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

Bernie Sanders would be a better president than libertarian, Gary Johnson

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,137 times Debate No: 91473
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance, other than that, only rule is that you can present no new arguments in the conclusion 5th round.


Many thanks to my opponent for issuing this challenge.

Pro has agreed to these parameters for this debate:

While better is an ambiguous term in defining a president's success, for the sake of this discussion we will be arguing the merit of each candidate's platforms. We are debating overall better values for this country based on where the candidates stand on key issues. I will be arguing that Gary Johnson is on the right/better side of important issues than Sanders in ideology. As such, he and his platforms would be better suited to lead the United States if they were to come to fruition. We are to compare the candidate's platforms -- not the actual limitations of the presidency as it pertains to political gridlock.

Fortunately, I believe Bernie Sanders is the 2nd best (mainstream) candidate for POTUS. Therefore I don't have to waste character space highlighting his poor temperament a la Donald Trump, or corrupt history in politics like say Hillary Clinton. Thus in this debate I will highlight where Gary Johnson's platforms is superior to Bernie's, specifically.

I look forward to a great discussion! Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to start off by just listing the issues where Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson agree so that people see that these two candidates really only differ on a few key issues. They are both okay with gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, woman's right to chose (difference on cutoff point), shrinking and consolidating the military, and avoiding foreign entanglements.

Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed democratic socialist, and his biggest argument in his candidacy for president has been focusing on narrowing the wage gap between the 1% and the 99%. This gap is the largest it has ever been since 1920 ( and has made us the country with the largest wage inequality. And Bernie Sander, unlike Gary Johnson, has a plan to combat this issue that I believe will work. By requiring the companies that have received so much of the wealth going into the marketplace to pay their fair share of taxes, we can provide for programs that lift up the middle class and narrow this gap. This would also help raise our lower income families support themselves with programs such as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. Gary Johnson on the other hand seeks to eliminate the income tax for businesses. Hoping that the so called trickle down economic method will create jobs and raise the middle class, but unfortunately their is little evidence that suggests that money ever leaves the top of the food chain of that company. Companies will still pay their employers the least amount possible and CEO's will pocket the most amount of money they can. This is not to say that these CEO's are doing anything wrong, because who would give more money than they absolutely have to? Bernie Sanders has a plan that does not change the tax rates of middle class families and the working class. Johnson has pushed for a completely new tax code that would tax everyone the same, and mathematically that would require raising the tax rates for people who make little money. Bernie Sanders' programs, such as Rebuilding America to fix our infrastructure, expanding social security, and his free state college plan, have not raised taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 per year. And these are not even tax raises, it just requires these people to pay the taxes that they already owe but get out of because of tax loopholes.

Another hot button issue in this country is the environment. Both of our candidates do agree that the climate in this county is changing which is good because we do not have to dive into the pit of environmental change deniers. The only concern I have is that Johnson has not pushed and discourages the government pushing green energy change. This country needs an almost complete shift to green energy, this is the only way to make us truly non-dependent on foreign oil and to protect our landscape and our citizens. Bernie Sanders has pushed to tax carbon pollution and to get rid of the subsidies already in place for oil and gas companies.Gary Johnson only sees this issues in terms of dollars and cents, "Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. The important question, however, is whether the government"s efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective". The environment is not something to ignore because you are too focused on passing a balanced budget.

Sanders also believes in expanding social security, while Johnson believes in privatizing social security, a decision that will only lead to a complete failure in the entire system, or even worse, would be these companies that would control ss investing this money and in turn loosing all the money, leaving people with no ss. Social Security is not failing like republicans like to suggest, when social security was enacted almost half of all senior citizens lived in poverty, that number is now down to 10%. By eliminating the cap of 250k on social security tax Sanders will be able to expand social security so that our older generation makes more than the average $8,300.


Thanks, Pro.

Libertarianism marries the best of both worlds: being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. As such Johnson can appeal to a wide range of voters across the aisle, whereas Bernie Sanders' progressive ideology is off-putting to many. Johnson consistently embraces the American value of individual liberty, whereas Bernie Sanders hypocritically dictates where the government has the right to exercise aggression against one's personal freedoms.

In this debate, I will be arguing that Gary Johnson's platforms trump Bernie's where it matters most - on the economy (specifically trade; stimulus; taxes; debt and labor). Pro argues that Bernie's platform is better than Gary's insofar as addressing the wage gap, the environment and Social Security. My opponent must prove that these issues in particular are more important to American's general welfare than the ones I will be addressing. I believe that Gary's superior platform on the economy overall refutes Pro's contentions on wages and SS.


The most stable economy is one where all groups improve. Wealth equality is not the ultimate goal. Wealth has to be created and when there is more wealth created, the poorest among us will tend to be better off. While the richest have increased their share of the national income, the rest of us have gotten richer as well. The income of the other quintiles aside from the top 1% have increased by 49, 37, 36 and 45 percent in the last ~35 years [1].

Our quality of life (including for the poor) has drastically improved over the years, and that is what is most significant - productivity despite wealth inequality. Profit driven capitalism inspires innovation and growth, which provides opportunity and lifts people out of poverty. It is based on voluntary trade, whereas socialism is rooted in hyper-authoritative control of policy, and markets that are dictated by corrupt politicians. Indeed Bernie Sanders acknowledges the cronyism in marrying money and politics, yet questionably advocates giving untrustworthy politicians even more power to rip off the tax payers.

Gary Johnson is a capitalist, which is why his policies were so successful while in office. He ran for governor as a fiscal conservative in a blue state, won handily, cut taxes, vetoed hundreds of bills, presided over significant job growth, balanced the state budget and created a substantial reserve fund [2].

Right now the United States is in a substantial amount of debt. To balance the federal budget, Johnson wants to cut federal expenditures, get rid of pork, end federal subsidies, nix government bail outs, scale down social welfare and eliminate wasteful spending. We can assume he will be successful in these endeavors as his experience suggests.

While the national debt per capita increases, "it reduces the amount of tax revenue available to spend on other governmental services. Over time this will cause people to experience a lower standard of living" [3]. Corporations will have to raise the prices of goods to accommodate lending margins. People will have to pay more for things, thereby resulting in inflation. Plus the cost of borrowing money (specifically for homes) will increase for Americans [3].

Increased government debt means productivity is stifled; the economy does not grow and people lose jobs [3]. Stagnation ensues. "Perhaps most importantly, as the risk of a country defaulting on its debt service obligation increases, the country loses its social, economic and political power. This in turn makes the national debt level a national security issue" [4].Yet Bernie's economic proposals will likely not improve our debt situation at all. Most recent analysis suggests that his plan would add $21 trillion to our debt [5].

Bernie advocates even more expenditures to our government payroll, i.e. subsidizing "free" college for all -- this despite the fact that increased access to college funds has a direct and proven relationship to increasing college's cost [6]. Bernie wants to apply the same poor logic that raises prices across various industries (like health care, etc.) while the debt piles on.

Modest estimates curb Sanders' irresponsible spending at only 18 trillion [7]. But one thing is clear - we cannot afford the massive expense of Bernie's entitlement programs, and his oversimplified (arguably immoral) solution of raising taxes on the rich not only still leaves deficits according to economic fact checkers [8], but could hurt the economy by losing jobs and stifling growth. After all if rich people are accused of hiding their money and moving companies off-shore to avoid paying taxes NOW, why should we believe they will have an incentive to not do the same (or more) of that when taxes are even higher?!

Gary Johnson wants to divert public jobs to the private sector. That way tax payers do not have to overpay and people in the private sector are taxed, which actually contributes to the tax pool whereas taxing public employees is redundant and does not alleviate our tax burden. The private sector is more efficient [9, 10, 11] which is one of many reasons Johnson's capitalism is superior to Bernie's socialism.

Regarding Social Security, Johnson has said "The SS retirement age needs to be raised. A portion of Social Security ought to be privatized, if not all. And there probably needs to be some means testing. It's a Ponzi scheme that's not sustainable" [12]. In fact Johnson is probably right that SS is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, which is a valid assertion according to many economists [13, 14]. But here we can see that while Johnson does favor the capitalist principle of privatization, he suggests that he would be okay with privatizing even just 50% of SS while making other changes to the status quo. This means the people who need it most will still benefit from this program (while it exists before it crushes under the weight of the Ponzi scheme), but his new policy will also encourage fiscal responsibility going forward.

To combat environmental abuse, Libertarians support private regulatory agencies and prosecuting people who violate other people's property through pollution and otherwise. Bernie's plan is to tax carbon pollution and to get rid of the subsidies already in place for oil and gas companies. These are bad proposals. First, taxing companies for polluting doesn't stop them from polluting at all. It just means the burden of that tax will get shifted to consumers. Second, oil subsidies are actually liberal policy that intends to provide cheap energy and heating to low-income families. In fact this is the exact type of subsidies that Sanders supports [15].

My opponent presents a quote by Gary Johnson but does not post the ENTIRE quote. In full, Johnson says "The important question, however, is whether the government’s efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective — or effective at all. Given the realities of global energy and resource use, there is little evidence that the burden being placed on Americans is making a difference that justifies the cost.” This changes the argument entirely. Johnson correctly points out that most government efforts to improve the environment have failed, or not succeeded in a meaningful way that justifies the expense on a cost-benefit analysis. Here Pro is trying to use Johnson's pragmatism against him, when it is perfectly sensible to not want to waste money on costly endeavors with frivolous returns. Pro must prove Bernie's proposals will be useful in a way that justifies the cost. He must also prove that these proposals are better than Johnson's. Gary notes that the private sector has almost single-handedly led the world of technological innovation.


In the upcoming rounds, I'll have more character space to expand on trade, stimulus and labor.

Debate Round No. 2


Although it is the Con's intro, I will remind that the topic is the platform of the candidates being the best for this country, and being "off-putting" is not really relevant. But for your arguments, while yes, more wealth created does benefit the poorest marginally, when 58% of all new income is going to the richest in this country it is not helping them enough to make a case in that regard. And yes everyone was getting richer, but no one got richer than the top 1% grew, which grew over 250%, while no other class grew more than a 100% [ ] . And while quality of life has increased, this is not just because of an increase in income. It is largely due to government programs such as social security. Before social security the poverty rate among the elderly was 50%, it is now down to 10% []. This greatly increased our standard of living and it is something Gary Johnson pledges to cut in order to obtain a balanced budget, while Bernie Sanders has pledged to expand social security without creating a larger deficit by lifting the tax cap on social security. And it is a false claim, when Johnson became Governor in 1995, the debt in New Mexico was $42 billion, when he left in 2003 it was $57.8 Billion dollars []. While unemployment did go down in New Mexico during the same term. So how is it that Johnson's state debt went up and unemployment went down when you just said,"Increased government debt means productivity is stifled, the economy does not grow and people lose jobs"?

While Johnson would end subsidies, his state is one of the largest to collect them, due to their poverty rate being one of the largest in the United States. They are one of the largest collectors of food stamps, and are getting back nearly three times the amount in subsidies that the states residents give in federal income taxes [].

The rich are not just accused of hiding their money off shores, they are hiding their money off shores. The best way to try to and balance the budget is not to cut the programs that millions of american's rely on, but instead make everyone pay the share they should have to under a progressive tax code. For years private firms have lost the pension plans of millions of American's and shifting Social Security to a private system would only increase this burden. The solution is not to weaken social security, it should be to strengthen it. And I would challenge anyone to find the flaw in Social Security, it has enough funds to last another 19 years as of right now, assuming all funding was cut off. It is the only form of retirement that has consistently never missed a payment on individuals even in times like the economic crisis of 2008 , which proved private companies could not be trusted to safely handle citizens money.

For environmental protection, it is untrue to say that companies would simply pass the cost on to consumers, by taxing their carbon use, it is the most cost effective method to reducing carbon consumption []. Also these programs have been both cost effective and effective, The Clean Air Act has shattered all expectations, for the environment it has led to a decrease of 41% emissions of the six principle air pollutants. The EPA also did a cost analysis to see if the Clean Air Act actually does save money. It was found that the benefits far outweighed the cost. From 1970 to 1990, the cost of CAA was $523 billion, while the benefits were $22 TRILLION []. This illustrates that the "burden" has been very effective in the climate change fight.


Pro begins by saying that because the richest people have expanded their wealth the most at the fastest rate, the fact that EVERYONE'S wealth has increased is somehow irrelevant. That is false for reasons I have explained in the last round. Capitalism inspires productivity and growth, which is why the poor among us today are far better off than people in third world countries that are stagnant.

My opponent also claims that the wealth created is somehow thanks in part to social programs like Social Security. However that is backwards logic that doesn't make any sense. In order for government social programs to exist, there must be government funds to pay for them. Government funds = revenue that is collected by tax payers. However tax payers wouldn't have any wealth to tax unless they were productive in the private sector!

The public sector could not exist without prosperity in private industry. If private capitalistic endeavors were not successful, there would be no wealthy or middle class people to tax in order to fund programs for the poor. Therefore Pro's supposition that social programs are somehow responsible for wealth creation is not supported. In fact they are parasitic and dependent on people's wealth; they certainly do not generate wealth (only improved welfare).

Pro points out that Johnson wants to cut Social Security (not eliminate it entirely) which I've explained is fiscally responsible. He says that Bernie claims to keep SS while not increasing the deficit, which doesn't make sense and is not possible according to the economists I've cited in the last round. Moreover Bernie has planned to increase taxes not just on the rich but on EVERYONE (by his own admission) to help fund some of his endeavors [1]. How is it helpful to provide us with things we pay for anyway via tax? The same thing could be accomplished (with more efficiency, better quality and cheaper) in the private market. Estimates say that Sanders' plan would raise taxes on Americans by around 34 percent [2].

Bernie Sanders tweeted that women and not the government own their bodies, while failing to acknowledge that tax payers (not the government) own their wealth and property. Therefore, the same courtesy of recognizing one's personal autonomy when it comes to their bodies ought to be valued across the board.

Gary Johnson believes in people's liberty to make personal choices about their own health care, security and finances - whereas Sanders believes everyone is monetarily responsible for everyone else for the sake of "morality." But there is nothing moral about theft. If people were really moral, they would volunteer their OWN money to charitable causes - not forcefully steal it from others and pretend that is somehow a moral endeavor. Bernie's economic proposals are not only immoral but counterproductive insofar as benefitting the economy or Middle-Class America's pocketbook.

Pro's source on New Mexico's subsidy intake from 2014 is irrelevant to Gary Johnson who presided over the state from 1995 to 2003.

In the last round I asked if the rich are moving their funds off-shore to avoid paying taxes NOW, why should we believe they will have an incentive to not do the same (or more) of that when taxes are even higher?! Pro has not provided an answer.

In addition to moving their money overseas, the wealthy are moving the jobs they create there as well which of course is their right; jobs do not inherently belong to Americans. A competitive labor market (paying the lowest wages possible) is a key component of a good business plan. Bernie Sanders is anti-progressive on his immigration stance [3] and falsely believes that immigrants hurt the American economy and take our jobs [4]. However Johnson's amnesty proposal to working immigrants (without criminal offenses; he believes in a 1-strike-you're-out policy) is superior to Bernie's because it recognizes the positive impacts that immigration has on the economy [5].

Bernie Sanders has proven to be totally illiterate when it comes to anything related to finances, with the exception of highlighting cronyism in politics (especially banking). Yet as I said, Bernie wants to curiously give corrupt politicians even more power, influence and money to waste tax payer funds rather than empower citizens to find or create better solutions.

My opponent has completely dropped my argument that Social Security is in fact a Ponzi Scheme. A Ponzi Scheme is an operation in which money is transferred from one party to another party by a third party outsider. The money received from the new investor(s) is used to cover the supposed gains on investments from the previous investors. A Ponzi scheme will eventually fail because the alleged earnings will be less than the money promised to the investors.

Indeed this is precisely how Social Security works. There is a decreasing number of investors (new workers entering the labor force) and an increase number of people attempting to receive retirement benefits. According to the 2011 Social Security report by the government, SS funds will be exhausted by about 2036 [6]. Yet despite this problem, Bernie wants to "strengthen and expand" Social Security while Gary Johnson seeks responsible and pragmatic reform. For example he would raise the retirement age (which makes sense since Americans are living longer) and cut taxes so people have more money to invest in their retirement as opposed to relying on SS which might not be there.

On the environment, Pro claims it's untrue that corporations would pass the cost of taxes onto their consumers. However that is absolutely true and Pro has not proven otherwise. Indeed because businesses need to operate within a certain profit margin in order to be successful, when their operating costs rise, the only way they can maintain that profit margin is to charge their customers more [8].

And finally Pro claims that some environmental protection that has been passed led to a decrease in pollution. But my position wasn't that legislation would have no impact; it's that the impact ought to be valued on a cost-benefit analysis. As I said, Gary Johnson recognizes that markets and private property rights can help protect nature. The worst pollution often happens on land owned by "the people" - by government. Since no one person derives direct benefit from this property, it's often treated carelessly. Worse things may happen when government indifference combines with the greed of unrestrained businesspeople, like when the U.S. Forest Service lets logging companies cut trees on public land.

"Markets even solve environmental problems in places where environmentalists assume they cannot, such as oceans and other property that can't be carved up into private parcels. For example environmental bureaucrats usually say (to make sure fishermen don't overfish and destroy the stock of fish) we will set a quota for every season. That command-and-control approach has been the standard policy. So bureaucrats regulate the fishing season. They limit the number of boats, their size, and how long they may fish.

The result: fishing is now America's most dangerous job. Fishermen race out in all kinds of weather to get as many fish as they can in the narrow time window allowed by regulators. They try to game the system to make more money. Sometimes they still deplete the fish stock. But in places like New Zealand and Iceland ... we've created individual fishing quotas, which are tradable, which are bankable, which give people an incentive to invest in their fisheries." Because the fisherman 'owns' his fishing quota, he is careful to preserve it. He doesn't overfish because he wants 'his' fish to be there next year.

The moral of the story: when possible, let markets and property protect nature. That avoids the Tragedy of the Commons" [9].

Debate Round No. 3


Everyone has increased which is the sign of a good economy, in part due to both capatalism and socialism at work. But that wasn't the problem. The problem is that 58% of all new income is going to the super rich.

Yes social security and and welfare cost money, but they also save a lot of money. The amount paid by each person is less than how much each person saves by taking advantage of a system. You cannot just look at it in terms of direct revenue coming in. Look at in terms of money saved by having the program.

His plan for expanding social security involves lifting the cap on taxable income because if you make $251,000 you are paying the same amount into social security as someone who makes $25 million, and thats not how the system was designed to work. And the 34% is almost entirely from those make way more than the average American, and I have been up front with that since the beginning.

A woman's right to her body is not comparable to income, because she is not given her body because she works hard, income is not a right, your body is. A man's right to his own body is the only thing comparable to a woman's right to hers. And those rights are not equal. The entire government system will also fail if people do not pay taxes, it will not fail if woman have rights. These two things are not comparable in the least.

It's not theft, Sanders believes that by lifting the bottom, the country gets better as a whole. The only reason that Sanders wants these regulations is because people, mainly CEO's, cannot be trusted with the welfare of their employees.

I'll concede that point is not directly relevant, but from 1995-2003, New Mexico received almost $100 million in Wheat subsidies [].

As for your question I did provide a response, and that is that the 1% does not get to shape policy by holding American jobs hostage. If they chose to they should be punished.

You're right, jobs are not a right, which proves your income is also not a right, which is why it is not comparable to a woman's right to chose. And while a cheap labor market bring business, it does not help the economy. The worlds second largest economy, china, is the new production capital and is in one of the greatest economic recessions we have seen. It is claimed that one of the reasons that China's economy is so bad right now is by the presence of huge debt in the private sector []. Which is not surprising given such low wages in China. The US has to find a middle ground to keep companies here and still protect our citizens.

I don't think he is illiterate, and as accurate as you are with sources, I would expect a source if you had one. And again, Bernie Sanders is tired of the extremely corrupt private sector. And how do politicians get corrupt? When they are being funded by big business, so the host of the corruption is still big business.

And Social Security is not a ponzi scheme, and you should read how social security is paid out now. The method of current tax payers paying for older generations was only true until 1983, when their was massive social security reform passed. And Johnson's plan would not save social security, it would lead to it's demise. The only reason Social Security was formed was because people were not saving anything for retirement, and they were becoming impoverished, by defunding social security, yes you will save people money, but most will not use that money to save, but rather just spend it now. By expanding social security and lifting the cap on taxable income Sanders will allow social security to live on longer than the estimated 2036.

Yes Bernie Sanders will expand social security, but as I just stated it is not by increasing taxes for everyone, just making those who make more than $250k pay their actual fair share of taxes.

And on the environment, I provided cost-benefit analysis, and the benefit was much larger than the cost. Where is your source that most pollution comes from the government. Most pollution is caused by large corporations [].

And the markets did not protect the environment, government regulations did. A government agency, The National Parks service sets a lot of those regulations.

The only reasons for quotas is because when left with free power, fish will be overfished time and time again and will lead to extinction.

The moral of the story, individuals will always look out for themselves, which is why every great society has had a governing body to protect those with little economic power from those who have little. Because money does equal power.


Pro claims the mixture of socialism and capitalism is responsible for American prosperity. I've outlined how that is nonsensical. If capitalistic endeavors were not successful, there would be no wealthy or middle class people to tax in order to fund programs. Social programs are parasitic and dependent on people's wealth; they do not generate wealth (only improved welfare). Socialism could not exist without prosperity that was already there via capitalism.

My opponent then claims social programs save us money. That is not supported. Less than 22% of the population receive welfare [1] therefore most people are paying for a program they will never use. The rich pay the vast majority of taxes. The top 10% of earners account for more than 70% of the income tax collected [2]. The top 1% pay more than 38% of collected income taxes [3]. This is more than their "fair share" considering they are not getting back any return contrary to Pro's claim. Had these people been allowed to invest their profits instead, jobs would be created, the economy would improve and more people would have the opportunity to work -- or they could save and we could reduce the need for Social Security.

We have no reason to believe Bernie's support of a Ponzi scheme is somehow preferable to the reform that Johnson proposes, which seeks to eliminate or minimize the problematic effects of said Ponzi scheme.

"Sanders, long a proponent of expanding the welfare state, has suggested not only keeping current SS benefits but substantially expanding them for all beneficiaries. To fund his plan, Sanders proposes to remove the current cap on payroll taxes, dramatically expanding the tax burden of many Americans to pour even more money into this unsustainable and slowly collapsing program. If millennials think jobs are hard to find and wages are low now, just wait until these taxes on work kick in. Although this change seems minor at first blush, the eye-popping cost of Sanders' radical proposal would ring up over a trillion dollars over 10 years. Worse, even without expanding the benefits as Sanders wants, his massive tax hike would do little to solve the underlying flaws in Social Security" [4].

My opponent claims the younger generation of workers has not paid for the older generation since 1983. That is completely wrong. In 1983 the government conspired to shift the burden to an even younger generation [5] which does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. In fact Obama has said more reform is needed similar to that of 1983, which just means an increased burden for the NEXT generation until funds run out... which they will within ~30 years according to independent sources [6].

Pro believes other people have the right to steal your belongings by force. Pro (and Sanders) advocate legal theft. Like pro-lifers, socialists believe it's okay to infringe upon the rights of the individual to protect others. But nobody is protected if the government (or tyranny of the majority) can infringe upon our basic liberties.

My opponent claims that it's "not theft" to steal money from people against their will. Theft is defined as the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent [7]. Ergo taxes are *literally* theft. Living within the borders of the United States does not imply automatic, non-coerced consent. To minimize this perhaps "necessarily evil" of taxation, Johnson proposes a standard flat tax and other measures that will keep the tax code simple, minimize fraud and promote growth.

Now assuming Pro is arguing that Gary Johnson has made use of subsidies (which Pro does not regard as a bad thing), we must ask why this is supposedly a negative. Considering Johnson cut taxes, presided over significant job growth and created a reserve fund in his state, we can see that he's been successful using the very standards Bernie advocates. Therefore wouldn't that be a positive point for Gary by anyone who values Bernie's standards? It would only be libertarians like myself who reject Johnson's utilization of subsidies, however if both candidates use subsidies, we must weigh their other positions and/or how the candidates use those subsidies to be effective or not.

Two times I have asked if the rich are moving their funds off-shore to avoid paying taxes NOW, why should we believe they will have an incentive to not do the same (or more) of that when taxes are even higher?! Pro has not provided an answer. That's because it's logical to assume that if the rich are already moving money and jobs offshore, Pro's advocacy of increasing their taxes will only encourage more of this behavior, thereby making his suggestion counterproductive and not at all effective.

Pro says "the 1% does not get to shape policy by holding American jobs hostage. If they chose to they should be punished." Directly after that sentence he admits that jobs are not a right. That's true, and job creators have zero obligation to ensure jobs are created in America. Therefore Pro's suggestion that people who start business overseas ought to be punished is absurd. It's also immoral. People in underdeveloped nations should have the opportunity to work and grow their economies. Americans are not automatically deserving or entitled to jobs any more than anyone else in this world, and Pro has not proven as such. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are third world workers.

Pro also makes the fallacious connection that if jobs are not a right, income is not a right. Income is not a right, however, property is a right and money promised for labor (income) qualifies as property. It's called property income [8].

Pro claims that cheap labor does not help the economy. That is false. Virtually all economists agree that "We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things" [9]. If you pay more for something, you'll have to buy less, or less of something else. That hurts workers in other firms which has a problematic impact on the market and leads to unemployment. Mandating higher wages also has a negative impact on employment [10].

China's economic situation is no thanks to low wages. The single most important development in China to thwart its economy has been its credit binge. Debt is the reason for Chinese decline [11]. I've explained at length why Gary Johnson's budget and plan to reduce our government debt is far superior to Bernie's. My opponent has dropped every single one of my arguments noting the problematic aspect of government debt and its widespread impact on the overall economy, yet China is a scathing example of why government debt is important to reduce. Fortunately Gary Johnson has a viable plan for this; Bernie does not.

My opponent asks for sources explaining Bernie's economic illiteracy [12]. I've explained at length why Sanders' proposals are economically illiterate throughout this debate: he doesn't understand the concept of debt, credit or trade on the economy nor does he consider the effects of his proposals. Considering so much of his platform is centered around the economy, it's scary how little he understands financial markets. I'll re-cap all of this in the final round.

My opponent doubts that most pollution occurs on public land. "Rather than fulfilling their natural role of absorbing carbon and balancing the carbon cycle, public lands have become one of the largest sources of U.S. carbon emissions as a result of fossil fuel extraction. In fact, public lands in the continental United States are contributing nearly 4.5 times more carbon to the atmosphere than they are currently able to absorb" [13].

Pro claims markets don't protect resources, yet he dropped my contentions on the Tragedy of the Commons. Please extend.

Debate Round No. 4


Given that this is the conclusion round I will only address the direct request for comment. I do not personally have a concern with the use of subsidies, but as a governor he said one thing and then did another, if a candidate says they will not use government funding because that adds to the deficit then they should not be asking or accept subsidies in his state. And by valuing Bernie's viewpoints, it is shown that the liberal way of running the government with the use of subsidies for those who need help helped the state's economy.

NOW, as for your question on moving off shore, which I have answered before. Do you feel comfortable living in a country where the richest run it? The richest people in this country do not get to hold their billions over our heads and use it as leverage. One of Bernie's plans would be taxing money even if it resides in a foreign countries banks, like the caymans. So honestly, yes it may drive the richest to move their money elsewhere, but both candidates agree we should get private interests out of politics, and by allowing them to hold their wealth over our heads we are kissing the constitution goodbye.

There is also no proof that having jobs in third world countries help them because in their capitalist states the entire system is corrupt and they do not get paid enough to live on.

As for pollution, your own quote helps my case, "One of the largest" not the largest. And 4.5 times doesn't make it greater than the use of private land.

Ultimately what people have to consider is do they value the last 100 years of change in this country brought about by a corrupt upper class. Every single social program has been created to help people, and most have been created because individuals were being taken advantage of because they had no say in their society. If a person's only goal is to balance the budget, and reduce our debt, than Gary Johnson is probably your man. But if your goal is to provide the best way of life for people in this country, I don't see how cutting and eliminating programs that help people that could not survive without government assistance is going to make this country a better place. That is the part Gary Johnson overlooks, he is so focused on the economics of his policies he does not consider the ramifications of giving big business all the power in the world. This is not to say the debt is not important, or that Sanders doesn't care about it because he does, but this country is more than just financial policy. There are millions of people in this country who count on the government every day for support, both old and young, who have provided for this country or currently are. And it didn't work out for them, they couldn't save enough money for retirement, it isn't their fault, but part of what makes this country so great is that they are not left to fend for themselves, their are policies in place to help them put food on the table and keep the lights on. I've enjoyed the debate Danielle, and have learned a lot of interesting views of the libertarian party and Gary Johnson!


Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Kyle to be honest with you my arguments and rebuttals would look nothing like Danielle's so fixing your mistakes would not be good enough. For rebuttals I would likely lean heavy on Austrian ecobomica to explain the harms in Bernie's policies and as pro Gary Johnson I would argue the theory of negative rights and show that Gary Johnson comes closer to properly using the role of government.

Fixing your mistakes is not good enough. To be honest Danielle looks like she was being nice to you, so you could enjoy the debate more.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I don't know what the argument would be to justify plagiarism, I just know I would come up with one. I can come up with a good argument for anything.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 2 years ago
Also I would love to see this moral argument that justifies plagiarism right now if you don't mind.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 2 years ago
Wylted if you copy and paste arguments onto another debate, I will report you for plagiarism. That is an unacceptable and lazy move.
Posted by kyleflanagan97 2 years ago
No because I know where I made mistakes in that debate, and I wouldn't make them again.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
No, I would just copy and paste Danielle's arguments and it would be an easy auto win. Thrn I would also run some sort of moral argument that justifies plagiarism. I will actually probably plagiarize that argument as well, and win hands down.
Posted by kyleflanagan97 2 years ago
Bernie sanders would be, and I'll debate you against any other candidate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
No, you are absurd for thinking Bernie Sanders would make a good president.
Posted by kyleflanagan97 2 years ago
That I managed to lose when Con forfeited last round?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
That is just absurd pro
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by harrytruman 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: See comments.