IPhones and XBoxes by the millions...) was the strange hybrid-system that the U.S. Government developed, with the government offering the BENEFITS of socialism and the BENEFITS of capitalism, ignoring the detriments (socialism = high taxes, Capitalism = Big Business Domination). Since neither system is complete, both begin to malfunction.

People knew how to use power properly.... I can't believe what I am hearing. During this time people lived like rats! There was hardly any middle class at all. Up until the 1800's, big business hadn't existed, so everything that happened was experimental and the repercussions were not foreseen.

Once again, let's keep this civilized. I have no idea what you're talking about.

My defense against your attacks:

I'm not going to read arguments my opponent is too lazy to write down himself. This is a debate between him and I, and not between journalists and myself.

Wikipedia is incapable of destroying ANY arguments. If you wish, you can click on Wikipedia's citations and use THOSE as legitimate sources, however I myself could edit Wikipedia to say whatever I wanted, if I were so inclined.

You have made no new statements about the benefits of capitalism which I have not already refuted.

You have also not done a very good job of defending Capitalism and fulfilling YOUR burden of proof (since you instigated the debate).

Please satisfy these requirements in the last round.

Debate Round No. 4


Response Point 1: Ok. Scandinavia is an exception. One, Government instituted healthcare education usually only work in small countries with little diversification (like Scandinavia), and two, you must have a good Government to institute the policies (like the US's is terrible, but Scandinavia's is pretty good). Few countries can institute these policies well. But private education and healthcare is still better because it allows for competitition to lower prices, and to increase the standard of healthcare. Like what usually happens with most monopolies, they charge an exorbitant price and the standard is horrible. Same goes with most Countries' policies. "it can work in a small homogeneous population, which is all on the same page - same religion, same values, same culture, and a small population - provided everything stays that way.":

Response Point 2:

Response Point 2:


I will accept Pro's request (in comments) to discount the final round, due to a technical error on his end.
I thank Pro for a good debate, and leave it now in the hands of the voters.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For crayzman2297: Thank you for accepting the final round submission. You earned the conduct point.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For crayzman2297: Let me rephrase that. Can we just skip over Round 5? Again, -1 conduct for me if you want.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For crayzman2297: I am really sorry. It seems that I pressed the wrong thing twice. Can Round 5 just be a forfeit? -1 in conduct if you want.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 6 years ago
I love how both pictures are of cowboys with guns.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For Crayzman2297: I will reinstate with pride.
Posted by Crayzman2297 6 years ago
Actually I was taking care of some business in Texas, and I own no laptop with which I could check emails OR post debates. Re-issue your challenge if you wish. I dare you.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
I see that you are scared to debate this. Scaredy-cat.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iTzDanneh 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ron arguments seem terribly. Crazy kept it calm cool and collected refuting everything Ron said
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall Con did a better job. He was focused, driven and refuted everyone of Pro's points while Pro was all over the place in a state between mad and ignorant...