Should puppy mills be closed?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 5/28/2014 | Category: | Places-Travel | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,896 times | Debate No: | 55620 | ||
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)
 Pro  Con We can agree that puppy mills provide jobs. Probably not a very significant number of jobs, but they provide jobs either way. If we can preserve jobs we should. That is beneficial to the American people. My opponent has taken an extreme position. When a system is broken, that does not mean that we should discard the system, especially since it would make a specific part of the private sector illegal where it could just be repaired. What really needs to happen is that the government puts tighter regulations on puppy mills. Since the problem is fixable, and it provides jobs, shutting down the puppy mills is not the preferable reform. Thank you. |
 |
|
Pro Coolkid87 forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Maemel 7 years ago
Report this Comment
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
| Coolkid87 | Jonbonbon | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 7 years ago
| Coolkid87 | Jonbonbon | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Pro provided no contest to con's points about the job market, and dropped out.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
| Coolkid87 | Jonbonbon | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 - Con. Pro forfeited Round 2 and that is never acceptable conduct in a debate, because of this - Pro loses conduct points. S & G - Tie. Neither committed any spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Con. Con successfully provided two arguments that convinced me that shutting down these mills is not the most reasonable solution nor the best. Pro failed to rebut any of these points as well, which cost him the argument greatly. Ultimately though, it was Con's example of how adding stricter regulations would be a more preferable solution that solidified her win for me. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. My advice for Pro would be to never forfeit. You could have expanded on the increased risk for disease as Con never touched that point. As usual, good job Con!
Vote Placed by Zarroette 7 years ago
| Coolkid87 | Jonbonbon | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: I really think that 'it provides jobs' is a shoddy reason to justify an obviously awful operation. But Pro never refuted Con's counter-argument, so no one gets argument points. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeit.
Vote Placed by Progressivist 7 years ago
| Coolkid87 | Jonbonbon | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
