The Instigator
C-Mach
Con (against)
Tied
12 Points
The Contender
ghatem
Pro (for)
Tied
12 Points

Do We Really Want Over-Regulation?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

C-Mach

Con

"Do you think we should ban the phrase 'potato chips' because kids will get fat" is an example of government trying to save you from being mildly uncomfortable about anything. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised that by 2012, all children under 18 would be required to wear 1-foot-thick fully-encompassing Nerf suits with all the bells and whistles to keep them "completely safe," such as the "Pill-Popper" for boys whenever they act like boys. We don't want boys having any masculinity whatsoever so we're just gonna give 'em the amphetamines to keep 'em calm. Oh, and the "Bye-Bye Naughty-Mouth," which censors any politically incorrect statement whatsoever (e.g., Merry Christmas, Al Gore is wrong, etc.), and gives them a 1,000-volt shock if they do. And an air-filter, which will help them breathe. Seriously, is this the kind of world you want to be in? Who the heck wants to grow up in a Nerf suit that "protects" you? More like protects you from doing anything useful. This trend has got to stop. Banning smoking outside and styrofoam food packaging in Calabasas, banning foie-gras in Chicago, banning trans-fats in New York. What the heck?!?!?! I thought we were free from this, but I guess I was wrong, wasn't I?
ghatem

Pro

Hello C-Mach,

No one wants over-regulation. People love to exercise the freedoms that they are afforded by the Constitution, and for very good reason. But I do take issue with your attempt to villainize government regulation.

Anyone who believes that the government would ever require anyone to wear a "safety outfit" or ban the phrase "Merry Christmas" is quite paranoid and irrational. Americans have rights and the federal government will protect these rights, not infringe upon them. The instances to which you alluded are not federal, but rather local, and reflect the desires of those who elected the local legislators. What is really harmful, however, is an anti-government sentiment that harkens back to the age of laissez-faire.

Where would we be without government regulations?

Laborers would be exploited, allowing corporations to employ low-wage workers in harmful working environments. Speaking of environments, the environment would also be exploited even further than it already has been, letting pollution and waste ruin common parks and green space. The FDA would allow pharmaceutical companies to sell untested drugs to sick citizens.

I would argue for more government regulation. We need more regulation concerning our foreign imports, carefully examining goods like toys from China that were contaminated with lead. We need more regulation of our public schools, really upholding standards and rectifying inequality among poorer inner-city and rural districts. We need more regulation with concerning campaign finance reform for political candidates.

What we don't need is more regulation of our personal lives. We have no reason to fear a progressive and healthy government so long as it stays out of our personal affairs.
Debate Round No. 1
C-Mach

Con

You made a good point about the government shouldn't be able to interfere with our lives. The thing is, I meant this on that level: Local. That's what I mean. The thing about manufacturers, I'll voice my opinion on that right now. I'm what you call a "smokestack hugger," so don't be surprised by the following argument. Well, actually, American employees want to find out how to con their employers out of their money (especially frivolous lawsuits where the sole intention is financial gain, not compensation) in any way possible, and frankly, they're not being exploited enough. They've become lazy (at least that's what I've observed). Maybe lower wages and salaries would get them to work. Oh, and the pollution. I definitely agree we should all stop pollution, but a $1,000 fine for litter? Give me a break! People can stop pollution (and pretty much anything else) on their own WITHOUT government interference. Your rebuttal?
ghatem

Pro

Hey C-Mach,

I think this debate is digressing a bit. But, what the heck, I'm game.

"American employees want to find out how to con their employers out of their money (especially frivolous lawsuits where the sole intention is financial gain, not compensation) in any way possible, and frankly, they're not being exploited enough. They've become lazy (at least that's what I've observed)."

I find this claim to be wildly irresponsible, I don't care what smokestack you've been hugging. What evidence do you have to substantiate this? Where have you observed this laziness? How hard should someone have to work to be able to provide for their family?

The truth of the matter is that if the employer treats his or her workers well, the workers will be comfortable and do a better job. Americans are hard workers and generally good people. They just want to know that their hard work will be fairly compensated and that injustice at the workplace will be rectified.

"People can stop pollution (and pretty much anything else) on their own WITHOUT government interference."

I'm not as much talking about the guy who throws his cigarette out the window on the highway. I'm talking about corporate waste being dumped into the Mississippi. I'm talking about people destroying natural buffers around bodies of water, causing eutrophication that ruins natural ecosystems (and the local communities who depend on them). These are serious problems that require the attention of the federal government.
Debate Round No. 2
C-Mach

Con

C-Mach forfeited this round.
ghatem

Pro

C-Mach's position makes sense on the surface level -- no one wants the government controlling their personal lives. But the tone of his argument can be dangerous. Villifying the government without warrant by using scare tactics works against the common good. The government needs to hold strong standards, unbought by corporations. These standards must regulate and disarm those eager to exploit decent working people. No one wants "big brother," but everyone deserves an equal opportunity to live a comfortable life.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
When it infringes on personal freedoms that you should have he choice, that's when.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
The debate header is silly and defeats the "pro" in the logic of hjow it is phrased:

For it to be "over", would mean that it was excessive, making it impossible to believe that having "over" (or excessive, more than necessary) regulation is good, because by definition it is not. A5t what point is it over is the real question.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 week ago
Mharman
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mikedapimp 9 years ago
Mikedapimp
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by james94 9 years ago
james94
C-MachghatemTied
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 
Vote Placed by ghatem 9 years ago
ghatem
C-MachghatemTied
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