The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
John_C_1812
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

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 1 vote the winner is...
Kelisitaan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 98501
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

I will argue that Donald Trump threatening to impose a 35% tariff on US companies who leave the USA and ship their products back is beneficial for the United States.

My opponent will argue that it is not.

May the best argument win

No new arguments in R4. Forfeiting a round: autoloss
John_C_1812

Con

I except your terms of debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

Donald Trump may not be the smartest, but he is a good negotiator. Threatening to impose a 35% tariff is a better negotiating tactic than simply doing nothing. Here are the 2 main benefits:

1) Increases the likelihood that companies don't move overseas since the cost to move has become higher than it was previously.

-This means that US jobs are more likely to stay in the USA, which clearly benefits Americans.
-This means that companies will be paying more taxes to the government rather than stashing their profits overseas. https://www.washingtonpost.com......

2) Increases his negotiating power with other countries and with the USA as well.

-This threat shows strength, an essential asset for negotiating. Keeping negotiating skill level constant, the person with the greatest leverage (strength) will come out with the better deal.

Now, like anything, a tariff isn't purely beneficial; there is a cost as well. Tariffs increase the price of goods to the consumer. However,

1) This is merely a threat of a tariff. In other words, if the threat works, then the cost to the consumer remains the same, and the country reaps all of the benefits stated above.

2) Even if the company does move overseas, the country would have moved anyway. In other words, if the company moves overseas when the cost of moving is raised, they certainly would have moved if the cost was lower.

3) Although goods are now more expensive, the price of goods might not actually be as high as the tariff. In other words, since the company saved money by moving overseas (they would move overseas otherwise), they are able to make their products cheaper, although certainly, the price will have increased. In other words, the price won't go up to the full 35%.

4) The government gets extra revenue. This 35% tariff goes directly to the government's pocket. Although consumers might have to pay more for the product (and this consumption may go down), the overall revenue to the USA might actually increase.
John_C_1812

Con

Mr. Executive officer Elect Number # 45 wants to run a Republic as if a Religious Monarchy, like both England and parliament once had. OK. But we should understand that tariff is not a new strategy, a strategy of negotiation with any number of new possible, with new outcomes that may emerge. Basically Mr. E.O. #45 is going into the retail business, and not Presidential responsibilities of defending the U.S. Constitution, not work on behalf of the American people in regulations dealing with the issues of the United States Court system.
If the products turn out to be of a comparative quality, at a better price, it is illegally to singled out for retail mark-up by a Federal government, with a written responsibility to provide basic non-biased separation as its primary responsibility as an agent of taxation.
The people may losing out or be hurt in other ways than just jobs, the losses will far exceed any measurement of 35% as there are things lost that simply are not weight by scales of that type economic calibration.
1.Taxation in the form of tariff is simply admitting as a negotiator the United States will never be competitive in free trade. And, does not know the obligation of its own contract with the taxpayer.

2.The cost in manufacturing does not simply rotate around labor wages. A 35% mark as a negotiation tool may simple just demonstrate how out of touch the negotiation is, or has become.

3.How does anyone seriously plan for a future for themselves or for other, which requires an extensive plan and commitment that limits a person"s mobility, to design industry. When faced with a threat from some-one who is supposed to have represented a non-biased representation and opportunity in the largest economy in the world.

4.35% of from the # 1 mathematically is still easier to take with the 50% of the other 9. It"s not just about the direct cost of labor any-more. The selling point doesn"t matter if the product the negotiator was try to sell has been lost by abuse.
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

As you can see, John ignored the vast majority of my arguments and instead inserted irrelevant information, such as his entire first paragraph.

We are discussing the benefits for the USA. Free trade does NOT benefit the USA, because free trade causes companies to move abroad and the USA to lose jobs to countries which are desperate for employment that they will take extremely low wages and dangerous working conditions.

If anything, wages in the USA are too low; only people who are out of touch would argue otherwise.

The rest of this argument really is just nonsense. ".35% of from the # 1 mathematically is still easier to take with the 50% of the other 9." What does this even mean?

"When faced with a threat from some-one who is supposed to have represented a non-biased representation and opportunity in the largest economy in the world."

What? The US president isn't supposed to be biased? OF COURSE HE IS. HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE BIASED FOR AMERICA'S INTERESTS.

Con has refuted none of my arguments and instead added jibberish and nonsense to this debate. I see no reason to write anything more as none of my arguments have been refuted.
John_C_1812

Con

"If anything wages in the USA are too low; only people who are out of touch would argue otherwise."

When the cost of living rises with wages, a higher paycheck never makes it to the pocket. The problem is a majority of people know how to ask for more money. The minority know how to improve the spending potential of the money we earn. This creates a stability and foundation industry builds on.

"The rest of the argument is just nonsense."

A Tariff is simply a Governing body moving into the retail business, adding a mark-up on things to be sold in the U.S. It is simply foolish to believe it is a negotiation tactic. In most cases tariffs have loop-holes and any income lost by an additional 35% surcharge is made up in other access gained in other markets.

"The U. S President isn"t supposed to be non-biased."

The President takes an Oath to defend the United States Constitution. It is the judicial Separation which is to be held as Non-biased. The Officer who holds the seat in the Executive Office oversees and governing over the Court system in general. Its efficacy rests greatly on the on its Executive to give a State of This Union, so it can remain or be held impartial.
If you cannot represent the Nation"s best interests at home. Representing them elsewhere can be a pointless effort. The United States manufactured product is a well-regulated Judicial Separation.

Pro is simply not capable of seeing that the salesman she supports has nothing to sell but empty promises. The digression is to a threat that the United States is going to go in the retail business and save jobs by doing nothing more than marking up a manufactured Good.
Debate Round No. 3
Kelisitaan

Pro

"When the cost of living rises with wages, a higher paycheck never makes it to the pocket. The problem is a majority of people know how to ask for more money. The minority know how to improve the spending potential of the money we earn. This creates a stability and foundation industry builds on"

This is irrelevant. We are comparing wages in the USA to wages in other places.

"A Tariff is simply a Governing body moving into the retail business, adding a mark-up on things to be sold in the U.S. It is simply foolish to believe it is a negotiation tactic. In most cases tariffs have loop-holes and any income lost by an additional 35% surcharge is made up in other access gained in other markets."

Although the last part is certainly true, the tariff is a good negotiating tactic. In this case, trump is clearly using it as leverage in order to keep US based companies from moving abroad. If that isn't "negotiating" with US companies, then you don't know what the word "negotiating" means.

The president is supposed to BE biased FOR America. We are discussing America's interests, not the interests of other countries. The president is supposed to SUPPORT america's interests over those of other countries.

Threatening a tariff is not an empty promise; it's a reality. Not only is it a reality, it's a great negotiating tactic with MANY benefits and very few cons. If the tariff threat succeed, America clearly benefits. Even if it fails, America benefits more than it would have otherwise. The only "downsides" are that corporations can't go abroad as easily and pocket all their monies.

I have argued my point extremely clearly, and very little of it if any has been refuted. A threat of a tariff is extremely beneficial to the USA: employees win, the government wins, and any losses from consumers can be made up in the form of government revenue which the government can give back to consumers if necessary
John_C_1812

Con

This is irrelevant. We are comparing wages in the USA to wages in other places."

Thank you for proving my argument in this debate and totally ignoring a major part of the issue. The United States has some of the highest wages in the world. The obligation to the voter in this debate is for Con to show how higher wages can hurt. This is just simply said by describing more money creates more extra income counting, only it can insure the value of what you are being paid for the work provided.
The U.S.A. has some of the highest paid poor workers in the world. That"s a special skill that really needs a Governed form of Executive direction to ignore to really make improvements.

"Although the last part is true, the tariff is a good negotiation tactic."

The basic way to describe a tariff is a Government going into the retail business. Though unlike a retailer in this Country a government does not need to stock inventory that can be tax. Tariff is a governing agent using a political position to enter into the retail market. Making them a direct competitor with retailer in their own Nation. In essence they are purchasing all the comparative goods for themselves.

The effort of negotiation is focused on people and not industry. It is not extra income which is gain by a tariff. It is a hijack of income that is devaluing the paycheck of every working person in the U.S.
All winners in games do not win only by getting anywhere fast, there is a finish line. All winners of a game are not the only team with the highest score, the game being played matters. Every game is not the same, the government needs to get in the game and due its part, and not the consumers part.

I would like to close by saying that elect EO # 45 is not the only person working on this issue. It is not the intention of this debate to alienate him as the problem solver. Our tools, are heritage is basic principle and precedent are legal guardians where kind enough to place it in writing.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Congratulations Kelisitaan
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Tommylibertarian.

There needs to be a report on the State of Union in regard to this debate.

A threat of any kind has legal consequence. Therefore as a Constitutional common defense on behalf of Mr. Executive Officer # 45, a republic protocol is for the White House Cabinet, and/or Congress to use the United States Constructional Separation to assemble a Jury to present evidence to form a more perfect Union, so a tariff is not the act of executive punishment to industry leaving a Country. As evacuation is not a crime under any reasonable condition of threat.

"A person can say" is not the same as what a person can do. Furthermore, this process would need to go on simple because Kelisitaan has not "Cited" and source that has proved what many internet businesses has thrived off of for decades. A retail does not need to sock Items, to sell Item, shipped from the manufacture.

I never abandon the abstract tariff is harmful to the United States. It places government directly into business with overseas Nations. It is at least incriminating without use of the United States Constructional Separation.

I should have been more explicit in my debate thank you for the critique.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Pro described the direction for my opening abstract in the rules.
"My opponent will argue how tariffs are not beneficial in stopping U.S. manufactures from leaving the U.S."
Shipping or E.O #54 are not relevant as history shows the assembly of goods cannot be ruled out by Pro"s introduction and abstract. I accepted these terms of the debate, sorry for the error of except, it was to be accept. It is not clear if the application of fixed variables was meant to shape the equation. There are a number of pending potential legal issues which are pointed out by Constitutional examination.
Tariff were also used to hide the fact that slaves had been prisoners of War. Which sadly was the shortfall in emancipation of the slavery as this legal action simply used the United States Separation for outside self-interests without proper representation.
I did enjoy the debate.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Tariffs helped protect northern workers before the Civil War
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
RFD continued

Round 2

Pro makes 2 solid arguments regarding keeping companies here(where they link to a source) and an argument regarding an increase in negotiating power. I feel as though a source could have been helpful for the second argument and that both of these could be expanded on more. Pro recognizes and proactively addresses potential problems with their argument/position. This to me seemed more effective than pro's initial argument.

Con makes a big claim "Mr. Executive officer Elect Number # 45 wants to run a Republic as if a Religious Monarchy, like both England and parliament once had." I had trouble understanding how that related to the topic at hand. Also Con didn't provide any evidences for this claim. Con makes claims regarding a 35% tariff as a negotiating tool being out of touch in some form but does not expand on this claim. This is the only time that Con directly address a claim of Pro's during the entire debate and is the main reason I was more convinced by Pro Con seemingly avoided rigorous response to Pro's claims. Con make a point about wages that I really wasn't understanding.

Rounds 3/4
The rest of the debate seemed to devolve in to a conversation about wages and got away from the original topic. Conduct was even and both debaters seemingly abandoned the topic at hand.

I awarded points to Pro for making more clear arguments than Con, for Con's lack of addressing of Pro's claims, and for Con's lack of use of any source material. Both debaters could have benefited for more evidences and sources being used.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
KelisitaanJohn_C_1812Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: There were no conduct issues that would require picking a side in that regard so a tie there. Both Pro and Con used adequate spelling and grammar. There were minor mistakes but none that take away from understanding of the debate and arguments. Pro receives a point for sources as Pro at lease used a source, Con used none. Remaining RFD will appear in comments as I will not have enough characters here.