The Instigator
Sam7411
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
stealspell
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Bernie Sanders as President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 89253
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Sam7411

Con

In response to stealspell, I'd rather rebate this in an official setting than just a forum. This would allow us both to provide our arguments without repetitive back and forths.

Rules:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Further Rebuttal
Round 5: Conclusion (no new arguments brought up)

I look forward to debate!
stealspell

Pro

I accept and await your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Sam7411

Con

Opening Arguments:

For many democrats(especially young), Bernie Sanders may appeal to voters who want a political and ideological revoltuion. However, the last thing the United States of America needs is an idealist president, rather, we need a president who will actually get things done, successfully.

1. Bernie Sander's economic plan is unrealisitc and overly optimistic. His plans require a 47% growth on government. How will this be paid for? In taxes, mainly on the wealthy(at about 67% for income tax[1]), amounting to over 14 trillion dollars.[2]. He also argues that cutting down on HealthCare spending would reduce costs. However, this had been disputed by many reputable economists.[3] For example,
.
" A costing of Mr Sanders’s plans by Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, using more conservative assumptions, found that the plan was underfunded by nearly $1.1 trillion (or 6% of GDP) per year. If Mr Thorpe is right, higher taxes will be required to make the sums add up. In 2014 Mr Sanders’ own state, Vermont, abandoned a plan for a single-payer system on the basis that the required tax rises would be too great."[4]

"But 20% of health spending flows to doctors, nurses and the like. A study published in
Health Affairs, a journal, in June 2015 found that the average nurse earns about 40% more, and the average doctor about 50% more, than comparably educated and experienced people in other fields. To bring costs down to British or Canadian levels, these salaries would have to fall. Half a million Americans work in the private health-insurance industry, which would shrink or disappear if Mr Sanders had his way. His plan is “radical in a way that no legislation has ever been”, argues Henry Aaron of Brookings, a think-tank."[4]

In addition, his economic plan does not take into account the immediate effects of removing or changing government stimulus and the massive migration of jobs and corporations his taxes would create:


    • "According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly increase marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to 9.5 percent lower GDP over the long term.
    • On a static basis, the plan would lead to 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent."[5]


2. Bernie Sanders would not be able to enact any of his policies, he has relatively little support. Even though recent wins in some states seem to indicate Sander's popularity, those states do not reflect the overall nation's atttitude.[6]. Only 26% of republicans have said that they would ever support a socialist. Overall, 53% said they would never support a socialist. Now that may only be half, but consider this, the majority of Congress is considered establishment, who have demonstrated a lack of support for Sanders, and Republicans, who would find it a political disater to support Sanders. Bernie would not be able to ennact any of these laws without approval of Congress.





[1,2]http://www.economist.com...
[3] http://www.ibtimes.com...
[4]http://www.economist.com...

[5]http://taxfoundation.org...
[6]http://www.thedailybeast.com...
stealspell

Pro

ARGUMENT 1: THE PROBLEM - THE ESTABLISHMENT OLIGARCHY: THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED TO FAVOR THE TOP 1%

"There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent [1] and when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. [2] There is something profoundly wrong when, in recent years, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires [3] at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages [4] and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. [5] There is something profoundly wrong when one family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans. [6] This grotesque level of inequality is immoral. It is bad economics. It is unsustainable. This type of rigged economy is not what America is supposed to be about. This has got to change and, as your president, together we will change it."

"A rigged economy is about an economy, for example, where the wealthiest family in this country, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, pays its workers wages that are so low that the middle class has to pay more in taxes to provide food stamps and Medicaid for Wal-Mart employees." [7]

"A rigged economy is when you have corporations making billions of dollars a year in profit, and not paying a nickel in taxes. [8] A rigged economy is where you have companies able to shut down as a result of trade agreements that they have written, and move abroad and pay people pennies an hour. [9] That is a rigged economy. A rigged economy is when, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, the top one-tenth of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. If that's not a rigged economy, I don't know what a rigged economy is."

"As a result of the disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, the American political system has been totally corrupted and the foundations of American democracy are being undermined. [10][11] What the Supreme Court essentially said was that it was not good enough for the billionaire class to own much of our economy. They could now own the U.S. government as well. And that is precisely what they are trying to do. [12]"

"[I]t"s not the Republicans and Democrats hate each other. That"s a mythology from the media. The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money [13] and refuses to do what the American people want them to do." [14]
"[T]o ensure that the voters themselves didn't have all the power, in 1982 the Democratic Party adopted what are called superdelegates, who today control 15% of the final nomination process." [15]

"CNN's Jake Tapper asked Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz why the Democratic Party would embrace such a plainly undemocratic process. Here's what she said:

"Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."

In other words, the Democratic Party's superdelegates exist to preserve the power and influence of the Democratic Party's elite." [16]

"The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer, and use their wealth to buy elections. Working families get poorer, and give up on the political process. This is not democracy. This is oligarchy. [17] We need a political revolution."

ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION " A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION

"What I would hope that all of you do--and I understand that, and it"s a wonderful thing there are difference of opinion, that"s called democracy, and I love that. But I would hope that all of you are prepared to think big not small. Do not get sucked into this worldview and this debate whether we cut education by two percent or increase it by one percent. Understand, again, you are living in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. [17] And when we stand together, when we do not allow demagogues to divide us up as to whether we are White or Black or Hispanic, whether we were born in this country or born abroad, whether we are straight or gay, whether we are men or women, when we stand together we can accomplish extraordinary things.

Please do not tell me, that in the United States of America, at a time when we are seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, don"t tell me that we have to have the highest rate of childhood poverty than any other major country on Earth. [18] Don"t tell me that.

Please do not tell me, that in this great country with all of our wonderful doctors and scientists and nurses and medical personnel and administrators, don"t tell me that we have to be the only major country on Earth that doesn"t guarantee healthcare to all people as a right. [19]

When every psychologist in the world tells us that the most important years of human development are zero to four, don"t tell me that we cannot have the best childcare system in the world rather than the dysfunctional one we have today. [20] We can do that.

And don"t tell me that here in Chicago or in Vermont, and all over this country, that we"ve got to have senior citizens trying make ends meet, on twelve, thirteen thousand dollars a year, buying their medicine, heating their homes, buying the food they need, suffering unnecessarily, at a time when Republicans want to cut social security. [21] Don"t tell me that we can"t expand social security and provide a decent retirement for all of our people.

And when men and women put their lives on the line and do their duty and defend us in war, don"t tell me that we have to have veterans in this country sleeping out in the street. [22] We can provide well for all of our veterans.

When we talk about our responsibilities as human beings and as parents, there is nothing more important than leaving this country and the entire planet in a way that is habitable for our kids and grandchildren. The debate is over. The scientific community has spoken in a virtually unanimous voice. [23] Climate change is real. It is caused by human activity and it is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world. [24]

I ask you, as young people, to stand up and be leaders in this country. I ask you to help us create a nation where every person, no matter their race, their religion, their disability, or their sexual orientation, realizes the full promise of equality that is our birthright as Americans. There is nothing that I am telling you today that is pie-in-the-sky, that is utopian. Nothing. We can accomplish all of that and more, but we will not accomplish that if 80% of young people do not vote. [25] We will not accomplish that if 63% of the American people do not vote. [26]

Now the truth is, that the billionaire class, and corporate America, and Wall Street, and the corporate Media have enormous, enormous power. [27] And I would be fooling you if I suggested otherwise. They are very, very powerful people. And they control this country, and have controlled this country for a very, very long time. But at the end of the day, and while they have the power, we have something they do not have, and that is, we have the people. And when people stand together, we can win.

"[A]ll across this country the American people are looking around them and they understand that real change in our country"s history " whether it is the trade union movement, whether it is the civil rights movement, whether it is the women"s movement, whether it is the gay rights movement " they understand that real change never, ever takes place from the top on down. It always takes place from the bottom on up."

"This is what the campaign is about. I know it"s outside mainstream thinking" it is to revitalize American democracy. On issue after issue" [for example] raising the minimum wage. Overwhelming support for raising the minimum wage, [28] congress does not want to do it. Pay equity for women workers, [29] Congress does not want to do it. What you need and what I say is you need a political revolution. And that is you need these young people to understand and working people and low income people, if they are not involved actively in the political process, it will be the billionaire class who makes decisions for them and not necessarily in their interest. [30]

And then you know what I say [to Mitch McConnell]? I"d say, "Hey, Mitch, take a look out the window. There's a million young people out there who don't want to be in debt for half their life for the crime of going to college. If you want to antagonize those million people and lose your job, Mitch, if you don't want to lose your job, you better start listening to what we have to say." That's the point. That's how change takes place.

Let me tell you this. Absolutely, positively, 100 percent, if we rally young people in this country to say, you know what, Germany, Scandinavia, other countries, they have free tuition in public college and universities. I talked to kids $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $100,000 in debt paying a huge percentage of their income, OK? Young people stand up and say we are sick and tired of it. We don't want to go in debt for our whole lives because we got a college education. You know what? We'll win that fight immediately. But the trick is not to appeal to Mitch McConnell. It's to say, Mitch, take a look at your e-mails. You don"t make change by sitting down with Mitch McConnell. You make change when millions of people in this country demand change. That"s the way change has always taken place.

It always happens when millions of people demand change.

------
See comments section for citations
Debate Round No. 2
Sam7411

Con

My opponent fits the same exact characteristics of a young democratic supporter who wants a political and ideological revolution without actual realistic solutions. Now, does Pro backup his conention that Bernie Sanders should be president? No. Instead, his argument is based on speeches and statements by Bernie Sanders. My opponent has not provided any reasons on which Bernie Sanders should be president, and instead posted mainly qoutes from Sanders generally on the corruption of Capitalism, calling for a revolution, and the political system, which has nothing to do with his viability for being president, therefore I extend my argument.



stealspell

Pro

Con has chosen to completely ignore my two main arguments. I'm baffled, frankly. That"s a first.

Instead Con has chosen to play semantics games, claiming that I have not provided any reason why Bernie Sanders should be President. On the contrary. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that that is patently false. Bernie Sanders understand the problems currently facing the United States of America and the solutions necessary to fix those problems. I provided both the problems, persuasively, supported by evidence, and the solutions, persuasively, supported by evidence. That is the definition of argumentation. Con may continue to pursue his semantics games further if he wishes but he will be only entertaining himself.

As to Con's own arguments:

"1. Bernie Sander's economic plan is unrealistic and overly optimistic."

Almost every other major country in the world provides healthcare to all people as a right. There is no reason why the wealthiest country in the history of the world cannot do the same. Not only that, Bernie's plan is the most economically accurate and competent, lowering poverty, creating more jobs, and overall increasing economic growth [3]

Kenneth Thorpe's analysis has been discredited because it wrongly assumes key aspects while at the same time ignoring other aspects of Sanders' plan. To paraphrase, it does not factor in cost savings of the Medicare-For-All healthcare system, assumes huge increases in the utilization of the healthcare system, ignores large savings to State and local governments, ignores the tax subsidies that currently support existing insurance companies, and assumes zero-cost savings under Sanders' plan on prescription drugs and devices [1]

Secondly, the Tax Foundation's Analysis has been discredited for relying on flawed research and many factual inaccuracies including incorrectly stating high corporate tax rates when the opposite is in fact true.[2]

Furthermore, Former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton"s administration has supported Sanders' plan and believes it is the best plan that would increase economic growth and lower unemployment. [3] He has also said the plan may be large in scale but it is definitely not unrealistic. [4]

"2. Bernie Sanders would not be able to enact any of his policies, he has relatively little support."

Unequivocally false. Bernie Sanders had no name recognition at the beginning of his campaign and out of the three recent national polls, two of them have him in the lead. [5] Secondly, his policies are popular with the majority of Americans. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans want a Medicare-for-all healthcare system. Vast majority of Americans want to see a raise in the minimum wage. Vast majority of American want to see the top 1% pay more in taxes. Vast majority of American want to see tuition free public colleges and universities. The claim that Sanders" policies have very little support is factually inaccurate.

"Only 26% of republicans have said that they would ever support a socialist. Overall, 53% said they would never support a socialist."

There was no source provided for this claim and the percentages simply do not correlate with national and state polls on general election matchups. In virtually all of the polls done in the last two months, Bernie Sanders beats all of the remaining candidates (Trump, Cruz, and Kasich) by large margins, while Clinton beats the GOP candidates by small margins, sometimes even losing to them [6]

"Bernie would not be able to ennact any of these laws without approval of Congress."

True. Congress must actually vote to pass these laws. This is why he has called for a political revolution where tens of millions of Americans stand up and fight for the change he is proposing. Change always happens from the bottom up. It always takes places when the American people in large numbers demand that change. Is it a fact that Congress does not listen to the needs and wishes of the American people? Yes. But if millions of Americans demand change, demand that Congress start listening to them, not only will the most conservative members of Congress vote YES on Bernie's policies, they'll do it with a smile.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://ctj.org...
[3] http://robertreich.org...
[4] http://observer.com...
[5] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
[6] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Sam7411

Con

On the contrary, I had to extend my argument in round 2 since my opponent did not provide any of his own arguments, therefore I could not provide an appropriate rebuttal. If my opponenet had not "copy and pasted" quotes from Bernie Sanders, I could've. Despite the boundless use of citations, which only cited the quotes from Bernie Sanders, there was no real use of facts/proof/evidence.

"I ask you, as young people, to stand up and be leaders in this country. I ask you to help us create a nation where every person, no matter their race, their religion, their disability, or their sexual orientation, realizes the full promise of equality that is our birthright as Americans"

Does this quote sound like a proper argument made by Pro or a speech from Bernie Sanders? There are countless examples of this:

"And then you know what I say [to Mitch McConnell]? I"d say, "Hey, Mitch, take a look out the window. There's a million young people out there who don't want to be in debt for half their life for the crime of going to college. If you want to antagonize those million people and lose your job, Mitch, if you don't want to lose your job, you better start listening to what we have to say." That's the point. That's how change takes place."

"The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer, and use their wealth to buy elections. Working families get poorer, and give up on the political process. This is not democracy. This is oligarchy. [17] We need a political revolution."

Even if these we quotes made by opponent, the use of language such as "And then you know what I say,? I'd say" is not proper conduct when creating an argument. In addtion, in those lines, was there ever a single argument made to support why Bernie Sanders should be president, or were you implying that these are the problems in America and Bernie Sanders can solve them? If so, then you have provided no real evidence, facts, or explanations on how he can change these things and be our next president. My extended argument still stands.

Thankfully in Round 3 you have provided a rebuttal without the complete use of quotes from Sanders.

1. "Bernie Sander's economic plan is unrealistic and overly optimistic."

Con counters this argument, stating

"Almost every other major country in the world provides healthcare to all people as a right. There is no reason why the wealthiest country in the history of the world cannot do the same. Not only that, Bernie's plan is the most economically accurate and competent, lowering poverty, creating more jobs, and overall increasing economic growth ."

Where are the numbers to support thid claim that Bernie Sanders has the most economically accurate and competent plan? There may be statisics brought up in the blog you cited, or the Physicians for a National Health Program (which has obvious bias by the look of the title), but where is it in your argument?

In regards to a single payer healthcare system, there have been many critics. Many supporters of the system tend to glorify countries such as Canada, Britain, and Sweden who utilize it, when it is really plagued with issues. Most significantly in Canada, waiting list times have greatly increased while the lack of medical equipment has decreased.[1] [2]

"According to a report by the Frasier Institute, an independent think-tank in British Columbia, Canada, the median waiting time to get treatment from a specialist has doubled in the past 20 years, to 18.2 weeks. Canadian patients wait the longest for orthopedic surgery (42.2 weeks), neurosurgery (31.2 weeks), and plastic surgery (27.1 weeks)."

"There’s also a severe shortage of essential medical equipment. Canada ranks 14th among 22 OECD countries in MRI machines per million people, with an average wait time to use one at just over eight weeks. Canada ranks a dismal 16th in CT scanners per million people, with an average wait time of over 3.6 weeks."


Many of these surgeries may or have been vital to survive, putting patients at risk of death.

Also, acording to the Physicians for a National Health Plan, which you have cited, calls for the complete abolition of for-profit hospitals, and places the responsibility for managing “health facilities and expensive equipment purchases” in the hands of regional planning boards.[3] Therefore, funding and allocating of resources would depend on those goverbmental boards, effectively wiping out competition for doctors and control over their resources. This would lead to disastoraus effects, including reduce physicians' control over standards of care and reimbursement, so the government, not the actual physisicans, would determine whats best for patients. Employees at hospitals also have less drive to work and succeed, as stated previously in my argument, since they are payed less and have less chances, if any, to be rewarded for improved care, to work efficiently and longer hours.[4] The scandals that have surronded the VA hospitals are prime examples of this occurence.

Con also argues:

"Kenneth Thorpe's analysis has been discredited because it wrongly assumes key aspects while at the same time ignoring other aspects of Sanders' plan. To paraphrase, it does not factor in cost savings of the Medicare-For-All healthcare system, assumes huge increases in the utilization of the healthcare system, ignores large savings to State and local governments, ignores the tax subsidies that currently support existing insurance companies, and assumes zero-cost savings under Sanders' plan on prescription drugs and devices.


Secondly, the Tax Foundation's Analysis has been discredited for relying on flawed research and many factual inaccuracies including incorrectly stating high corporate tax rates when the opposite is in fact true"

First off, according to Politico, the Huffington Post is known for being a "leftist" news organization. But that is besides the point. The cost savings proposed by Bernie Sanders would be almost impossible.

"By our napkin calculations, those making more than $200,000 — roughly the top 5 percent of income earners — would contribute about $117 billion to the single-payer system, while everyone else would pay in $126 billion. Payroll taxes yield an additional $432 billion for a total of $675 billion.

That’s still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013 ($949 billion in premiums and $325 billion for out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

Sanders says his system would make up for that shortfall by trimming costs, as the government would have more leverage to negotiate with health providers.With Sanders’ proposed taxes, costs would need to be trimmed by roughly 42 to 47 percent — a tall order when "the most generous estimates of how much you could cut cost are on the order of 20 percent," said Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy and economics at New York University who’s served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations."[6]

Also the article you cite states this:

"Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds."

Which describes the exact problem with the system, lack of resources. See above.

2. Bernie Sanders would not be able to enact any of his policies, he has relatively little support."
You counter saying that "poll after poll shows that the vast majority of.....etc." Where are the polls that state this? (I cited the other poll [6]) However, this support doesn't matter, even if he does get elected, partailly the vote will go by those who dislike Trump, the Republican frontrunner, over those who are actually Sanders supporters.

And if we are going to talk about "political revolutions" where tens of millions of people stand up to fight for change, I can point to the Trump campaign. Tens of millions of people will resist any efforts by Bernie Sanders, justified or not, and the majority of America still reject socialist policies as a whole. Currently Republicans outnumber Democrats in governers and congress, and state legislators.[7] Lets avoid the use of campaign propaganda in the debate, thanks.

stealspell

Pro

As expected, Con has chosen to further pursue semantics games, arguing over what constitutes an argument and what doesn't, rather than address the two main arguments presented.

Con also makes an additionally false, not to mention distracting, accusation. Con claims that "boundless citations" were provided for the main arguments which "only cited Bernie Sanders, there were no real use of facts/proof/evidence" Something is amiss here. Either Con has not bothered to check the citation which prove the points made by Bernie Sanders rather than direct to transcripts of his own words, as Con claims, or somebody must be tinkering with Con"s internet connection and he is being redirected to Bernie Sanders speeches. Perhaps malware is involved.

"In addtion, in those lines, was there ever a single argument made to support why Bernie Sanders should be president, or were you implying that these are the problems in America and Bernie Sanders can solve them?"

Both.

It should go without saying, as the majority would agree, that the standard for President is the following: the individual who has a clear understanding of the problems facing a country and holds a clear vision as to how to solve those problems ought to be the leader of that country. Bernie Sanders, according to my argumentation, is the most qualified individual to be President of the United States because he meets those standards.

"If so, then you have provided no real evidence, facts, or explanations on how he can change these things and be our next president."

See ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION. It contains an explanation including fourteen citations of evidence.

"Where are the numbers to support thid claim that Bernie Sanders has the most economically accurate and competent plan? There may be statisics brought up in the blog you cited, or the Physicians for a National Health Program (which has obvious bias by the look of the title), but where is it in your argument?"

It is impossible to know how one should attempt to answer these two conflicting questions, as they seem to not only be contradicting each other, it seems obvious to me that the answer to the first question exists in the second question and the answer to the second question exists in the first question, once again, raising doubts as to what Con"s probing efforts are. Nevertheless, the citation that I provided gives explicit reasons and data to prove the competency of Sanders" economic plan. The PNHP cites multiple studies which support the overall economic plan. In addition to that, 170 economists have endorsed Sanders" economic plan as the best economic plan for the future of the United States. [1][2]

"Many supporters of the system tend to glorify countries such as Canada, Britain, and Sweden who utilize it, when it is really plagued with issues. Most significantly in Canada, waiting list times have greatly increased while the lack of medical equipment has decreased."

Yet the vast majority of Canadians and Britons are quite satisfied with their system and are not eager to switch to an American system. [3] It should go without saying that no system is perfect but a universal health care system would be a far better system than the current health care system in the United States, as it is more cost effective and better quality care.

Con cites a Politfact article, but omits to factor in crucial information from Sanders' health care plan.

"That's still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013 ($949 billion in premiums and $325 billion for out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)."

The article uses the cost of health care premiums and out of pocket expenses from 2013 which includes the profits made by insurance companies, thereby grossly inflating what the actual cost of health care services would be without insurance companies' profits factored in. Since premiums will be eliminated under Sanders' plan, the cost for health care services would be significantly lower which is covered by proposed operating revenue costs under Sanders' health care plan.

"Also the article you cite states this:

"Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds."

Which describes the exact problem with the system, lack of resources. See above."

I have no idea why Con decided to cite this since it states the exact opposite of what he is arguing.

"You counter saying that "poll after poll shows that the vast majority of.....etc." Where are the polls that state this? "

See ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION - A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION

"However, this support doesn't matter, even if he does get elected, partailly the vote will go by those who dislike Trump, the Republican frontrunner, over those who are actually Sanders supporters."

"Tens of millions of people will resist any efforts by Bernie Sanders, justified or not, and the majority of America still reject socialist policies as a whole."

As stated before, the vast majority of Americans want to see Bernie Sanders's policy proposals become law. For those citations see ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION - A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION

Furthermore, there are no mass efforts underway to reject Bernie Sanders' proposals as Con speculates would occur were he to be elected President. Some evidence is in order if Con continues to maintain otherwise.

[1] http://www.inquisitr.com...
[2] https://berniesanders.com...
[3] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Sam7411

Con

IN CONCLUSION

My opponent Con, has continued throughout this debate excusing my claims over his opening argument of being simply speech material from Bernie Sanders, by dismissing merely as playing semantic games (which, ironically, you aren't using the term appropriately). A simple Google search, as I did, reveals obvious lines from speech transcripts. It appears you took your comment too literally.

"I'm unsure whether I should accept only because I honestly feel like every argument I would present would actually be Bernie's. He makes his case perfectly. I honestly don't know what I could add."

Your citations that you use either cite what Bernie said, or the situations on the "corrupt society/economy of America" through leftist media sites such as Alternet, Common Dreams etc. Which, keeping in mind, are not even relevant to this debate. How is the use of superdelegates, however undemocratic, important to why Bernie Sanders would make a good president?


Furthermore, I have provided two founded and relevant arguments on to why Bernie Sanders should not be president. First, that his policies were to unrealistic and optimistic, and that he would in actuality, achieve little. I have outlined the serious implications of his proposed single payer healthcare system as a main example of this point, the futility of the taxes and the price we would actually pay, whether through even more taxes or wait times or lack of proper medical equipment. All throughout this time using numbers from unbiased sources,

I have used logic and reasoning using basic understandings of politics, citing appropriate polls and the reality of the laws passing, beyond the common tropes of "millions of people demand change".

I encourage any voter to look at this debate objectively and vote on the debate, not the candidate, in question. Thank you stealspell for accepting this debate. Vote Con, and I hope you do it with a smile. (nudge nudge)
stealspell

Pro

Several corrections first off:

"My opponent Con" - I'm Pro

"has continued throughout this debate excusing my claims over his opening argument of being simply speech material from Bernie Sanders, by dismissing merely as playing semantic games (which, ironically, you aren't using the term appropriately)"

I am using the word appropriately and here"s why: instead of focusing on my arguments, which are crystal clear by the nature of their heading, not once has Con bothered to address them but merely dodged and ignored by attempting to shift the debate away from why Bernie Sanders is most qualified to be President to what constitutes an argument and what doesn"t, which I also addressed in Round 3, "Bernie Sanders understand the problems currently facing the United States of America and the solutions necessary to fix those problems. I provided both the problems, persuasively, supported by evidence, and the solutions, persuasively, supported by evidence. That is the definition of argumentation." As well as in Round 4, "It should go without saying, as the majority would agree, that the standard for President is the following: the individual who has a clear understanding of the problems facing a country and holds a clear vision as to how to solve those problems ought to be the leader of that country. Bernie Sanders, according to my argumentation, is the most qualified individual to be President of the United States because he meets those standards."

"Your citations that you use either cite what Bernie said,"

Yet again, Con has not bothered to examine any of these citations. Not a single citation directs to Bernie Sanders transcripts. They direct to evidence which supports the claims Bernie is making in the quotes provided. Patently false statement by Con.

"or the situations on the "corrupt society/economy of America" through leftist media sites such as Alternet, Common Dreams etc. Which, keeping in mind, are not even relevant to this debate. How is the use of superdelegates, however undemocratic, important to why Bernie Sanders would make a good president?"

The heading of the argument is "ARGUMENT 1: THE PROBLEM - THE ESTABLISHMENT OLIGARCHY: THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED TO FAVOR THE TOP 1%"

The quote I provided from the CNN article, "In other words, the Democratic Party's superdelegates exist to preserve the power and influence of the Democratic Party's elite" is wholly relevant to the argument being made.

"First, that his policies were to unrealistic and optimistic, and that he would in actuality, achieve little."

This was addressed by my second argument which Con ignored completely. So this does not hold.

" I have outlined the serious implications of his proposed single payer healthcare system as a main example of this point, the futility of the taxes and the price we would actually pay, whether through even more taxes or wait times or lack of proper medical equipment. All throughout this time using numbers from unbiased sources,"

The sources were most definitely not unbiased.

In additional to that, I showed why the analysis by the economist Con cited is wrong on numerous counts in Round 3.

I applaud my opponent for having the courage to debate this topic although I encourage him to do more research for future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DebaterGood// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The use of "semantics" was a turn off for me, and kinda took away from a probably good debate. Argument goes to Pro because Con used VERY conservative sources. At the same time, Quotes from Bernie Sanders are OKAY, but they were overused. Overall debate rating 7/10.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. The use of semantics may inform it, but the voter has to be clear about why that is a conduct violation. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot solely explain this decision based on the use of sources, especially when that explanation is based chiefly in bias alone. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters.
************************************************************************
Posted by Sam7411 1 year ago
Sam7411
Ooops, my apologies for calling my opponent Con, I was incorrect.
Posted by stealspell 1 year ago
stealspell
Ooops **I don't foresee a hard debate
Posted by stealspell 1 year ago
stealspell
I'll accept. I don't foresee an easy debate.
Posted by Sam7411 1 year ago
Sam7411
So your candidate is to perfect to debate about?
Posted by stealspell 1 year ago
stealspell
I'm unsure whether I should accept only because I honestly feel like every argument I would present would actually be Bernie's. He makes his case perfectly. I honestly don't know what I could add.
No votes have been placed for this debate.