The Instigator
awesomeness
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Xerge
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Does the "occupy" protest movement have a clear and common message

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 7 votes the winner is...
Xerge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,410 times Debate No: 19778
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

awesomeness

Con

Occupy protests lack common/coherent message "Occupy protests need to focus on coherent demands." Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011: "The protests have been linked and compared to the tea party movement, due to their similar grassroots nature and extreme ideological stances. However, the tea party does have a centralized message, which the "Occupy" protests lack. The tea party is about reducing taxes and cutting spending to make government smaller. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the tea party's stances, it is possible to know what the entire group and all of its smaller subsidiaries are about. We believe the "Occupy" protests need to do the same thing. Define and convey their message correctly, and stick to reasonable demands that resonate with the rest of the American public. Most of the country has been seriously hurt by the financial crisis, and most of the American public wants to focus on creating a more equal and fair country. There is a lot of room for the "Occupy" protests to grow, but without a consistent message, most Americans will be turned off."
Occupy protests need leader(s) to communicate goals. "Occupy protests need to focus on coherent demands." Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011: "We also believe that the protests should focus on establishing a leader or figurehead for the movement in order to more effectively communicate exactly what the goals of the 'Occupy' protests are."
Occupiers should protest White House not Wall Street. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer: "What caused the crisis, the indebtedness, the unemployment, the stagnation? The culprits are state agencies and enterprises, including our Federal Reserve (our government's bank), Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), which jointly flooded the country with cheap credit and encouraged and subsidized unsound banking and subprime mortgages, all to encourage wider home ownership, paper prosperity, and cozy relationships with their cronies. We got a housing bubble, mountains of unpayable debt, and a financial crisis. Thanks, Uncle Sam. The Occupiers have the wrong address. The subprime crisis was designed in Washington, not New York."[2]
Occupiers should be protesting timid financial reforms. "The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kain." Blog. October 7th, 2011: "if these protestors were actually protesting something, they'd be protesting against the banker-butt-kissing, absolutely pathetic Financial Reform that they all explicitly or implicitly voted for. This, if these bums even had a clue, was what their beloved Democrat administration, full of Wall Street 'fat cats,' passed as a supposed fix to the current regulatory system for prevention of the next financial disaster. No matter what the headlines read, however, this so-called 'reform' did nothing but allow all the banks to keep their bonuses, hoard their cash, and lay off more employees."
Occupy protests ineffective; Wall Street bankers don't care. "5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work." The Atlantic. October 3rd, 2011: "Wall Street Doesn't Care. There's a key difference between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party movement. The Tea Partiers' anger is directed squarely at the U.S. government. It began due to dismay at the bailouts and the massive Obama stimulus package. The Tea Party wanted less government interference in the economy. But the Occupy Wall Street movement's anger is directed at bankers. Here's the problem: they really don't care. These protesters are not Wall Street's customers. In many cases they aren't even their customers' customers. Over the weekend, I saw a YouTube video of some Wall Streeters sipping champagne as they watched the protests from a balcony above. This is an extreme example, but such bankers who fit the stereotype that the protesters hate obviously aren't moved by the demonstration. In reality, the vast, vast majority of bankers, traders, and investors aren't out to rob the poor to feed caviar to the rich. They are doing honest work that holds together the global financial industry. That large majority of Wall Streeters will walk by the protesters and shake their heads at the crowds' misunderstanding of what they do."
Occupy protests can't sway Congress due to lack of message. "5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work." The Atlantic. October 3rd, 2011: "The Protesters Can't Sway Congress. The Tea Party accomplished something very key: it helped to significantly alter the makeup of Congress through the 2010 election. It had a goal -- to put out of power the big government candidates -- and it accomplished that goal. The Occupy Wall Street cannot hope for any result as significant. As mentioned, it doesn't have a clear set of objectives. But let's say, for argument's sake, that it has some general fringe-left goals. Some that have been suggested include new taxes on Wall Street and much stronger financial regulation. The problem is that these views aren't likely to catch on in Congress: even when the mix was much further to the left in 2009 through 2010, a relatively mild financial regulation bill was passed and even the Bush tax cuts remained intact. The reality is that the U.S. is a center-right nation, and Congress reflects that. While some cities are farther to the left than others, they already have very progressive representatives. Meanwhile, the message of Occupy Wall Street isn't likely to catch on and affect any change in more center-right regions like the Tea Party did."
Occupy protesters are mostly hooligans and anarchists. "The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kain." Blog. October 7th, 2011: "They're BUMS (pardon the pun) and they do not represent everyday people (at least, I hope they don't). In addition to the picture above showing a left-wing protestor defecating on a police car, check out this video from CBS Sacramento for proof. This so-called protest isn't a 'revolution', a 'movement', or even a rally no matter how much a tingle it puts down Michael Moore or Chris Matthews' leg. It's a bunch of bums with no results, purpose, or method in their sights that I spend as much energy laughing at as they spend walking the streets. Today they're angry, tomorrow they'll go back to their lattes and Xbox's, and nothing will have changed."

Sources
"5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work." The Atlantic. October 3rd, 2011
"Occupy protests need to focus on coherent demands." Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011
"The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kain." Blog. October 7th, 2011
Xerge

Pro

I like to thank my opponent for this debate. First I like to define the terms "clear", "common", and "message".

Clear - easy to understand, or easy to see or hear (1)

Common -belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question (2)

Message- a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, radio, telephone, or other means. (3)

In order for me to affirm the resolution I have to show that the Occupy Wall Street movement has a clear and common message.

My case

The Occupy movement has stated that they are against the abuses of Wall Street as they felt they are the ones responsible for the economic crisis.(4)

Also that are sending a message that they are against the growing inequality in the US. (5)

Rebuttal:

"Occupy protests lack common/coherent message"

This is not correct. I have already shown that they have a clear common message. Not only that, polls show that it is resonating with the public. They do not like Wall Street and against income inequality.(6) (7)

"Occupiers should protest White House not Wall Street."

One may disagree about whom they should protest against. However, my opponent has not how his source shows how this relates to their message or whether it is being affected

"Occupiers should be protesting timid financial reforms."

Again, one may disagree about what or whom they should protest but this does not show what this have to do about their message.

"Occupy protests ineffective; Wall Street bankers don't care"

This too is not relevant. A person can have a clear and common, message with or without people caring.

"Occupy protests can't sway Congress due to lack of message"

This is also incorrect as I have shown that they do have a message, it is clear and it is being shared by the public.

"Occupy protesters are mostly hooligans and anarchists."

They maybe hooligans and anarchists, maybe not. However, the source my opponent uses is another's personal opinion and does not state if or how the Occupiers message is being effected.

Conclusion:

I have shown that Occupy Wallstreet does have a common and clear message. My opponents arguments does not effectively show that they do not.

I like to thank my opponent again for debate. It's been great! :)

Sources:
(1) http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
(2)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4)http://www.csmonitor.com...
(5)http://www.bloomberg.com...
(6)http://www.boston.com...
(7)http://www.phillytrib.com...
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
A good portion of the OWS are people who simply cannot find a job due to the state of the economy. They commit their time to protesting not because they want to lay in a tent but because they have the free time to do so due to high unemployment rates in a poor economy.

Im sure there are people in the OWS crowd who are whatever your idea of "lazy hippies" is, but from what Ive seen most of them are not.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
OberHerr is totally right. Our constitution is not economics. It is about liberty and our rights. It has a basic online of our economic type (a free market capitalist economy), but those are not fair, they work better because someone gets profit. And people work+profit, lazy protesting hippies=tent.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Personally, I don't care if they give a coherent reason, there is no way I want "equality". We live in a capitalist society people, "equal" only means in rights, nothing to do with economics. And for the Occupy protesters, I have found them to be mainly hippies, and/o slackers, who want free money.
Posted by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
I'm sorry if it appeared that I was "noob-sniping". This is actually my first formal online debate and quite unsure on how well I would do. (which is still being determined by the voters of course).
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Con, you arent so much "debating" as "quoting editorials you agree with."

You arent even trying to fit your sources into some overall argumentative structure or highlighting portions you find particularly relevant.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
awesomenessXergeTied
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: A crying infant has the message that "something is wrong," but not a clear message of what exactly it is, and what should be done about it. Pro references don't indicate a coherent message. "Do something to make me happy" is not a clear message in the context of a political movement. The Tea Party is clear about what they want done.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
awesomenessXergeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Xerge used better sources, as his were less opinion being paraphrased and more objective facts being interpreted. His conduct was equal, no irritating spelling grammar problems. In the end, though, Xerge showed how awesomeness didn't defend his motion well enough, and deserves the win.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
awesomenessXergeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's sources are poor, unacceptable. Pro's claim that OWS is sending a message is dependent on the receiver. Pro's arguments are specious eg, A message can be clear even if no one cares. Pro's sources are equally poor. Based simply on the text, since both used poor sources the sources get weight.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
awesomenessXergeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows a clear and common message and meets his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
awesomenessXergeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of your argument doesn't pertain to economics con
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
awesomenessXergeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just posted walls of text with no argumentative structure. Most of his copied and pasted text didnt even support his argument, as Pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
awesomenessXergeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Noob sniping at its best. Pro utterly refuted con with lots of sources to meet bop.