The Instigator
jimtimmy
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Grape
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

Higher Tax Rate on Millionaires

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,133 times Debate No: 18400
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

jimtimmy

Con

This debate is about higher tax rates on all the types of Income for Millionaires.


This includes:


Capital Gains, Interest, Regular, Business, etc... all types of income




I am against this proposal, Pro is for....


Here is debate structure:


RD1: I lay out structure. Pro makes case for Millionaires Tax


RD2: I make first arguments/rebuttals. Pro makes Rebuttals/Possible Further Arguments


RD3: I make mor rebuttals/possible new arguments. Pro makes final rebuttals


RD4: I make final rebuttals. Pro cannot make any new rebuttals/arguments in this round... to keep rounds even...



Dont forget, Pro can make no new arguments or rebuttals in RD4.... to keep things even...



READ AND OBEY TERMS!!!!



EDIT: This debate is about higher Tax RATES on Millionaires, not higher taxes per say... Right now, the top tax rate is 35%.... Pro is arguing for a tax rate higher than 35% on income above $1 Million... the top tax rate is 20% for Capital Gains, Interest, and Dividends... Pro is arguing for a higher rate than this on income above $1 Million


Clear?
Grape

Pro




This is how I feel about political philosophy at this point. Serious study of analytic philosophy has turned me into a horrible cynic after only three weeks :-P


Resolved: There should be a higher tax rate on millionaires.

Argument:

1. It would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.
2. Whatever is funny should be done.
3. Therefore, a higher tax rate should be placed on millionaires.

Validity:

This argument is valid by modus ponens. That means that its premisses logically entail its conclusion; it is impossible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion to be false. I will defend the premisses as true, and the conclusion will be undeniable.

P1: It would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.

This is self evident and should require no explanation. I get giggly just thinking about the possibility of raising the tax on millionaires a few percentage points. In order to cement the truth of this, I will present a sub-argument.

1. Whatever I think is funny is funny.
2. I think that it would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.
3. Therefore, It would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.

This is modus ponens again. The second premiss is true unless I am lying about what I think is funny. I hope Con isn't rude enough to accuse me of such dishonesty. The first premiss is at least very plausible. When I go to comedy movies, I tend to laugh at the same scenes as everyone else (though there was that incident during The Diary of Anne Frank...). It should be assumed that my comedic sense adequate. If Con wishes to challenge this, I have a reply:

1. He who does not see the humor in life is a prude.
2. A prude is not to be taken seriously.
3. Con does not see the humor in life.
4. Therefore, Con is not to be taken seriously.

The first two premisses are quite agreeable and accessible to anyone; I do not think they require explanation. The third would be evidenced by Con's behavior in disagreeing with my assessment of the tax hike as humorous. The conclusion would then once again be entailed by the premisses. And if Con is not to be taken seriously, how can we side with him in the debate? We cannot.

P2: Whatever is funny should be done.

Again, this is obvious. To illustrate:

1. Whatever is funny brings joy to people.
2. Whatever brings joy to people should be done.
3. Therefore, whatever is funny should be done.

This follows in much the same way. In order to oppose this, Con would have to deny either that what is funny brings joy to people or that what brings joy to people should be done. If Con denies that what is funny brings joy to people, he does not see the humor in life (see above). If Con does not think that what brings joy to people should be done, then he is a bad man and is not to be taken seriously (see above).

Conclusion: A higher tax rate should be placed on millionaires.

My argument has been demonstrated to be both valid and sound (its logical form is correct and its premisses are true). Therefore, the conclusion is simply undeniable. In order to remove this argument, Con will either have to should modus ponens to be invalid or show that one of my premisses is false, and both of these tasks have been demonstrated to be impossible. Indeed, through my sub-arguments I have exhausted the possible points of disagreement and shown that they are unacceptable.

Thank you for reading and vote Pro! I hope that Con will be a good sport about my approach.
Debate Round No. 1
jimtimmy

Con

This certainly is not the type of debate I had in mind. But, what the Hell?




First, let me show this:

Argument:

1. It would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.
2. Whatever is funny should be done.
3. Therefore, a higher tax rate should not be placed on millionaires.

Validity:

This argument is valid by modus ponens. That means that its premisses logically entail its conclusion; it is impossible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion to be false. I will defend the premisses as true, and the conclusion will be undeniable.

P1: It would be funny if a higher tax rate were placed on millionaires.

This is self evident and should require no explanation. I get giggly just thinking about the possibility of not raising the tax on millionaires a few percentage points. In order to cement the truth of this, I will present a sub-argument.

1. Whatever I think is funny is funny.
2. I think that it would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.
3. Therefore, It would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.

This is modus ponens again. The second premiss is true unless I am lying about what I think is funny. I hope Con isn't rude enough to accuse me of such dishonesty. The first premiss is at least very plausible. When I go to comedy movies, I tend to laugh at the same scenes as everyone else (though there was that incident during The Diary of Anne Frank...). It should be assumed that my comedic sense adequate. If Con wishes to challenge this, I have a reply:

1. He who does not see the humor in life is a prude.
2. A prude is not to be taken seriously.
3. Con does not see the humor in life.
4. Therefore, Con is not to be taken seriously.

The first two premisses are quite agreeable and accessible to anyone; I do not think they require explanation. The third would be evidenced by Con's behavior in disagreeing with my assessment of the tax hike as humorous. The conclusion would then once again be entailed by the premisses. And if Con is not to be taken seriously, how can we side with him in the debate? We cannot.

P2: Whatever is funny should be done.

Again, this is obvious. To illustrate:

1. Whatever is funny brings joy to people.
2. Whatever brings joy to people should be done.
3. Therefore, whatever is funny should be done.

This follows in much the same way. In order to oppose this, Con would have to deny either that what is funny brings joy to people or that what brings joy to people should be done. If Con denies that what is funny brings joy to people, he does not see the humor in life (see above). If Con does not think that what brings joy to people should be done, then he is a bad man and is not to be taken seriously (see above).

Conclusion: A higher tax rate should be not placed on millionaires.





I have just copied and pasted Pro's entire argument, except I have changed "a tax should be put on millionaires" to "a tax should not be put on millionaires"...


As you can see, this is just as logically consistent as Pro's argument...




Secondly, I will note that Pro does not prove that what he thinks is funny is funny. As the above argument shows, what if I think that not taxing Millionaires is funny?



Another problem is that what is funny does not bring the most joy....



Imagine a guy who is trying to get oral sex from his girlfriend.... Not being him, it would be funnier for me if he were to fail and not get oral sex.


But, for him, it would be much more enjoyable to get oral sex, even though it is not funny.


I would also wager that his enjoyment from getting oral sex would far outpace my enjoyment of him not getting oral sex...



In other words, what is funny is not always most enjoyable to everyone.




I look forward to my opponent's response...



Grape

Pro

Introduction

I am glad that Con has accepted my argument as generally correct. He asserts that he can make a small adjustment to the premisses of my argument and it will prove his conclusion. He then offers several reasons why the argument fails. For this round I will demonstrate that Pro's adjustments to the premisses make the argument unsound and that his objections are unsatisfactory.

When Con copied my argument, he did not adjust any of the text so that he became speaker. Instead, he offered a direct quote from me (properly credited) with some modifications, which he noted. Thus, the word 'Con' is still used exactly as it was before. Furthermore, when “jimtimmy” (actually me, because I am the acknowledged author of his argument) uses the word 'I,' it is clear that the 'I' intended by the statement is still me, Grape. Remember, he credits this as a quote from me with only those modifications made, which means that there is no reason to assume that the referent of the pronoun 'I' has changed. It is merely as though I, Grape, had said something different. Either Con has a multiple-personality disorder and is referring to himself in both the first and third person as though there are two entirely different people, or he must concede that this interpretation is correct. This posses several problems for him.

If Con insists that he is the author of the argument and that the word “I” does indeed refer to him and not to me, then he is guilty of plagiarism. Furthermore, this would totally fail to explain the refers to “I” and “Con” as two separate people. The repeated use of “Con” thorough Con's argument can only be in reference to himself.

Con's Unsound Premiss

The statement, “I think that it would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.” is false. I think it is funny to raise the tax, and I do not think it is funny to not raise the tax. This means that Con has failed to justify P1, and the entire argument is not sound.

Con's Self-Refutation

By contending the truth of the statement “it would be funny if a higher tax were not placed on millionaires,” Con has also asserted that the statement “it would be funny if a higher tax were placed on millionaires” is false (by the axiom of non-contradiction). That means Con has challenged me. In Round One, I wrote:

“If Con wishes to challenge this, I have a reply:

1. He who does not see the humor in life is a prude.
2. A prude is not to be taken seriously.
3. Con does not see the humor in life.
4. Therefore, Con is not to be taken seriously. “

Con copied this argument verbatim, an obvious indication of his agreement. Thus, Con's own argument demonstrates the truth of the conclusion “Con is not to be taken seriously.” That just about settles the debate because both Con and I agree that he is not to be taken seriously. As Con and I both write:

“The first two premisses are quite agreeable and accessible to anyone; I do not think they require explanation. The third would be evidenced by Con's behavior in disagreeing with my assessment of the tax hike as humorous. The conclusion would then once again be entailed by the premisses. And if Con is not to be taken seriously, how can we side with him in the debate? We cannot.”

Con has explicitly asked you not to vote for him. I am in complete agreement with him on this matter (he even did me the honor of quoting my own words to assert his position on the issue), and I advise only that you heed his suggestion.

The exact same problem occurs again under P2.

Con's Counterarguments:

All of Con's counterarguments apply just as well to his argument as mine. I could repeat:

How does Con know that what he (actually me?) thinks is funny is funny?
What if what is funny is not enjoyable to everyone?

I don't actually need to address any of these points because at face value they are just as much of a problem for Con as me and pose no disadvantage to me. However, I will demonstrate that they hurt Con's argument but not mine.

First, Con's own argument had demonstrated his agreement that what I (Grape) think is funny is funny so it is just plainly contradictory for him to assert that this isn't the case. To quote Con:

“The first premiss is at least very plausible [Whatever I (Grape) think is funny is funny]. When I (Grape) go to comedy movies, I (Grape) tend to laugh at the same scenes as everyone else (though there was that incident during The Diary of Anne Frank...). It should be assumed that my (Grape's) comedic sense adequate.”

Con has demonstrated his own agreement. I suppose his internal contradiction is to be expected of someone with multiple-personality disorder and thus should not be held against him, but it does not advance his position in the debate. This argument, presented by Con, is perfectly sufficient to answer his question, though.

Con then tells us that there are some things that he thinks are funny that do not bring joy to people. This is a non-issue because we have both agreed that only what I think is funny is relevant. Finally, I think this is just evidence that my sense of humor is sound and Con's is not. What kind of person enjoys the suffering of others? Not only does Con have multiple-personality disorder and suffer from persistent delusions, he is also a sadist.

Conclusion

Con's sanity is seriously in question here. He is plainly very unsure of who he is and who's side he's on in the debate. His argument, quoted from me, has an unsound premiss and is not deductively true. Furthermore, he directly asks us not to vote for him. This is not even dependent on the use of the word 'I' because the word 'Con' is explicitly used. That is effectively a forfeit.
Debate Round No. 2
jimtimmy

Con

jimtimmy forfeited this round.
Grape

Pro

Grape forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jimtimmy

Con

I thank pro for responding.


First, let me say that pro based his argument on the fact that I miscopied his argument, not on the meat of the argument.



Second, I sense an ad hominem attack on my sense of humor and my sanity.


Pro has still not explained whi his sense of humor is superior to mine and why being funny makes things superior.


That is all I have to say.

(Sorry, I am just lower on time than ever)
Grape

Pro

Grape forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
I don't see how the "no no" "ebuga" people get their accounts closed but this argumentation by Pro is essentially the same trash.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The challenge made the intent of the debate clear. Pro's failure to debate the topic is a conduct violation as well as failing to meet the burden of proof.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
nbd, I assumed
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Oops, forgot to extend my arguments.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Sorry, lol
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
grape, your a dick.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
I should also add that my joke approach in this debate is not in any way related to my actual problem with political philosophy. My problem with political philosophy is that I think normative knowledge is impossible because normative statements fail to refer and thus lack a truth-value.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
I should add that on account of that course I have access to knowledge that none of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, or Marx did because it was not proven until after their deaths. I wonder if a first year biology student would be arrogant to assume he could disprove Lamarck?
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Also, the course is a graduation requirement for the MA program.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Why so serious?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct as pro FF'd twice as much. Also pro really didn't debate and cons arguments where arguments. Pro was also well refuted, as his case was destroyed. A clear win for con
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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: Con demolished the Pro.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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: COUNTER BOMB!
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments didn't really measure up from a realistic stand point, nor in a humorous stand point. The logic that he attempted to use was easily pointed to be false and illogical.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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 refused to debate the topic, a conduct violation. Since Pro made no relevant affirmative argument, he failed to meet the burden of proof. Pro simply ignored the topic and launched into a nonsense topic. The challenge made the intent clear, so there are no grounds for diversion.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: As amusing (in a sort of snobby, intellectual way) as Pro's argument was, it was obviously weak, and jim did enough to defeat it .
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jimtimmyGrapeTied
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: Pro's argument was cleanly refuted. Pro's argument was very funny but wasn't strong to begin with.