The Instigator
ilovgoogle
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
daboss
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Banks should be nationalized in the United States

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 5 votes the winner is...
daboss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,107 times Debate No: 8142
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

ilovgoogle

Pro

This financial crisis proves beyond a doubt that privatized banks fail. The problem lies with the "greed" within banks that go unchecked. We should not trust these banks that end up holding such a integral part of our economy. When these banks failed we were at their beg and call and came to bail them out. With nationalized banks this would not be the case. Greed would not be a factor and the investments in these toxic assets would have never happened.

I look forward to my opponents response!
daboss

Con

ARGUMENTS
1)Economy
Pretty much his whole argument can fall under the fact that the economy is failing and it is soley the banks fault and no one elses and this is totally irrational thinking something doesn't just come crashing down because of one thing. In my opinion it was the mixture of giving out stimulus for no reasons and the war. it is by no means at all one persons fault, it might partially be the banks fault which is probably the case but even nationalizing banks won't solve for our economic crisis or even to help it that much at all.

NEW ARGUMENTS
1)States power
If we were to give the government power over the banks then it would be alot closer to a communism because the government would be taking away power from the states when it should be the states job.
Debate Round No. 1
ilovgoogle

Pro

My opponents ignorance on the current recession astounds me. "giving out stimulus for no reasons and the war" First of the stimulus was a response to the our current situation so it's complete crap to call it one of the reasons it caused the collapse. "the war" Really? How does that effect banks giving out risky loans? And that's what banks did. They gave out loans to people that couldn't pay they back all in the name of making more money. In other words, GREED. People started walking away form these loans that BANKS CONVINCED them they could pay (in other words in the name of more MONEY). This irresponsible behavior caused a multitude of problems. On one hand your stuck with a house (or bunch of houses in some cases) which you can't sell because people can't get loans from the bank because banks have no money to give because they lost in on the HOMES! People can't get loans for other things, stock prices start falling, unemployment rises, their are less people to spend money (unemployment) with mean companies have to cut employees to save money and the whole cycle starts again. In the end it's the innocent guy gets the short end of the stick. This is just starching the SURFACE of this VERY serious problem. As you can see banks are the first domino block in this, which shows you how much trust you have to have in them to make sure the other ones don't fall. That's why it's insane to put trust that kind of trust in these private companies where they'll screw the guy next to um' to make a quick buck.

On to your other points

)States power
If we were to give the government power over the banks then it would be alot closer to a communism because the government would be taking away power from the states when it should be the states job.

States don't run the banks.
daboss

Con

ARGUMENTS
1)Economy
I very well understand the recession we're in right now and how bad it is. and as i said in my case something this huge can't be caused by one thing it might very well be fueled by the banks but it is not soley their Fault.

2)States
States might not control the banks but they are the one in charge of checks and balances and if we let the government take it into their own hands the problems will just get worse in the overall run.

NEW ARGUMENTS
1)Solvency
Throughout both his speeches thus far he is just trying to show that their is an inherent problem, he's not showing how nationalizing the banks is going to solve all this so his arguments really don't stand unless the resolution were to state "their is an inherent problem with banks right now".

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
ilovgoogle

Pro

"I very well understand the recession we're in right now and how bad it is. and as i said in my case something this huge can't be caused by one thing it might very well be fueled by the banks but it is not soley their Fault."

I'll make this as simple as I can for you. Banks invested in "toxic" assets to make more money, those assets fell through. Banks have mucho debt and the economy stops. As I said before they are the FIRST domino to fall and once they go down everything else does. When the government controls the banks there isn't that incentive to invest in risky loans; there's no greed incentive. If you'd like to show some legitimate evidence contradicting this then by all means go ahead, but just saying "the war" and "the stimulus " is compete nonsense.

2)States
States might not control the banks but they are the one in charge of checks and balances and if we let the government take it into their own hands the problems will just get worse in the overall run.

What are you talking about? They're in control of the "checks and balances"? "if we let the government take it into their own hands the problems will just get worse in the overall run."? I'm dazed and confused, what are talking about? Your argument is thin and unsupported and most of all it lacks sense.

"Throughout both his speeches thus far he is just trying to show that their is an inherent problem, he's not showing how nationalizing the banks is going to solve all this so his arguments really don't stand unless the resolution were to state "their is an inherent problem with banks right now". "

See ---> When the government controls the banks there isn't that incentive to invest in risky loans; there's no greed incentive.
daboss

Con

He states i show know legitimate evidence but this idiot hasn't shown any either.
in his argument against my first point he just restates his first speech.
This kid also states that "the war and stimulis" is complete nonsense... it was an opinion. is that a sin??

his arguments to my second point shows how little he understands on this topic.
He's not confused and hes not dazed he just doesn't know how to argue worth crap.

He might say there's no greed incentive when government controls but whos to say this will actually happen. he tries to say i don't have any legimitate evidence but if you look to his greed argument he does not literally show how taking away the greed incentive will SOLVE

So with that i thank you for your time and i hate debating idiots.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
It is was the private banks that caused the the situation due to their greed which caused them to give out risky loans to make more money. My opponent never refuted this! The problem was with greed, the solution as I said was to cut out the greed by nationalizing the banks. Government banks don't have the profit incentive that private banks do thus never getting into this situation. My opponent never even attempted to refute this once again. And seeing as my argument still stands, I win the debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Ilo, The current situation is not evidence that private banks caused the situation. In fact government was more of the cause. You offered no evidence that nationalization would be a cure or a better route for the future. Therefore you didn't meet the burden of proof.

By analogy, suppose I claim "Almond pits cure cancer." My evidence is that current medical treatments are not very effective in curing cancer, and Con doesn't dispute that. So should I win? No, I offered only a problem, not evidence of a cure.

I agree it was a weak debate, without much more than unsupported competing opinions. I think if Con had the burden of proof, he might well have lost.
Posted by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
Bad conduct on both sides, with pointless insults. Neither side was very knowledgeable about the subject. Pro has the burden of proof, but made no opening argument other than unsupported opinion, and never offered a factual basis for his position. So the debate clearly goes to Con.

The evidence was the current situation we're in, I supported that with explaining why I thought it happened and the solution to the problem. Con never refuted this.
Posted by Asderathos 8 years ago
Asderathos
No one even mentioned the Clintonian era pressure on banks to repeal identity & proof of employment qualifications, & lend to unqualified ethnic minorities specifically (the bulk of which were Illegal Aliens), out of a sense of "fairness" which is what caused the speculation market popularly referred to as the housing bubble. Which was the spear head of the economic crisis. Its Govt. interference made manifest in Clintonian Affirmative Action Loans that caused the problem in the first place. Forced Deregulation, by the Govt. eventually resulting in more power. This is either hypocrisy & ineptitude or conspiracy the former being more common.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Bad conduct on both sides, with pointless insults. Neither side was very knowledgeable about the subject. Pro has the burden of proof, but made no opening argument other than unsupported opinion, and never offered a factual basis for his position. So the debate clearly goes to Con.

The central problem behind the financial crisis was Fanny Mae leveraging loans at 137:1 and buying massive amounts of subprime high-risk loans. That means they loaned out $137 for every dollar they had in deposits. Fannie Mae is essentially an arm of government, run entirely by Clinton-era Democrats. The Democrats were advancing a social agenda of providing home ownership to people who could not afford to pay back the loans. At the same time, Congress decided to compensate Fannie Mae execs, those socially conscious Clinton Democrats, based upon the *quantity* of loans made, not the security of the loans. When the government puts together a national bank with the worst features of greed and ideology, we get a disaster.
Posted by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
Hard to debate with someone who hasn't taken first grade English.
Posted by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
I knew this one would raise some hairs :)
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Dang it. I couldn't get here fast enough.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
ilovgoogledabossTied
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 KirstinKate 8 years ago
KirstinKate
ilovgoogledabossTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
ilovgoogledabossTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
ilovgoogledabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by daboss 8 years ago
daboss
ilovgoogledabossTied
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:07