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

Discrimination should be 100% Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 106843
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Note: I'm new to this, so excuse me if I screwed up the formatting or I'm not entirely professional or something. Also, I work two jobs so I may be slower in responding due to time constraints, but I'll make a conscious effort to be timely.

The right to discriminate is essential to the individual so that he is free to make decisions he determines best for himself; such as who to be friends with, who to marry, where to work and how to spend his money. None of these things could be better determined by anyone else. In 1848, Frederick Douglas illustrated this fantastically in his letter to his old master Thomas Auld while giving his justification for escaping his slavery:

"I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner. I therefore see no wrong in any part of the transaction." [1]

Later in his letter, Douglass goes on to reminisce about making his first free dollar to keep and being free for the first time in his life to spend it on whatever he deemed best. This individual economic freedom Douglass describes has been the essential ingredient for creating the largest economies in the world and even bringing an entire nation of people (China) out of devastating poverty to become the world's second largest economy! [2]

But like Douglass wrote about, it's vital that individual freedom of associate be a universal princible, just as two people are both free to discriminate against all the people they know and choose their lives together. So what good reason is there in denying individuals the right to freely choose who they conduct business with or who they think would be the best fit as employees in their businesses? If an individual is free to decide for himself who he would like to work for and who he would like to purchase goods and services from, then so too should another individual be given the freedom to choose to whom he sells the products of his own labor to and to whom he deems best to employ in his labor. This is the princible of universality that must be in effect in order to uphold the case that, say, it's morally good to allow one individual the freedom to associate with anyone of his choosing. [3]

If you grant one man the freedom to discriminate in choosing between businessmen to whom he would purchase goods/services from and associate with in a business relationship, how then do you justify the morality of simutaneously denying the businessmen the same freedoms? Because if you were to remove the universaliaty you end up with the horrofic existence in which Frederick Douglass escaped from.

[3] (First couple minutes or so)


Given that in this kind of forum, those who analyze these debates and arguments know what it is that is in contention, I will not introduce the topic in detail. Rather, I will delve into the topic at hand, mainly that businesses have no right, legal or social, to discriminate those whom seek to enter into contractual agreements with them. While everything included in this post for the purposes of this debate is to be considered, I will not delve deeply by writing a book on the points that can really eviscerate the argument that a business should have the right to discriminate.
(1) Businesses exist for many reasons, but amongst the many reasons they exist, they exist to make a PROFIT. And as such, a business that wants the right to discriminate, ought to have included in its budget a legal fund along with "a going out of business fund" because such practices defy sound economic policy. Something which is non controversial amongst economic analysts, economists, and economic historians of all socio-economic and political persuasions.

(2) Arguing that the Supreme Court ruling permitting discrimination in terms of admittance to private organizations (i.e Boy Scouts, Religious institutions) cannot be applied to businesses that by their very nature are open to the general public See. Boy Scouts v. James Dale and Roberts v. United States Jaycees

Businesses by their very nature seek clientele and favorable economic transactions. And while they may "target" those whom they feel will be more likely to purchase their products through marketing, businesses seek profit; they don"t choose it. Furthermore, Consumers seek products, goods, services. Consumers choose products for many reasons but mainly pick a product because they like that which they seek and is at a price they believe is acceptable. Business between a business and consumer is purely transactional and goes no further than between that of two economic entities conducting a transaction.
Laws prohibiting discrimination mostly deal with has concerned "public accommodations," meaning certain businesses holding themselves open to the public. Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses"inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths"to serve any customer who could pay. The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by "holding themselves open to the public," they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it.
Business owners, from the moment they conceive the idea of creating a business through the process of licensing and meeting the legal requirements for the operation of the said business know that they are required to abide by laws and regulations if they are to operate their business in legal standing and free of legal sanction. If an individual feels that his engagement in commerce will place him in a position by which his personal religious beliefs will be dishonored either by him or some other individual, the individual should reconsider whether placing themselves in such a situation(owning a business) which will on some occasions offend his views on God or contradict what is believed to be against one"s faith. Those who discriminate should reconsider whether having a business is really worth one"s "spiritual standing with god. Again, a person"s religious person"s beliefs and standing with God appear to be more important to the supporter of this "discriminatory position" than one of a purely economical nature, and as such, the business owner has the freedom to discriminate against himself and preclude himself from making a profit.

Finally, I believe that there is a inherent contradiction by conservatives and those who argue that the "right to discriminate should be legal 100%" and their own religious beliefs. A brief examination of the some bible verses will demonstrate that:
The bible commands people to obey the laws of the land even when such laws contravene religious beliefs(Bible verses and other sources will be provided)
ROMANS 13: 1-7 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
The bible commands one to not judge and leave the judge of judging and passing sentence to GOD himself
ROMANS 13: 8-10

8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another"s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord"s. 9 For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But you who eat vegetables only " why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything " why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God." 12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God. "NET

Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Da
Debate Round No. 1


My apologies for the slow reaction time, but it is now my weekend from work and so I'll be able to respond much quicker.

RE: Discrimination defies sound economic policy

Here my opponent seems to have forgotten the topic at hand because this argument has no relevance regarding the question of whether business discrimination should be legal. Rather, Con's argument merely points out the downside of a business owner discriminating against his own customer; namely that the business owner would willingly miss out on an opportunity for profit. Even Con admits that no other party except the business owner is harmed by this discrimination. Does the individual not have the right of self-ownership and also so the right to knowingly make decisions which will negatively affect himself?

RE: Business is only between the seller and purchaser

Con writes, "Consumers choose products for many reasons but mainly pick a product because they like that which they seek and is at a price they believe is acceptable. Business between a business and consumer is purely transactional and goes no further than between that of two economic entities conducting a transaction." But then he immediately contradicts himself by adding a third economic entity into the equation: "Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses"(sic)inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths"(sic)to serve any customer who could pay."

My opponent seemingly cannot get his own argument straight. If the audience were to accept his first statement that business is strictly between the two economic entities involved in the transactions they would be led to believe discrimination against the customer by the business owner would be acceptable because the transaction is not dependent on an outside force. Yet, if the audience were to accept Con's second statement that businesses are required by common law to serve any who can pay they would be led to believe there in fact is a third entity involved who dictates whether the supposedly private transaction may occur.

Con continues, "The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by "holding themselves open to the public," they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it. Business owners, from the moment they conceive the idea of creating a business through the process of licensing and meeting the legal requirements for the operation of the said business know that they are required to abide by laws and regulations if they are to operate their business in legal standing and free of legal sanction." Here Con invokes the law as his reason for why discrimination in business should not be allowed, but appealing to the status-quo is circular logic since I'm specifically arguing that the status-quo is unjustified and shouldn't be enforced.

RE: Inherent contradiction with my stance and my religious texts.

Audience, please at this time revisit my opening argument in Round 1. You will notice that I never did appeal to Christian doctrine to support the resolution of this debate and that Con is attempting to construct a straw man argument for him to dismantle. My opponent's argument here is invalid and must be thrown out.


A business owner who believes that he can"t conduct business with any person, whether natural or juridical, in defiance of the law and social norms on account of any characteristic, biological or socially constructed, cannot turn around and claim a violation of freedom of choice when he by virtue of entering into the business venture knew he would not have that freedom, given his legal obligations to abide by laws that prohibit the very illogical freedom he is purporting to want to continue to have.
Again, you can"t lose a right or a distorted concept of freedom you never had and won"t have upon legally establishing your economic venture. You had a choice: either live being discriminatory or own a business. Our society deems you can"t have both.
I have faith that whomever reads this debate can look past the triviality and see that I"m on the right side of history, economics, and humanity, if not by logic( people have a right, right?).

You can throw the book of fallacies at me all you want. Because your fallacy is the worst of them all: the appeal to emotion.
You cynically use Frederick Douglass" writings on individual freedom and why he could walk away from slavery and a slaveowner( a fallacy unto itself given that Frederick Douglass is not talking about discrimination at all, nor is he talking about business freedom) and try to equivocate it to a seriously misguided view on so many levels. You try to use Frederick Douglass" thought and writings to support something he would have been vehemently against.

While I did not directly mention your religious beliefs, there is no doubt that the particular discrimination being discussed here is religious. This kind of advocacy for "freedom to discriminate" proposed by you is prevalent amongst those whom want to be able to deny individuals services based on perceived lifestyle choices that run counter to the businessman"s religious world view.

And hence, your claim that the argument is a "straw man" and that "religion has nothing to do with it" are intellectual cop outs designed to woo those whom would dismiss your argumentation the moment they realized what you were really arguing or advocating.

I"d like to point out that Because you don"t mention your argument completely and honestly for the community to evaluate it in its true essence, does not prevent one from exposing it. To give a better example, because a state"s rights proponent in the 1860s doesn"t make mention of slavery and racial discrimination in a debate, that doesn"t prevent a person who believes in federalism and abolition to point out that slavery and racial discrimination are what is being proposed and the reasoning proposed along with it.

You know well that what you are advocating is the right for someone to deny another a service, good, or other contractual obligation on religious grounds. If that is not your argument, please do clarify what kind of discrimination you talk about.

Is it racial discrimination?
Is it discrimination on sex?
Is discrimination on gender?
Is it discrimination on creed?
Is it discrimination on marital status?
Is it discrimination on social status or class?

Discrimination cannot be legal because it goes against the moral, economic, social, and political fabric of our society. It is in direct opposition to the social contract that our ancestors agreed to(albeit in theory first, and through struggle later in practice)that we ratify through continued sanction of the political processes we participate in and approve through the franchise.
It flies in the face of the self-evident truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With those principles in mind.
Businesses are not human beings. They are legal entities subject to the law. And while acting under the auspices of the law, because they exist so long as they are in good standing, they must act in accordingly. And that means not discriminating. What"s being discusses here is not just the downside to discriminating. What"s being debated here is that you are debating a point that quite frankly is moot.
Business should not discriminate because they cannot discriminate.
It is the law.
Society views that discriminatory practices have no place in an economic transaction.
The laws of economics have proved that discriminatory practices go against the intrinsic nature of businesses
And a business owner when conducting his business is acting under the auspices of the state and not as an individual(despite people not understandable legal theories involved)..
Debate Round No. 2


RE: Con writes, "Business should not discriminate because they cannot discriminate. It is the law."

My opponent continues to appeal to the status quo, but that's a fallacy and simply isn't an argument against the resolution of this debate. I'm specifically arguing against the status quo and Con is required to give reasons to support his contention that discrimination is immoral.

Allow me to provide a brief example to illustrate the absuridity of Con's argument. Suppose my son says to me he thinks it is actually morally okay for him to steal a candy bar from the gas station and gives me several reasons as to why. In response to my son's arguments I say that the reason he's wrong and it actually is morally bad for him to steal a candy bar is because stealing is illegal. The problem here is that my son knows it's illegal, but he's arguing that it shouldn't be, and so my argument failed to actually provide any reason as to why it should remain illegal. Stating it should remain illegal simply because it's already illegal is circular logic.

RE: It's incorrect to use Frederick Douglass's letter

In his letter, Doublass writes about how many of the freedmen in the North would love to return to the South were it not for their love of personal freedom, and the slave owners: "You will be surprised to learn that people at the North labor under the strange delusion that if the slaves were emancipated at the South, they would flock to the North. So far from this being the case, in that event, you would see many old and familiar faces back again to the South. The fact is, there are few here who would not return to the South in the event of emancipation. We want to live in the land of our birth, and to lay our bones by the side of our fathers'; and nothing short of an intense love of personal freedom keeps us from the South. For the sake of this, most of us would live on a crust of bread and a cup of cold water." [1]
It's a powerful statement. Blacks who escaped slavery still would return to the South after emancipation, but because they loved their personal freedom so much they wouldn't do so until after emancipation. They would even live off morsels to avoid doing business with slave owners or associating with them. If the audience remembers Con's argument, he would rather the few Blacks who now owned businesses after escaping slavery close up shop because they entered into business with an obligation to openly serve the public and yet refused to associate with their ex-masters.

RE: Con's Questions about his preemptive rebuttal based on Christian scripture

My opponent here has trouble understanding why his argument is invalid. It's because he offers a rebuttal to a contention I did not make and still haven't. Con writes, "Finally, I believe that there is a (sic) inherent contradiction by conservatives and those who argue that the "right to discriminate should be legal 100%" and their own religious beliefs."

The problem is my opponent offered an entire rebuttal to an argument based on religious texts to which he assumed I adhered to and which I never even made. If I didn't use Christian doctrine as a contention to support the resolution, there is no sense in attempting to rebute that contention.

Furthermore, Con's rebuttal to the argument I didn't make is also flawed in that he tailored it specifically to Christianity instead of providing a reason as to why religous people in general shouldn't discriminate. It would make just as much sense for me to quote Islamic sources in order to prove that it's actually acceptable to discriminate, but that would be ridiculous because it appeals to just one specific theology.

Closing Statement

In this debate I put forth the resolution that individuals should have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason in the business world. The driving reason I offered was the idea that every man has the freedom to associate with whomever he desires and to exclude any he wishes; and to deprive the businessman of this fundamental right of associate while granting it only to others is akin to the horrorific experience Frederick Douglass escaped from. How awful it was for the slave owners of times past be permitted the freedom of associate and yet it was denied to all the slaves.

As my opponent rightly pointed out, a businessman who chooses to excercise his freedoms this way may end up precluding himself from potential profit, but he's failed to demonstrate why that is suffucient reason to strip the businessman of this freedom. The only other contention Con offerd is an appeal to the status quo: "Business should not discriminate because they cannot discriminate. It is the law." But circular logic gets you nowhere.

I would like to thank my opponent at this time for participating in this important debate, and also the audience for listening to our arguments. Hopefully one day the laws will change and people will be universally allowed to freely associate with whomever they choose in order to preserve their most important values, even if we personally find those values despicable. I encourage the audience to vote Pro.



In an ideal world, the free market would solve all of the problems that plague humanity. Monopolies and
market domination by one person, corporation, subsidiaries, or other economic interests
would not exist because of true competition and economic opportunity.
If that fantasyland were to exist, we could leave those who believe in unfettered discrimination like my opponent to barricade themselves
in a business model that would all but surely, lead them to economic ruin. We would leave them to fail because their actions would hurt no one but
For if there existed true competition and economic opportunity in our current system, those who are discriminated would have more alternate
choices available, where they could spend their money with those that who hold their same views, are educated and/or tolerant,
understand the true purpose of a business, and respect property and contractual rights, that they would not have to dreadfully spend money with those whom in the 21st
century still cling on to the prejudiced, hate-filled, and ignorant worldviews of a world long gone.
But the sad reality is that that is just not the case in the world we live in. Today's real free market is not full of
abundant diverse choices. There are places in our nation where there is only one grocery seller, one baker, one car dealer, one manufacturing plant,
one lawschool, one hospital chain, one wholesaler, one lender, and many more economic entities like the ones mentioned. Giving these sole "merchants" the
freedom to discriminate allows them to be the "masters of fate" with the more disadvantaged, marginalized, oppressed, and
weaker members of our society. It would allow them to practically blockade those whom they dislike or disagree with, and in effect, deprive them of a decent
standard of living they can afford and have worked hard for. It would allow these "discriminators" the ability to make an end run against the principles that make our
nation stand out above all others and subvert the rule of law.
We have seen the disastrous effects of letting a businesses, public, and other institutions discriminate throughout history. We
saw how discrimination affects not just individuals, but entire groups of people, as brilliantly articulated
in the cases fought before the Supreme Court during the civil rights movement.
We saw how discrimination destroyed minorities not just here, but
throughout the world, and we have seen how discrimination can destroy a nation for centuries(i.e how Haiti and African nations were not allowed to join the "community
of nations for no other reason than they were "nations of color").
Furthermore, we see the disastrous effects that discrimination can have on domestic tranquility, foreign relations, and a myriad of social and economic issues.

The fact of the matter is that allowing a business the right to Discriminate
1. harms the individual, in this case the consumer psychologically, because it not only sends an individual
a message that they are not equal, but by the act of discrimination that inferiority is reinforced
2. it harms the economy through reduced productivity, the damaged "potentiality" of human capital, and closing the market to some(in the case where the merchant is
only person selling the good, product, or service)
3. it harms the society because what you can't get with money, you will get by any means necessary(which leads to a series of social ills)

Thus, Because we live in a society where all rights must be respected on an equal footing; where no individual is free to choose what law to follow and which one not
to; and a nation that believes that we what affects one will affect all, no business should have the right, nor shall they ever be allowed the right to be above the
law and contravene two hundred years of a political philosophy affirmed by our society in every election cycle that we hold these truths to be self-evident.

Discrimination attacks those truths we find self evident; the right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. And because we are a society that believes that we are all entitled to these inalienable rights and the
protections that allow them to exist, a business must be compelled to follow the law.

NOTE: If my opponent wants to be a bigot and associate with bigotry, he has every right to do so. If he wants to hate and be a fundamentalist, that
is not the issue here. The issue is whether a business should be allowed to act on that hate and prejudice.

Nothing you have presented suggests that Douglass, who would have vehemently abhorred your line of reasonig, and even
more so if he were to see you using his life experience and reflections, was talking about a businessman's right to
impose his bigotry and prejudice against people. There is no way you can twist his words to mean anything other than
he was against slavery, liberty and freedom are sacrsanct, and no power nor man has dominion over "human freedom", not the right to
hinder life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as it appears you'd like to see again.
THIS MAN SUFFERED THE INJUSTICES CAUSED BY YOUR LINE OF REASONING! Nathaniel Bedford Forest seems like the man you'd want to quote!

FINALLY, when considering whom to vote for take this into account:
1. My opponent claims that my argument was a straw man, yet he never made his position clear. He is arguing that "Discrimination should be legal 100%".
He never clarified what kind of discrimination it was he was for. And because discrimination is very broad and he had 3 rounds and several occassions to clarify
that point, his refusal to clarify what discrimination he meant should not give him a free pass to throw fallacies when he committs the fallacy of "suppression of
evidence". Religious Discrimination is Discrimination. And anyone who is well versed on this topic knows that at the heart of his nonsensical claim is the
notion that one ought to be able to have "prejudice" towards an other faith, which is perfectly ok, but also act on it, which is 1000% not ok.

2. He falsely equivocates a man who fought for individual freedom and liberty as a slave, with fighting for the very principles that would reduce him back to

In Conclusion, I am confident that those who analyze both arguments see that there was no straw man, circular logic, or any other
triviality as accused by my opponent.
What is at stake here is that which makes our society the refuge of all those who seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you want to join the klan, you have every right to do so. But you don't have the right to act on that hate and prejudice.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Grandzam 3 years ago
Rusted beef, I recommend you be more specific about the resolution next time.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
I"ll take a look at this after I rest up from being awake for 48 hours straight
Posted by RustedBeef 3 years ago
W0621269, you still here?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Grandzam 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: New arguments in the last round will not be accepted, as pro has no chance to respond. 1. Discrimination harms business and it isn't legal: Pro wins. Con's argument was sufficiently answered by pro in that -is does not imply ought- in the 2nd round which was dropped until the third round. This argument by con looks like it is more like a counter argument for the contention that business owners could be offended by some people which was not pro's argument. It was brought up later with the new argument that it harms the economy which will not be accepted. 2. Anyone who can meet the price deserves the product: I did not like Pro's counter here, because I do not see how whether or not a third party is involved affects whether discrimination should be allowed in that case. However, this was another dropped argument so it goes to Pro. Con did not follow up on any of these points. (WILL CONTINUE RFD LATER GTG)
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go PRO because using the Bible as sources is a no-no because people don't interpret the bible or don't use the bible. PRO had better sources compared to CON. Since you remove the bible from the debate part, which PRO mentions, the arguments are being heavily weighted. The CON never answeres the broad statement, limiting to business, where he just says it is bad because of discrimination, which PRO does a fine job answering the argument. CON made a mistake in limiting himself to business which could have been used vs PRO. I'm also giving S&G to PRO. More because he had a better structure and layout versus the CON, which seemed hard to interpret at times, which is a deduction.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.