The Instigator
TheCommonMan
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
jasonk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US Debt Problem

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 3 votes the winner is...
TheCommonMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 836 times Debate No: 49245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

TheCommonMan

Con

I am arguing that bombing other countries that the US owes money to isn't a good way to solve the US debt problem. My opponent, who will be pro, will have to argue that bombing other countries is a good way to solve the US debt problem.


Rules:

1. First round is acceptance.
2. Second round is arguments only.
3. Last 3 rounds are freestyle.
4. There is no burden of proof, considering this is opinion based only. However, coherent arguments must be presented.
jasonk

Pro

I accept this debate. My argument will be that the United States should bomb all countries in the entire world with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration. This metaphorical bombing will inspire people in other nations to become better individuals and also encourage more trade and production that will help solve not only the USA's debt crisis, but all debt crises in the entire world.
Debate Round No. 1
TheCommonMan

Con

My opponent’s opening statement has changed the course of this debate. The following is a quote from my opponent.

“My argument will be that the United States should bomb all countries in the entire world with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration.”

So, I will argue that the United States should not bomb other countries with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration.


Argument #1: Other Countries May Not Want This to Occur

It doesn’t matter that my opponent’s proposed bombing is that of love and compassion. It’s still a bombing of sorts, which means it infringes upon other countries. By bombing them with love and compassion, we are still doing something to them that they did not request. In fact, there is a good chance that countries wouldn’t want us to do this at all. Hence, my opponent’s theoretical bombing would still anger other countries, which could prohibit trade from taking place.


Argument #2: No Connection Between This Bombing and a Reduced US Debt

It’s never been proven or coherently shown that there is a connection between this theoretical bombing and a reduction in the US debt. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that there is. He must show beyond a doubt that his idea will work in paying off the US debt in an efficient fashion. He must do this within the next couple of rounds. He must also show that his proposed idea is more logical than all other ideas out there. That leads me to my 3rd argument.


Argument #3: Better Alternatives

Simply enough, there are better alternatives out there than my opponent’s proposed idea. For example, the United States could cut back on/completely cut some programs that we don’t need. In doing so, we would have more money which could be directly put into paying off the US debt. This is a logical theory. Taking funding out of one place and putting it in another place is a rational idea. My opponent’s idea is not as rational as mine. He must show that his idea is more logical and more likely to work than the idea that I proposed.


Conclusion:

I have shown why my opponent’s proposed idea will anger other countries, which would discourage trade. I have also shown that there is no connection between my opponent’s idea and a reduction in the US debt and that he must prove beyond a doubt that the opposite is true. I have also explained a better alternative for paying off the US debt than my opponent’s idea and that he must show the opposite. I await my opponent’s opening argument.
jasonk

Pro

The idea behind this debate was most likely for me to debate a pro stance on the idea that the USA should drop actual bombs on other countries in order to solve the debt crisis. My opponents answers subtly reflect this. I hope everyone can understand how the position of actually bombing people is utterly indefensible seeing as doing that would obliterate people for no good reason other than to change some numbers in some computers. You see the public debt in reality isn't supposed to be solved in the way that my opponent thinks of it, as in a large reduction or elimination.

Currently the United States debt stands at 17.5 trillion according to http://www.usdebtclock.org.... This may seem like quite a lot, but in reality it isn't. The USA's gross domestic product - http://en.wikipedia.org... - in 2012 was 16,244,600. If we take these figures and see them together we can get a better picture about how debt is necessary in a Keynsian Economic system in order to keep markets liquid and capital flowing to regular people who wish to build assets like getting a house or starting a business.

Every dollar in your bank account represents liability, and everything that can be bought with dollars represents assets. The goal of the Federal Reserve is to allow enough money to be liquid in the economy in order to keep assets exchanging hands. As the GDP rises, so too does the money supply. If the Fed stopped putting money into the system then markets would begin to freeze up due to there not being enough liquidity. In this case people wouldn't be able to get loans from banks for buying a new home or starting a business. Its a decent system that allows people to have direct control over their money instead of having to rely on a finite resource such as gold. The only problem with the system however is that it tends to have larger ups and downs. If you want to learn more about this then just search for Keynsian Economics. Its an interesting topic, but I won't go into any more detail.

So with this in mind, does the US debt really pose a problem? Possibly. Recently in the last few years, the Federal Reserve has been printing way more money than at any time in history. It is possible that this skyrocket in printing could continue while the USA's GDP does not follow. If this were to happen then we would start to see some really huge bubbles begin to form and burst in the economy. This would not be good. I'm talking along the likes of The Great Depression. It would be very bad for everyone. However if the United States continues to innovate and build greater wealth and capital, we could be on the verge of a golden age.

Recently there has been some talk about robots replacing literally every single job that people have right now in the US. There was an article in which they had a talk with Bill Gates. http://bgr.com... He said that we all should be worried about losing our jobs to computers and robots. Obviously Bill Gates doesn't know how an economy works, but he gets a pass because that's not his forte. If there are only robots who do the work, then people won't get paid. If people don't have money to spend, then the robots are useless because there's no one to make stuff for. We don't need to be worried because stuff like this is irrational. In my opinion, I see a future where everyone holds shares in companies and receives a share of the income so that they can buy goods made by robots and computers. But first we need to get there! We still need to inspire scientists and engineers of the future to make these things happen. We need to show the world that we are ready for this new golden age.

My opponent's arguments concerning there being no correlation between 'culture bombs' and the US economy is quite short-sighted. Who knows where the next great engineer or scientist will come from? Maybe he's living in China or Sierra Leone right now, and just happened to see the new reboot of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. This TV show is an example of my idea of metaphorical bombings. A love for the universe and for humanity's future is a great thing to inspire the nations of the world through our culture.

We are all ultimately connected. Whether it be through owning each other's debt, or through breathing the same air, what happens to one of us transitively affects us all. Its important to see ourselves as human beings united for the greater good of everyone. Therefore with these thoughts in mind, I can safely assert that it would be beneficial for the United States to inspire, educate, and love other nations not only in regards to the US debt, but also in regards to every aspect of human life and even new aspects that will arise in the future.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCommonMan

Con


I will not make a big fuss over it, but let it be known that my opponent broke the second rule which I set forth at the beginning of the debate


“2. Second round is arguments only.”


Nevertheless, since round three is freestyle, I will respond to my opponent’s claims and strengthen my argument.



Rebuttal #1:


My opponent’s duty is to coherently show that bombing other countries is a good idea. He makes several statements which do not relate to his objective here in this debate. Let’s take a look at some of these claims.


“Currently the United States debt stands at 17.5 trillion…This may seem like quite a lot, but in reality it isn't”


“The USA's gross domestic product…in 2012 was 16,244,600. If we take these figures and see them together we can get a better picture about how debt is necessary in a Keynsian Economic system in order to keep markets liquid and capital flowing to regular people…”


“However if the United States continues to innovate and build greater wealth and capital, we could be on the verge of a golden age.”


The quotes shown above were made by my opponent to show that the US debt isn’t a problem. However, that isn’t the debate at hand. He is not arguing that the US debt isn’t a problem, he is arguing his system to overcome debt, which in his own words, is to “bomb all countries in the entire world with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration.” So, these statements are unrelated to his argument and don’t help him establish his viewpoint.


My opponent also gives information about Keynesian economics. I won’t provide the entire quote, as it is too long. However, I will also point out that this has nothing to do with his argument. This economics lesson of sorts doesn’t allow him to meet his burden of proof nor does it help him build his stance.


My opponent also makes quotes against the idea of robots replacing every job in the United States.


“Recently there has been some talk about robots replacing literally every single job that people have right now in the US.”


“If there are only robots who do the work, then people won't get paid. If people don't have money to spend, then the robots are useless because there's no one to make stuff for."


First off, I never made a mention of this idea. My opponent insinuates that I suggested this idea. However, I never did. In addition, this also doesn’t allow him to meet his burden of proof or strengthen his argument. Hence, these statements are pointless.



Rebuttal #2:


In my opponent’s 2nd round argument, he critiques my proposed idea of solving the debt issue.


“You see the public debt in reality isn't supposed to be solved in the way that my opponent thinks of it, as in a large reduction or elimination.”


My opponent says that my idea isn’t a good idea. However, he never explains why my idea is bad. In addition, he never explains why his theoretical bombing idea is better. Hence, he has not made a strong enough argument to convince anyone that his idea is a wise one.



Rebuttal #3:


My opponent claims that there is a correlation between his idea and a reduction in debt and that my argument that there isn’t is short sighted.


“My opponent's arguments concerning there being no correlation between 'culture bombs' and the US economy is quite short-sighted. Who knows where the next great engineer or scientist will come from? Maybe he's living in China or Sierra Leone right now”


“A love for the universe and for humanity's future is a great thing to inspire the nations of the world through our culture.”


Once again, my opponent doesn’t fulfill his burden of proof here. He mentioned that a famous scientist or engineer might come from a different part of the world and that if we do this theoretical bombing now, then the famous scientist or engineer will help reduce our debt. However, he doesn’t directly show how that would occur. It’s just a weak assumption that my opponent makes. In addition, it is more rational to believe that a famous scientist would not help eliminate the US debt than to believe that he/she will. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Alan Turing were all relatively recent famous scientists from countries other than the US. They did not help solve the US debt problem. How would another famous scientist from a foreign land help if they didn’t? Simple, they wouldn’t. This is an irrational argument made by my opponent.



Rebuttal #4:


At this point, I would like to talk about the resources that my opponent used. My opponent used three in his first argument. However, I have shown why the information related to those resources isn’t efficient in helping him meet his burden of proof or strengthen his position (US Debt number, GDP information, Bill Gates interview). So, it’s important to note that these resources aren’t credible as it pertains to this debate.



Rebuttal #5:


In this round, I have responded to all of my opponent’s major claims. However, my opponent didn’t respond to all of my claims. He never talked about the fact that other countries may become angry when this theoretical bombing occurs. Until he addresses this argument I have presented, he will not be able to show that his idea is a wise and efficient one.



Conclusion:


I have shown that my opponent didn’t argue correctly as it pertains to the rules of the debate, I have pointed out the pointless statements that my opponent made, I have explained that my opponent’s claim against my ideas of reducing the debt isn’t sufficient enough to discredit my idea or strengthen his idea, I have shown that there isn’t a correlation between his idea and a reduction in the US debt, I have shown that the resources used by my opponent aren’t sufficient resources, and I have shown that my opponent hasn’t responded to all of my claims.


In order for my argument to work, I must show why my opponent’s idea is illogical and rationally respond to all of my opponent’s claims. I have done both of those things. For my opponent’s argument to work, he must prove that there is a correlation between his idea and a US debt reduction, explain why his idea is a good one (and better than all others), and rationally respond to all of my claims. He has done none of those things. He must do these things in the upcoming rounds.



Resources:


http://listverse.com...


jasonk

Pro

"My opponent’s duty is to coherently show that bombing other countries is a good idea.

The quotes shown above were made by my opponent to show that the US debt isn’t a problem. However, that isn’t the debate at hand. He is not arguing that the US debt isn’t a problem, he is arguing his system to overcome debt, which in his own words, is to “bomb all countries in the entire world with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration.” So, these statements are unrelated to his argument and don’t help him establish his viewpoint.

My opponent also gives information about Keynesian economics. I won’t provide the entire quote, as it is too long. However, I will also point out that this has nothing to do with his argument. This economics lesson of sorts doesn’t allow him to meet his burden of proof nor does it help him build his stance."

Haha, yes it does. TheCommonMan has skipped over a large part of my whole argument that attempts to diagnose the problem at hand.

In my previous response, I called into question exactly how the debt poses a problem. TheCommonMan thinks that a reduction in the debt will solve any problem the debt poses, and in order to reduce the debt we should reduce spending. However the easiest way to reduce the debt is just to mint a few trillion dollar coins and be done with it that way. This is perfectly legal under the Constitution because the US Treasury can mint a coin and assign any monetary value it wants to it. You see TheCommonMan doesn't understand the US debt. What if the debt is actually a good thing? What if the debt provides people with the opportunity to own homes and start businesses? I'm in debt, but it doesn't pose a problem to me. In fact it allows me to own a home and a car. Debt can be a good thing.

I honestly don't see how the US debt poses a problem right now. It will be a problem in the future if we let it get out of hand, and its to this potential crisis which I have always been referring. If wreckless inflation of the money supply continues to increase then we will be seeing huge ups and downs in the markets. Ultimately this goes beyond the US debt, but in fact you can't talk about the US debt without talking about economics and the money supply in general.

"First off, I never made a mention of this idea. My opponent insinuates that I suggested this idea. However, I never did. In addition, this also doesn’t allow him to meet his burden of proof or strengthen his argument. Hence, these statements are pointless."

This is my idea, not TheCommonMan's. My idea is that in the future, robots will continue to take jobs and will eventually take all jobs. It has happened in the past, and even Bill Gates thinks its inevitable.

"My opponent says that my idea isn’t a good idea. However, he never explains why my idea is bad. In addition, he never explains why his theoretical bombing idea is better. Hence, he has not made a strong enough argument to convince anyone that his idea is a wise one."

Your idea doesn't necessarily need to be a bad one in order for my argument to be true. However, we can actually see if your idea is viable because it has already happened.

Obviously we all want our tax dollars to be used in the most efficient way possible. No one likes to pay taxes, but since we aren't living in Utopia, we all are currently centralizing certain authorities and responsibilities such as roads, schools, military, social security, medicare, welfare, ACA, EPA, police, and a whole assemblage of other departments. It seems like there is quite a lot of government to feed, and I won't argue that. However over the past few years the government has taken quite large cuts in spending. http://www.whitehouse.gov... As a matter of fact, the deficit has been literally cut in half. That's a whole lot of spending cuts! Let's see you try to cut your spending budget in half! Obviously a lot of unnecessary and perhaps even some necessary spending has been cut out of the budget.

TheCommonMan must be absolutely thrilled! What more can he ask for? One of the biggest spending cuts in our nations history has happened over the last five years, yet the national debt still continues to climb, and it seems there's no stopping it. What kinds of spending cuts is TheCommonMan proposing? Do we dismantle medicare and abandon all of America's elderly people who rely on this for their health? Do we dismantle social security and use the social security taxes elsewhere? Do we dismantle what's left of the military and allow trade lanes to deteriorate due to piracy, and let poor countries kill each other in civil war? Do we handicap the FBI and CIA? Do we cut OSHA and the EPA? The truth is there is a point where spending cuts reach a point of deteriorating returns. Any more spending cuts might reduce the debt, but it will only create larger problems that will eventually need to be addressed in the future, and it may in fact require future governments to create even more debt to the solve the problems that extreme spending cuts cause today.


"Once again, my opponent doesn’t fulfill his burden of proof here. He mentioned that a famous scientist or engineer might come from a different part of the world and that if we do this theoretical bombing now, then the famous scientist or engineer will help reduce our debt. However, he doesn’t directly show how that would occur. It’s just a weak assumption that my opponent makes. In addition, it is more rational to believe that a famous scientist would not help eliminate the US debt than to believe that he/she will. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Alan Turing were all relatively recent famous scientists from countries other than the US. They did not help solve the US debt problem. How would another famous scientist from a foreign land help if they didn’t? Simple, they wouldn’t. This is an irrational argument made by my opponent."

My idea was the idea that robots will do all the work. We need scientists from all over the world to do this. Keeping a culture of compassion towards humanity and an inspiration to achieve great things will help us get to this point.

TheCommonMan has again moved the goalpost by saying we should eliminate the US debt. If we want to eliminate the debt then let's just have the Treasury mint a few trillion dollar coins and be done with the problem. But, see, the problem really isn't fixed at all haha. The problem is potential in nature. It comes from a culture of selfishness and use of force. It comes from a culture of gimme gimme gimme! We need to change our focus to greater things and higher goals than this.

"In this round, I have responded to all of my opponent’s major claims. However, my opponent didn’t respond to all of my claims. He never talked about the fact that other countries may become angry when this theoretical bombing occurs. Until he addresses this argument I have presented, he will not be able to show that his idea is a wise and efficient one."


In response to the idea that other countries might become angry, I just have to smile. Sure it might anger other countries with laws and cultures that promote hate and violence, but that's exactly what we should want to do! If someone gets angry because their fellow humans love them, should we stop loving them and start hating them? Haha no, the right thing is to find out why they are angry, and then try to help them.

Also its important to realize that culture 'bombs' are not things that are strapped into planes and cast forcefully onto unsuspecting victims. It actually doesn't involve force at all. You see if a person doesn't like what's on the tv, they can turn the channel. If a whole country doesn't like the tv show Cosmos, then they can censor it. As a matter of fact many middle eastern countries have censored Cosmos when it talks about Evolution, but that's another debate haha.

I just want to say in conclusion to this round that the debt problem is way bigger than a simple reduction in digits in a computer. It requires a change in consciousness, a change in culture throughout the whole world. If we in the United States can foster a culture of love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration in the whole world then we can build more complex robots and better technologies that will solve problems that includes anything the debt potentially poses.

(This also includes dropping these culture bombs on our own people too! No one should be spared haha.)

Debate Round No. 3
TheCommonMan

Con

Here is my fourth round argument.



Rebuttal #1:


In my opponent’s 3rd round argument, he explains that his lesson does indeed allow him to meet his burden of proof and strengthen his argument.


“Haha, yes it does. TheCommonMan has skipped over a large part of my whole argument that attempts to diagnose the problem at hand. “


He then goes on to further explain his viewpoint on how it helps him establish his burden of proof and strengthen his argument.


“What if the debt is actually a good thing? What if the debt provides people with the opportunity to own homes and start businesses? I'm in debt, but it doesn't pose a problem to me. In fact it allows me to own a home and a car. Debt can be a good thing.”


“I honestly don't see how the US debt poses a problem right now. It will be a problem in the future if we let it get out of hand, and its to this potential crisis which I have always been referring. If wreckless inflation of the money supply continues to increase then we will be seeing huge ups and downs in the markets.”


I don’t know quite what to do other than to further reiterate my opponent’s objective here. The resolution of the debate was “Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US Debt Problem”. My opponent accepted as pro. Therefore, he must not only prove how his method will cause a reduction in the US debt, but also, to show how it is a coherent idea. According to the resolution of the debate, that it what he must do. So far, he hasn’t done that. He has simply stated that the debt might not be a bad thing right now. That is not his goal, as I’ve previously stated. Until he does the things that I have listed above, he will not meet his objective.



Rebuttal #2:


“This is my idea, not TheCommonMan's. My idea is that in the future, robots will continue to take jobs and will eventually take all jobs. It has happened in the past, and even Bill Gates thinks its inevitable.”


With that being said, this also doesn’t help him meet his objective here in the debate. I won’t go into a lot of detail, as I’ve already elaborated on this point. However, this idea doesn’t help him at all and is somewhat off topic.



Rebuttal #3:


In my opponent’s 3rd round argument, he creates a rebuttal to my idea of reduced spending. However, I wasn’t necessarily arguing in favor of reduced spending. From the beginning of this debate, my purpose of providing that idea was to show that there might be better alternatives to this theoretical bombing and establish my opponent’s burden to show that he must show why his idea is better than other ideas. While my opponent has created a sound argument against reduced spending, that’s not necessarily going to lead him to victory. First off, my objective isn’t to argue in favor of reduced spending, it’s to argue against this theoretical bombing (I have done this). Secondly, my opponent must show why his idea is better than all other ideas (including reduced spending). Here are some other ideas for reducing the debt. In order for my opponent to meet his objective in this debate, he must explain why all of these ideas are bad and why his idea is better than these ideas.




  1. Eliminate Earmarks




  2. Cut Government Contractors




  3. Reduce the Size of World-Wide Troop Presence




  4. Cap Medicare Growth




  5. Reduce Benefits For Those With High Incomes




  6. Return Estate and Investment Taxes back to Clinton-Era Levels




  7. Payroll Tax: Subject Incomes Over $106,000 to the tax




  8. Eliminate Loopholes, Credits, and Lower Rates





Rebuttal #4:


“My idea was the idea that robots will do all the work. We need scientists from all over the world to do this. Keeping a culture of compassion towards humanity and an inspiration to achieve great things will help us get to this point.”


My opponent still doesn’t make the connection as to how this will help reduce our US debt. Here’s what my opponent has so far.



A. We show compassion to other countries


B. An Engineer or Scientist programs robots which do all the work for us.


.


.


.


C. The US Debt will be reduced.


In between B and C, there are many steps that my opponent hasn’t given. There’s no connection between these robots and a debt reduction. Until my opponent supplies this explanation, he has not met his objective. In addition, my opponent bashes the idea of these robots by saying that they will take all of our jobs (with is Bill Gates example). He is now praising the idea. This is a huge contradiction. My opponent must explain this contradiction in his next round.



Rebuttal #5:


My opponent addressed my argument that countries might not want this compassion to be inflicted upon them.


“Sure it might anger other countries with laws and cultures that promote hate and violence, but that's exactly what we should want to do!”


“…the right thing is to find out why they are angry, and then try to help them”


“Also its important to realize that culture 'bombs' are not things that are strapped into planes and cast forcefully onto unsuspecting victims.


“You see if a person doesn't like what's on the tv, they can turn the channel”


My opponent misses my point here. By using my opponent’s idea, we are imposing ourselves on other countries by forcing our help on them. Some countries might not want this help. Hence, by forcing compassion upon them, we are doing something to them that they don’t want us to do. This will provoke some countries. Also, by using this idea, other countries can’t just “turn the channel” as my opponent metaphorically states. If we’re forcing ourselves on them, they can’t just ignore it. For the above reasons, this idea that my opponent provides isn’t a good one.



Conclusion:


I have provided sound rebuttals to all of my opponent’s claims. I have shown that he has not met his burden of proof, nor has he made his argument strong as it pertains to showing how his idea is a good one. I have done all I need to in order to uphold my side of the argument, which is shoot down all of my opponent’s arguments and show that my opponent’s idea is not a wise one. My opponent must respond to all of my claims in his next round.



Resources:


http://www.policymic.com...

jasonk

Pro

As we all have read and seen, TheCommonMan refuses to acknowledge what I deem as the problem behind the US debt. The resolution does not say "Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Reduce the US Debt." The resolution does say "Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US debt Problem."

TheCommonMan has gone on with his rebuttals nevertheless suggesting that I am not providing enough evidence to show that my ideas can reduce the US debt. I have never in this entire debate suggested that we should or should not reduce the US debt. TheCommonMan needs to show what problem the US debt poses, and what effect will be had by reducing the US debt.

In order to better understand my argument let's take my opponents deductive logical statements and amend them with my real argument.


A. We show compassion to other countries and inspire them to greater goals and feats for humanity


B. A host of inspired and compassionate Engineers and Scientists will construct and program robots which do all the work for us.


C. The ever growing US Debt will no longer be problematic in an economic market system where robots do all the work.


This deductive logical view of my arguments is a completely valid and possible (if not likely) outcome of humanity's future.

Once again reducing the debt is not the same as solving the problem.

"My opponent misses my point here. By using my opponent’s idea, we are imposing ourselves on other countries by forcing our help on them. Some countries might not want this help. Hence, by forcing compassion upon them, we are doing something to them that they don’t want us to do. This will provoke some countries. Also, by using this idea, other countries can’t just “turn the channel” as my opponent metaphorically states. If we’re forcing ourselves on them, they can’t just ignore it. For the above reasons, this idea that my opponent provides isn’t a good one."

I would just like to point out at this junction that forcing compassion on someone is a contradiction. You can't be compassionate while forcing food down someone's throat. Obviously I'm not suggesting we do this. My general rebuttal is that we should create a culture that is full of inspiration and love, and then put it on the airwaves and internet cables so other people can view it.

"I have done all I need to in order to uphold my side of the argument, which is shoot down all of my opponent’s arguments and show that my opponent’s idea is not a wise one."

TheCommonMas has not provided evidence showing how a reduction in the debt = a solved problem. He has not provided evidence showing how the spending cuts that have been made since 2009 have not been enough. He has not provided evidence that the spending cuts and tax increases he has suggested will work to solve or reduce the debt. He has not provided evidence to counter the idea that the debt might actually increase in the long run if his ideas are implemented.

I have made all these arguments since my very first post, and TheCommonMan has done nothing but tell me how my plans can't reduce the US debt. I hope everyone can realize that this is weird. Thanks.

(Btw, I also find it funny how he thinks that it isn't wise to create robots to do all our work. Maybe we'll let him stack bricks next to a robot in the future haha jk)
Debate Round No. 4
TheCommonMan

Con

The following is my final round argument.

Rebuttal #1:

“The resolution does not say ‘Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Reduce the US Debt.’ The resolution does say ‘Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US debt Problem.’”

“I have never in this entire debate suggested that we should or should not reduce the US debt. TheCommonMan needs to show what problem the US debt poses, and what effect will be had by reducing the US debt.”

My opponent points out that I must do two things; I must show the problem that the US National Debt proposes and how a reduction in the US National Debt will have a positive impact. I will do both of these things now.

The growing United States National Debt creates a problem due to the fact that we owe a ton of money to a bunch of countries. If we can’t pay it down, it could eventually get to the point where other countries which we owe debt to will become angry at us. This anger can hinder trade, hinder alliances, and even start wars. If we look at the countries we owe the most debt to, it’s easy to see the consequences of a large US debt. We owe over a trillion dollars to China, which supplies a lot of our goods here in America. So, not paying back debt would eventually cut off trade between the US and China, which means that a lot of our goods which we are dependent on China for will not be imported into America anymore. We owe roughly 162.9 billion dollars to Russia, which is the other super power of the world as it pertains to military. If we get in a war with Russia, we could presumably have a difficult time winning that war. In addition, that war would cost money, so out debt would go up yet again, thus worsening the problem. These are just two out of the many examples of how the US Debt is a problem. However, the point stands that a reduction must be made in order to solve this problem. The longer we wait to reduce the US Debt, the bigger the possibility of a US Downfall becomes. Hence, the only way to solve the US Debt problem is to reduce the US Debt.

Rebuttal #2:

My opponent clarified his idea of solving the debt problem in his fourth round argument.

“A. We show compassion to other countries and inspire them to greater goals and feats for humanity

B. A host of inspired and compassionate Engineers and Scientists will construct and program robots which do all the work for us.

C. The ever growing US Debt will no longer be problematic in an economic market system where robots do all the work. This deductive logical view of my arguments is a completely valid and possible (if not likely) outcome of humanity's future.”

My opponent still lacks a connection between this and a reduction in the US Debt. My opponent presumes that by using robots, the US Debt won’t matter. However, it will. We will still owe money to countries. Countries will still want their money to use to fund things (like the robots, for example). My opponent fails to show a connection between robots doing all the work and a reduction in the US Debt.

“Once again reducing the debt is not the same as solving the problem.”

I won’t go into full detail with this, as I have in my first rebuttal. I have shown why a US Debt reduction is necessary and is the only way to solve the US Debt problem. Therefore, my opponent must draw an absolute connection between this idea and a reduction of the US Debt in order for us to even consider his idea. Then, he must show why his idea is better than all other ideas out there in order for us to consider using his idea. So far, he has done none of this.


Rebuttal #3:

“My general rebuttal is that we should create a culture that is full of inspiration and love, and then put it on the airwaves and internet cables so other people can view it.”

With this in mind, my opponent still doesn’t draw a connection between this and a reduction in the US Debt. He must show how compassion and love will cause a reduction in the US Debt. He attempted to do so, but I have shot down this idea in my second rebuttal.

Rebuttal #4:

“He has not provided evidence showing how the spending cuts that have been made since 2009 have not been enough. He has not provided evidence that the spending cuts and tax increases he has suggested will work to solve or reduce the debt. He has not provided evidence to counter the idea that the debt might actually increase in the long run if his ideas are implemented.”

My opponent completely skipped one of my rebuttals in my last round; otherwise, he would know that I’m not proposing spending cuts. I was just using that as an example of an idea that is out there. I was also using to show my opponent that he must prove that his idea is superior to others. In my last round, I listed eight different ideas for reducing the US Debt that are different from my opponent’s idea. My opponent must show why his idea is better than all of those ideas, which is part of showing why his idea is a wise one.

Rebuttal #5:

“Btw, I also find it funny how he thinks that it isn't wise to create robots to do all our work. Maybe we'll let him stack bricks next to a robot in the future…”

I never bash the idea of using robots to do all of our work. I did two things. I said that there is no connection between that idea and the US Debt reduction, which there hasn’t been one so far. I have also stated that my opponent makes a contradiction as it pertains to this robot idea. In one argument, he bashes the idea. In another, he promotes it. This is a contradiction that I have pointed out which my opponent hasn’t responded to. My opponent must do so in order to clarify what exactly he is proposing.

Conclusion:

In this round, I have shown why the US Debt is a problem and the only solution to this problem is a reduction in the US Debt. Therefore, my opponent must show how his idea draws a connection with a US Debt reduction. He must also talk about how his idea is a wise one. I have also explained why some of his rebuttals against me are illogical and not related to my argument. I have also pointed out that he hasn’t responded to two different major arguments I made in my last round. In order to strengthen his argument, he must respond to those two things, as well as everything I said in this round. To conclude, here’s what my opponent must do in his final round to make his idea worthwhile, considering he has not done any of these so far.

  1. Draw a connection between his idea and a US Debt reduction.

  2. Explain why his idea is a wise one and better than all other ideas.

  3. Respond to my claims that I made in my fourth round argument that he hasn’t responded to yet.

  4. Respond to everything I’ve said in this round in a coherent manner.

I would like to thank everyone who read this. However, I would also like to thank my opponent. From the beginning of the debate, he took an interesting position and challenged me by practically changing the topic of the debate. He also provided a complete debate with no forfeits and intriguing viewpoints. Win, lose, or draw, this will go down as one of my best debates thus far on DDO. I wish my opponent luck in his final round.

Resources:

http://people.howstuffworks.com...

jasonk

Pro

I want to start by saying thanks to TheCommonMan for this debate. I had a lot of fun, and I hope he enjoyed the twist I put on it too haha.

"The growing United States National Debt creates a problem due to the fact that we owe a ton of money to a bunch of countries. If we can"t pay it down, it could eventually get to the point where other countries which we owe debt to will become angry at us. This anger can hinder trade, hinder alliances, and even start wars.

To conclude, here's what my opponent must do in his final round... Draw a connection between his idea and a US Debt reduction."

The supposed problem my opponent suggests is that if the United States doesn't pay back the debts then the countries we owe will become angry with us. Well then TheCommonMan, you won't believe who China owes money too. http://www.wnd.com... fact China owes the US billions of dollars. Peter Huessy, the president of GeoStrategic Analysis had this to say:

"Currently, the People"s Republic of China owes a debt of over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding these full faith and credit sovereign bonds (many of them denominated in gold) sold to them by the Republic of China. Worldwide, the debt China owes to all bondholders is estimated to be several trillion dollars. The debt owed to the American people should be paid. The U.S. government could dollar for dollar offset bond interest we owe China with interest, principal and penalties China owes us,"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com...

"Currently, the People"s Republic of China owes a debt of over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding these full faith and credit sovereign bonds (many of them denominated in gold) sold to them by the Republic of China. Worldwide, the debt China owes to all bondholders is estimated to be several trillion dollars. The debt owed to the American people should be paid. The U.S. government could dollar for dollar offset bond interest we owe China with interest, principal and penalties China owes us,"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com...


"Currently the People's Republic of China owes a debt of over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding these full faith and credit soveign bonds."
This article was written in 2012 so since then interest has been accruing and increasing.

This new revelation makes the Chinese debt rather unremarkable. The Russian debt is rather unremarkable too. Remember we're talking about trillions vs billions. There's a HUGE difference.

The United States owes the most money in debt to the Federal Reserve. If the United States wanted to wipe out all outstanding debts tomorrow, all it would have to do is mint a few trillion dollar coins and deposit them into the Federal Reserve, and voila, the debt has been REDUCED to ZERO.

But you see the problem really isn't solved. In fact this isn't even the real problem to begin with. I have shown this fact throughout the entire debate.

"Explain why his idea is a wise one and better than all other ideas."

This is definitely not my burden of proof. I don't have to explain how my idea is the absolute best idea. The debate resolution isn't "Bombing other countries is the best way to solve the US debt problem." All I have to do is show how its a good idea. I have done this in the previous rounds.

"Respond to my claims that I made in my fourth round argument that he hasn"t responded to yet.

Respond to everything I"ve said in this round in a coherent manner."

I have responded to all of your claims in coherent fashion. I honestly don't understand why you think I need to prove that my idea is superior to all of your ideas. I agree some of your ideas are good ones, but that doesn't necessarily make mine a bad one.

In conclusion, I have demonstrated what the real problem is behind the US debt, and I have demonstrated a viable solution in the form inspiring people through love of science and humanity to greater technological feats of awesomeness. I hope everyone can see this, and thanks for reading!

Source: http://www.wnd.com...

"Currently, the People"s Republic of China owes a debt of over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding these full faith and credit sovereign bonds (many of them denominated in gold) sold to them by the Republic of China. Worldwide, the debt China owes to all bondholders is estimated to be several trillion dollars. The debt owed to the American people should be paid. The U.S. government could dollar for dollar offset bond interest we owe China with interest, principal and penalties China owes us,"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com...



"Currently, the People"s Republic of China owes a debt of over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding these full faith and credit sovereign bonds (many of them denominated in gold) sold to them by the Republic of China. Worldwide, the debt China owes to all bondholders is estimated to be several trillion dollars. The debt owed to the American people should be paid. The U.S. government could dollar for dollar offset bond interest we owe China with interest, principal and penalties China owes us,"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com...



"Currently, the People"s Republic of China owes a debt of over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding these full faith and credit sovereign bonds (many of them denominated in gold) sold to them by the Republic of China. Worldwide, the debt China owes to all bondholders is estimated to be several trillion dollars. The debt owed to the American people should be paid. The U.S. government could dollar for dollar offset bond interest we owe China with interest, principal and penalties China owes us,"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com...
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheCommonMan 3 years ago
TheCommonMan
You too, man.
Posted by jasonk 3 years ago
jasonk
haha good luck TheCommonMan
Posted by TheCommonMan 3 years ago
TheCommonMan
@Zaradi

There actually is. I have an acquaintance who actually proposed this idea to me. lol

@jasonk

Very clever my friend, very clever. I am building my case as we speak.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
There is no serious level for the pro. Especially not with the way you phrased the resolution.
Posted by TheCommonMan 3 years ago
TheCommonMan
@Zaradi

I recognize that possibility. I just want to see if there is someone out there who actually would take pro on a serious level.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
You do realize that anyone who accepts this is likely just going to troll you, right?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
TheCommonManjasonkTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: You both did really good. However, Con is the clear winner. Promised more sources than Con per round . However, since Con used appropriate sources, I left that point shared. I would give Con the conduct mark since Pro did not follow the rules stated in round one, but he made it clear that that it was fine. Pro did not argue the topic very wisely. Though he had really good points, he did not connect them or show the correlation of the debt problem with why the places should be bombed. Therefore, Con gets arguments. Good debate guys. Keep it up!
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
TheCommonManjasonkTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate missed the point completely and did not address the proposition. However Cons contention that other countries may no approve of bombing went uncontested and as such Con wins argument points. Other points are shared.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
TheCommonManjasonkTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has failed to make a logically sound case, as he did not prove how the bombs will solve debt, only that there IS a debt problem.