The Instigator
Yeeet2016
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
echelius
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Conservatism vs Liberalism!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 330 times Debate No: 90112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Yeeet2016

Pro

I will be arguing that Conservatism provides an economic solution that has long been missing from this country.
1. ACCEPTANCE
2. DEBATING
3. REBUTTALS
echelius

Con

As the opponent of Yeeet2016 ("Yeet") I will be arguing against a very vague idea.
1. Only problems need solutions, so by "providing an economic solution" one would be saying that there is a problem with the economy. I agree with this and this is not a contentious point, but I wanted to make that clear.

2. Is Yeet saying that Conservatism has "long been missing" from this country, or is Yeet saying that "an economic solution" has been missing? I will assume the latter because just eight years ago there was a very conservative man (George Bush) in the Oval Office. I hope that Yeet doesn't think that eight years is a long time. But If Yeet is arguing for the latter, then he/she is also wrong:
- I hope that we can both agree that the 2008 recession was a economic crisis.
- The country has nearly recovered from this, or at least it is not in a recession anymore.
- With this in mind, let's look back to what I said earlier about there only being a solution if there is a problem.
- If the problem was fixed, then that means there was a solution. I hope that we can also both agree on this.
- So, since we are not currently in a recession anymore, there has been "an economic solution".

If this is not what Yeet meant by his 'thesis' statement, then I urge him/her to explain further.

I formally accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Yeeet2016

Pro

Thank you for again accepting this debate. Today we will be debating key issues that plague our country. First I noticed you were a Bernie supporter, Considering we didn't speak about him last debate, this debate we will. Bernie is a controversial man, with policies that would kill the economy to out right lies he tells his supporters. Bernie has been asked on multiple occasions how would he pay for a healthcare and college for all system. Although he has stated a speculation tax on wall street would work, outside sources disagree. Forbes states that not only would the speculation tax not work but the numbers he has shown on his website for the way to pay for it are demonstrably wrong. http://www.forbes.com... . Forbes sites that such a tax would lead to a decrease in financial assets and a loss in revenue. This coming from an outside source not only confirms he's a liar but how his supporters will eat anything up. It once again shows how increasing taxes leads to LESS economic growth, a LOWER GDP and thus a failing economy. Another crucial problem is since he wants college and healthcare for all free, who pay's for it? During an interview with Bill Maher, Bill kept telling him how his plan doesn't add up, Bernie then conceded and agreed he would have to increase taxes substantially in order for it to work. http://youtu.be... . Again even without looking at facts we know that if someone says something is free it really isn't someone somewhere HAS to pay for it. Another point is how would a government run healthcare work? Well, under Obama's single payer healthcare premiums have doubled and triple while deductibles have grown as well. This is a reciepe for disaster, one other key problem is the Obama care tax imposed on citizens who refuse Obama care, but that's a seperate issue. My point in this debate is to highlight the problems with Bernie while poking holes in all of no solution policies. Lastly, Bernie has said he would agree to stop fracking and other money making industries that employ millions here at home. Because it's 'BAD FOR THE ENVIORMENT.' There was recently a graph (Can't find it) that showed areas where fracking was being used and areas where it wasn't. Coincidentally the areas using fracking had a more robust economy with more employment. Bernie Sanders is not a leader we need in this country, nor is the socialism that follows.
echelius

Con

So I see that this round Yeet has identified three major concerns he has:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Healthcare/Obamacare
3. The effects of fracking

1. I agree with Yeet that Bernie Sanders will not be able to pay for the programs he has suggested. However, you are unfairly calling Bernie Sanders a liar (and as a supporter of his I don't appreciate you saying that his supporters "will eat anything up". Criticize the politician not his/her followers).
i. The fact that a politician won't be able to pay for the services and programs that they say they would provide is not new. If we are talking about a far-left candidate, we should also talk about a certain far-right candidate. I see from your previous debates that you support Trump. Trump is jus as much of a "liar" as Sanders. How is Trump going to deport Mexicans and Muslims, and more importantly how is he going to finance the wall he is proposing to build? To be clear, this is not part of my argument and I don't want it to be debated in THIS debate. I am just trying to say that one should never hold ANY politician to their word.
ii. The over-arching idea here is that it doesn't matter what politicians CAN do, it is what they WOULD WANT to do. Trump is saying that he would remove potential terrorists from our country. Sanders is saying that he wants to make college free. I doubt that anyone thinks that Trump will actually build a wall. I also doubt that anyone believes that Bernie will do anything that he say he will. The experienced voter knows that it is not the actions that the politicians wish to pursue that are important, it is the IDEAS that the politicians have.

2. Many people do not like Obamacare, and I am not surprised that you don't either. I am also not surprised that your arguments against Obamacare are invalid.
i. You say that insurance premiums have doubled and tripled under Obamacare. In reality, 'factcheck.org' (http://www.factcheck.org...) says that insurance "premiums, where most Americans have coverage, are not "skyrocketing," and neither are health care costs. In fact, the growth of both has been at historically low rates in the past few years." I suggest that Yeet check his/her sources.
ii. When someone doesn't have insurance, it costs much more taxpayer money. If an uninsured driver gets into a serious accident and requires surgery, the government would have to pay much more than if the person was already insured. There is a good reason why those who don't have healthcare are fined, because if they don't it costs the rest of us much more money for their emergency needs.
iii. Obamacare has insured over 16.4 million people (according to http://www.hhs.gov...).

3. Yeet also supports fracking, which I find disturbing. He/she is correct in saying that it provides many economic benefits, but there is a significant economic cost to this. The New York Times found that 18m gallons of oil and toxic wastewater have been spilled between January 2006 to October 2014 in North Dakota due to fracking. Although rarely, the NPR found that fracking causes earthquakes. Plus, we need to get away from non-renewable energy resources and move towards a more sustainable energy source or sources. I think this is more of a personal choice, and there is a plethora of supporting statistics for each side. Arguing whether or not fracking is good is similar to argue whether or not God is real: It is such a contentious topic that it would be pointless to debate it.

To recap: (1) Criticize a politicians message, not the programs that they want to implement; (2) Obamacare has been more beneficial than many people think; and (3) fracking is generally good for the economy but we need to weigh the environmental impacts against the economic benefits.

Although I enjoy debating nearly any topic, I would like to stick to conservatism vs. liberalism.

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com... (It's a good read)
NPR: https://stateimpact.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Yeeet2016

Pro

I have A LOT to say. First off, what is your other option besides fracking and drillig for oil? Obama, Hillary Clinton and many other democrats are completly controlled by oil companies. Together they have supported fracking despite 'the enviormental crisis.' Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE at this time to use solar energy etc. to power our country. We don't have the knowledge at this point to complete such a task. On healthcare you are completly wrong. Forbes http://www.forbes.com... shows how premiums have risen from 15% to over 40%, while deductibles have also increased. THERE IS A REASON why so many people have been 'insured' which by the way i disagree with. Forbes says how there was actually a net decrease overall in citizens having healthcare. BUT even if i do accept that more people have Obama Care there is a fundamental reason as to why. It's because if you refuse Obama Care and choose a different private insurance company you get the good ol' Obama Tax. This tax is a PENALTY FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHCARE. I EXPECT a rebuttal as to a reason why this is 'good' in your response. It essentially penalizes poor Americans who can't afford the rising premium, higher deductible Obama care. Great democratic values there huh? Now on Trump, he has said he would implement HSA's so you can have your private healthcare without a tax on it. There would be no tax penalty and it would allow MILLIONS of uninsured citizens to become insured. He said he would remove health insurance monopolys in certain states, while also bidding out drug companies to save money. He can do this unlike any other politician because he isn't a bought out puppet like Obama or Clinton. My last points will prove to you why a conservative approach is the right approach. Under this president we have seen an increase in jobs leaving the country and moving to less taxed places like China, Japan or Mexico. I would like a formal answer as to why that is the case and why under Obama he has done nothing to change this. Instead he has supported NAFTA and TPP both of which kill jobs, the economy and leave our country in shambles. It's fascinating that under Reagan we saw an increase in wages, jobs and military strength unlike the current president. My last point involves a new point. Should we raise the minimum wage? I believe we shouldn't. An increase in the minimum wage causes businesses who can't afford it to leave the country and or state. It also causes inflation because they must raise their prices to compete with the higher wage. This causes housing prices to increase and the same with commodities. Another example as to why a higher minimum wage would do more harm than good is Walmart. Walmart has said http://www.heritage.org... they want an increase in the wage so they can force smaller companies to lesve their area thus monopolizing that area/state. This is crony capitalism at it's best and is EXACTLY why we need a fighter as our president and not a bough, sold out lightweight.
echelius

Con

Yeet has made some very good points in this last round.

1. To address your very first concern, I think that the alternative to fracking is the clean energy you so clearly are doubtful about. I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say that "We don't have the knowledge at this point to complete such a task". I think that you mean the government is not putting enough time and energy into it. I live in Hawaii. On our island of Kauai (with a population of nearly 70,000) 60% of our daytime usage is covered by just three solar fields, which produce 30 megawatts of electricity (just look up 'KIUC'). One solar field costs $40 million (KIUC). There are about 1.7 million fracking wells in the US (http://www.fractracker.org...), which cost from $8 million to $14 million (http://breakingenergy.com...). So, for the price of four fracking wells about one 10-megawatt solar field can be built. Jobs would be made to build and maintain the solar field, the US would lose a good amount of it's dependence on foreign oil, there would absolutely be no ecological downsides, and the US would become the world leader in renewable technology. I know that the solar fields would not supply the whole nation with power, but 425,000 solar fields would be created (1.7 million / 4), and if three produce enough power to supply at least 70,000 people with 60% of their daytime needs (such as it is on my island), a minimum of 29.8 million people would have to pay 60% less for their power bills (425,000 * 70,000). So, THAT is the alternative to fracking.

2. Why do you say that Obama and Hillary are controlled by the oil industries? Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline bill, which obviously goes against the interests of oil companies. In a 2007 democratic debate, Hillary said:

"I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies. . . And we could spend about $50 billion doing what America does best. . .We can solve these problems if we focus on innovation and technology. Alternative forms of energy are important. So is fuel efficiency for cars and so is energy efficiency for buildings."

Hillary Clinton is advocating for renewable energy, and so I don't see why an oil company would pay Hillary to say this. Obama and Hillary have traditionally been pro-renewable energy.

3. What you say about healthcare doesn't make sense. You say that if someone refuses Obamacare and uses a different, private company then they get fined. In reality, someone would only get fined if they did not have health insurance at all. 'healthcare.gov' says that "the annual fee for not having insurance in 2016 is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child", which is capped at $2,085. For taxes, that may be substantial for some people, but if they don't want to get fined then they should get healthcare, either from a private company or the government. I covered in my last argument why it is better for the American people if everyone has healthcare. Additionally, if you really want to end the problems with institutionalized health care, we should just have the government pay for it. That way it won't put stress on businesses to provide for their employees, or create a "monopoly" as you suggest.
And why would you believe 'Forbes' over the people who helped create the program (healthcare.gov)?

4. Well, as it turns out jobs may be leaving the country, but more are being created here at home. The unemployment rate has dipped below 5% for the first time since before the financial crisis of 2008 (http://money.cnn.com...). I agree with you that the TTP bill was a horrible decision, but every presidency has it's low point. This for Obama, the wars in the Middle East for Bush, the Monica Lewinsky affair for Clinton, and the Iran-Contra Affair for Reagan. However, I think that the NAFTA increased cooperation and alliances among our two major North American allies. Investopedia.com says that about one third of our exports go to Canada and Mexico, while about one fourth of our imports come from those two countries. NAFTA has spanned three administrations, each one making it's own changes to the deal. In 1994, Clinton believed that it would initially create 200,000 jobs, and in January 2008 Bush implemented his own version (http://www.investopedia.com...). Obama is merely continuing this old North American agreement.

5. I think that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage so that those who are not as fortunate can have a decent life. Workers would help stimulate the economy because they would be buying more and therefor putting more money into the economy.
And in response to your Walmart claim, they (1) never actually 'said' that, and (2) 'heritage.org' is a conservative website that argues for conservative principles, which leads me to (3) the fact that they didn't give any examples are facts behind their claim.

This is very similar to what is happening here. Yeet is appealing to the fear or anxiety of people by saying that our leaders are corrupt, or saying that things cause inflation when they really don't, or putting 'non-truths' in all caps. The sources that Yeet have cited have been from Forbes, whose majority of articles are opinion (which I have no problem with, just don't quote them); and heritage.org, a conservative website which is of course slightly biased (and no real facts supporting Yeet's claims came from the article).

I urge Yeet to use facts, not hunches, and sources when tying to prove his/her claim.

I really enjoyed this debate and I am looking forward to seeing what people say in the comments!

Thanks again, Yeeet2016:)
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by runninggreg1 6 months ago
runninggreg1
Trump IS going to build the wall. 100%. He has to now lmao.
Posted by echelius 7 months ago
echelius
I agree that Hillary is owned by banks, but not the oil companies.
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
Great debate! Hillary is owned by every oil company and bank on wallstreet. 2nd you didn't adress the inflation concern that i mentioned if you rasied the minimum wage.
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
Great debate! Hillary is owned by every oil company and bank on wallstreet. 2nd you didn't adress the inflation concern that i mentioned if you rasied the minimum wage.
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
Great debate! Hillary is owned by every oil company and bank on wallstreet. 2nd you didn't adress the inflation concern that i mentioned if you rasied the minimum wage.
Posted by echelius 7 months ago
echelius
All good. Just wanting to keep this civilized;)
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
Sorry for my oponent for making that "sanders supporters eat anything up statement" it was uncalled for.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 7 months ago
Lonely-Bird
So many things...

Fracking is a bubble. I live on Marcellus and Utica shale. Drilling has dropped off noticeably due to the drop in the price of oil. The so-called fracking economies are actually way down. Rig counts are down.

Forbes has no bias in their commentary. Much like the rest of the corporatist media they are biased conservative.

Conservatism offers nothing in regards to the economy. We have had 35+ years of freidmanism which has resulted in booms and busts and the bond market trying to burn down the world every decade. The two emerging economic powers in China and India have not trod the path of freidmanism or Ricardian free trade and have done significantly better in terms of gdp. Of course they also suffer from increasing inequality which is part and parcel of capitalism unless it is leashed and heavily regulated.
Posted by Yeeet2016 7 months ago
Yeeet2016
Modern increased government higher taxes liberalism.
Posted by Phenenas 7 months ago
Phenenas
Define "liberalism". There are many different meanings for that word. Are you talking classical liberalism, as in limiting the government, or modern, welfare-state liberalism?
No votes have been placed for this debate.