Conservatism vs Liberalism
Debate Rounds (3)
1. First of all, I would like to point out that Yeeet2016 (to now be referenced as "Yeet") makes a very vague argument.
A. Is s/he saying that conservatism is a better solution to our problems in EVERY possible scenario? If so, this will be a very
quick and simple debate for everyone included. If not, Yeet should specify what s/he means in the next round.
B. What does Yeet mean when s/he writes that conservatism is a better alternative to our "problems"? I assume that Yeet is
talking about our social and economic problems, but I would like to see what s/he exactly means. Again, if Yeet means
that conservatism is ALWAYS better than liberalism when solving our "problems", this will be a very quick and concise
C. I would like to see more specification from Yeet in the future. As the contender it is not
my job to instigate the argument, but (as formerly noted) Yeet has not given much information at all and
has only stated vague stances on a vague topic. However, I will do my best to move this debate along.
2. Next, I would like to provide the "background information" that Yeet requested. I see that there is again a sort of vagueness over this request, but I will assume that Yeet requests the basics of my stance on this issue, and not my personal or educational background. I (obviously) am defending liberalism, and more specifically explaining that liberalism TENDS to be more effective concerning social and economic crises. I will be addressing the size of government, and the various programs associated with it; realist theory when concerning international relations including the size of the US military and the resulting impact on taxpayer money and the individual taxpayer; and the evolution of society, including the fact that conservatism has always delayed social changes while liberalism has always advanced society.
3. Finally, I would like to lay out some ground rules.
A. Either side may use the maximum amount of characters in their assertion or rebuttal.
B. Either side may present facts AND opinions, but they must be backed up with logic and reason.
C. Both sides must refrain from personal attacks, but attacks on the view in question are of course accepted.
I formally accept this debate.
Yeeet2016 forfeited this round.
However, I do criticize Yeet for his/her argument. Now, Yeet is obviously advocating for a conservative approach regarding economics. For the first part of my argument, I will pick apart Yeet's argument point by point.
1. "Economically a comservative stands for lowering interest rates, lowering taxes burdening the middle class and removing regulations on small businesses. [sic]" We can carefully assume that Yeet is trying to say that high taxes are bad for the economy. However, this can be easily disproven.The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says people in Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands are the most content with their lives. The three ranked first, second and third, respectively, in the OECD's rankings of "life satisfaction," or happiness. According to World Happiness, six out of the ten happiest countries in the world are nordic countries (the US is number 15, below MEXICO). There is nothing special about the people
of Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, etc. They are the same as you or I, except for one thing: they have heavy taxes. The world's happiest country, Denmark, pays around 60% in taxes (many sources say about the same thing) yet they are the happiest country in the world. However, it does not just stop at happiness. According to Demos.org, Danes receive free health care, guaranteed parental leave, the average citizen works 300 hours less than the average American, mothers can have at a minimum of 52 weeks of PAID parental leave, and their country has much less debt than the US (For reference:"http://www.demos.org...;). Taxes May seem bad, but they have benefits through all aspects of ones life.
2. "While lowering or eliminating the corporate tax conservatives are clearly more favorable regarding the economy. A booming economy starts when people are spendig [sic] more money in the government. This is only possible with lower taxes and interests rates which allow people to borrow money for something even if they don't have the money yet." I wish Yeet could have either cited their sources or given an example, but I think I know what s/he is trying to say. Although Yeet says that taxing corporations is bad, in 2013 alone corporate income tax added up to $341.7 billion for the government (nationalpriorities.org). This is a HUGE amount of money that the US gets from corporations alone. Yeet is also saying that lower taxes
and interest rates will make less people invest in the economy and I have a few problems with this statement: (1) Yeet has provided no evidence of this and I on my own can't find any statistics of this either, and (2) I think that when Yeet means 'spending more money in the government', s/he means buying stocks. The stock market has nothing to do with taxes. Also, loans from private banks and the interest that rivate banks put on the loans have nothing to do with taxes. Banks are independent organizations, so blaming liberals for an increase in the interest rate is ludicrous.
3. "A democratic approach is to tax and allow tariffs. Unfortunately, we have seem exactly what this does. It creates a hundred billlion dollar befeceit with China, millions of people unemployed and the lowest GDP in centuries. [sic]" This is purely propaganda. It is true that liberals of course tax more and are in favor of tariffs, but once again something that may at first appear detrimental is in reality beneficial. The average tariff right now is 1.3% (Historical Statistics of the USA), which generates $25 billion in revenue every year (Historical Statistics of the USA). Tariffs also stimulate domestic production and consumption, which is good for the economy. In regard to our debt with China, most of that money came from borrowed money for our War on Terror during the Bush Administration, and more specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In regard to another of Yeet's points, millions of people have always been unemployed, and if anything the unemployment rate has fallen in recent years. Also, when Yeet talks about our
lowest GDP in centuries, s/he is obviously not remembering the Great Depression.
4. "Something else i would love to point out is under Obama, obamacare has single handidly killed jobs and the economy. Obama care states that a small business with 50 people or more, who work 30 hours or more cannog recieve the healthcare. So what do company's do? They cut many of their employers sp they can gurantee this healthcare to the other workers. They then have to raise prices to make up for this dramatic event, in which case they cause inflation as well. This along with many other problems democrat's face is exactly why liberals are inefficient at running the economy. [sic]" I have found that arguments about politics most often lead to the Affordable Care Act, or "ObamaCare". I would like to point out that I have no obligation to believe Yeet's argument because s/he did not have any sources, but I will assume that the statistics are correct. First of all, Obamacare has not killed jobs. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics has said that from August 2010 to October 2015 there was consistent national monthly job growth. Also, our stock market has done better than ever since the stack market crash of 2008. DOW has increased by 185% since 2009, and the NASDAQ has increased by 313% since 2009. The economy is doing better than ever, and don't worry, we are still the richest country in the history of the world. It is true that businesses with 49 or less employees are required to provide healthcare to their employees, but this is not a reason to completely get rid of healthcare or to damn liberalism. All this means is that there needs to be some revisions to the law, which is common. Another thing I would like to point out is that when businesses raise their prices, it doesn't cause inflation. It just means that no one will buy their products because they are expensive. It is not in any war linked to inflation. Finally, I would like to say is that Yeet has in no way proved that "liberals are insufficient at running the economy". Just because you present 2-4 un-cited biases does not make it an argument, and DEFINITELY does not mean that a liberal economist view is detrimental to the economy. In support of this I will reference the Great Depression. FDR a progressive liberal and arguably the greatest president we have ever had, implemented most of the 'socialist' programs we have today, such as unemployment and social security. Oh, and he single-handily brought us out of the greatest financial collapse ever.
In conclusion, higher taxes mean a higher national happiness level, taxing corporations has no statistical evidence of hurting the economy (but it provides benefits), and much of what Yeet has said has not been supported by fact.
I am also eventually expecting a reason as to why conservatism is better socially, as well as economically.
1. Yeet still has not provided any sources.
2. I do not think that I explained myself sufficiently in the last argument. It is well known that the government uses taxes to pay for various services and programs. The government determines which programs it wants and taxes accordingly. This is how it works throughout most of the world. If one (such as Yeet) is advocating for a lower tax system, they should also be advocating for a much smaller government, or a government that spends less (NationalPriorities says that the US spends $600 billion dollars on military, more than any other country in the world, even China and Russia). The government uses taxes to provide for the people. Those who inhabit nordic countries are not happy that they pay taxes, they are happy that many things are provided for them for free, including college. If our government taxes less, expect a reduction in social security payments, the military, infrastructure, quality of hospitals, etc.
As before, I am going to pick apart Yeet's argument point by point.
1. "Firstly, I would like to say that I DID NOT SAY that decreasing interest rates HURTS the economy i specifically said lowering taxes while keeping interest rates down is a POSITIVE approach not a negative one. [sic]"
Yes, you did not say that decreasing interest rates hurt the economy, but you grouped that with other contentious points so any other person would have thought that it was a debatable topic. And no, you did not specifically say that. You insinuated that, which is quite different.
2. "This is humorous considering there is a direct correlation between higher taxes and less economic growth. . . If you tax the middle class more/and or regulate and tax businesses more no matter how much money you say we have received we have lost more in the long run. When a middle class family is paying over 20% plus in taxes while working a part time job they simply spend less. . . When the middle class is spending more money, contributing to the economy and working for a higher wage the whole country is happy. An increase tax on people making over $300,000 is obviously needed but a higher tax on people who are the work horses of this country is not."
Well I find it humorous that this is (1) not the case, and (2) you have again used no facts or sources to back this up. Catherine Mulbrandon from Visualizing Economics put together a nice graph (http://thegreatrecession.info...) portraying the economic growth under democratic and republican presidents. It is clearly shown that under democratic presidents (which tend to be more liberal, and therefor impose greater taxes) that the income growth rate increases by a significant amount among all economic statuses. This disproves Yeet's theory that taxes hurt the middle class (or anybody really). And to address Yeet's claim that the country is doing bad because people are not investing enough into the economy, I suggest Yeet read my last argument, which stated that the DOW has increased by 185% since 2009, and the NASDAQ has increased by 313% since 2009 (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). Yeet has supplied no proof that huge taxes are not beneficial to a nation.
3. "Another point I have is about college, why hasn't Obama done anything to help college students? Why hasn't he implemented a loan forgiveness system where you can pay some of your college debt then become 'freed' from this debt? Why is that democrats are considered the 'progressives' when most of what they stand for isn't? This simple loan forgiveness program would help college students come out of college with a job and a career! Unfortunately the 'progressives' have failed once again."
Well, I am sorry to announce that Yeet is straight up wrong about this. Yet another case of someone not doing their homework. President Obama signed the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act in 2010, which among other things increasing the Pell Grant scholarship awards (which gives money to those who need it to get to college),loans for new borrowers would be eligible to be forgiven to those who make timely payments after 20 years, and used several billion dollars to fund schools that mostly serve poor and minority students, as well as increasing community college funding (Wikipedia). So, in fact, Obama has actually done a lot to help college students, and even implemented some of the ideas that Yeet has suggested. The only way to get college cheaper is to have the government subsidize colleges, and if that is what you want then vote for Bernie Sanders. Yeet's argument was both baseless and senseless.
4. "Unfortunately millions are STILL unemployed. While you have repeatedly said that we should kill the middle class and give more tax breaks to the reach which id what Obama has done, I disagree. While you have stated that the middle class is useless and that higher taxes HELP the economy I disagree. While this president has allowed millions of jobs to go over seas, I believe there's a solution. The solution is not a trade war. The solution is ending China's manipulation of their currency, lowering the business tax rate, lowering the corporate tax and ending corporate inversion. Democrats have long been associated with helping the wealthy with allowing corporate inversion to occur."
Well, I just might use up my remaining characters disproving nearly everything about this. For every first-world country there are millions of people unemployed, and that is just how it is always going to be. According to 'factcheck.org', the unemployment rate under Obama has dropped by 5% since he has taken office.
And I don't know if Yeet has noticed any of the candidates in the presidential race, but the most progressive democratic runner, Bernie Sanders, has said repeatedly that corporations and (most importantly) rich people need to be taxed more: "And yes, my policies will demand that the top one percent and the largest corporations in this country start paying their fair share of taxes. (Bernie Sanders)"
Also, I have absolutely NOT 'stated' that the middle class is useless. Why would any reasonable person 'state' that? The middle class is the most important part of America, and it what America stands for. The last thing any American would want to do is jeopardize that.
I do not know what Yeet means by a trade war.
I do not know what Yeet means when he says that China in manipulating our currency. The health of the worldwide economy has always followed the health of the dollar (the Great Depression is and example), and it has not followed the Chinese Renminbi.
As I have said before, taxes are both proven to increase the happiness of the people within the country and proven to grow the economy better than a conservative tax system.
I think that everyone of all race, creed, and color gives 100% support behind ending corporate inversion. At least both Yeet and I do.
And as we have covered before, Democrats have not been associated with helping the wealthy ( In fact, even 'republicanviews.org' says that democrats believe "in cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes and raising them for the upper class").
In conclusion, nearly everything thing that Yeet has said has been disproven, and none of his/her arguments have been supported with fact.
Liberals believe that the government is needed to achieve equal opportunity and equality for everyone. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills, and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights.
I really enjoyed this debate and I congratulate Yeet on getting around to finish it with me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||1|
Reasons for voting decision: While I personally agree with Con, there was no REAL evidence that he could have brought up. I was definitely expecting mentions of DISASTROUS trade deals that have been vetted by Conservatives. But the courtesy and kindness shown to Yeet2016 has earned respect. As for Pro, the arguments were good in theory, but provided no real references to evidence that your contentions were true.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.