The Instigator
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
NewPendragon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Agricultural Subsidies

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,137 times Debate No: 10164
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)

 

johngriswald

Con

I Affirm that Agricultural subsidies are a massive waste of taxpayer dollars and are essentially the subsidization of a negative externality.

Given:
In this debate the emittance of greenhouse gases are considered to negatively impact society as a whole.

Definitions:

Externality - an effect on a third party (usually the community as a whole) that is not involved in a business transaction.
-positive - benefits the public
- negative - hurts the public

Subsidy -Tax money given to a business/person to artificially create more demand/give to pay for a positive externality created by a transaction.

Argricultural subsidies in the context of my debate are shown to be taxpayer dollars given to farmers so that farmers will not produce crops in the current year. The point is to lessen the supply of crops and thus increase the price, thus making them more profitable for farmers who are producing crops.

EXPLANATION OF WHY FARMING IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY

Farming is a negative externality because it is responsible for producing about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock. John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution and Diet for a New America, says that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the culprit normally at the center of global warming discussions.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that animals in the U.S. meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste produced, or five tons for every U.S. citizen. In addition to its impact on climate, hog, chicken and cow waste has polluted some 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.foodreference.com...

WHY SUBSIDIZING FARMING IS ECONOMICALLY INEFFICIENT AND WHY WE SHOULD TAX FARMING

Subsidizing farming is economically inefficient not only because farming is a negative externality and provides absolutely no benefit to the populous outside its business transaction, but it also pays people to do no work.

If we were to stop subsidizing farming, it would become not as profitable as other industries, thus gradually those seeking to become farmers would choose different career paths and the overall number of farmers would decrease as farmers retire/die. Thus the amount of livestock and crops would lessen in number which would drive the prices of food back to an acceptable profit range that subsidization currently makes possible.

We would not be wasting taxpayer money paying people to not work, we would not be actively supporting global warming with taxpayer dollars, and we would not be paying inflated food prices at the grocery store. More people would be employed/available in the job market. Since the job market would have a larger population, we would see better people employed and thus would experience more productivity for our economy which would produce more tax dollars which could be going to subsidize a positive externality.

Instead of subsidizing agriculture we should be taxing it equivalent with the cost of cleaning up the pollution in methane gas and other forms of pollutants that it produces.
NewPendragon

Pro

hello, and thank you for this... Intereting topic. I too believe in lowering the subsidiees, but we are not causing global warming to comence faster. One volcano that erupts, produces more carbon dioxide than we have in one hundred years. Global warming is always hapening, we cannot stop it. On the topic of against farming emissions, farming has been around since humans first started city-states, such as mesopotamia. I do realize, however, you refer to the emissions of farming vehicles, but my answer from above about carbon dioxide emissions does not change with this. These emissions have no affect on our society since carbon dioxide is constantly being released into the atmosphere.
Debate Round No. 1
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for doing an excellent job of wasting my time. My opponent obviously never bothered to actually read the debate or not before he posted his sham of an argument, or he would have seen the given i posted directly under my affirmation which was essentially the second sentence of this debate.

"Given: In this debate the emittance of greenhouse gases are considered to negatively impact society as a whole."

I am not here to debate the given, I am here to affirm my resolution. Since my opponent has not attacked my resolution then I extend my arguments in hope that he will post something coherent in the next round. Furthermore for the people sighing because of who took the debate, do not worry, I will be reposting this topic again sometime today.

Extend arguments.

I hope my opponent will attack my resolution in the second round, good luck.
NewPendragon

Pro

NewPendragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
johngriswald

Con

Extend my arguments.
NewPendragon

Pro

NewPendragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Yo voters, thanks for the reasons for decisions. If you can get my older debates that are just now ending, that have like 1 vote lol.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Win to Con for obvious reasons. Johngriswald, I hope you get a chance to argue this with someone who can handle it. It sounds like a good one.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
ARGS to CON (forfeits)
CONDUCT TO CON (forfeits)
Grammar to CON (captialization, among other things)
Sources to CON (because PRO used no sources)
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
I don't treat a weaker opponent with respect, because I do not respect them, mainly because they are weak.

There is being offensive and condescending with reason, and doing so because there is reason to do o.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"Those quotes were absolutely meant to be insulting and condescending."

"I believe people who put up such a lackadaisical contention are beneath me"

This is why you lost the conduct point. You're being quite pretentious up there on your high horse, and you can't treat a weaker opponent with respect. Or anyone, for that matter.

"I'll let you know that you are just doing this because I made you look like a fool earlier"

No, I'm doing it because you openly admit being offensive and condescending to your opponent. Just thought that I would clarify that. I'm not certain what makes you think that you made me "look like a fool", and I'm a bit curious as to where such a chimerical notion originated from.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
@cody franklin

Those quotes were absolutely meant to be insulting and condescending. They were insulting because I believe someone who takes argument, doesn't read it, and then posts a contention deserves to be insulted. Furthermore it was meant to be condescending because I believe people who put up such a lackadaisical contention are beneath me and I have no problem letting my thoughts be known.

Since I have no problems letting my thought be known, I'll let you know that you are just doing this because I made you look like a fool earlier, and you are only proving my point by continuing this.

If you don't believe me look here: http://tiny.cc...
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
There's a difference between paying for the mess you make, and paying for the high cost of an attorney. What I think you don't realize is that there is little farmers can do to stop polluting. In other words it is unintentional and unavoidable. However the mess still needs to be cleaned up. We should make the farmers pay for the cost of cleaning it up, however to penalize them for it by adding attorneys fees to the mix and now we are being unfair.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"I would like to thank my opponent for doing an excellent job of wasting my time. My opponent obviously never bothered to actually read the debate or not before he posted his sham of an argument"

"I extend my arguments in hope that he will post something coherent in the next round. Furthermore for the people sighing because of who took the debate, do not worry"

That is why you lose the conduct point. There are far more respectful ways to point out drops that don't involve ad hominem attacks. What you said was less "civil" and more condescending and insulting.

"Or because of what I said in the comments section (most likely) that caused you to be a little butthurt?" <- This doesn't factor into my decision, but it certainly isn't earning you any credibility.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
If you think it's unfair to force the party in the wrong to pay for its damages, then I don't see what you aim to do.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
I know I completely read what you said and responded accordingly.

No matter who pays the attorneys an unfair cost is being put on either side. The goal of taxation isn't to unfairly punish the businesses that pollute as in some cases its impossible not to. The goal is simply to get money to pay for cleaning up the mess that is being made and nothing more.

Lawsuits vs Taxation - For lawsuits the lawyers benefit and the businesses that pollute are unfairly harmed. In Taxation the tax collectors minimally benefit (because they have jobs) and the taxpayers (which includes businesses) are minimally harmed (because they pay for those jobs). I think you can agree that tax collectors cost less than attorneys. Also you are ignoring the opportunity cost of waging a lawsuit for both the business and citizen and also the outcome is not guaranteed as it is in taxation.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
johngriswaldNewPendragonTied
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 daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
johngriswaldNewPendragonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
johngriswaldNewPendragonTied
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:40