The Instigator
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Evolutionary change will best resolve the issues of abortion, welfare, and social security in the U.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,261 times Debate No: 28985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

RoyLatham

Pro

William Buckley defined conservatism as "the doctrine of evolutionary change." By that definition, one could want a radical outcome, but believe it should achieved in a conservative way, step-by-step. In this debate we consider three specific issues that the American electorate must resolve. As Pro, I will advocate the evolutionary approach to resolving the issue. My opponent will advocate a specific solution to each problem and argue that immediate adoption of his approach is better than the evolutionary approach.

"Radical" in this debate means immediate imposition of the advocated changes.


The issues to be discussed are:

1. Abortion. The issue is what laws should govern abortion.

2. Welfare. The issue is the determination of public policy governing aid to the financially needy.

3. Social Security. The issue is what changes, if any, should be made in the current Social Security laws.

Most of the DDO debates on public policy have to do with what should ultimately be done. This debate is more about how policy goals should be achieved, rather than the just the outcome. The resolution is affirmed if, overall, evolutionary approaches are determined to be better.

Thanks to my opponent for his contributions in hammering out the resolution. I think it's a good one.Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

This debate is in round one of Spinko's Elo Tourney II. http://www.debate.org... updated http://www.debate.org...

In this debate I will number references sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference in a previous round by just giving the number of the reference without also giving the round number. Con is not obliged to use my numbering system.

Rules

This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.

Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:

DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.

DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.

DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate.

DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.

DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
lannan13

Con

I agree to the terms and I accept this debate. I will be stating that a radical way is better then an evolutionary system to change those three issues. I now await my opponets opening arguements.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Pro

There are three reasons why government policies should be changed conservatively rather than radically. They are:

1. Planning. People plan their lives under assumptions of what the laws are. The more the government controls, the more that people must account for the laws in their planning. It is unfair to suddenly upset those assumptions. People need to be given fair warning of dramatic policy changes in order to adjust.

2. Correction. The radical solution may be wrong, no matter how certain the proponent believes it correct. If it is introduced gradually, there is a possibility of modifying the approach to correct unanticipated consequences while still keeping the general thrust of the new policy. If no correction works, the policy can be changed back before it does substantial harm.

3. Accommodation. A solution that would have worked if it were introduced slowly may fail dramatically when suddenly imposed. This is especially important when a government regulation or subsidy is removed, and a private sector alternative needs to develop to take its place. If it isn't done gradually, the public is likely to demand reimposition of government controls.

Now let's look at the featured issues of this debate.

Abortion

The abortion issue cannot be resolved by logic. It depends upon the values of the population and those values evolve with society. The Europeans are a good model for treating the issue. Europe does not have uniform abortion laws. They simply vote to to establish and change the laws. That does not resolve the issue by providing a single uniform solution, because the issue is not resolvable in that sense.

If an attempt were made to uniformly ban abortion, one of the unintended consequences would be the rise of illegal abortion. Currently most abortions are drug induced, and the main cost is having medical staff on hand in case of medical complications. Consequently, making abortions illegal could drive the costs down while increasing the risks. Of course, illegality involves the risk of being caught and punished, so illegal providers might demand more money than for legal abortions. My point is that making abortion illegal does not resolve the issue, and more than making drugs illegal resolved the problems of drug use.

There are dozens of issues to be resolved when abortion is forced to be legal. These issues include requirements for counseling, the availability and promotion of alternatives, parental consent, informing authorities of potential rape and child abuse, the limits of abortion (such as third trimester abortions), the methods for abortion (such as the availability of early-pregnancy abortifactants), and government financing of abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court rule there is a right to abortion, but rather than resolving the issue, that made it substantially more contentious than it is in Europe where there is no such ruling.

The best approach is to return the abortion issue to the States and et a pattern of approaches evolve. I'm not sure that a consensus would eventually emerge, but I suspect over decades it would. What is certain is that the country would be better off if were taken off the national agenda. The issue depends upon the values of the voters, and those values vary from state to state.

Welfare

Most people agree that the purpose of welfare is to provide a social safety net in extreme circumstances, but to return able-bodied people to productive lives as quickly as possible. Exactly how to accomplish these goals is a matter of much dispute. Libertarians argue that private charity would take over the present government role if government programs were ended quickly. Some on the left argue that the problem cannot be resolved until the basic structure of society is changed, so that for the short term few improvements are possible.

A radical change would be to substantially reduce government support immediately. The potential problem with that is we immediately get orphans begging in streets, or other immediate bad effects that cause voters to reject the private charity approach. One evolutionary approach is to select a subset of welfare recipients and temporarily fund a private charities to take over that part of the problem. The funding would be provided through competitive bidding with metrics to measure success. When the private organizations are doing the job successfully, government support could then be gradually phased out. Perhaps additional tax incentives could be provided to donors for a time to ease the transition.

Returning welfare control to the States would encourage the development of alternatives. The Federal government might make block grants to provide some additional support for poor states, but evolution works best when there are many alternatives tested, rather than a uniform national policy. When there are no alternatives, the one approach in place is inevitably called a success, because there is no apparent alternative.

Social Security

I think it is reasonable to require people to provide for their retirement. If they do not, the question is then put to the voters: "You are not going to let people starve, are you?" and voters invariable respond that they will not. Proposals for radical changes are therefore non-starters. The issue is subject to intense demagogy so any change, no matter how infinitesimally small, is characterized as radical. The reason for keeping Social Security the way it is is to use the Social Security contributions to finance the Federal deficits. Liberals favor having private accounts for educational savings plans, and they exempt government employees from SS, allowing private investment instead. 401K plans have been proved to be a sound alternative.

So if Social Security is ever going to be reformed, it's going to have to be done incrementally. One starting point is break out the welfare part of social security from the retirement. About a third of SS goes to disability payments, surviving children, etc. This could be done with an agreement to make rich people pay more into the welfare part while reducing their SS retirement benefits. Another possible route is to allow people to elect to put part of their SS contributions into a 401K. Still another possibility is to allow states to offer retirement plans as an alternative to the Federal government version of Social Security.

It's fair to say that any change to Social Security faces a mountain of demagoguery. My point is that if any reform is to be accomplished at all, it will only be accomplished incrementally. that's the best way to do it in any case, because every small change is put to a test of how well it works.

Radical change won't happen

How has government control of the economy expanded? For many decades, government has been "solving problems" through increased regulation. An attempt to institute all of the regulations at once would have been rejected. But incremental expansion was effective. When expanding government control, the key is to destroy alternatives. That's done by moving power out of private hands to government, and by moving power out the States to the Federal government. Government "solutions" are obviously failing, but the game is to make sure that alternatives are suppressed.

By refusing to press incremental reforms, opponents of increasing government control are effectively marginalized. Voters do not trust theoretical arguments for radical change, and they should not. Note how Obamacare was sold as just a small change by which more people would get health insurance. Proponents did not talk about government controlling every detail of what care was allowed, who could provide it under what circumstances, and what costs the government would be allowed. If it's going to be undone, it will have to be through incremental reforms. Refusing to work for incremental reforms ensures that the government system will never be undone.
lannan13

Con

Here are 2 reasons why the public should/ will prefer radical change then evolutionary.

1. Identitiy.
In the great world many people feel that the government is making them feel insignifficant. and nonimportant. When a radical great change happens many people will race to see what it is and how it will work in the system. It also help people find how they are in the world. Once they confirm their identity then they'll find their place in the world and if they know who they are then it will be easier to accept to who they are. http://dosomethingcool.net... and http://blog.beliefnet.com...

2. It's Preferred
Many people are devistated with the current society and are looking for a change no matter what. You see today it's confirmed with high debt, forclosure, and the baby boomers are retiring. You that in the time frame from the baby boomers to Generation X, is that Generation X is Liberal and Communist vs. the Conservatism of the baby boomers generation. So the Gen X are looking for anything for change. http://www.catalystanalytics.com... is a surprising number of people today that are Anarchists and etreeme parties that would preffer a radical change and soon in the near future radical change will be common.


Abortion
According to CNN 62% of Americans want all or most of abortion banned. Guttmacher Institute — most Americans truly want 100% of 98 percent of the 1.2 million abortions a year made illegal. http://www.lifenews.com... you see here abortion is growing increasingly unpopluar with many Americans and when you mix it with the world it's 51%-49% Pro http://debate.org... we're talking about here in the U.S. and it shows that Americans want a it out the window, so the key to appease the rising Generation X would be to ban abortion out right. My opponet states that crime rates would rise, well when you have anything illegal there will always be crime rates. What my opponet is suggesting is an anarchy if he want's a crime free area were nothing is illegal and in this case there would still be crime, but there wouldn't be any punishment.

My opponet also states that there is a large amounts of issues solved, well with everthing you get negative effects as well. Such as an increased breast cancer rates by age of 50 by 130% http://www.deveber.org... then you have post abortion stress http://postabortionsyndrome.org....

Welfare
People can suceede by just working and pushing their applications. We herd that millions of jobs were created, then why haven't the people on welfare jump to the occasion. Not only that but welfare spending has jumped 32% under Obama, http://www.washingtontimes.com... if abolished we could focus on things like paying off our ever growing debt. Money that the U.S. has spent and is spending on welfare is $84,785,173,737,136 and it's growing http://www.usdebtclock.org... many of the Liberals want government out of people's life and getting rib of welfare and social security would fullfill their wishes.

Social Security
Debt from social security is $72,125,029,857,380 and ticking. My opponet states that social security shouldn't be removed but how many times do we here our grandparents say that they had their retirement destroyed because of social security. (I herd mine say it 12 times in the last year). People should control their own retirement instead of letting the government control it all be held prisoner to Wall St. and the debt clock. http://www.dailyfinance.com... last point was already answered.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Pro

Planning, Correction, and Accommodation

Note how many complex systems have evolved. The Wright Brothers had no conception of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, but we got there through evolving the design. When a bad feature is added to an airplane, it's relatively obvious that something is made worse rather than better. Government failures are not so obvious because imposed high-level solutions often suppress any competing solutions by making them illegal. If someone had managed to make metal airplanes illegal, we would have never seen the virtues of that approach.

The way to improve government is therefore not to try to impose radical solutions, but rather to work to provide alternatives whereby failed approaches can be recognized. Libertarians, for example, should work to set up private sector alternatives that can then be shown to work better than government. A basic strategy is to move problems from the Federal level to the States, where solutions can evolve.

Con has not addressed my basic framework for reform.

C1. "Identity
"

Con argues that "When a radical great change happens many people will race to see what it is and how it will work in the system." Indeed they will, but that doesn't mean the change is good. Radical changes most often come from nutcases: religious fanatics imposing Sharia law; revolutionaries demolishing basic human rights; or dictators seizing the seizing the army, the courts, and the schools. People certainly what to find out what happened, but that's not good. If the change were accomplished democratically, there would be much less of a surprise, but also changes better adapted to the needs of the people while preserving human rights.

Con argues that radical change helps people find their place in the world. Con cites two self-help blogs that are promoting radical changes in lifestyle like giving up smoking or starting a personal fitness program. Even at that, the message is not to seek too much change at once. The difference between a radical personal change and a radical change in society is that the person has a complete choice of what change to make. He is the only voter in his change, and he suffers or benefits accordingly. Radical changes in society involve imposing the change upon unwilling participants. Society has more complex issues to resolve, especially concerning the rights of dissenters.

Con implies that many people will fall in line with the radical regime and feel more integral to society when they do. that's the charm of Occupy Wall Street, Hitler Youth, and Jihad. The radicalized minority is fulfilled, but at the expense of the non-radical majority. Perhaps the radical regime will achieve a majority, but if it does so, it achieves it's majority by subjugating the rest of the population.

C2. "It's preferred"

Con argues that most people now want radical change. Con's only reference for this claim says that changes are being forced by the housing collapse, lack of jobs, and Boomers needing to continue support Gen X. These are radical changes that are not desired or welcomed. I think that because radical changes are being forced, that people are seeking radical solutions. That notion is completely contradicted by President Obama being re-elected on promises of present government policies being continued. Say what you will of Mitt Romney, he was not close to being a radical. Voters, I think surprisingly, rejected any change in course despite a very bad economy that features the forces cited in Con's reference.

Con claims there are a surprising number of anarchists and people in extreme Parties. that depends upon what is "surprising." I searched the web and could not find any data on how many anarchists there are in the U.S. An extremely generous estimate would be 0.1% of the number of voters. [1. http://www.revleft.com...;] That's not an endorsement for radical change or evidence that radical change is preferred. Radicals of a dozen different kinds wish it were preferred, and mistake growth in small numbers as an expression of a majority will. When times are tough, we expect to see many movements pressing claims of miraculous solutions.

Abortion

I claim abortion is a complex issue that voters ought to be allowed to hammer out state-by-state. con seems to be arguing that it is a done deal and should be banned outright. Actually, only about a third of the voters want abortion ban. The confusion in statistics arises from many of the voters who declare themselves to be "Pro-life" at the same time want to preserve abortion rights for others.

"Like other recent polls, Quinnipiac University"s annual voter survey shows that supporters of the landmark Supreme Court ruling now outnumber opponents by a two-to-one margin. Some 64% voiced support for Roe v. Wade in last year"s poll, up from 60% in 2010. Only 31% said they opposed the Roe decision, down from 35% two years earlier.

Yet when pollsters phrase the same basic question this way"Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"the opposite trend emerges. In the past two years alone, Gallup has seen "pro-life" sentiment rise by four points (from 46% to 50%), with "pro-choice" sentiment falling accordingly." [ http://tv.msnbc.com...]

It's like asking people is they want to practice some type of offensive speech, versus asking if they want the right to be preserved for others. People are "pro-life" in not favoring abortion, but "pro-choice" in wanting to preserve the right for others.

Even wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade does not equate to wanting abortion banned. It would only return the question to the states.

I listed many issues that remain even if a supposed radical solution were imposed to the abortion issue. Con didn't dispute my list, but added more issues that arise from permitting abortion. That supports my position is that the issue is too complex to simply resolve by a claimed radical solution. The best we can do is evolve a solution that won't please everyone, but will be most satisfactory.

Welfare

Con does not address my main argument, that if government yanked support suddenly, there would be "orphans in the street" (in general, dramatic problems) and the reaction would likely result in government programs being reinstated. The evolutionary approach is to pick off pieces of the problem and transition them to private charity or to the States.

Con only argued that the problem is severe. I agree, but that doesn't mean a radical solution would succeed.

Social Security

I do not understand Con's claim that Social security has destroyed some people's requirement. I agree the system is at risk and needs reform, and that 401K-type approaches are superior. But I don't see what is "destroyed."

My argument is that radical change to reform the system won't happen, because right now even tiny reforms are demogogued into claims of destroying the system. As pressure on the Social Security system increases, making small changes are likely to become possible. That's the opportunity to evolve reforms.

Sources

Many of Con's source links are broken. To get to the reference, click on the link so it appears in the browser URL, then delete the stray characters at the end of the link that are obviously causing the problem.

lannan13

Con

Planning, Correction, and Accommodation
Our great president Ronald Ragen once said, "We shall be a shinning city upon a hill." Many times in history people set out to do radical things and succeeded and changed history forever. Like when this quote was first said the pilgrams came over and set up the Plymonth colony in present day MA. So what if we didn't go across the see, we'd still be afraid of riding off the face of the Earth and we'd be facing overpopulation on dramatic scales.

Identity
1st off Obama is the only one imposing Shiria law on us. Yes nutcases, did enspire us to go across the sea, Columbus, the Puritians, and the Catholics. People did this and look at the 'huge' impact on history!

My opponet is false her it my sources state that we need radical change, but one at a time. I'm stating radical change is better, but not that we should over throw the system. The people still have to change themselves before you make the world a better place take the message from Michael Jackson's Man in the Mirror. ;

Look at demographics whites are to be a minority by 2050 http://www.nytimes.com..., this is one of the reasons why the popularity for Conservatism is dieing out and you see support for Obama's communism. So the current minority is coming to be the majority in a generation and by then you'll see the USSA (United States of Soviet America). I support Occupry Wall St. and I'm white, I'm a majority in America.

It's preferred.
My opponet is mistaken I stated that these things pushed Generation X towards radical change not that they were wanting these things. Look at the past election people choose Obama who is our first Socailist president over the flip-flopper Romney and you see people are looking for change. Just look at Obama in 2008 when his moto was change. He implamented Obamacare and had it skipped over the court system. http://www.thenewamerican.com...

My opponet states that he can't find anarchist numbers well here is a list to choose from http://www.google.com...
Second all Generation X is all grown yet so all those numbers aren't accurate yet...

Abortion

I brought up a source that the American public wants abortion banned so my link compare to some random guy on the internet the source wins, cuse we don't truely know who he is and what he 'does' (no offense Roy). My sources shows that people are more Pro-Life then Pro-choice.

As these sources seem okay but my source is from a University and is more creditable and even if we use the Gallup Poll half of the Pro-chocers will be dead in a year or so when the baby boomers die out.
And you see with the Wade V. Boggs abortion isn't popular.
Extend all arguements.
Welfare
My opponet states that there would be orphans in the street, well I have two answers to this one adoption, the other is the homeless shealter. My opponet agrees that there is a problem here but he doesn't state how evolutionary change will fix it. Extend all arguements here. My opponet hasn't touched any my arguements.

Social Security
What I mean he is ruined, and if 401k is better then take that to everyone but destroy Social Security as it is driving up our national debt and it's ticking as you're reading this arguement. What I meaned destroyed is that their retirement is ruined and they have to work longer. With the debt ceiling coming up and possible defaults Social Security should be the first thing to go. All points extended.

Sources
My bad on this it might be the website, let me clear some things up,
2nd to last source is the debt clock http://www.usdebtclock.org...
I can't find the last source my bad :( http://money.msn.com...
abortion link http://www.lifenews.com... if that still doesn't work try this aswell http://townhall.com...
Is there any others you can't get I see the rest?
(Sorry for the rushed round I'm writting a paper and won't be back to Monday.)
*please don't post arguement untill Sunday.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyLatham

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate.

Revolution v. Evolution

Con argues that radical, even revolutionary, change is sometimes the only avenue left to people. Sure, but that's not the subject of our present debate. Our resolution is “Evolutionary change will best resolve the issues of abortion, welfare, and social security in the U.S.” The topic is not whether revolutionary change has ever been better in history, or whether revolutionary change might be better at sometime in the future in the U.S. Right now the U.S. has a functioning system of representative government. What we are debating is whether people who want change, most of us, should engage in the system and try to steer it in the correct direction, or whether we should stand outside and demand nothing less than the total package we have in mind. Or perhaps we can muster a strong enough majority for a radical change to force it though. Our debate is about whether the right approach is to immediately implement our vision or to pt it in place incrementally, testing each step of the change.

Evolutionary change works best. People plan their lives according to the laws in place, so it's unfair to suddenly upset the assumptions of continuity that people have made. If the sudden change is made nonetheless, there is no time for society to adapt by constructing a working alternative, and as a consequence a change that would have worked given time may fail. A change may bring unanticipated side effects that can be treated if the implementation is made step-by-step, so a basically sound approach may be rejected before it can be amended.

If Con addressed my theoretical framework, I missed it. He effectively conceded my arguments, but claimed virtues of a radical approach.

His identity argument claims that " "When a radical great change happens many people will race to see what it is and how it will work in the system." I point out that there is no reason to suppose the radical change is good. The rise of a dictator or radical theocracy is sure to garner interest, but not for any good reason. A train wreck gets more attention than a wreck gracefully averted. Con did not rebut my argument, but implied that sometimes radical change is good. For the reasons I cited, it usually is not.

Con argues that radical change is necessary, because it is now the last chance. Con argues that demographics will make “white people” a minority by 2050. Race is irrelevant. The problem is restoring and preserving freedom under a democratic Constitutional system of government, not the the racial makeup of the country. The best chance of turning the country to a fiscally sound and freedom-loving republic is by moving it incrementally through reforms. China and India, not long on white people are moving towards freedom and enterprise, while American is moving away from it towards a nanny state. Africa is moving dramatically toward free enterprise, as America retreats. http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com...

I agree that America needs to reverse course, but it is more likely to happen through a step-by-step process than by fomenting radical change. One incremental change that would help is to change immigration policy to favor skilled, enterprising people.

Con's second argument is that radical change is preferred. If they did and there were any agreement on what change s preferred, it would have happened democratically. Con's source says Gen Xers are facing radical changes. He interprets that as supposing they also want radical solutions. A person may discover that he has a serious health problem, a radical change in his situation, but not then immediately seek an unorthodox cure. Some do, just as some favor radical political solutions. Most, however, would prefer an entirely conventional cure.

I told Con I did a web search and could not find any data supporting anarchists being more than 0.1% of the population. Con provided no data supporting his claim, but instead linked a web search equivalent to the one I told him I had done. It's Con's job to support his case, and he apparently cannot cite any real numbers.

Abortion

Con has incorrectly interpreted the abortion opinion statistics. The sources of the statistics I presented were clearly reputable Quinnipiac and Gallup polls. The numbers agree with the data Con presented, but is spin is wrong. 60% of the population wants the abortion rights given by Roe v. Wade to be sustained. (My opponent made the funny mistake of calling it Boggs v. Wade. Wade Boggs is a Hall of fame baseball player.) At the same time a slight majority said they are "pro-life." That's because people are personally pro-life, but want others to maintain abortion rights.

I gave a list of issues related to abortion that need to resolved independent of Roe v. Wade. Con gave no argument as to why those issues ought to be resolved with a radical solution. I claim it cannot be neatly resolved in any satisfactory way in the near future, so we ought to let the states evolve individual solutions and see what works best in the long run.

Welfare

I explained that what I called the "orphans in the streets problem" is that a sudden withdrawal of government welfare would produce bad consequences because private charity would not have the time to develop alternative social institutions. The result would likely be that government would be called back to provide aid, and little progress would be made towards a good alternative. Con did not attempt to explain why a radical solution would be better. He pointed to the debt problem, but that only provides the motivation for finding an alternate to the present system.

Con said I didn't explain how an alternative solution would work. I assumed that everyone understood how private charity operates, but I'll elaborate. Studies show that 70% of government welfare money goes to the bureaucracies administering the programs and only 30% to the intended recipients. In private charities the administration costs are reduces to about 33% http://mises.org...

Beyond that, private charities have greater incentives to get people off assistance permanently, because they have t show donors they are successful. A private charity that does not live up to expectations will lose contributions to a competing charity. Government has no such concerns. the problem is how to shift the delivery out of government to the private charities. I argue that the shift must be done step-by-step to build a record of success. Libertarians ought to work to support the transition rather than being aloof critics.

Social Security

Con argues that Social Security faces future failure, and that he knows people worried about that. True enough, but that does not propose a solution, not even a radical one. Ending Social Security immediately solves the debt problem, but it poses an insurmountable challenge to those expecting to receive payments.

Social Security is amenable to an evolutionary approach as I suggested because it's future course is so predictable. We know the demographics and can predict accurately how many people will reach retirement age in each future year.

The Debate

I believe my opponent did not come to grips with the central issue of the debate. We start assuming that people want to change the system. No one thinks the present system is perfect. Our debate is about whether to use the democratic process to try to move the system in the right direction, subject to whatever one thinks the right direction is, or to stand aloof from the system demanding radical change. Emotional satisfaction from being radical and aloof does not justify the approach.

--------------------

Con's spelling and grammar errors interfered with reading the debate. His sources identified problems, like debt, but did not support claims of radical change being best. Sources for claims of preference were non-existent (number of anarchists) or wrong (opposition to abortion).

lannan13

Con

I'm sorry I'm just really depressed right now... I can't respond so I hate to forfeit, but there isn't much I could do... Vote for Roy... Good Luck...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
I like that hollywood undead song.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I hope Con does well. Depression can be serious.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Two characters of the debate title are truncated, my fault. It's important for debaters to know that if this happens that you cannot edit the title. Changing the title messes up the link and makes the debate inaccessible. The only way to fix it is to delete the challenge and start over.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Well played with running some intelligent Conservatism... :)
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Trinitrotoluene 4 years ago
Trinitrotoluene
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: abc
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession!
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con. R4
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit from Con
Vote Placed by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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: Concession.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
RoyLathamlannan13Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.