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

American Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless We Nationalize Housing

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: 12/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 98270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




At the time of writing of the this debate argument, America is 20 Trillion in debt to foreigners. That means you and everyone in your family, including your children, owes $60,000 dollars to the rest of the world. This debt occurs when America imports more than it exports. Many of these imports will end up in the landfill in a few years. What are the foreigners trading them for? They are traded for American land, American rental properties and American corporations-things that hold value far longer than that heap of high-tech we are putting in the landfill. The solution to this is to begin making our own products. But, the cost of doing business in America is too high. The cost of doing business is not practical because the high cost of living in America. If an American has high costs, they must have high wages. High wages bring up the cost of the product. All things considered, Americans have the highest cost of living. Until America lowers its cost of living, it cannot be made great again.

In order for America to make its own product at a competitive price we must bring down our cost of living.

Common sense tells us that the most signficant and effective way to lower our cost of living is to lower the most expensive bills we Americans have: Housing and transportation.

The nationalist approach I suggest below will lowering the cost of living of the average American more than any other approach and bring the highest potential to make America Great Again.

1. All residential rentals become nationalized.
- Each person will receive credit for equity based on all the rent they have paid over their lives minus the management and development costs.
- The equity may be applied to any housing in America at any time as long as the unit is empty and the cost of the unit is equal or less than the person's equity.
- Equity is nationalized and cannot be traded or liquidated. Never a homeless American again. Never an American swindled out of their home. Never an American in a slave rental contract again.
- Development, tax, and management costs will take the place of the conventional parasitic rent contract (property is communistically paid for over and over by the renters).

Now the cost of living is lowered because everyone's housing costs go down. The developement costs now will be centralized. It will be the biggest pool of investment for city development in the history the US. This brings us to what we need to develop:

2. Develop 3D printed smart cities.

- Nationalized housing development is contracted out to Americans to build 3D printed smart cities.
- 3D printed smart cities engineered to make transportation more efficient than it is now.
- 3D printed development will lower the cost of commercial, industrial and residential development because it can be done in half the time and at half the cost.

This will result in attracting white-collar and blue-collar development because of lower costs for building in the city. Taxes will be lower as well because of the efficiency of the city. Those who live in the cities have the opportunity to have more money at the end of the paycheck, yet consume less due to the overall infrastructural savings.

This naturally will make manufacturing feasible in these cities leading us to the next nationalist step.

3. Bring home the jobs.

Because a smart city costs less, the wage is lowered without lowering an Americans quality of life and this results in a product that is more affordable for Americans and easier to sell on the international market.

Investment and Growth Opportunities Increase
3D printed smart cities use less energy. This means the excess amount needed now to power the existing infrastructure in an inefficient way could be applied to many things that now are impossible, such as increased spending in disease cures, military, etc. Smart cities bring the highest potential for the most powerful military possible.

We cannot ignore our quality of life when these changes are made. Quality of life must always be in mind when making all these changes. Countries that have too low of quality of life unionize and force the inevitable: a better quality of life. Who ever creates the sweet spot, the perfect balance between lowest cost of living and great quality of life will have the best competitive advantage in world trade. 3D printed smart nationalist cities hold the most promise. Everyone owns! Everyone saves! Subsidized housing taxing disappears, welfare is far less necessary (the lion's share goes to rent), etc., etc.

Private developers will never be able to centralize an amount of money that nationalizing housing could for developing 3D printed smart cities that are necessary to make the cost of doing business in America feasible once again. America cannot be made great again unless we lower the cost of living. Lowing the cost of living to a point that makes America competitive cannot happen unless we nationalize housing and build the 3D printed cities which will make things again, which means the 'make' in Make American Great Again really means what it means. We gotta make it!


Cool, I'm down.

So there's a lot of fancy emotional rhetoric used to stir up the feels, but the three claims he makes are really straight-forward: nationalize housing to bring cost of living down, 3D print out some cities to encourage some jobs to come back from overseas because cheaper housing?


First, the entire plan is extremely utopian. He just lists out a bunch of random things without any actual explanation as to how they are going to happen, if they'll even work, or if they can even happen in the first place (more on this later).

Second, there's physically zero way to impliment this plan. Constitutionally the gov't isn't going to be able to just go up to every private housing company and say "hey fam, your profits are ours now" as would happen with nationalization. Moreover, where is all this "credit" coming from that he's handing out to people? Who's paying for all of this "credit"? The government? I thought the entire point was to reduce the amount of debt we're in, not spend more money.

Third, it's a little ridiculous to have him claim that to reduce national debt we need to nationalize housing markets. I feel like someone's forgetting the last time this was tried with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and how well that one actually turned out for the tax payers. Just as a quick run down of what that actually did to the economy:

- It killed stock value of the two companies and screwed over 100% of the shareholders of the company, who went from making bank off of their investments to getting exactly $0 from their shares.[1] Market value for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares plummeted. If people lose a reason to invest into housing markets, then either a) housing companies are going to fail and collapse, meaning that we won't actually be able to produce anywhere near the amount of houses that would be required for his "Never a homeless American again" claim, or b) the government would have to spend obscene amounts of money (an exact figure being $238 billion), which means we go further into debt rather than climb out of it.[1]

So right from the get-go his plan fails. There's no real way to nationalize the entire housing industry, nor is there any explanation as to how it will work in the way he claims it will work. Moreover, attempts at this in the past have failed miserably for both the tax payers and the government, meaning that it will have the opposite effects to his overall desired goals. Easy neg vote right here.


....what the hell are 3D printed cities?

First, we can't actually do any of these things right now. Experts in the field predict that it's going to take 100 years before we have the capability to mass produce the number of houses that would be required to give a home to every single person as he's wanting to[2], meaning that his plan here is literally impossible.

Second, wanna ask the question of why 3D printed cities are cheaper and more efficient as he's claiming. Because they eliminate the number of people who are actually working on building houses to **1** person[3]. That's why labor and material costs are lower and the cities are more efficient, is because there's no one actually working there to pay in the first place. This is the exact opposite definition of bringing home jobs - not only is the market going to be terrible because there's no actual investment being made into it by the public (meaning that they either fail or the gov't is spending loads more money to keep them floating) which means that employers who want to be able to actually make some money aren't going to come back, but we're laying off 90% of the labor that goes into building houses in present day. He's not actually bringing home jobs, he's killing what jobs are actually left.

Third, the math behind the total build time of these houses in general looks hella sketchy. If the source is true and this tech he wants to use is capable of "building a 100-square-meter concrete house within 24 hours, or a 1,000-square-foot house within 10 days" to quote directly from the article[3], those times look really strange. What's 100 square meters look like in feet? A hair over 1000 square feet[4]. So it takes one day to build a house, but ten days to build a virtually identical house? The logic behind this tech makes no sense.

Fourth, there's no reason to believe that the increased efficiency of these cities (presuming we can even make them on the scale he wants) will actually go to the things he's saying they could go to. If anything any actual savings from energy efficiency would need to go into actually making sure this won't bankrupt the government with the total costs of trying to nationalize the housing market. So he doesn't actually get access to any of the benefits he says he gets access to.


His idea sounds nice. It's a nice thought - a house for everyone so that there's no homeless and we don't need to worry about paying for houses anymore. But then we wake up from the dream we were in and realize that there's no way that this could ever actually happen without disasterous consequences. Pretty easy negative vote here.


[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
[4] -
Debate Round No. 1


I had to make this arugment a document because it didn't fit the word limit. I'm quoting my opponent, so the word count has went over. But, if I remove it, then there is less clarity.


Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's back up a second.

Breaking the character limit on the debate by using an outside source is extremely abusive and unfair.

First, character limits exist in the debates for a reason, so that we can keep voters from reading novels for every round. Arbitrarily going over character limits would kill voting incentive on the site more than it's already dead, meaning that virtually no debate would ever receive a vote. This would kill the debating aspect of this site, which is a pretty bad thing to happen for people who are wanting to debate (like us right now).

Second, he has zero excuse to want to go over the character limit because **HE'S THE ONE WHO MADE THE LIMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE**. When creating the debate you have the option to set what the character limit is. He set it to 8000 characters rather than 9000 or 10000. Of course none of those are anywhere close to the over 17k+ characters he wants to use in his last round, which makes it incredibly unfair to me. I have half the amount of characters he used to respond to all of the characters he used, which is really unfair.

So it's pretty simple. I agreed to a debate with an 8k character limit, not a limitless debate. He's blatantly going over it. Hold him to the character limit. He reached the 8k mark in his last round at this point:


Anything after that should not be evaluated, unless he wants to bring these new arguments up in the final round (which will also be unfair because I can't make new arguments or offensive rebuttals in the final round because he can't respond to them. If I can't make new arguments or rebuttals, he shouldn't be able to either for fairness).


Extend my first response to the nationalization plan that the entire idea he's presenting is the definition of utopian. All he does is list out a bunch of things that will happen and will work and will solve all the issues he's presenting to us to be solved without actually explaining how it actually does what he says it will do or if it's even possible in the first place. His response is that it isn't utopian, but "practical". That's not responsive to the argument I'm making because that still doesn't provide any of the warrants that he needs to actually provide the solvency behind his plan. Without it, we have no reason to want to buy into the plan.

Extend my second response that says that there's zero way for the gov't to constitutionally nationalize the entire housing market. His response is to do it via making a national union to lobby and strike against the gov't to do things. That's not nationalization. Nationalization is literally defined as moving from private to government controlled[5]. Unions aren't government controlled, especially unions for private sector companies (like housing companies). If that's his plan, then he's not actually nationalizing anything, therefore isn't actually defending his original advocacy. Don't let him be a moving target because that's extremely unfair for me to have to constantly deal with him shifting his advocacy.

But even if this would be considered nationalization, his plan falls apart on mutliple levels. A) He provides no actual warrant to show that a majority of renters would want to join this union, so we have no reason to believe that this portion of his plan will ever happen, B) There's no warrant provided to prove that this union would strike against the government in the first place, and C) Even if it did, the only change it would result in is they all lose their homes because they didn't pay rent on where they live.

Extend my third response saying that we have no idea where any of this "credit" he says is being given out is coming from, which makes the plan super vague. He's says that the credit is equity, which is "just a piece of paper". This puts him in a double bind, either a) it is just a piece of paper and thus valueless and it wouldn't actually be able to change anything, or b) it does have value to it, thus we need to figure out who is financing that value we're giving to people. He doesn't provide any source, don't buy into the plan until he provides you with actual solvency.

Extend my fourth response saying that this would tank the economy and hurt the taxpayers and point to the example of how we natinoalized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He says that this is a strawman because that's not what his plan is talking about. This puts him in an even worse double bind, either a) it's what he's talking about and he provides no responses to the economic harms to the government and taxpayers, or b) it isn't what he's talking about, which means he's not actually nationalizing anything because **THAT WAS THE RESULT OF NATIONALIZING HOUSING COMPANIES**. There's zero reason to ever think the plan could work.

Also, even though none of his house build math actually applies to anything because it's a) still not nationalizing, and b) not his 3d printing plan (which he even admits), let's look at some of the abusrdities that he makes. "Want electricity, run an electrical cord." then promptly be arrested for stealing power from elecrtical companies without paying for it. "Want water, run a hose" then promptly be arrested for stealing water from water companies without paying your utility bill. 5/7 planning. Perfect. Much efficiency.

So his plan has collapsed on five levels just from this point alone without looking to 3d printing. That's five reasons to negate.

And, he never responds to any of the arguments I make against 3d printing within his character limit. Extend those all as dropped. But even if you ignore him going over the character limit, let's look at some of the responses.

Extend my first response that we literally don't have the tech to do what he's suggesting, and won't for another century. His response is we can and sites his Home Depot example. A) This literally doesn't respond to the experts on 3D printing of homes who are saying to actually mass-produce cities we need another century to have the right tech to do it, meaning we can't do his plan, and B) even if his Home Depot example is relevant to this (it isn't at all), let's look at the math for it. That math solves for 1 house. Cool. 100 houses?Maybe. 1000 houses? Ehhh... 10000 houses? Little ridiculous...

564k+ houses[6] to provide homes for all of the homeless people in America? Literal definition of absurdity.

Extend my second response that the whole reason they're cheaper and more efficient is because they kill the amount of jobs in making houses from 26-32 on average[7] to **1** person. If he's wanting to make more jobs, he's literally doing the opposite of it. His response is that I suggest we should do a rain dance and push brooms? U wut m8? Talk about a strawman...control+f my last round and you won't find those words anywhere.

So not only do we not have the tech to do what he wants to do, but doing so would kill the housing market and lay off virtually everyone working in it.


Debate is pretty simple. Hold him to the 8k character limit. His plan is entirely unrealistic and, even if it were possible, would hurt us more than help us. No reason to want to do the plan, so you negate.

[5] -
[6] -
[7] -
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize. I'm new here and was in a dilemma. I wanted to say all of that. I guess I'll have to start being less wordy. I'll try to get to know the rules better. Instead of quoting, which would take up so much space, I'll try to sum up statements. I just didn't want to hear, "You are putting words in my mouth'. Okay. I try to be more pithy.

My opponent says my idea is utopian. Utopian is defined: modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic. My idea is far from Utopian. I only address two issues to solve: Housing and Transportation. Since there are hundreds of societal issues people care about, I'd have to address them all to be utopian. Therefore he is wrong.

My opponents said all I did was list a bunch of things and say they will work. Not true. I simply say we are going in debt because we import too much. We can't make what we import because our cost of living is too high. In order to make the cost of living lower so we can make things, it should behoove us find the best way to make the most expensive bills more affordable. Housing and transportation are those bills. Rent is already just a contract to make people pay for a product over and over in the market, which is a model that could never be applied to all other products because it's a entropic contract. It makes people pay for the product over and over. So, if we actually give people credit for their work they have applied to rental property, their cost of living would be lower more than we could lower any other bill they have. This gives us the opportunity to centralize the development funds, because their still would be development paid by owners because the US needs to develop more efficient and sustainable cities than the existing ones. This would allow us the biggest development budget in the history of the US for residential, commercial and industrial property. In order to lower the transportation costs, we just build with 3D printers with a design to makes the average person's commute shorter and the form of transportation far less expensive. The 3D printing has already been proven to be half the cost and take half the time as conventional building, so we could slam this out. Trump said he wants to make America great again. He won't with just using cronyism or tariffs or tax breaks. I"m sure he"ll make things better, but not Great. I want Great. Great needs great plans. He can if we cooperate and lower our cost of living as much as we can. This plan will do it and keep our quality of life acceptable. This is a concept the layman can understand, Americans can understand. The pro"s take it from there.

That tells us how we do it. It's conceptual. If my opponent wants all the minutiae he'll have to quit complaining about word count, because it will take volumes to provide those proofs. Let's just keep this conceptual. I'll try to keep the word count down. My bad last round.

My opponents says unions are not nationalism. He is right. But, they are an excellent stepping stone to nationalism. When you asked how things could be done, I told you. I didn't describe this in the first argument because I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. The union would be a practical way to hand power to the nationalist government. A union has a strong arm, is organized, and is what would be needed in my mind to take it all the way and pass the baton to our leaders. A union can be formed by simply walking out on major streets with the idea on a pamphlet and getting small commitments and members. As things grow, you hire more people to canvas apartments. So many people will cooperate because we will tell them they have a right to all the work they collectively applied to the US housing and they will own these properties once we get enough people in the union and a powerful lobby in Washington. Our Democracy promises they represent the majorities will. We tell them we can strike if they don"t respect that American tradition. They will find they will not have enough sheriffs to enforce evictions.

My opponent says that credit I'm calling a housing title with their name on it will be valueless. No. It would be worth a monetary amount you can apply to any home in the nationalized market. That would be 75% of housing in New York City, getting closer to 50% across America. I'd say that has value. And more value that the present contract, because the present contract gives them no value and makes them continually pay for the property, showing no regard or respect for their hard work day in and day out in this country in which rent takes the lion's share of all bills. There biggest bill is the most parasitic.

My opponent has stooped to simple name calling like we did on the playground. He provided not comparative arguments for how my plan is exactly the Freddie and Fannie plan. He can't do that because there is no comparison. He loses this argument too. Freddie and Fannie were stealing from people, not giving them their fair share for their homes. He actually thinks stealing is the same as representing equity honestly.

My opponents says we don't have the tech to do this. He says this even after he gives us a great link to a company that is ready right now to build 3D printed Smart Cities. This stuff can happen very fast if we get aboard. It's just a matter of rechannelling energy we are already using.

The Home Depot example was a crude example of how cheap even a conventional efficiency can be if we only thought outside the box for a second. 3D printing offers far more than this.

My opponent tried to use a big number of people to make to make an argument. But an argument requires premises and a final conclusion. I"m assuming his argument is this:. He sees 564,000 people laying on their asses watching it get built. Of course that won"t work. But I see 564,000 people on their feet doing the work! That's very practical with strong leadership. You want a food stamp? Lay a brick buddy. Now there you go. Now, are you sure this is so absurd?

This plan won't lay off workers, it will be so big, we'll probably have to keep them coming from Mexico. In the end, sure, we won't need as many people for building homes. But we don't need as many people in many other areas and as long as we keep this rise in productivity shared on all socioeconomic levels, keep everyone working, and give out vacation instead of welfare we will do just fine.

Wow I have 1,530 characters remaining.


So this debate breaks down really simply. In order for a policy action to actually be something that's can be implimented, there has to be some sort of reason to believe that the plan is going to work as it's intended. Otherwise, why would we want to impliment it in the first place? This means it's on the Aff to provide the solvency that shows that the plan he's proposing is going to actually work. Otherwise, we have no reason to want to do the aff's plan and, thus, no reason to affirm.

I'm providing empirical evidence as well as analytic refutation that shows that, at best, you should be super skeptical as to the feasibility of this plan. His response to my calls for evidence is "It's conceptual. If my opponent wants all the minutiae he'll have to quit complaining about word count, because it will take volumes to provide those proofs."

Reject this idea entirely. You should prefer empirical evidence over analytics for a lot of reasons:

First, Logic allows us to theoretically justify any action that we want to say is okay to do if we spend long enough thinking about it. This can lead to the justification of a lot of absurd conclusions under the basis of "it's just conceptual". Just look at all the times I've argued that suffering is a good thing[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], or that morality is a bad thing[16]. Empirics don't let us come to absurd conclusions - 20% of something is 20% of something, regardless of how much theorizing I want to do to say that it's 50%.

Second, don't let him say that size restraints means that we can't use sources so theorizing is better. I've been using sources in literally every round of this debate and I'm still ahead in the debate. It's definitely not a size thing, because a) he's already broken the size rule once, and b) he even admitted he had characters left at the end of his last round, meaning that easily could've been used for citations. There's no reason to not provide the solvency for the plan.

Third, even if size was a restraint, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that just theorizing potential things is better than providing warranted arguments. That's a massive gap in logic that (surprise surprise) doesn't have any kind of warrant as to why that's actually a true statement. And analytical arguments don't even need sources - just an explanation as to why something you said is true or how something you said is going to happen. That's what I've been doing for the majority of this debate. Not making an argument that doesn't rely on empirics doesn't mean that you don't need evidence or warrants as to why what you're saying is true.

Fourth, it doesn't matter how many ways you want to try and theorize that 1 + 2 = 5 because factually the statement is false. Theorization naturally falls short when there's empirical evidence provided that contradicts the theory. That's what I've done.

This has a lot of really troubling implications for the aff's plan given that he's never provided a single piece of evidence or a single warrant for anything he's said in this entire debate. This means that the plan fails and the debate is a really easy negative vote.

That's really all that needs to be said, but I want to go out and point out some key parts of his last round that makes his plan go from shambles to literal rubble.

He says "My opponent says my idea is utopian. Utopian is defined: ... idealistic"

Idealism is literally defined as pursuing ideals especially unrealistically[17]. My arguments are showing that the plan in numerous places is the definition of unrealistic and he has provided no warrants to show that the plan is realistic. If anything his arguments are that his plan doesn't have to be realistic. Literal definition of utopian.

Moreover, I can ditch the term and the argument doesn't change - he says a lot of really cool ideas but never provides any kind of reasoning as to how they'll actually happen or why they'll actually work. His only response to this throughout the entire debate is that he doesn't like the word utopian. This just further discredits the plan.

He says in a long paragraph "My opponents said all I did was list a bunch of things and say they will work. Not true. ... The pro"s take it from there."

I know it's really long-winded and not very well broken up and a grind to actually read through, but actually take a moment to read through it. NOWHERE IN THERE IS THERE A WARRANT AS TO WHY THESE THINGS THAT HE IS SAYING SHOULD AND WILL HAPPEN WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. That's literally the indict I've been making this entire time, and the very argument he'strying to say isn't true. The paragraph confirms my argument rather than rejects it.

He says "My opponents says unions are not nationalism. He is right."

This is a de facto concession. If you wanna take a look back at his plan from the first round is where he literally says that the first step of his plan is "1. All residential rentals become nationalized." If his plan isn't nationalization, he's not following his original advocacy statement, which means he's being a moving target, which is super unfair for me to have to deal with. Force him to stick to his original advocacy statement - that's what I came into the debate expecting to discuss and it's what I've been discussing this entire debate. To allow him to change it throughout makes it impossible for me to make arguments against him that he can't just shift out of (you can even see this by his attempts to get out of the example I provide for why nationalizing housing is a terrible idea via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - that's literal government nationalization and he's saying it's not applicable to his plan. If it's not applicable, he's not nationalizing. If it is applicable, it's showing that his plan makes things worse rather than better, which turns his case and he provides no refutation to it.) A stepping stone isn't enough - if I say that in five minutes I will eat frozen yogurt, saying that in five minutes I'll start driving to go get frozen yogurt is the same thing is entirely false since they are two entirely different statements. Me driving my car is not me eating frozen yogurt, even if I'm driving to go get some.

Pretty terrible implications to the debate. He's literally conceding that he's not actually doing what he said he would do, which means he has no offense in this round. Easy negative vote.


Debate is super simple. He hasn't provided you with a single reason to believe his plan is a good idea or that it will work. I'm providing you with a litany of reasons as for why it won't work and what it'll make things worse rather than better. You vote negative.


[8] -
[9] -
[10] -
[11] -
[12] -
[13] -
[14] -
[15] -
[16] -
[17] -
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Hell if I know if you do or not (it's pretty f*cking far-fetched though, so I doubt it), what's why I don't discuss economics much. But picking up debate wins are easy ^_^
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
What doesn't kill me makes me stronger. The one who looses at chess benefits most. Thanks. I feel you may have one the debate, but I have the winning argument.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
"Trolling". That's an interesting way to spell "winning".
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
I apologize on that last comment. We could just have a misunderstanding. But I don't rule out that you may be trolling me.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Oh keep going, I'm so close.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
My opponent defines nationalizing housing only if Freddie and Fannie as if there is no other way to do things. That like saying that there is only one recipe for a taco and if you don't use mine, it is not a taco. He is intentionally trying to decieve people into think we must never think like a nationalist beause it's one and only Freddie And Fannie defition is failure or he itellectually unable to understand nationalism's true nature and it's many possible implementations.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
My opponent asks for clarification. My opponent asks for sources. My opponent asks for evidence and supporting argument. Then when you provide it, he calls you a moving target.

His defintion of a movng target is when you rebut with that which his arugment begs for. He feels this is an unfair tactic.

Therefore, providing an argument that proves you wrong is unfair. I'm sorry you feel that way.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
After Con lost the argument about calling my idea Utopian, he is making a sad attempt to use the term idealistic to pull my arugment into an impractical utopian category.

Con seems to be the idealistic one. Ideally, he thinks we should be able to believe whatever we want, vote on the laws of physics and see them changed to how we want them to be and live how we want, $hit large, vomit large full of sustainable apathy, continue to go into debt, don"t lower the cost of living and everything will work out. No, don"t lower the cost of living, no don"t centralize our existing development funds and build more efficient cities with the latest greatest technology that bring the most promising situation for bring jobs home.

Relativistically, considering the whole picture, who is the one being idealistic now? Who is being practical?
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
I will agree I should be making sources. But, the sources he provided in no way gives him a win. In order that for that to occur, he would have had to prove one or more of my how-to steps:

- If the US were not 20 Trillion in debt, he should have proved that incorrect with a source.
- If buying foreign products was the biggest threat to why we have that debt, he should have provided the source.
- If the reason why we don't have our jobs here is that our cost of living is too high, she should have provided that source.
- If lower the cost of living was the best way to bring the jobs home, he should have provided that source.
- If focusing on the biggest bills Americans' have and lowering those wasn't the correct she should have provided that source.
- If giving people credit for all their rentals wouldn't lower the cost of living because they wouldn't have to repeatedly pay for property over, Con should have provided that source.
- If nationalizing the housing (giving people their equity) wouldn't provide the biggest development budget ever to handle our economic dilemma, Con should have provided that source.
- If building cities that were designed to lower the cost of living because the technology halves the cost and allows for design the brings transportation costs down better than any other plan, Con should have provided that source.
- And finally, if building these cities that lower the cost of living more than any other idea creates the most feasible situation for bringing our jobs how was not correct, then Con should have provided that source.

Instead Con used strawmans the entire way. Threw in few links to look good, but proved nothing by doing so. Used a few fancy terms to sound smart. Then goes on to call himself a winner.

Con never proved one of my points wrong with his arguments or sources.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
Con keeps repeating the arugment that I have not shown how it would work while ignoring that fact I have shown how it will work. I have pointed out very clearly every conceptual step of how it will work. From nationalizing housing to building the smart cities to bringing the jobs home. When you want to make something work, you provide the steps you take. I provided those steps. I also included every step of the way why those step are superior to any other choice you can make at that juncture. He didn't argue any other juncture because there are none superior to mine, because I chose the most significant usng simple logic.

He tries to trap me into providing minutae. Every masterpiece begins with a sketch. The volumes of physics books began with three little laws. Every structure begins as beams and a simple foundation. This is the most importnt stage and conceptually available to every layman. The minutae is irrelevant at this state beause it's mere ornament upon this base. I gave the base argument and how it works. He either is illectually unable to understand it or is simply trolling the debate. In either case he is wrong.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jo154676 1 year 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro went over the character limit and used an outside source to break the limit by 9000 therefore conduct goes to con.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument 1 conflicts with the free market system used in the states today. This argument therefore needs a justification as to why it should be used in preference to the status quo. Pro didn't do this, which is why I thought Con's labeling of his case as idealistic was apt. Not only that, by the next argument about 3D printed cities is simply prima facie rediculous, and Pro never managed to move it beyond this point. His arguments after that follow from the idea that a 3D printed smart city would solve all the issues currently plauging the economy. The BoP for that is large, and he most certainly failed to fulfill it. notably Round 2 was missed because word counts exist for a reason. They also benefit the reader so I feel no obligation to go offsite for this debate. Ultimately Pro's speculation lacked an evidential base, but more importantly, nothing he said linked back to the topic of making USA great again. I thus have given 3 points to Con.