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

Bernie Sander's policies will not benefit the country.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 843 times Debate No: 85729
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2- Cases, Round 3- Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
I will attack Sander's policies, while my opponent defends them.


I accept.

As CON, I will be arguing that the proposed policies of Bernie Sanders have beneficial qualities to the United States.

First, we must remember PRO paints with a broad brush in stating that these policies will not benefit the country. The ability to prove that even one policy has beneficial qualities must result in a vote for CON.

Best of luck to my opponent, I look forward to debunking your theories.
Debate Round No. 1


Ideology-Bernie Sanders has proclaimed himself a socialist. He has ran on the idea of increasing taxes on the rich, and giving to the poor. This is not only completely unnecessary, but has a lot of unintended consequences.
Competition- If my opponent believes in this ideal, and I am sure that every socialist does. But, during the ages in when humans were evolving. Competition was a necessity in aiding mankind's evolution. Capitalism has made this possible for humanity having the government being in charge of protecting its people, and Its people doing what they want to do. Now, I will give examples of things that capitalism has made possible for us.
Cars- Back in times before capitalism, people used to ride horses to get where they needed to go. Today, it is unimaginable that we would get on our horses and get to where we needed to go. But, in the 20th century during the industrial revolution, cars started booming. Henry Ford had the idea that people would drive cars if they were cheaper. Usually the rich would drive cars while the poor would get horses. But, Henry Ford made cars cheaper. He made it at the right price. American people started to buy cars, and the horsing industry quickly disappeared. This is an example of the Free Market. The people get whatever they need. And if a business is not doing well to serve its people, another business will take over.
Here is a list of the top ten best car companies
Bentley Motors
These businesses are competing for profit. Now, lets just say that everyone of these companies are selfish, and money driven. They are all competing to also provide the best services. They are all competing for our money.
In addition to the free market getting better everyday, Google is releasing their own car. They are trying to create a self-driving car. We all know this but Google is now worried that Apple is going to get involved. If Apple gets involved than that is going to force Google to make their car better.
These are all examples of the free market making life better.

Food- As we all know food is a necessity to human life. As the free market gradually progressed, Food became but better.
McDonalds- As we all know McDonalds is the world's largest hamburger chain. The business started in the 1940s, when White Castle was the burger joint everybody went to. The business started to grow in the 60s, because people started to realize that this food was good. Gradually more and more people went to McDonalds, and replaced White Castle. Another example of a small business replacing a large corporation.

Burger King- Burger King started out in 1954. After Insta-Burger King ran into financial difficulties in 1954, its two Miami-based franchisees, David Edgerton and James McLamore, purchased the company and renamed it Burger King. Over the next half century, the company would change hands four times, with its third set of owners, a partnership of TPG Capital, Bain Capital, and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, taking it public in 2002. In late 2010, 3G Capital of Brazil acquired a majority stake in BK in a deal valued at US$3.26 billion. The new owners promptly initiated a restructuring of the company to reverse its fortunes. 3G, along with partner Berkshire Hathaway, eventually merged the company with Canadian-based doughnut chain Tim Hortons under the auspices of a new Canadian-based parent company.

Wendy's- Wendy's is an American international fast food chain restaurant founded by Dave Thomas on November 15, 1969, in Columbus, Ohio, United States. The company moved its headquarters to Dublin, Ohio, on January 29, 2006. As of March 1999, Wendy's was the world's third largest hamburger fast food chain with approximately 6,650 locations, following Burger King's 12,000 locations and McDonald's' 31,000 locations.[3][4][5] On April 24, 2008, the company announced a merger with Triarc, the parent company of Arby's. Despite the new ownership, Wendy's headquarters remained in Dublin.[6] Previously, Wendy's had rejected more than two buyout offers from Triarc Companies Inc. Following the merger, Triarc became known as Wendy's/Arby's Group (now The Wendy's Company), a publicly traded company. Approximately 85% of Wendy's restaurants are franchised, all of which are located in North America. Wendy's and its affiliates employ more than 47,000 people in its global operations. In fiscal year 2006, the firm had $2.469 billion (USD) in total sales.
This is another example of where the free market makes life better.

Video Games- I love vide games. The video game industry started to boom in the early 80s. In the 60s, the arcade carried games like space invaders, and pac man. The free market made it possible for all places that wanted a play room for kids could purchase one from the arcade businesses. Atari came and introduced the idea of home consoles. They brought classical games such as space invaders and pac man to the home screen. Nintendo came and replaced Atari with its classical Mario games. Sega came and also tried to cash in on the video game market with its sonic the hedgehog. Gradually in the early 2000s Xbox and Sony came and released 3Dimentional games to home consoles. Xbox gave its visionary online service which transformed games forever. If you are a true gamer you know that you cannot live without the online service. Thank capitalism for this.

Tech Industries- Technology has also progressed thanks to Capitalism. While video games were progressing, computers were also progressing.
Apple-Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers. Its best-known hardware products are the Mac line of computers, the iPod media player, the iPhone smartphone, the iPad tablet computer, and the Apple Watch smartwatch. Its online services include iCloud, the iTunes Store, and the App Store. Apple's consumer software includes the OS X and iOS operating systems, the iTunes media browser, the Safari web browser, and the iLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites. Apple had the visionary idea in the 80s that they could put a graphical user interface on a computer. The theory was successful. Apple had a visionary idea about putting music in a little device. That was called the IPod. Apple had another idea of making the phone multitouch. That theory was transformed the world with the IPhone.

The Free Market has transformed a lot of things and has made life better. Regulation of free enterprise will deter it.
Foreign Relations- Bernie Sanders wants to make America more of a uniter when it comes to dealing with serious threats. If Putin tries to miss with Europe, Bernie's plan is to unite everybody to come up with a good strategy to stop Putin. The only problem with this is that it is very idealistic. Their would be too much arguing, and nothing would happen. All nations are interested in what they can do to benefit themselves. They won't rally behind America. America is basically the defender of Democracy as we know it. America needs to be a powerful influential power in order to maintain this democracy we have. China and Russia are on the rise, and they are both the two authoritarian governments that will benefit, if other countries also become authoritarian. If America's power declines on a global stage, China will take the opportunity to become a world leader. Democracy would become less acceptable, and the world would not be a good place for the common man. Note that he has also stated that he will be focused more on what is happening in America, than anywhere else.

3. Plans won't Solve- Congress is never going to buy anything he is saying. The Republicans firmly disagree with almost anything Bernie Sanders says. Bernie Sanders claims that people will vote next primary, but that is highly unlikely. Voter turnout is always extremely low with the supporters Bernie has. Even if their are states that will have democratic senators. Democrats are not even aligned with what Bernie Sanders is saying. Democrats want a combination of Capitalism and welfare. Hilary Clinton is a good example on what the Democrats stand for. Clinton's democrats will not be with Bernie. He won't be able to pass anything. He will alienate the Republicans and the Democrats. He will divide this country, and that is why he would be a horrible president.


My opponent has started this debate with claims to attack the policies of Senator Sanders, yet spends the majority of his first argument advocating for free market capitalism, with only passing mention of "Socialism".

Also, I find your reliance on wikipedia quite humorous. Wikipedia itself readily admits they are not a credible source for research. Don't be lazy.

Moving on, I don't follow how you argue that Food has "became but better" and then cite McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's as your examples.

For clarification sake, I will now introduce some of the policies that are included in the Senator's platform and how they will potentially benefit the country.

1. Campaign Finance Reform

The goal is to get big, corporate money out of the campaign process, which leaves candidates indebted more to these corporations than they are to their constituents. Having politicians that creating policy in the best interest of the people (as opposed to corporations) is ideal to the country, and one of the founding tenets of representative democracy.

2. Make Colleges and Universities Affordable

This is a multi pronged effort to not only make college affordable, but also reduce student debt for those currently repaying loans and prevent the US government from making a profit on student loans. The effects of reducing the cost barriers and debt burdens for education will benefit the country by allowing more aspiring students to seek out higher learning and creating a more educated work force.

3. Combat Climate Change

Sanders have numerous policies on the various means to combat climate change. Of note of these policies are the emphasis to accelerate away from burning fossil fuels and breaking free from the fossil fuel lobby. Again, attempts to curtail our exploitation of the environment while working to end our dependence on foreign oil (and the fluctuations in that market) will benefit our country today, but more importantly, prove to be extremely beneficial for our future generations.

4. Attack Income and Wealth Inequality

As the Senator has been fond of saying, "There is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent." The gap continues to grow as the majority of Americans see their dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. Addressing matters that affect the majority of the American population isn't beneficial to the country? I think not.

These are a sampling, but by no means a comprehensive list, of the policies that Senator Bernie Sanders is campaigning on.

The examples you've cited only affect the economy, though much of the gains have come at the expense of the environment, working class, and health of the American people.

Now, you can choose to address how these policies are not beneficial, or you can choose to write another non sequitur argument favoring capitalism.

Debate Round No. 2


1. Campaign Finance Reform:
This goal is as idealistic as it is pathetic. Congress will never pass such a law. Con has not provided any evidence supporting the notion that this would ever happen.
Here are some studies indication that Congress does not care about what the bottom 90% of people think. The only people that can make a significant impact of there legislation is the upper class. This is a fact, and my opponent cannot dispute these claims. This is just one policy that will not benefit America, because it won't pass.
2. Make Colleges and Universities Affordable
This is just a citing of an abundant amount of people that ask congress to reform colleges and make universities affordability. Obama pushed for this, and failed. What makes you think Bernie Sanders would do better. Con has not answered this, and prefers to be naive about it.
Another unintended consequences is that this will also put regulation on the private sector causing more money to flow into congress. Sanders will not be able to pass this policy, and therefore it will not benefit the country.
3.Attack income and Wealth inequality
This will not only lead to a class war, but it the consequences will cause more harm than good. Private interests will donate more money in Congress, and congress would become for corrupt. Sanders will not be able to pass this policy, and it will not benefit the US.

The main idea is that these policies will not pass, and add another 4 years of arguing. This is a fact. Congress will never pass the idealistic policies Sanders has to offer, and will result in a giant waste of money. Plus, he will create actually more crony capitalism. Taxing businesses and putting regulations on businesses will hurt small businesses. Sanders offers nothing more than pathetic idealism, and none of it will ever have a significant impact on America, because of the reasons just stated.


I guess there's not much left for me to refute here.

Allow me a moment to summarize both sides of the debate for our readers and potential voters:

Round 1. Pro claims he will attack Sanders' policies. Then mistakenly cites the wrong number of rounds of the Debate. (This, the third round, is also the final round).

Round 1. I, Con, accept and proceed to explain that I will argue why the Senator's proposed policies have beneficial qualities to the US.

Round 2. Pro attacks Sanders' socialist ideology, and goes on a long rant espousing the virtues of capitalism. Something about cars, fast food, and technology. To be honest, I only skimmed his argument, because none of it seemed relevant to the topic. He also cited the crap out of wikipedia. Honestly, I find that to be quite lazy and even a little insulting to my intelligence.

Round 2. As Con, I provide a sample list of the policies Senator Sanders has proposed and how they can be perceived as beneficial. Notice the word potentially creeps up again. I never attempted to argue the viability of these policies, I just intended to point out how they could be beneficial.

Round 3. Pro contends that none of the policies will realistically be implemented, so they are not beneficial.

Now, to my closing statements.

Pro never resolved to argue the viability of Sanders' policies, and has yet to directly refute my claims that the proposed policies do carry beneficial qualities to the United States.

While the viability of these policies is certainly another debate for another time, its impossible to positively assert that none of the policies in the Senator's platform would not be implemented. For all we know, Democrats could potentially win back Congress in 2016 and 2018, thus allowing some of Sanders' prized policies to flow through legislation. Add in the fact that the next President is likely looking at placing multiple SCOTUS judges, and the entire federal government could be leaning awfully left for a term or two.

But that's not what this debate was hinged on.

This debate was based on a false assumption that the policies of Bernie Sanders have no beneficial qualities to the United States.

I have, in my opinion, shown the beneficial qualities of a selected sample of the Senator's policies. The only refutation was the assertion that they'll never pass Congress. To that I say, we don't know the future of the Presidential Race, nor that of Congress, so we cannot hinge our opinion on the possibility of these policies not passing legislation.

What we do know is that at the core of Bernie Sanders' policies, is the welfare of every man, woman and child in the United States, and not the political interests of powerful corporations. To say these policies are not beneficial to the United States is simply a falsehood.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 2 years ago
Left left me with a bit of a chicken and egg problem with this argument. The logic flows along the lines of "This will be a terrible omelet because the chicken will not lay the eggs." The first argument focuses on why Bernie Sanders should not be elected. The second argument focuses on why, if elected, none of the policies will pass. Con makes this distinction clear in the third argument. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the policies, there has to be a base condition of the policies actually being implemented. Only after the policies are implemented, can you rate the effectiveness. I have no idea if the policies will be implemented, or if Sanders will be elected. I"m not a supporter or have strong feelings about him one way or another. Finland has one of the best educational systems in the world, and they"re socialist. Could free education be positive? A case could be made. But pro had the burden of proof to show how the policy would harm the country. He did not. He argued primarily to avoid implementation which means evaluation is impossible. We can never know if the omelet tastes good or bad without the eggs. One can"t argue that the chicken is a rooster so it makes a bad omelet. Voting Con for listing beneficial elements of the policy.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
Harmoniesophie your argument doesn't stand on its own. It is entirely possible to dislike all of the candidates running, as I do. It's also possible to state that Bernie, without comparison, won't do well with the economy. The whole "well, he's the best" argument doesn't stand in this situation.
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
First show me the sources for what policies you are going to be talking about.
Posted by harmoniesophie 2 years ago
what do you have against Bernie Sanders? I mean, I think that all of the candidates for this election are money and power driven.. and I feel that they all are not best suite to run this country. Trump is ignorant, racist, and money driven.. Hilary lies like no other, and she is also money driven.. but Bernie.. now he is the first person that I heard on television that said something decent for once in this election... he believes in trying to make it affordable for everyone to attend college.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 2 years 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: BOP provided in comments.