The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Hot button issue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 945 times Debate No: 5068
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Give me three topics that we disagree on, that I am for, and you are against, and I'll pick my favorite, and then I'll post my constructive.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Well I want you to post your constructive with your favourite of the three topics that I will soon state. You may pick pro or con for any of the three.

1. The proprotional representation system would be better for federal legislative elections in the United States, than the current system, the plurality single vote system.

2. The United States should show strong preference towards Georgia in handling the Georgian-Russian conflict.

3. The United States Congress should not withhold major (major being defined as enough to drastically alter the state's ability to carry out a function that was funded in part or in whole by the United States Federal Government)amounts of funding toward States if the state refuses to comply with a Congressional measure. (Not a Constitutional one)

Remember, post your R1.

I'd prefer you not pick #2, just because I don't want to do that one. But really it doesn't matter.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Con for 3. Would've done PRO for 1, but whatever.

My argument will consist of one sentence. If we did not withhold funding, then there would be no motivation for a state that is in opposition to follow along. Just kidding, two sentences. As an example, when the drinking age was raised, Congress had to use highway funds as the stick to make states lower the drinking age. Without this stick, the federal government could not get the cooperation it needs.
Sweatingjojo

Con

I suppose I will try to keep my argument equally succinct.

I believe that by holding funds hostage, the government is basically taking advantage of an inherent loophole in the tenth amendment to the Constitution.
Amendment X gives states all powers not granted to the Congress in Article I section 8. The example that my opponent brings up, the changing of drinking laws, is a fine example of the loophole being used. Congress doesn't have any authority over the thousands of miles of state roads, but gave themselves authority by holding highway funds hostage.

To Rebut:

"No Motivation for states to change policies"

I believe that pressure can be exerted from the community level to change laws to make them more acceptable. (See MADD, for this instance) Pressure in politics should come from the bottom of the food chain, the people, not the top, the feds.

"Without this stick, the federal government could not get the cooperation it needs."

Why should the democratically federal government need to get co-operation from the democratically elected governments of states? If everyone is representing the will of the people, then it should work itself out naturally, without coercion.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Amendment X gives states all powers not granted to the Congress in Article I section 8. The example that my opponent brings up, the changing of drinking laws, is a fine example of the loophole being used. Congress doesn't have any authority over the thousands of miles of state roads, but gave themselves authority by holding highway funds hostage."

The issue is, sometimes Congress needs to get things done, although not necessarily with the drinking idea, but the thing is, one dissenting state could ruin something that needs nationwide cooperation. Another example would be (I shudder to say this) global warming. Pollution does not respect borders, and the federal government needs nationwide cooperation for everything to work. A state where most of the population is being stubborn and opposing the law has no motivation to pay attention to it, even if its cooperation is vital. The funding stick is necessary to gain cooperation.

"I believe that pressure can be exerted from the community level to change laws to make them more acceptable. (See MADD, for this instance) Pressure in politics should come from the bottom of the food chain, the people, not the top, the feds."

Global warming legislation is being pushed for by community groups nationwide, yet, in some more red states, community groups fight the legislation. If states could choose not to follow important global warming legislation without serious consequences, then these states would not cooperate, and the measures would not be as effective. Another example is gay marriage. Nationwide, the majority is for it. But in again, some red states, the majority is against it. So, a federal gay marriage law would fail to allow all gays that wish to marry, their right to marry.

"Why should the democratically federal government need to get co-operation from the democratically elected governments of states? If everyone is representing the will of the people, then it should work itself out naturally, without coercion."

The will of the nation is not always the will of Wisconsin. Wisconsin's cooperation however may be vital to the exercise of a piece of legislation that is supported nationwide.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Good Job, you win.

Whatever, We can do whatever you want now.

different topic?
I don't care.

100 Characters.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

With only two rounds left, the topic has now changed to "My avatar is better"

My avatar is better. It has John McCain, who is better at life, as he is richer, more famous, and is the nominee. Ron Paul, sucks.
Sweatingjojo

Con

My avatar is better, because it has a much higher resolution of pixels, and the face is more properly and realistically photoshopped onto the body.

Your baby's body is like a strange blob. Mine is clearly a baby girl.

Also, Ron Paul probably did the best for any representative running for President in over a hundred years. (maybe in all history?) If he were a Senator, I'm sure he'd still be crazy, but I think he would have potentially been nominated.

Also, John McCain is old, and patronizes everyone by saying 'my friend' to people that he is speaking to. Ron Paul just says 'f�ck you' to everybody, which makes people like him.
Debate Round No. 4
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Uhhh...

My baby body is from a younger baby which by most accounts is cuter than an older one.

Ron Paul's not even good enough to be a Senator, that's how bad he is. Abe Lincoln was a state Senator, and he won the whole d*mn election. RON PAUL SUCKS!!!!!!!

Also, he is mentally insane, and his original job was to look at women's parts. He is also racist as shown by some reliable news sources. I win, hahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Sweatingjojo

Con

One can barely tell that your avatar is younger because it is of such poor quality.
Also, your baby looks angry, and nobody likes an angry baby, because they cry and stuff.

Abe Lincoln was a terrible debater, that's why he never was a US Senator. If he ran today, people would think him equally if not more crazy than Ron Paul.

Finally, I believe that getting to look at and touch woman's parts is definitely another reason why ron paul is amazing, which extends to this avatar that has ron paul, making it amazing as well.

I win.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by rshortman 8 years ago
rshortman
That's what I want to see: two McCain crack babies duking it out over...what's that again?...whose hideous looking baby is uglier or something?
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
pro's avator looks like its trying to pinch a loaf into its diaper.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
You offered it. you shouldn't have offered one you didn't want to do.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
This is a stupid topic, why did you pick it?
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Sorry if the choices aren't "hot button" enough.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
When I say R1, I meant first constructive.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
LR4N6FTW4EVASweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
LR4N6FTW4EVASweatingjojoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVASweatingjojoTied
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