The Instigator
Daxitarian
Pro (for)
Tied
16 Points
The Contender
Idontcare
Con (against)
Tied
16 Points

Abolishing tariffs, the minimum wage, and public education would help poor people.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,466 times Debate No: 2199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

Daxitarian

Pro

Abolishing these three policies would do the most to help poor people.

Poor people can't get an education or useful skills because they are forced to go to public schools. There is no correlation between funding and school performance. There is one between choice and performance. We would be better off getting rid of the schools and hand the money over to the families and let them decide how to best improve their lives.

Not only can poor people not get any skills, but they can't get jobs because the minimum wage encourages employers to discriminate against people with no skills. Whenever you set a price floor, you create excess supply, which in this case is labor, so employers have more applicants and therefore will forgoing the people with the least skills who most desperately need the job.

No only can they not work, but the cost of goods and services is increased because politically connected industries get tariffs erected at the cost of everyone else. If we unilaterally got rid of all trade barriers, more trade would create more demand for American work, and that would make real gains in living standards and wages.

The answer is to get rid of bad government polices, no to add to them.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Idontcare

Con

Thank you daxtarian for starting this debate,

Those were some pretty extreme ideas about what should happen to the U.S. But I completely Disagree about what the outcome would be.

First off, Getting rid of public schools would not help poor people, or most of the middle, or upper middle class, Public schools are called that for a reason, anybody can go, and if you take them away There isn't a way for the people who can't afford a private school to go to and who do you think will get pushed way down the acceptance list would be? That's right, the people who need financial assistance, aka the poor people. As for the part about giving the money to the people, how do we decide who gets it? And how much? Not to mention how do we know it's being spent on what would truly benefit their lives? Or does it not matter if government handouts are being spent on cigarettes and drugs? I'm not saying that it all would be spent on those things, but I'm guessing a good portion would be. Also According to 2007's budget almost 373 Billion dollars was spent on public education last year, do you really think the government is really going to hand out that kind of money? I didn't think so and an education, forced or not, is better than no education.

As for minimum wage allowing employers to pay people less, that's completely ridiculous, The minimum wage may pool a large group of people in one place, but it stops them from paying them less. Employers will always want to make the largest profit margin, and DUH people are going to pay a brain surgeon more than a factory worker, they do a much more talented, and risky job, he deserves more money he can do something that most people can't and the rarer a profession is, the higher the pay, also known as supply and demand, or capitalism, whichever you like better they all fit. If you didn't have a minimum wage not only would employers discriminate against the "Un skilled" but they would do it in addition to paying them less.

And the tariffs not only need to stay in place, they need to be applied to ALL business, and increased, The only thing keeping the few factories here is the cost of overseas shipping on heavy items (like cars) and the tariffs that force importers to charge more, they have found a way to get around that though, on less expensive items, (Shoes, toys, games, movies, etc. They pay them $.25 cents an hour to make up for the cost of importing the items, so that might raise the minimum wage…….. Oh wait but that would be In China, and it would destroy the rest of the factories in America, lowering the now non regulated minimum wage, and thus making it harder or impossible for them to pay their way through private school because they need the money they got from the government (that they probably wouldn't get) to support the already low quality of life that they are used to, and dooming future generations, is that what you wanted?

So I would have to say that I agree with you….. To get rid of bad government policies, don't add them.

(Ok so I came up with that, same concept)
Debate Round No. 1
Daxitarian

Pro

Idontcare: public schools are called that for a reason, anybody can go, and if you take them away There isn't a way for the people who can't afford a private school to go to and who do you think will get pushed way down the acceptance list would be?

Reply: Two things--you think that somehow private schools are a fixed entity and you are forgetting that since public schools are immune from competition, they drive up the cost of schooling.

If public schools didn't exist, there would still be demand for education, which would cause entrepreneurs to build new types of schools: Your school could have just ten students, there could be schools for music, schools for math and science, or schools that operate essentially the same way as schools do now.

And since there would be more competition, prices would come way down.

Idontcare: As for the part about giving the money to the people, how do we decide who gets it? And how much?

Reply: For deciding who gets what, there are a number of possibilities. One thing is to just divide the money among everyone. Most states spend a little over $10,000 dollars per pupil. Instead of giving that amount to the student through the school, it could be given directly to the child's family, where they could decide how to spend it.

In most other welfare schemes, the consumer--not the producer--is subsidized. Food stamps are given to the people buying the food instead of people who produce the food. Schools are the opposite.

But if the options were just public schools or no public schools, the no public schools would still be the better choice, since not only do public schools not work, they are a drain on societies resources. The poorest of the poor who couldn't afford any type of school would be better taken care of by charity than by the government.

Idontcare: Not to mention how do we know it's being spent on what would truly benefit their lives?

Reply: Your unstated assumption is that you know what is best for people's lives better than they do. But life is complex and we are all trying to make sense of it from different vantage points, and no centralized authority can have that sort of knowledge. The degenerate parent who would rather spend on booze than education would most likely have their child taken away by social services in any situation.

Idontcare: Or does it not matter if government handouts are being spent on cigarettes and drugs? I'm not saying that it all would be spent on those things, but I'm guessing a good portion would be.

Reply: This claim is unfounded. I'm not sure why a good portion would be. I could think of why a very small fraction would be, and that is because humans have evolved to naturally care for their young, so our neurological hardwiring is one thing that would discourage that sort of thing. Of course there are some bad parents, but they are the very small minority. As I mentioned earlier, in any case they would have their children take away, and it would be better to give the money to the foster care home instead of the school, where they, instead of government bureaucrats, could work out what is best for their children.

Idontcare: Also According to 2007's budget almost 373 Billion dollars was spent on public education last year, do you really think the government is really going to hand out that kind of money? I didn't think so and an education, forced or not, is better than no education.

Reply: In one sense, you are right--the government isn't going to shill out 373 billion dollars. But what is stopping this are bureaucrats and teacher's unions who don't want to ruin their sweet deal that comes at the cost of everyone else. But if you are saying that a voucher program would be more difficult to administer than our current education system, there seems to be no evidence for that. This isn't a radical idea, but rather, it is already practiced in several countries, with great success.

Also, you seem to forget that education and schooling are not the same thing. Alexander Hamilton had only about 3 to 4 years of formal schooling, and he was one of he most brilliant Americans ever to live. Furthermore, pubic schooling is bad because it assumes that there is a set of knowledge everyone must know. Outside of basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, it is hard to see how this is the case. So the grades of about 4-12th are really a waste of time. And there is no reason why a government school would do any better at teaching basic reading, writing, and arithmetic than a private school. Also, public education spoon feeds information, rather than encouraging critical and independent thought. It is the infallible teacher and text book that has all the answers. Education needs to be geared more towards what is called "unschooling"--that is, education that is self-directed and based on the students interests. But this is nearly impossible with forced government schooling, because by making education government property, you erode everything down to one end to be pursued, which is why all government schools basically are the same and teach the same things. Private property leads to a diversification of ends to be pursued, which would lead to a dynamic system of schools, catering to different needs and desires. It's the same principal on why we have dozens of different soaps to choose from at the grocery store, and in the soviet union, you only had one, if any at all.

Idontcare: The minimum wage may pool a large group of people in one place, but it stops them from paying them less.

Reply: But it isn't the amount of zeros in the check that matter, it is the purchasing power that is important. You would be better off having $5 dollars instead of $10 dollars if the $5 dollars could buy you everything you need for $3 than if the $10 dollars could buy you everything you needed for $7. (In the first scenario, it only takes 60% of your earnings to buy everything, where in the second it would cost 70%)

Idontcare: Employers will always want to make the largest profit margin, and DUH people are going to pay a brain surgeon more than a factory worker, they do a much more talented, and risky job, he deserves more money he can do something that most people can't and the rarer a profession is, the higher the pay, also known as supply and demand, or capitalism, whichever you like better they all fit.

Reply: Here you are missing the point. Let me clarify with a thought experiment: suppose that Everyone at McDonalds would be required to make the same amount as a brain surgeon. If I'm smart and talented enough to be a brain surgeon, I could either spend a vast amount of time and money trying to become one, or I could just work at McDonalds and skip all that and make the same amount of money. If I'm an employer, I can either choose between hiring a possible brain surgeon, or a person who only has a GED. It's obvious who would be picked. In reality, what would happen is that McDonalds couldn't operate. So it is with minimum wage. What is interesting is that a lot of big businesses (such as Wal-Mart) support minimum wage, because they can take the hit in their profit margins, while smaller businesses can't, but they make up for it in the gain of market share.

So minimum wage leads to two outcomes: the low-skilled person loses his job to a person of higher skill, or the business can't afford the low-skilled person's services, which leads to his losing his job. Either way, you are cutting out the bottom rung on the economic latter that low-skill people need to live, save, and work towards acquiring better skills.

I am almost out of room, so the shorthand version of the tarrifs is that while you may be protecting certain jobs, those costs are passed on through the rest of the economy. If a tarrif increases the cost of importing energy, then businesses who use energy have their costs go up, which in turn gets passed on to the consumer, and poor people.
Idontcare

Con

I'm just going to start (I had a really hard time fitting this)
But Public schools are not immune to competition that's what private schools are, the competition towards public school, and you'll see that they cost a lot more per year because they aren't funded by the government, they are paid for by the people who go there, so now instead of spreading the responsibility of funding a school from everyone it goes to the select few who go there, increasing the individual cost. Also who would get to decide where a kid went? The parents so even if the kid wanted to be an engineer, if the parent wanted them to be an artist, they now are really screwed because they are paying MORE to be specialized in something they don't want to. I didn't copy this, but just because the public schools went away doesn't mean the teachers union would go away, so the teachers would be able to stay united and prices would stay the same.
DAXTARIAN: For deciding who gets what, there are a number of possibilities. One thing is to just divide the money among everyone. Most states spend a little over $10,000 dollars per pupil. Instead of giving that amount to the student through the school, it could be given directly to the child's family, where they could decide how to spend it in most other welfare schemes; the consumer--not the producer--is subsidized. Food stamps are given to the people buying the food instead of people who produce the food. Schools are the opposite.
REPLY: That's because most other welfare schemes regulate what the money can be spent on, you can't buy a car with food stamps, only food, I would agree completely that IF this happened to re distribute the 373 billion among the welfare programs to help reach out, and maybe stop the property taxes, but not just handing a family a check for 10's of thousands of dollars. First off public schools DO work, my dad, who had a poor father, went to a public school and graduated IU, he got a scholarship there, and straight A's K- 12, he tried in school, and he succeeded he now makes $350,000, owns a boat, 2 houses and a condo, I would have to say that is enough to make me think that if you actually try public schools work, part of the problem in economically impaired areas is that student skip classes, don't do home work and think that the only way to get out is through sports, and if they can't do that they're stuck. And I thought you said there would be no more poor? Guess not. The point of public schools is to allow the poorest of the poor with a chance to get out, if they weren't more likely to resort to crime, maybe it would work.
DAXTARIAN: In one sense, you are right--the government isn't going to shell out 373 billion dollars. But what is stopping this are bureaucrats and teachers unions who don't want to ruin their sweet deal. Public schooling is bad because it assumes that there is a set of knowledge everyone must know… So the grades of about 4-12th are really a waste of time.
REPLY: Like I said we are never going to be able to get rid of teachers unions and bureaucrats so S.O.L. Teachers don't get that well paid either, so I might ask what sweet deal? They have work, and that's it so it's not that great of a deal. In case you didn't know Before the U.S. had public schools the people who wanted an education went to the school they wanted to then we realized that that didn't work so we made public schools.
REPLY: There is, reading, writing, Math, and Science, the problem is that it takes 13 grades to teach it to an understanding that allows people to do it relatively well, without the use of technology. Public education spoon feeds information, rather than encouraging critical and independent thought. It is the infallible teacher and text book that has all the answers
REPLY: Not if you want to know multiplication, Division, nouns, verbs, Algebra, more than the 8 planets of the solar system, pronouns, adj. adv. Pressure, buoyancy, do I need to continue? All those and more are skills colleges look for when choosing students, How well would someone who can't tell you what a nebula, a verb, or what X='s do on the SAT's? That can be fixed without ending public schools you know that right? No it isn't there are a lot of specialty classes that appeal to students, there's Art class, and about 10 different Music Classes, oh and a wide verity of science classes too, and many more, how is this not appealing to a student's interests? Where are you pulling this argument from?
DAXTARIAN: by making education government property, you erode everything down to one end to be pursued, which is why all government schools basically are the same and teach the same things. Private property leads to a diversification of ends to be pursued, which would lead to a dynamic system of schools, catering to different needs and desires. It's the same principal on why we have dozens of different soaps to choose from at the grocery store, and in the Soviet Union, you only had one, if any at all but it isn't the amount of zeros in the check that matter, it is the purchasing power that is important...
REPLY: There isn't only one choice there are two, public, or private, all schools do not teach the same things, outside of what is required, and all schools teach that, what schools teach depends on the school size, and a lot of other factors, and if you haven't noticed in stores let's say the generic brand is a public school, and school the others are private schools which do you pay more for? And for the record Alexander Hamilton lived in the 1700's way before the situation was anywhere near what it is today so I'd try to come up with someone who only completed the 3rd grade and accomplished something great in the last 50 years. But purchasing power isn't only about good's, it's about labor too so your actually suggesting (by accident I'm sure) that minimum wage WOULD go down if there was no bottom on it. I'll use your same logic only on a larger scale and the variable will be the workers wage, A company makes 2 billion a year before paying their employees, there is no minimum wage so they can pay them anything they want, they have 40,000 employees and are debating whether to pay them $x an hour or $x+4 an hour no matter what x='s which will give them a greater profit? The answer? Well I guess I have to tell you since apparently not everyone needs to know algebra, is the first answer x. By the way x was below the minimum wage, and the purchasing power stays the same because the millionaires and other fixed income jobs remain at the same pay rate.
And that bit about McDonalds, That just sounds like communism. and it's unrealistic, The fact is that nobody is going to pay a un educated person as much as a educated one, (By educated I mean through college) it just won't happen, with or without minimum wage all that would happen is the average hourly pay would go down. So right now the minimum wage is set at a point that enables both to be able to operate and it also allows the employees to live, what your suggestion is that the minimum wage be abolished so that what small business can prosper even at the expense of their employees? I support small business but not like that. with or without minimum an employer will want to employ a skilled worker over an unskilled worker weather it's for 8 dollars an hour or 5 that's common knowledge. And your part about tariffs was never one of your point's you're supposed to argue that that getting rid of would help "poor people" as you said and getting rid of them would lose the U.S. 10,000's of jobs that are normally held by the lower class, abolishing the tariffs would save people a matter of cents on everyday objects, but would cause a lot of people to lose their jobs so in the end it hurts people more than it helps.

score 150left charcters left
Debate Round No. 2
Daxitarian

Pro

"But Public schools are not immune to competition that's what private schools are,"

Reply: No, because public schools get their money from the barrel of a gun. If a private school performed as poorly as a public school, it would go out of business. Usually the public school just gets more money. If a public school were not immune to competition, you would have to show how it could go out of business.

"you'll see that they cost a lot more per year because they aren't funded by the government"

Reply: It is government providing public schools that ups the cost of private schools, since it stifles competition. The more competitors relative to buyers there are in a market, the cheaper the prices. But since the government operates under coercion, it takes up virtually all of the market share. If you got rid of government schools, the demand for education would spur more competition, and hence lower prices.

"The parents so even if the kid wanted to be an engineer, if the parent wanted them to be an artist, they now are really screwed because they are paying MORE to be specialized in something they don't want to."

Reply: Public schools don't do any better job of doing this. Instead of the parents controlling their child, it is usually bureaucrats who do it. But they have less interest in what happens to the child than the parent does.
Suppose I want to learn about economics, but my public high school doesn't have any classes about economics. What public schools do worse is that I am forced to stay in that school, unless I am enormously wealthy. Under a private school system, nearly an infinite number of arrangements could be made to satisfy my needs. I could audit a class at a neighboring school, hire a tutor, buy books I want to read, etc.

"just because the public schools went away doesn't mean the teachers union would go away, so the teachers would be able to stay united and prices would stay the same."

Reply: No, but teacher the teacher's union contract are with government provided schools, not private. So I could start a school that used non-teacher union labor.

"The point of public schools is to allow the poorest of the poor with a chance to get out, if they weren't more likely to resort to crime, maybe it would work."

Reply: They are supposed get students out, but instead the trap them in. A poor person can't send their kid to a private school, because the public school they go to will always undercut the price of the private school, putting them out of business. Your philosophy is basically that you can run poor people's lives, but so far history has shown that that philosophy is the best way to ruin poor people's lives.

"There is, reading, writing, Math, and Science, the problem is that it takes 13 grades to teach it to an understanding that allows people to do it relatively well, without the use of technology."

Reply: It takes 13 years to learn to do it relatively well if you work at the pace of public schools. Also, that assumes that everyone will learn at the same pace.

"Not if you want to know multiplication, Division, nouns, verbs, Algebra, more than the 8 planets of the solar system, pronouns, adj. adv. Pressure, buoyancy, do I need to continue?..."

Reply: This next paragraph is a little disjointed and grammatically incorrect, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm not sure why you think it is just public schools that teach these things. If you compare people from similar socio-economic groups and see who does better, public school students or private school, it is always private schools. Everyone in college that got there from a public school is grossly unprepared while the private school students seem to excel.

"There isn't only one choice there are two, public, or private,"

Reply: Not if you are poor. If you went to a barber that gave you a bad hair cut, would it make sense to force you to keep going to that same barber?

"And for the record Alexander Hamilton lived in the 1700's way before the situation was anywhere near what it is today"

The only thing that is different is that bureaucrats and professional educators thought it would be a good idea to force people to go to public schools at the barrel of a gun. The reason you can't find an example of someone who only went to school since 3rd grade is that everyone is forced to stay in school until they are much older.

"x vs. x+4..."

What you are leaving out is the cost of other goods. If the company could lower their pay, they can also lower their prices, and take up more market share, and make more profit. So it isn't x vs. x+4, but x relative to y, the cost of other goods. Furthermore, you assumption is that the CEO would hoard all the profits. But this assumes that people can hoard money. You can do 3 things with money: Invest it, save it, spend it. In all cases, it is being transferred. If you invest it, you are giving it to someone to start up a new business venture, which creates jobs, goods and services. If you save it, the bank doesn't just leave the money alone, they pay it to their employees and loan it out. If you spend it all, you are creating more demand for goods and services, which creates more jobs. The only way you can really hoard money is by taking it out as cash and hiding it under your pillow, which is a bad idea because inflation eats away at it's value.

"minimum an employer will want to employ a skilled worker over an unskilled worker weather it's for 8 dollars an hour or 5 that's common knowledge."

So my options are, hire a person with no skill for 5 dollars or hire a person with more skill for 8 dollars. Now suppose the government forces me to pay a person at least 8 dollars. Who am I going to hire?

"And your part about tariffs was never one of your point's "

Reply: You need to read the whole argument before typing. Start with the title.

"getting rid of them would lose the U.S. 10,000's of jobs that are normally held by the lower class, abolishing the tariffs would save people a matter of cents on everyday objects, but would cause a lot of people to lose their jobs so in the end it hurts people more than it helps."

Reply: What you are ignoring are the indirect effects of abolishing tariffs. Suppose we erect a tariff on sugar. That means the cost of sugar is higher. If I had a company that made candy canes, that would mean my prices would go up, so I might move my factory else where, taking away jobs. See how you protect the initial sugar making jobs, but destroy other jobs and raise prices in the process, all at the expense of everyone else? You might be tempted to say that you would simply erect a tariff on candy canes so I would stay here. But the same thing happens, prices go up, and the shops and business that use or sell the product either have to lay off people, raise prices, or just go out of business all together. The process is a house of cards that can't sustain itself.

The arguments for tariffs are analogous to the arguments that come from intelligent design being taught in science class rooms. Virtually all economists know that tariffs don't do anything to protect jobs, just as virtually all biologists know that ID is not science. But interested self groups, be they religious or the steel industry, push these ideas on people who are illiterate on such matters, be they biology or economics. Likewise, evolution is a useful analogy for free markets in showing how complex, bottom-up, unguided arrangements can come about; you don't need god directing the flow of life and you don't need the government to bring about a better life for poor people.

So my idea of helping poor people would include getting rid of these wasteful, superstition and board-line paternalistic ideas and let people choose for themselves.

Well done, and good luck to you.
Idontcare

Con

Dextarian: If a private school performed as poorly as a public school, it would go out of business.
Reply, So what your saying is that if there weren't any public schools there wouldn't be any bad grades? The only difference is that the stupid kids would be grouped in some schools and the smart in some others, The reason public schools perform so badly is that there are a wide range of students, some smart, and some not so smart, the reason that private schools perform so well is that the only kids who go to them are the rich kid's, who can hire help, or the REALLY smart kids who get scholarships there, so the only reason private schools are "better" is because the pool from which they draw their students is far more refined, not because they are magical places that make people perform better.
Dextarian: It is government providing public schools that ups the cost of private schools
Reply Yes, but to an extent, and once the system really gets into full effect and the price wars stop, some will be far more expensive than public schools are now, and that's where the smart kids will go because they will be better schools, and at the other end of the spectrum there will be schools far cheaper than public schools cost (by cost I mean money spent per pupil) and those will spring up in the poorer areas, and those schools will be worse, and wont teach children to nearly the same level as the nice schools do. At least right now every student has the same amount of money spent on them (or at least on paper) so they could all have equal chances, If you let schools that cost more than a certain class can afford that's where true discrimination comes in, when one class CAN'T get the same opportunity for education as another, at least in public schools a poor kid has the same chance as a rich kid.
Dextarian: A poor person can't send their kid to a private school, because the public school they go to will always undercut the price of the private school
Reply: true, but it doesn't make a difference if the private school they go to is worse than a public school, which is more likely since the good teachers will demand more pay than the bad teachers, and the good schools will charge more than the bad schools.
IDONTCARE: "Not if you want to know multiplication, Division, nouns, verbs, Algebra, more than the 8 planets of the solar system, pronouns, adj. adv. Pressure, buoyancy, do I need to continue?..."

Dextarian: Reply: This next paragraph is a little disjointed and grammatically incorrect, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Reply: my point is that you don't learn to much in grades k-3 and that the SAT's test on the "basic" information that is assumed that everyone knows, and that that material is learned in grade 4-12, if there was no unified curriculum, which is what is suggested, for the schools how does a test like that operate? Colleges need a standardized test that compares ALL of the possible applicants, if every school had its own those results would mean anything.

Dextarian: What you are leaving out is the cost of other goods. If the company could lower their pay, they can also lower their prices, and take up more market share, and make more profit. So it isn't x vs. x+4, …
Reply The purpose of that wasn't to explain how a company works it was to show that an employer will always want to pay its employees as little as possible,

Dextarian: So my options are, hire a person with no skill for 5 dollars or hire a person with more skill for 8 dollars. Now suppose the government forces me to pay a person at least 8 dollars. Who am I going to hire?
Reply: your logic makes no sense, if the government required you to pay someone $8 you couldn't pay someone $5, none the less the person with skill would be hired, Why? Because people with skill, or with experience in a particular area are going to be paid more because skill pays, you've said that 3 time now in different wording, and I've said the same thing 2 times now all MINIMUM WAGE DOES IS STOP UNSKILLED WORKERS FORM STARVING TO DEATH!!!!!! If they got paid what they deserve they couldn't have a place to live, or a phone line or proper clothes, then if they got fired they wouldn't be able to get a job because they don't have a home, even of they got experience in their last job.
Idontcare:And your part about tariffs was never one of your point's "

Dextarian Reply: You need to read the whole argument before typing. Start with the title.
Reply: I can't find it now but something you said about them sounded like you wanted tariffs, it's not that I didn't think tariffs were part of this debate.
Dextarian: What you are ignoring are the indirect effects of abolishing tariffs. Suppose we erect a tariff on sugar. That means the cost of sugar is higher. If I had a company that made candy canes, that would mean my prices would go up, so I might move my factory elsewhere.
Reply: What you fail to realize is the cost of the tariff vs. the cost moving a factory and then the overseas shipping, let's say that tariff on sugar was 1 dollar per 1000 pounds, and that the company had three factories operating in the U.S. (it's a small company) they use 10 pounds of sugar per 5 boxes of candy canes, that's less than a 2 cent increase on the boxes of candy canes. Or they can pack up and move, based just on those costs the cost to build 3 new factories and ship their boxes overseas is more than 2 cents per box, which option do you think they will take? So even if you don't think they protect jobs, they do. Also they increase the chances of a company using American made products instead of foreign ones, creating a demand for American products, causing more factories, mills and other producing facilities, most of which need workers.

My opinion is that getting rid of public schools, tariffs, and the minimum wage is not only a bad idea, but will also make a greater division between the wealthy and the poor.
Nice debating with you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
Just saying it is illogical doesn't make it so. You can't dismiss someone's argument because you don't have the capacity to comprehend it.
Posted by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
It wasn't the fact that you were talking about tariffs it was somthing you said about them that didn't make sense besides tha quote right there is illogicial and flatout wrong
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
(From Round 1) No only can they not work, but the cost of goods and services is increased because politically connected industries get tariffs erected at the cost of everyone else. If we unilaterally got rid of all trade barriers, more trade would create more demand for American work, and that would make real gains in living standards and wages.

Yes, my point about tarrifs was there all along, you just weren't reading my arguments.
Posted by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
Oh and i kinda replied to a lot of things that i didn't post his side of..... i didnt have space.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
Well thanks for not harpooning my argument.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I thought about being flippant and accepting this debate; arguing that there would be no more poor people if we followed this advice, so therefore, it would not "help" poor people -- it would eliminate them by making them wealthy!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros augments were ridiculous
Vote Placed by FlareGlare 8 years ago
FlareGlare
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Issa 9 years ago
Issa
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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 
Vote Placed by prepsexpot69 9 years ago
prepsexpot69
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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 
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
DaxitarianIdontcareTied
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:03