The Instigator
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
MrBrooks
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Governments should value economic equality before prosperity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 4 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,243 times Debate No: 22155
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

larztheloser

Pro

Political motions are always divisive, but this one lies right at the top of the scale. It's two years after the recession and now, in the American election, a lot of what the international media is showing is a great argument among the presidential hopefuls as to how America can be made to be as prosperous as possible. The question is - is that even desirable? Or should the governments of America and other countries aim primarily for a more equal distribution of wealth, given how some Americans are in greater poverty than ever before, while others seem only to get wealthier and wealthier?

Definitions

Since the motion is incredibly vague, let me define my idea of "economic equality". Economics is all about standard of living. Having an equal standard of living means that we get fair compensation for our work, and that we get work to do. This involves three processes. First, work must be fair, so employers can't discriminate or treat their employees badly. Second, work must provide adequate compensation to all employees to allow them to have a standard of living, but not so much that a few elites can control access to certain commodities. This is where stuff like minimum wage laws and progressive taxation comes into play, which in many ways are the most important things governments can do. Third, it means governments must do all they can to fight unemployment (I suspect we'll find some common ground here) insofar as people are able to work. In a nutshell, economic equality means we all have equal access to a standard of living, regardless of things like our backgrounds or what suburb we live in. I intend to justify all of this when the debate starts - I merely put it here so that there is no confusion over what I am actually arguing for in this debate.

My opponent is free to define how exactly he measures prosperity. Tautological definitions should be ignored.

The question in this debate is not whether a prosperous society or an equal society is to be preferred. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. The question is which option governments should generally encourage (notwithstanding exceptional circumstances), in cases where a policy decision can only work in favor of one or the other. As per usual in debating, all other words have their standard dictionary definitions.

Structure

Please only accept this debate if you're going to take it seriously.

The burden of proof is mine. This is an acceptance/definitions/setup round. Round four is a summary round, and should be used primarily to summarise the debate, as opposed to doing things like bring up new arguments. The debate is generally structured exactly like any other DDO debate.

Good luck!
MrBrooks

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to a good debate. Since it appears that my opponent is arguing that the government should promote economic equality over economic prosperity, I am assuming that he is advocating for the redistribution of wealth through governmental welfare and social programs; such as minimum wage, anti-monopoly legislation, and income taxes. Since my opponent has accepted the burden of proof, the focus of my argument shall be on refuting his arguments and I'd like to remind the voters to keep this in mind when judging the debate.

Furthermore, I will keep my definitions short and sweet. I choose to use the term, "economic growth," rather than economic prosperity. Economic growth is measured in gross domestic product (GDP,) and we will define GDP as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country.

At my opponent's request I will hold off on presenting my arguments until round two. I look forward to this debate, and wish him luck.
Debate Round No. 1
larztheloser

Pro

I thank my opponent for opening his contentions and accepting the rules of the debate. I notice a number of my opponent's other debates are forfeits, and so I hope that won't happen with this one. Nevertheless I'm excited to get this going.

Why are government here?

The indigenous people of New Zealand, who called themselves Maori, had a very wise saying. "He aha te mea nui? He tangata. He tangata. He tangata." What is the most important thing? It is people. It is people. It is people.

It is not Maori that are the most important thing, nor is it non-Maori, nor is it the poor, nor the wealthy, nor the elderly, nor the young, nor the politicians, nor the bankers, nor the generals, nor the priests - people as a collective are the most important thing. Why? It all comes down to a fundamental virtue called compassion, the golden rule, "do unto others as unto yourself". Karen Armstrong makes a very good case for this, which is why her charter for compassion project won the TED prize in 2008 (http://charterforcompassion.org... - her talk should also be on ted.com). Compassion is so important because without it, we would be a society of psychopaths (literally - psychopathy is a clinical condition that disables the brain functions allowing compassion - there's a great documentry called "Fishhead" suggesting we're already moving in that direction, unfortunately I can't link to it as it's under copyright). That's bad for the economy because it reduces our ability to understand what's happening in the market, leading to bubbles and busts - compassion is rational. It's even worse for society, because psychopaths tend to stop at nothing to get what they want, as Hollywood films tend to emphasize well. The most important thing for us all is to have compassion for others.

In the first part of the BBC documentry "All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace" (again under copyright but available in lots of places), filmmaker Adam Curtis showed that the recent American depression was the direct result of the philosophical influence of Ayn Rand, who promoted self-determination, and was entirely opposed to the idea of compassion, because of her influence over Alan Greenspan. Curtis argued that Greenspan's policies mirrored Rand's philosophy, and that it was Greenspan's policies, such as convincing Clinton to lower government spending and cutting interest rates, that led to the speculative property bubble in America, just as it had done a decade earlier in South-East Asia. That's the economic outcome of lacking compassion. That's why we had all these Occupy movements spring up. But compassion makes no distinction as to social class. A compassionate government policy gives a fair shot to everybody. A government by the people must be a government by everybody, not just lobbyests. A government for the people must be a government for everybody, not just politicians. In the famous words of Dr Martin Luther King "Ain't no justice anywhere, unless you have justice everywhere".

Government exists to protect our equality.

Specific Details

I don't think these are highly important to the debate, as they do not form part of the resolution, but I will outline them anyway. Economic equality does not mean we are all the same. Equality is often confused with socialism, and that's a mistake. A capitalist society can have equality, where all peoples have the same access to a standard of living. It can do that if the government implements three simple policies.

First, it must ensure fair work. The most effective way to maximise prosperity is with slave labour, because slaves don't need to be paid. That means your costs of production are incredibly low, and your output can be increased phenominally. The market value of all the goods would be incredibly high relative to what all the slaves could ever hope to afford. Such a society has existed before. In Ancient Egypt, the prosperity was enourmous. Their skyscrapers were the tallest in the world for thousands of years - today we can only be the tallest for a few decades. People flocked from all over the world to marvel at the Egyptian king's wealth and power. But all of this was off the backs of millions of slaves. Imagine what could have been achieved if all that effort had been instead put to compassionate causes - to helping the people. Imagine our great advances in science and art that have been stolen from us by centuries of Egyptian progress. Egpyt was a society with much progress, but no equality. Ensuring fair work means that people can't be exploited by their employers. An example would be the controversy surrounding the Foxxcomm factory in China - governments should work on fixing problems like these. Only in the last few years has China shown any signs of compassion for their struggling people at a government level. It also means fair access to work. That implies fair access to education, as some work is more specialised than other work. Where the private sector is not providing this, governments must get involved.

Second, there must be a fair wage. Henri Fayol, the great industrialist, thought this one of the fundamental principles of management - "Fair pay for fair work". His argument, in French (but Wikipedia has a good summary), was that when people see themselves as peers in terms of compensation relative to their output, then they become inspired to work harder. Therefore, if a government promoted equality, they would in effect be promoting prosperity. If they only focused on prosperity, however, equality would not necessarily result by the same mechanism, because the incentive would be gone. That's very important. But what is a good measure of compensation? Output is becoming increasingly hard to measure in our knowledge-based economy, as we move away from the industrialist era. What we can do is ensure that the wage gap isn't too large, to ensure that nobody dominates the market, but while still allowing the market to determine compensation. This is the basic rational behind the minimum wage and progressive taxes - they ensure that nobody is able to use their disparate wealth to exploit anybody else, guarenteeing a standard of living for all. For those that don't work so much for some reason or another, they get more leisure time under that system, meaning their standard of living is also provided for.

Wages are not just in money terms, however. You can't reduce the value of people's assets by polluting them and not polluting others. Pollution generally is something the government should be more concerned with than progress, both because it promotes equality and because it has the potential to kill us all. You also need laws against fraud and deciet among companies, who would otherwise lie and cheat their way into poor people's pockets. That's happened so many times around the world that it defies belief governments still allow it to happen. And it means crime must be fought - police do little for prosperity, but so long as they remain objective, they can help contribute to public safety, and thus to equality, as no neighbourhood has to put up with much more crime than any other (if police are correctly deployed etc).

Third, there must be employment. Without jobs, there can be no standard of living, because ultimately all happiness and utility we derive is either of the work of ourselves or others. People thus need to work. Humans don't amass utils by sitting around in bed until they die. I won't spend too long on this because less unemployment is good both for prosperity and for equality.

GDP

GDP is a terrible measure of progress. New Zealand's GDP is doing wonderful right now, but only because we just had a massive earthquake. Wars increase GDP but not real prosperity. Research in areas like psychology does little for GDP but wonders for prosperity. Polluting the environment is usually associated with GDP increases.

The resolution is affirmed.
MrBrooks

Con

My opponent makes a lot of quotes and a lot of claims, but he says very little and provides no objective sources to support those claims. Not only this, but he tries to deflect from the resolution by placing the blame for society's problems on Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan. Furthermore he argues for compassion, not for equality, and he does little to explain how or why the government should encourage equality. It seems he even expects us to find the sources to his arguments on our own, well if that's the case, I urge all those voting on this debate to go watch all the videos that my opponent didn't link in his arguments; this is vital to understanding my opponent's arguments, because he does not make his own arguments, he allows unlinked movies make his arguments for him.

My opponent attacked my measure of economic prosperity on the basis that GDP may increase if a natural disaster or war occurs in the country. While it is true that GDP will temporarily rise after these events, in the long-term natural disasters and wars will lead to a decrease in GDP; natural disasters allow for a temporary surge in construction and other similar industries, but once everything is rebuilt GDP declines as the new sector struggles to reach the previous level of output; wars increase output in the arms industry, but governments eventually have to raise taxes or cut programs, which leads to lower output from all industries nation-wide. [1] [2]

"Wages are not just in money terms, however. You can't reduce the value of people's assets by polluting them and not polluting others….

Pollution control has nothing to do with the resolution, and while enforcement of the law does share a relation with economics, it does not support or disprove the resolution. Enforcement of the law allows for greater economic prosperity and pollution control increases quality of life, but they have nothing to do with whether or not people are getting paid fair wages and they certainly have nothing to do with income inequality. The issue here is what the law should be, not whether or not it's being enforced. My opponent is attempting to dodge the resolution with this argument.

"Output is becoming increasingly hard to measure…."

Many economists argue that the minimum wage actually increases unemployment by making it more difficult for younger Americans to gain entry level jobs. The minimum wage also increases inflation, which makes the wage increase given by minimum wage worth less. Oh, the people that get paid over minimum wage are hit hard by the minimum wage induced inflation as well, so isn't that a kicker? This is an example of the government trying to promote economic equality, and also an example of that good will actually hurting the poor that they seek to help. [3]

Furthermore the income tax takes more money out of the hands of the rich, which could be put back into the economy to create more and better paying jobs. There really is no reason to have an income tax, since most taxes received from the rich are from business transactions and capital gains. Oh, and the income tax actually puts another tax on the poor, which just makes them poorer. It also over complicates things and allows for special interest groups to take full advantage of our tax system! [4]

Also, I don't see why people that choose not to work or are fired should get a free ride from the system. The only thing the government should provide for these people is an opportunity to get back into the work force, not a free pay check for a prolonged period of time. Now if you can't work or you're too old to work, that's a different story, but that also has nothing to do with the resolution. We're talking about income equality after all, not whether or not we should have a societal safety net.

"First, it must ensure fair work.…"

Actually slave labour is not the most effective way to create prosperity. If you were to compare the free states of 1855 America to the slave states of 1855 America you'd see a huge difference in prosperity between the two; namely that the north was much more prosperous than the south, because it had a free labor system, where people were free to prosper on their own merits. Also, my opponent is attempting to put up an Egyptian straw man here, while Egypt has nothing to do with his resolution. [5]

Furthermore, you say the government should ensure fair work, but you don't say how. Do you want the government to provide jobs for everyone? You said that economic equality isn't socialism, but what you are suggesting sounds an awful lot like socialism. What is it that you want exactly, because I have no idea from reading your argument?
"Compassion is so important because…."

MY opponent is arguing for the logical extreme here. The Soviet Union had economic equality; everyone was poor. The Soviet Union also touted the most oppressive dictators and oppressive regimes known to mankind, killing millions of its own people. Is that not psychotic? Is it psychotic to allow people to fail or succeed on their own merits, and not give them more taxes when they succeed to take care of the poor? No, it is perfectly sane to allow people to enjoy their hard earned wealth. Compassion has nothing to do with this argument.

As for the free market, there are bubbles and busts in every free economy. One of the worst economic crises in US history happened during a period when we had a lot of welfare programs for society, when government was at its largest. I'm referring to stagflation of course. Cutting government spending and lowering interest rates got us out of that economic crisis, and yes we've had crises since then, but none have been so big as the one in the 70's. When you give people the right to make choices, they will make bad choices sometimes, that's just the way it works, but they are also much more likely to make the right choices and come to the right conclusions than big government ever will be.

"Curtis argued that Greenspan's policies mirrored…."

President Clinton's administration lower interest rates and cut government spending while they were in office, which was almost a decade before the Great Recession. What happened between then? Oh yea, two wars and a massive increase in government spending. You know, the same things that lead to the stagflation crisis of the late 70's and was remedied by lowering interest rates and cutting spending? I rest my case. [6]

Conclusion

My opponent has tip toed around the resolution, hitting points that have nothing or little to do with economic equality. Furthermore, he provides no sources and actually tells you to go look it up yourself. Need I say more?

[1] http://michiganjb.org...
[2] http://economics.about.com...
[3] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[4] http://www.cato.org...
[5] http://www.socialstudieshelp.com...
[6] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
Debate Round No. 2
larztheloser

Pro

I thank my opponent for his excellent replies. I will rebut them in his order.

Sources
It's not exactly as if my opponent will dispute things like my definition of psychopathy. If he did, he could simply go on Wikipedia or about.com and prove himself wrong. When I include sources, they are not the basis of my argument, nor are they required to understand my point. They are there in case anybody wants to explore my argument at a deeper level. Sources that are under copyright, such as books and movies, are not linked all the time on other debates and nobody has a problem with it - if I did link to it, that would be a crime under the law in my country. It is wrong to suggest that just because it isn't linked to on this page, although I made it clear that it can be found on the net (both the actual videos and summaries from numerous reputable sources and critics), that means it's not reputable. But even if they aren't reputable, they're not required for my points to stand. My point is a moral one, not one that can be proved objectively. Whether governments should serve their people or act tyrannically, for instance, is a moral question, not one that can be "proved" objectively.

Deflecting from the resolution
My point about Rand and Greenspan was that Rand argued against compassion, and that under her follower's influence, programmes to boost economic prosperity destroyed the economy. If that's deflecting from the resolution, then my opponent is arguing governments and the economy are unrelated, because if governments should value the economy then it is related. But I gave a reason why governments should value the economy - people. People are affected by the economy, and governments are for the people. Therefore I'm not deflecting from the resolution.

GDP
My opponent accepts that GDP may not mean equal prosperity in the short term. If governments should aim to grow GDP, then my opponent would tell them they've done a great job now even if they've screwed the economy up in the long term. Every moment of equality is worth celebrating, but clearly not every moment of prosperity.

Pollution
It does have something to do with the resolution. If my opponent agrees this is related to quality of life, then he should also agree it's part of your income. Being forced to breathe dirty air is a cost. It may not be immediate, and it may not be monetary, but it is paid. Having the opportunity to walk in the park is, conversely, a form of income - not transferrable for cash, but it has a cash value, because others would pay to walk in that park. There is also the effect on asset values that my opponent ignored. This is the kind of holistic approach to economics that my opponent's free-market friends keep ignoring, and that governments need to keep control of. This is relevant to the resolution because governments need to ensure fairness in this respect for a fair economy, otherwise some districts (the polluted ones) are not being paid a fair wage.

Law enforcement
Again, if you're living in a lawless district, that's a cost. Imagine putting a money value on sleepless nights and constant fear of break-in. It isn't a "fair wage" if some districts have good law enforcement and others have little. That's not economic equality.

Minimum wage
If you look at the European countries with the best minimum wages (http://www.forbes.com...), they're not exactly high in unemployment or inflation. The Netherlands, with the second best minimum wage, has unemployment of 4.1% (the lowest in the EU) and only 1.3% inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org...). #1 on the list is Luxembourg, who are unfairly disadvantaged because of their small size making it very hard for them to achieve a competitive advantage in anything, but they are close to the Netherlands on unemployment (4.8%) and about 2.1% inflation (still very good compared to most other countries - http://en.wikipedia.org...). Why? Simple. You can see it happen all around the world. More equal societies become more prosperous. Everyone wants to live in them. That's why Amazon.com is based in Luxembourg now, of all places. That's in addition to all of the unresponded-to reasons I gave last round that a more equal society is also more prosperous. And this increase in prosperity more than compensates for any inflation or unemployment. Governments should thus encourage equality, and in doing so, create prosperity as a by-product. For equality does not result from prosperity, but prosperity from equality.

Progressive tax
The idea that only rich can put money back into the economy is wrong - everybody can. Poor people do when they buy anything. Government does when it spends anything. All of this provides income to businesses, which creates more jobs, just like rich people create. Capital gains etc are also progressive, because only the rich have any significant capital. It's absurd to argue against one progressive tax in favour of another - I say we should have them both! It doesn't put another tax on the poor, the ten assertions you cited had nothing to do with the poor and this was entirely unexplained by you. As for the complexity, that's with business tax. For personal tax it's actually really simple - if you earn over a certain amount, you pay more. For business, I agree in the USA that tax is too complicated. This is not a side-effect of progressive taxes - this is because some idiot in your government wanted each special interest to have a separate tax form. You can get rid of that without getting rid of progressive taxes.

Free riders
I agree again. Free riders, however, exist in every demographic, not just the poor as is commonly assumed. If people choose not to work, they should not get money from the government. They are paid in the free time they choose to have, and income is their opportunity cost. Equality is still achieved because income is not just money.

Slaves
Egypt was a government too, and therefore it is relevant. The northern states had slaves too until just a few decades before the war (http://www.slavenorth.com...). And the Southern states that had the slaves were actually far richer, accounting for most of the economic activity of the US and more than 70% of exports (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Fair Work
I would provide this with things like fair access to education and ensuring exploitation of workers does not happen, like in China's Foxcomm or France's Telecom suicides aftermaths. I said that last round.

Soviets
No, they had terrible equality. Are you saying Stalin was equal with the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union? Plus they had no labour laws - Marx's greatest mistake was that he saw the world in monetary terms. I agree people should be paid only on their own merits, regardless of their background or anything else. That's what I said last round - Fayol's whole argument was this. It's psychotic to have a system dominated by an elite, and government must protect against that.

Stagflation
All that stuff about choice is not what I'm arguing against. Stagflation in the 70s was clearly caused by the oil supply shock from OPEC, not big government.

Recession
Government spending did not cause the housing bubble - speculative lending did. That was only made possible with Greenspan's low interest rates and Clinton's loan schemes to uncreditworthy borrowers. Less government spending was not the cause of this crisis - it was the low interest rates this time, but that's not to say it won't be the cause next time. Low government spending means less GDP, as government spending is a part of that, so I guess we both agree that government spending should not be low.

Conclusion
Two words - vote pro.
MrBrooks

Con

Sources

My opponent claims his arguments are purely moral and not objective, but he attempts to support his claims with factual information, which demands the use of sources. When I addressed the issue of movies, I was referring to the fact that he did not make an argument for certain points and that he tried to have unlinked videos make those points for him. My opponent claims I’m dodging certain points of his argument, but I’m not. I’m simply disregarding opinionated intellectual property that has no objective value and is not even linked.

I’d like to remind my opponent and the voters on this debate that any objective claims made in a debate without sources are not reputable claims, and that it is the task of the debater to articulate his views, not for him to refer us to intellectual works that will make his arguments for him. In this round my opponent uses Wikipedia and other unreliable sources; I will point them out as I go through his points.

Deflecting from the Resolution

Let me reiterate that my opponent’s very broad definition of economic equality is not set in stone. Indeed the very first thing I did in this debate was state that economic equality was essentially the redistribution of wealth, and I confined the definition purely to the economic realm. Pollution may be an issue of quality of life, but it is not an issue of economic equality. Enforcement of the law is integral to keeping society safe, but it is not an issue of economic equality.

While both issues may be indirectly related to economics, they do not fit into the resolution and are not worth debating and only serve to distract from the resolution. Enforcement of the law ensures that the economy can be run without corruption or coercion, thus it is merely a bureaucratic necessity for the economy. Whether or not we manage industrial waste effectively has an effect on how industry is managed, but it really has nothing to do with economic equality; it is an entirely different issue to be argued in another debate.

It honestly seems like my opponent expected me to argue for pollution and lawlessness, rather than prosperity.

GDP

My opponent twists my words. No measurement system is perfect, especially not in the realm of social sciences. GDP is merely a measurement of economic growth and prosperity, a measurement based on the grand sum of goods and services. More goods and services generally mean that more jobs are being created and more wealth is being generated, so this is in my mind the most practical way to measure prosperity.

When you compare my choice of definition for economic prosperity to my opponent’s choice of definition for economic equality, you’ll see a key difference. My measurement is based in science and fact, whereas my opponent’s measurement is unnecessarily vague and barely touches upon actual economics.

Pollution

How much smog you breathe in is not related to the amount of money you make, as my opponent claims. Pollution may drive down property values if it is severe enough, but this has nothing to do with whether the government should focus on economic equality or economic prosperity. My opponent is trying to commoditize air and trees, and he’s trying to argue that we should conserve parks. Again, this is not a debate about conservationism or pollution; it is a debate about whether or not the government should redistribute wealth.

Law Enforcement

I’ve covered this already. It is in the interest of any legitimate capitalist government to ensure that laws are enforced, so that the government (and more importantly, its financial transactions,) has legitimacy. It seems that my opponent wants me to argue for lawlessness, but I will not.

Minimum Wage

I read through my opponent’s sources and discarded the Wikipedia sources, since they are unreliable; but I read the Forbes source and actually found an interesting paragraph that supports my argument quite nicely.

“The Irish minimum wage has become controversial after its economy contracted at an alarming rate following the collapse of its construction sector and spiraling deflation. "A lot of employers, particularly in the Irish construction and leisure and hotel sector, want to have the minimum wage cut," says Robin Chater, secretary general of the Federation for European Employers.

Ireland has a significant immigrant population and many of its largely Eastern European workers would rather take a pay packet that's below the Irish minimum wage than head back to their home countries where pay is even worse and jobs are scarcer. In Latvia for instance, the monthly minimum wage is 343 euros ($495), while in Bulgaria it's just 240 euros ($345).”

It would seem that the Irish actually want the minimum wage cut, because they CAN’T FIND WORK IN IRELAND. Wages are too high and employers are required to pay employees more than what their work is valued at, which leads to less hirings. Again, this is the result of government efforts to create a “fair” economy. These are words from my opponent’s only credible source.

Taxes

My opponent agrees that the income tax is too complicated and that it allows special interest groups to take advantage of our tax code, yet he insists upon more taxes. More taxes are not the answer and taxing the poor is not the answer, just as taxing the rich isn’t the answer. We should have the lowest taxes possible, so that we can put as much money into the hands of people as possible. Progressive taxes are flawed, because they punish you for being successful.

The more you tax, the less economic growth there is, because the government is removing capital from the economy. Less capital means less job creation, less job creation means more unemployment, and more unemployment means less taxable income, less taxable income means higher tax rates for working Americans. It’s a vicious cycle really, and it does little to foster economic equality since the rich are more likely to hold onto their wealth than spend it if interest rates and taxes are raised, which means that the little guy ends up jobless or missing out on a raise/promotion. [1]

Recession

As I stated before, there are booms and busts, ups and downs, in any free market economy. More government spending and higher interest rates slow the economy down, while lower interest rates and less government spending speed the economy up. The housing bubble collapsing did not cause the Great Recession, crony capitalism caused the Great Recession. The government bailing out banks and industries to ensure a “fair economy” made a bust into an economic disaster. [2]

It’s actually funny too, perhaps if you had read some of Ayn Rand’s work you would see that while industrialists were often the protagonists in her novels, the antagonists were the crony capitalists and legislators that tried to ensure a “fair” and “equal” economy. In Atlas Shrugged for example, the crony capitalists used their sway in Washington to pass bills like the “Equal Opportunity Act,” which made it a law that no one person could own two companies.

Then there was the “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog” agreement that James Taggart pushed through early in the novel, which forced more efficient railroads out of areas where more “established” railroads had staked claim to. I think the point here is clear; who the hell is the government to determine what is fair and equal, and why should we punish people for being good at what they do?

Conclusion

I would like to remind the voters that the burden of proof rests on my opponent, and that my duty in this debate is to refute his arguments. I believe I have adequately refuted my opponent’s arguments and that because of this, you should vote Con. I thank my opponent for a spirited debate; I had fun and have come out of this debate more knowledgeable.

[1] http://economics.about.com...
[2] http://www.macroresilience.com...
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Not every country has a republican party.
Posted by thigner 5 years ago
thigner
There is one thing we all gotta think of.

Every country's republican party ones who pursue the overall tendency to head for growh first > say that economical growh would give you all more happiness

procedure > sacrifices of citizens (mostly the ones located lower in economic hierarchy)

> the clear descent of happiness of citizens

> recurrent suffers for next generation ( they maintain)

And one more point. happiness for people is never about the GDP compared with other countries.

It's only about how equality they got in the circle which is called 'my nation'

it's very significant point all people must consider and think deeply about
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
... And my argument was that a country where some face pollution or high crime rates while others don't is inherently unequal, so is an example of a policy a government should pursue if you accept governments are for the many, not the few.
Posted by MrBrooks 5 years ago
MrBrooks
My argument is that pollution and policing have nothing to do with whether or not the government should pursue a policy of economic prosperity or economic equality.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Mrbrooks: how do your arguments against the pollution/police argument refute what pro is saying?
Posted by MrBrooks 5 years ago
MrBrooks
Go ahead.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Do either debaters mind if I ask questions about hwo the arguments function or what they're saying as I read?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Yeah, since I have nothing to do for a good half hour to an hour, I'm gonna give this debate a legit vote instead of my retarded vote.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
:D
Success!
I dunno. I may change my vote and make it an actual legitimate vote later. It's just 1 in the morning and I don't feel like reading all of that which went on in the round. I do not currently have the attention span to pay that much--

SQUIRREL!!!
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Well, I think Zaradi has cast the only vote that won't spark a comment-flurry of discontent.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Idauntiles 5 years ago
Idauntiles
larztheloserMrBrooksTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked the stance taken by the pro, but I take some issue with the statement that "Government exists to protect our equality." I understand it, but I must disagree with that statement. Other than that, though, I completely agree with the pro. Also, I hope that the con will remember in the future that complying with copyright law is not something which one can make a n issue of. Also, it sort of felt like Con was just saying that Pro was avoiding the resolution to avoid reading his argument.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
larztheloserMrBrooksTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made his case for equality, and was more polite than Con.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
larztheloserMrBrooksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: larz made many better arguments, and by round 3, MrBrooks started loading the gun and aiming at his foot. Also, a lot of claims of strawmen where there weren't any, in an attempt to control discussion along a certain line. All in all, both sides debated reasonably well, but larz did incredibly well in the first pitch.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
larztheloserMrBrooksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Furst!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!1!!!11!!!111!!!one!!!oneone!!!oneelevenone!!!!!