The Instigator
briantheponderer
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
gannon260
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Governments should not be allowed to borrow money

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...
briantheponderer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 70240
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

briantheponderer

Pro

The topic is fairly self-explanatory: governments should not be allowed to run deficits and cover them by issuing debt/borrowing money. I will be arguing that they should not be allowed to, my opponent will argue that they should be allowed to.

Suggested Format:

Rd 1: Acceptance
Rd 2: Pro states positive case, con rebuts.
Rd 3: Pro counter-rebuts, con states positive case.
Rd 4: Pro rebuts, con counter-rebuts.
gannon260

Con

I accept.

borrow- to take and use up (something) with the promise to give back something of equal value

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

should-duty or obligation

essentially you have to, mandated by law.
Debate Round No. 1
briantheponderer

Pro

1.Government borrowing distorts political deliberation:

With deficit spending, politicians can promise both increased government services and reduced taxation at the same time! Of course this is impossible in the grand scheme of things, but with government borrowing, the current generation of political beneficiaries can enjoy increased government services and reduced taxes, while future generations must pay the cost by having to put up with reduced government services and increased taxes (or increased inflation, itself a kind of tax).
The link between benefit and cost is severed in the minds of voters, enthralled by the promise of deficit spending, and what was left of rational political deliberation goes right out the window.

2.Government borrowing wastes investment funds.

When the government borrows the saved up investment funds of people, those funds are no longer available to be invested in private businesses. This is unfortunate, because private investment and government "investment" are very different things.

Private investment for purely monetary considerations involves attempting to seek out and employ resources to advance the production processes that are anticipated to be the ones that will produce the most value for the consumers, because doing so will result in the highest monetary returns on the investment. The more resources that are saved and invested privately, the more time-consuming/complicated, but also the more value-productive, production processes can be employed, and with them, the more consumer goods can eventually be produced. Thus, more private investment, guided in its application by the profit motive, is generally a boon to the economy.

When a bondholder "invests" in the government, on the other hand, the government does not seek to make the highest monetary return on this "investment" as the private businessman does. Often, the government will just use the money lent to it for present consumption purposes. If it does make what could be considered a longer-term investment, such as building a road or a power plant, it has no way of knowing whether these investments are sound or not, as it does not try to make the highest monetary return on its investments as private businesses do. As such, costs are denominated in money, while "proceeds" are not, and there is consequently no rational way of determining whether the investment was worth the cost or not.

Thus, government borrowing transforms fruitful private investment funds into bizarro government "investment" funds, which might just be consumed, or if invested, will be done semi-blindly, without the help of the private businessman"s handy profit/loss test.

3.Government borrowing is undemocratic.

If one at all believes in democracy, government borrowing and deficit spending is not it. Allowing this practice enables previous generations of voters to impose financial obligations, via the government, on future generations of voters. According to democratic theory, the current generation of voters are supposed to be sovereign, not the dead hand of the profligate past generation of voters.

4.Interest payments are a big waste

If the government takes on debt, it must constantly pay interest on that debt. For many of the debt-ridden governments of the modern world, interest payments are increasingly becoming some of the largest items in their annual budgets. Paying vast sums of money for the dubious privilege of allowing the government to waste investment funds and impose unwanted financial obligations on hapless future generations of voters seems incredibly silly and wasteful.

For all these reasons, I think that governments should be prohibited, by their respective constitutions, from borrowing any money.
gannon260

Con

Well seeing as my opponent has no evidence supporting his claims, i will carefully deconstruct his arguments.

1. Government deficit spending leads to reduced taxation and increased government services?That argument is illogical since niether political party supports your theoretical level of spending. Democrats advocate for increased taxation of the rich in exchange for more government services like obamacare. Republicans advocate for decreased taxation for everyone by cutting government services like medicare for elderly and also food stamps.

you do realize that inflation is when the valuation of money itself decreases right?

2.Government borrowing wastes investment funds?

Dude, take an economics class. The government borrows money by distributing treasury bills and bonds and in return, after a set period of time, they pay an interest fee in exchange for someone loaning money to them. Governmebs don't steal investements.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

These actually create investment oppurtunity for big investment firms. The government doesn't directly take from investements, that's illogical and false. Instead they levy a capital gains tax.

""there is consequently no rational way of determining whether the investment was worth the cost or not.""
Actually, there's this thing called the legislative branch (congress) that decides which roads can be built or not and they are divided into subcommitees, which do a bunch of research and cost benefit analysis so yea, there actually is some rational thinking involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Government borrowing is undemocratic?

According to what democratic theory? We can't pay for the debts of our forefathers who gave us this wonderful country and all the infrastructure, oppurtunity, and other services? I'm prettyy sure that the previous generation of voters made much of this infrastructure possible by borrowing for the future benefit.

4. Interest payments are a big waste?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

yep 6% a biiiiiig percentage.

Ok, your missing one key thought. What about i dunno, let's say we go to war, what do we do then? How do we start producing tanks and helicopters if were not allowed to borrow money? Almost every major conflict required the US government to borrow some level of money in the form of war bonds so they can finance their military operations that will pay off later. Are you saying that the US federal government shouldn't try and protect itself the best it can during war? Or do we raise money by imposing ridiculously high tax rates to pay for the war that might ruin peoples lives back home instead of responsibly borrowing money and paying it back steadily over the long term then robbing all the coffers of the present generation? America needs to survive, whether on the backs of our children or on the backs of us, we must protect and ensure that this wonderful country doesn't fall to extremist terrorist or communists who want to ruin America and what it stands for. Freedom.

Government deficits are good sometimes, especially when there needed during recessions to spur growth. Look at us, America's head out the recession and we're doing great! thanks to obama and his stimulus package.
Debate Round No. 2
briantheponderer

Pro

1.

Gannon: "Democrats advocate for increased taxation of the rich in exchange for more government services like obamacare. Republicans advocate for decreased taxation for everyone by cutting government services like medicare for elderly and also food stamps."

Brian: But quite obviously, democrat governments do not raise taxes enough to pay for all of their spending, while republican governments do not cut spending/services enough to be fully paid for by their reduced taxation revenue. How do I know this? Because if they did, there wouldn"t currently be a massive government deficit or a massive pile of government debt! Consequently, I"m really not sure what you"re getting at with this bizarre argument"

2.

Gannon: "The government borrows money by distributing treasury bills and bonds and in return, after a set period of time, they pay an interest fee in exchange for someone loaning money to them. Governmebs don't steal investements."

Brian: I never stated that the government steals investments, I say that they waste investments. The two are completely separate concepts. I do not doubt that private investors willingly lend the government money; what I doubt is the contention that this money can be used better by the government than it could be if it were invested privately, for the reasons stated above.

Gannon: "Actually, there's this thing called the legislative branch (congress) that decides which roads can be built or not and they are divided into subcommitees, which do a bunch of research and cost benefit analysis so yea, there actually is some rational thinking involved."

Brian: Ah, congress, the paragon of rational economic decision-making" Sarcasm aside, congressional subcommittees can certainly engage in political calculation, they just cannot engage in economic calculation. Congressmen probably have a decent feel for what projects to support in order to improve their chances of re-election; but they do not have a method of determining whether the way they expend the resources under their control is beneficial for consumers in the society"s free-market, according to these consumers" own subjective valuations and purchasing decisions. This is what the profit/loss test of private business on the free-market accomplishes, something that the government does not generally make use of.

3.

Gannon: "According to what democratic theory? We can't pay for the debts of our forefathers who gave us this wonderful country and all the infrastructure, oppurtunity, and other services? I'm prettyy sure that the previous generation of voters made much of this infrastructure possible by borrowing for the future benefit."

Brian: Firstly, I"ve yet to have come across a democratic theory that says that the dead hand of the past can restrict the sovereignty of present voters if what was done in the past was for the present voters" "own good". Such a theory is not inconceivable, it just does not seem very "democratic", as I understand the word.

Secondly, it wasn"t the debt of previous generations that made all of these good things possible, it was the savings of the previous generation that did this. There can be no debt and no investment without someone who is willing to lend their savings.

Thirdly, I dispute your implication that it was the governments of the past that enabled all of these good things; I think that it was private individuals and organizations, interacting on a free-market, that made the western world great. I suspect that whatever infrastructure that governments of the past built, private enterprises of the past could have built even better and more economically, if only the government had allowed them to.

4.

Gannon: "yep 6% a biiiiiig percentage. (for interest payments on government debt by the US Federal Government)"

Brian: Um, yeah, 6% is pretty big for a government that spends over 20 percent of the world"s biggest economy"s annual GDP every year. That comes out to 1.2% of the country"s annual GDP spent on maintaining a debt that is at best useless, at worst actively harmful.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Extra

Gannon: "What about i dunno, let's say we go to war, what do we do then? How do we start producing tanks and helicopters if were not allowed to borrow money? Almost every major conflict required the US government to borrow some level of money in the form of war bonds so they can finance their military operations that will pay off later. Are you saying that the US federal government shouldn't try and protect itself the best it can during war? Or do we raise money by imposing ridiculously high tax rates to pay for the war that might ruin peoples lives back home instead of responsibly borrowing money and paying it back steadily over the long term then robbing all the coffers of the present generation?"

Brian: The majority of the conflicts you are referring to were offensive, not defensive, wars. I think that the world would be a much more peaceful place if the people voting for a war knew they had to finance, immediately and out of their own pockets, the full costs of that war. Would make people think twice before supporting silly conflicts in Vietnam or the Middle East, among others. As such, to a certain extent I see this as a positive, not a negative.

That being said though, every war throughout history, whether financed by debt or not, used the wealth of present generations as war material. If a war is financed by debt, it is the saved-up capital of people that is tapped, if by income taxation, it is the current streams of income of people. But there is of course a way to tap saved-up capital via taxation for a war effort: just institute a temporary wealth tax, say 1% of everyone"s saved-up capital, to be contributed to the government"s coffers immediately. I would recommend not embroiling your country in expensive conflicts to begin with, but this option is always available if absolutely necessary.

Also, nowadays, all countries really need for real defense is a modest nuclear arsenal. Such countries have proven so far to be invasion-proof, for very good reason. Maintaining such an arsenal would be a regular, not an extraordinary, expense, and compared to the vast amounts spent by the US government on the military today, it would be comparatively piddling.

Gannon: "Government deficits are good sometimes, especially when there needed during recessions to spur growth. Look at us, America's head out the recession and we're doing great! thanks to obama and his stimulus package."

Brian: I disagree, I think that America would be doing much better without stimulus packages. Of course, the only way to really test our respective contentions empirically would be to go back in time and re-run history so that a stimulus package was not used in 2008, and see what happened. This is impossible, so this question can only be settled via economic theory. Specifically, which makes more sense: Keynesian economic theory, or Austrian School economic theory? This, I think, is a topic for another debate though.
gannon260

Con

Brian:"I never stated that the government steals investments, I say that they waste investments. The two are completely separate concepts. I do not doubt that private investors willingly lend the government money; what I doubt is the contention that this money can be used better by the government than it could be if it were invested privately, for the reasons stated above."

You never clearly explained nor back up your claims with evidence. Either way, your paying someone to perform different services, whether the government or not.

Brian:"Ah, congress, the paragon of rational economic decision-making" Sarcasm aside, congressional subcommittees can certainly engage in political calculation, they just cannot engage in economic calculation. Congressmen probably have a decent feel for what projects to support in order to improve their chances of re-election; but they do not have a method of determining whether the way they expend the resources under their control is beneficial for consumers in the society"s free-market, according to these consumers" own subjective valuations and purchasing decisions. This is what the profit/loss test of private business on the free-market accomplishes, something that the government does not generally make use of."

I agree that profit/loss is an aspect of free market capitalism but the fact is, many roads cannot be maintained effectively by private sectors and it may be beyond their means to own roads. Also, the federal government is the only kind of government that can run at a deficit, and they traditionlly build highways and railroads so cost-benefit analysis really doesn't come into play since these roads are used so often and provide such a service to the public. The fact is, whether or not you realize it, you pay for these roads through either tolls from profit seeking companies who want to charge you as high as possible or from the government. I'd choose the government any day over Donald Trump highway. Oh and private businesses actually can build highways and roads, it's just that they don't have the necessary federal mandates to take peoples property and compensate them for it.

The article below is about a private road tolling company that went bankrupt, proving private industry fails sometumes
http://www.nwitimes.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Brian: Um, yeah, 6% is pretty big for a government that spends over 20 percent of the world"s biggest economy"s annual GDP every year. That comes out to 1.2% of the country"s annual GDP spent on maintaining a debt that is at best useless, at worst actively harmful.

Lol, you do realize this money goes to people who buy bonds from America, so the money flows to investors who stimulate our economy.

Brian: I disagree, I think that America would be doing much better without stimulus packages. Of course, the only way to really test our respective contentions empirically would be to go back in time and re-run history so that a stimulus package was not used in 2008, and see what happened. This is impossible, so this question can only be settled via economic theory. Specifically, which makes more sense: Keynesian economic theory, or Austrian School economic theory? This, I think, is a topic for another debate though.

Ok, so i understand you disagree that we should try and stimulate our economy during times where consumption is low. But the fact is, stimulus has reverberated markets back up and ready from the great depression to the recent crash, whether in the form of tax breaks or subsidies.

so to conclude, should governments be able to have debt? I believe the answer is yes. Debt allows governments to invest in things like infrastructure, education, and tech now and then expect to receive benefits from it later on. To maintain our politic system without the use of debt would be to mandate high tax rates in the status quo to pay off our debts and to drasticly reduce spending. Doing so will not only hurt the poor and their reliance on food services and health services, but it will also harm America's economy by having to pay lots of taxes leading to less aggregate demand. Now let's say we don't pay off our debt yet we fiat a world without American debt, where we can only spend within our means. This would mean that during recessionary periods where tax revenues decreases from less income, the federal government would have to dramatically decrease operations or increase tax rates, both killing jobs. My opponents "solution" to this is by leasing out certain government services to private companies. The problem is that, private companies has the tendency to go bankrupt and fail and try to squeeze as much money from their customers as possible. My opponent sites efficiency, but i would like to site ethics. Should companies be allowed to take from our wallet to profit from a basic service that could instead be provided b a government instead of to the profit of other people? The key difference in this solution is who owns the road itself. A capitalist who seeks profit and doesn't really consider how you feel about the money and may overcharge you more then taxes, or a government official, who may not be efficient.

"just institute a temporary wealth tax, say 1% of everyone"s saved-up capital, to be contributed to the government"s coffers immediately. I would recommend not embroiling your country in expensive conflicts to begin with, but this option is always available if absolutely necessary."

woa woa woa woa, this clearly is unconstitutional, i have the right to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(originally property, also money makes me happy). That 1% of capital could be used for more efficient things outside of the government spending it. And talking about wars. I'm theoretically mentioning a potential war scenario. The utilization of a nuclear arsenal will not be rational when talking about foreign politics, since once you press that button, everyone else will try to either stop you or nuke you. We still need to maintain a military, but in times of potential defensive wars, we still need the ability to have debt to finance things when waging war. Increasing taxes to fund military operations is illogical since taxes are paid yearly and not in streams. Bonds will be necessary to maintain a fight. I'm not advocating for war, i'm advocating a potential scenario where debt may be useful for the country.
Debate Round No. 3
briantheponderer

Pro

2.

Gannon: "Also, the federal government is the only kind of government that can run at a deficit"

Brian: Firstly, though US states supposedly have a "balanced budget requirement", the fact is that almost all of them have deb outstanding, as this site shows:

http://www.governing.com...

Also, there is no such requirement for provinces in Canada, where I live, many of whom routinely run major deficits, especially my home province of Ontario.

Gannon: "The fact is, whether or not you realize it, you pay for these roads through either tolls from profit seeking companies who want to charge you as high as possible or from the government. I'd choose the government any day over Donald Trump highway. Oh and private businesses actually can build highways and roads, it's just that they don't have the necessary federal mandates to take peoples property and compensate them for it. The article below is about a private road tolling company that went bankrupt, proving private industry fails sometumes"

Brian: Yes of course someone has to pay for the roads: the question is in what way? In terms of eliciting greater responsiveness to consumer demand, the free-market method of tying payment to service is far superior to the government method of separating payment from service (paying for roads out of general taxation, and then letting people use them for "free"). When payment and service are separated, you get over-congestion on the roads caused by people driving on them for "free" and you get a lack of responsiveness to the needs and desires of road consumers.

Also, government is a giant monopolist, whereas there is the very real possibility of competition in a free transportation market, both between different owners of roads and between owners of roads and owners of other means of transportation such as railroads or airlines. It is a general rule that competition breeds innovation and excellence; whereas monopoly breeds stagnation and mediocrity.

You say that private businesses can currently build roads, and that the ones that do "sometimes fail". Firstly, the fact that private businesses can fail and go bankrupt is a good thing, not a bad thing. This means that the inefficient players can be weeded out, and their assets can be bought up by the more efficient players or by eager newcomers. This welcome force is unfortunately absent when it comes to the government.

Secondly, while private businesses can technically build roads, they are at a massive competitive disadvantage vis-"-vis the government. The government can force taxpayers to fund the construction and maintenance of their roads, and as a result, can afford to offer the service "for free". How can a private road owner, who must charge enough to cover the costs of both construction and maintenance of his road, plus labour, plus a profit to make it worth his while, be expected to vigorously compete against such odds? The fact that some private roads do manage to survive in the current environment is a fact more worth noting than that most businesses don"t bother building private roads.

4.

Gannon: "Lol, you do realize this money goes to people who buy bonds from America, so the money flows to investors who stimulate our economy."

Brian: So what? If the government paid to have a bunch of stupid pyramids constructed, the money would flow to the pyramid construction companies and "stimulate our economy" in that fashion. The point is not just to spread money around to any random person; the point is to pay people to do useful things for society, so that they are encouraged to do these things rather than useless or counterproductive things.

Con"s Case

Gannon: "My opponents "solution" to this (a government operating without the use of deficits) is by leasing out certain government services to private companies. The problem is that, private companies has the tendency to go bankrupt and fail and try to squeeze as much money from their customers as possible. My opponent sites efficiency, but i would like to site ethics. Should companies be allowed to take from our wallet to profit from a basic service that could instead be provided b a government instead of to the profit of other people? The key difference in this solution is who owns the road itself. A capitalist who seeks profit and doesn't really consider how you feel about the money and may overcharge you more then taxes, or a government official, who may not be efficient."

Brian: I fail to see what is wrong with people offering a "basic service" (however that is defined) to others, with the hope of profiting from the transaction. Isn"t the main thing that the service is delivered effectively to the people who want it? Why is it a bad thing if both service provider and service receiver benefit? Isn"t more benefit a good thing? If according to "ethics" it isn"t, then I want nothing to do with that set of ethics.

Also, what"s with the assumption that government officials "consider how you feel about the money" and don"t "overcharge you". Government officials are human beings just like capitalists are. If we assume that the latter are callous and greedy, than we should assume that the former are as well. And because the government has more power to abuse than a private businessman does, we should be more concerned about the former than the latter.

Extra

Gannon: "woa woa woa woa, this (a wartime wealth tax) clearly is unconstitutional, i have the right to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(originally property, also money makes me happy). That 1% of capital could be used for more efficient things outside of the government spending it."

Brian: Well, the income tax used to be unconstitutional too, as were the kinds of measures that eventually became the New Deal, until the Sixteenth Amendment and a more "amenable" Supreme Court changed that. But yes, I of course agree that capital can be used more efficiently when in private hands, something which I actually included in my case, point #2, so thank you for agreeing with me there. You should realize though that whether government borrows capital or taxes it, that capital is unavailable for private investment, so I"m not really sure what you"re getting at here.

Gannon: "We still need to maintain a military, but in times of potential defensive wars, we still need the ability to have debt to finance things when waging war. Increasing taxes to fund military operations is illogical since taxes are paid yearly and not in streams. Bonds will be necessary to maintain a fight. I'm not advocating for war, i'm advocating a potential scenario where debt may be useful for the country."

Brian: I will concede that debt "may be useful", though not indispensable (irregular tax levies in wartime emergencies are not unprecedented by any means) in the incredibly rare scenario where a nuclear armed power must fight a sudden, unexpected, defensive conventional war. But in light of all of the numerous harms allowing governments to run debts results in, forsaking convenience in such ultra-rare, hypothetical scenarios is a very small price to pay.
gannon260

Con

Brian"Also, what"s with the assumption that government officials "consider how you feel about the money" and don"t "overcharge you". Government officials are human beings just like capitalists are. If we assume that the latter are callous and greedy, than we should assume that the former are as well. And because the government has more power to abuse than a private businessman does, we should be more concerned about the former than the latter."

A business man is much more profit motivated and callous then a government official. A government official job is to maintain whatever department he is a part of and do his job. A capitalist by definition is-a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism. A capitalist will try and attain as much profit as possible while a goverment office will not. This is fact, not fiction.

"Brian: I fail to see what is wrong with people offering a "basic service" (however that is defined) to others, with the hope of profiting from the transaction. Isn"t the main thing that the service is delivered effectively to the people who want it? Why is it a bad thing if both service provider and service receiver benefit? Isn"t more benefit a good thing? If according to "ethics" it isn"t, then I want nothing to do with that set of ethics."

I can infer that you are a libertarian. The problem is not that it is wrong for private companies to provide services for the government, it is that having private companies control these services may have potential negative consequences. If we are to allow private institutions to open, they would only flock to highway systems since they are the most profitable. This means that private corporations will take all the big and profitable roads while the US government is stuck paying the rest of the bill. Private companies cannot solve everything. The government would also have to place many regulations to ensure that roads are salted and thus safe, roads are repaired, consumers don't get overcharged, and antimonopoly laws to prevent something like carnegie. If a monopoly arises from the road business, what difference would it be to the government?


Brian:"I will concede that debt "may be useful", though not indispensable (irregular tax levies in wartime emergencies are not unprecedented by any means) in the incredibly rare scenario where a nuclear armed power must fight a sudden, unexpected, defensive conventional war. But in light of all of the numerous harms allowing governments to run debts results in, forsaking convenience in such ultra-rare, hypothetical scenarios is a very small price to pay."

so the question is, should the US government be allowed to borrow money? Yes, Brian agrees somewhat with me here. We should try and limit how much we borrow, which i agree with Brian here and that we borrow far too much. But the fact is that borrowing can be very instrumental in times of war or other scenarios where the whole country is at threat. I thank my partner for having a nice discussions with me on debt.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
As for the debate itself, I feel there were several arguments neither of you raised, though obviously this didn"t factor into my voting decision. CON, on the point of roads, you should have raised the point that roads are a public good"that it would be inefficient for a private company to handle alone because the marginal social benefit outweighs the marginal social cost, and it"s impossible, or inefficient, to prevent the "free rider" problem. PRO, you should have better developed the point that taxes are undesirable and distortionary, and that deficits increase expectations of future taxes. This was undermined considerably by your recommendation of a "war tax."
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
RFD Part 2

What won this debate for PRO was his argument on risk calculation: this was consistently dropped by CON, only for him to concede later that the private sector may be more efficient than the government. Further, the objection to a wealth tax by CON"and, mind you, PRO gave me no reason at all to prefer a wealth tax to a deficit, so I couldn"t count that impact in his favor, in much the same way I couldn"t count his normative remark on "not fighting offensive wars" or the claim that X debt figure is high and thus undesirable without some tangible impact or frame of reference"actually conceded this point. The argument on the Constitution, as well as the claim that Democrats and Republicans support X, but not Y, was rather silly, and confused "is" with "ought," but PRO never addressed the argument from this vantage point. By CON claiming that funds could be better used by the private sector than the government, thus obviating the need for a wealth tax, I immediately had to give the risk calculation argument to PRO, thus tipping the balance in his favor.

Overall, though, there were a multiplicity of arguments that were not developed in this debate. PRO, you cannot claim that economics is beyond the purview of this debate when you"re making an economic claim. CON, you cannot make an assertion of ethics, and claim you would rather pay the government than a "Donald Trump" and expect me to prefer this impact without a valid reason to do so. Further, providing me with a debt figure of net interest in one year without some historical reference or analysis of what this figure means"and the same goes for PRO, who argued that the figure is large, though at least he told me that this would tend to mean less private investment, though CON rebutted this by noting that interest is paid out to individuals"won"t do much.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
RFD Part 1

This debate was actually rather disappointing, as CON would consistently argue *over* PRO in lieu of engaging his arguments. Additionally, neither fully engaged the material or sufficiently substantiated claims"be they normative or economic"they made, which turned this into a game of assertions, in lieu of an intellectual discussion.

I disregarded essentially all of the discussion on economics, because CON made baseless claims such as "the stimulus boosted the recovery," to which PRO disputed, but insisted was the subject of another debate. It is most certainly a topic for this debate, as the ability to demonstrate that a deficit is economically beneficial is a significant impact, and that probably would"ve bolstered this entire debate. Further, I disregarded the discussion on ethics, as CON gave me no reason to believe that I should value equity over efficiency. In other words, he did not establish a preferable moral framework for me to evaluate values claim, so I"m left only with competing assertions, and thus no prevailing impacts.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I'm going to add my vote to this a bit later, hopefully.
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
you too
Posted by briantheponderer 2 years ago
briantheponderer
Thanks for the discussion man: good stuff.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
briantheponderergannon260Tied
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: RFD in comments.