The Instigator
justiceandtruth
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dripht
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 84246
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

justiceandtruth

Pro

I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress. The neg must disprove my plan, or the neg must offer an alternative economic solution that will facilitate more economic progress. In this debate there will be four rounds;1) Acceptance of the debate ;2)Introductory arguments; 3)Rebuttals ;4) Closing remarks/summations. These are the only preferences I have; I am eagerly awaiting a knowledgeable opponent, good luck.
dripht

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
justiceandtruth

Pro

The American population is under the constant notion that our policy makers can wave a magic wand and create economic prosperity. However, the politicians on Capitol Hill fool themselves and their constituencies, whether it be a buttress to their hubris or otherwise, into believing that the pen alone can promote economic growth. Adherents to the preaching of Reaganomics cite that tax cuts and deregulation of industry promote growth. Interestingly enough, when president George Bush pursued similar policy initiatives, economist from around the country convened to construct the Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts, which in summation stated:
In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."

The position I would like to pursue is to promote economic growth through the only Government institution that has been proven to have a direct impact on the economy: The Federal Reserve. In his article, How the Federal Reserve Can Help or Hurt the Economy , Josh Bivens indicates that the Federal Reserve has the power to not only expedite post recession recovery but also catalyze necessary growth:
"In the short run, the Fed should keep providing support to economic activity and jobs until we reach a genuine full recovery from the Great Recession. At a minimum, this means keeping short-term interest rates low until wage growth is in line with the Fed"s overall inflation targets and the labor market is back to pre"Great Recession health."

Furthermore, my economic policy is as follows;

1) Promote spending by making it a more feasible supposition:
It is a generally accepted notion that since 2009, the United States has experienced a general upward trend in economic growth,GDP, and spending. The reason for this upward trend is the fact that interest rates have been virtually zero. Without the worry of having to pay exorbitant interest, the taboo of spending is lifted and consumers now have an incentive to spend more in the economy.This entail creates an environment that stimulates growth.

2) In addition to keeping interest rates low, we should invest in education.
Another key facet to economic growth is continued investment in education. The name of the economic game is that of innovation. Innovation requires creativity ;creativity requires inquisition; and inquisition requires education. According to US News, federal spending on education, since 2011, has been cut by more than twenty percent. While we cannot yet quantify relative effects, we can predict that the United States will not be leading the charge in innovating tomorrow. If we continue to let children, the future of america, suffer, then we are only allowing our economy and our country to fall behind.

3)Lastly, we must focus on an investment in infrastructure
With an economy driven by the transportation of goods, we must have a healthy transportation system. Our roads and highways, which once pioneered a sense of optimism and global leadership, now threaten to leave the United States in the dusty recesses of history. According to The Washington Post :"The gloomy bit: America's infrastructure only warrants a D+, with the ASCE estimating that we'll need to spend an extra $1.6 trillion between now and 2020 to patch things up." In order to grow, steps will have to be taken to create an efficient infrastructural system. Once we do, our economy will start to really grow.

These are the policy initiatives that I wish to pursue and I believe they have the incredible potential to catalyze economic growth.
dripht

Con

Case
Greetings! So the first thing I noticed: is that all of these would trade off with eachother. If we increase investment in spending, infrastructure, and education - we won't have the $1.6 trillion regardless of growth.

To begin with, let's start with their first policy:

Empirically, the spending process hasn't worked. Ever. The article starts off with: "In a throwback to the 1930s and 1970s, Democratic lawmakers are betting that America's economic ills can be cured by an extraordinary expansion of government. This tired approach has already failed repeatedly in the past year, in which Congress and the President:
  • Increased total federal spending by 11 percent to nearly $3 trillion;
  • Enacted $333 billion in "emergency" spending;
  • Enacted $105 billion in tax rebates; and
  • Pushed the budget deficit to $455 billion in the name of "stimulus."
Every one of these policies failed to increase economic growth."

This isn't the first time, either. "Massive spending hikes in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s all failed to increase economic growth rates. Yet in the 1980s and 1990s-when the federal government shrank by one-fifth as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)-the U.S. economy enjoyed its greatest expansion to date. Cross-national comparisons yield the same result. The U.S. government spends significantly less than the 15 pre-2004 European Union nations, and yet enjoys 40 percent larger per capita GDP, 50 percent faster economic growth rates, and a substantially lower unemployment rate. When conventional economic wisdom repeatedly fails, it becomes necessary to revisit that conventional wisdom. Government spending fails to stimulate economic growth because every dollar Congress "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. Thus, government spending "stimulus" merely redistributes existing income, doing nothing to increase productivity or employment, and therefore nothing to create additional income. "

(http://www.heritage.org...)

---

And on their third point: there are multiple reasons that infrastructure building is bad, not only for the investment - but suburban communities. First off, my article says: "Infrastructure projects are quickly overtaken by new and unanticipated technological improvements. The federal government spent a lot of money building and maintaining coastal lighthouses—until GPS technology made them obsolete. Cities spent lots of money acquiring land for reservoirs and building aqueducts—but advances in desalinization and wastewater treatment technology today can make some of those earlier investments look shortsighted."
and then states that it displaces the people right after in the next point:
"[...] Building interstate highways through the middle of cities destroyed functioning neighborhoods, hastening suburban sprawl (and enabling both white flight and school re-segregation). If you believe that car exhaust fumes contribute to global warming, then the interstate highway system is a contributing factor in that, too."

What's interesting, however - is this infrastructure project puts the money in the hands of the CEOs and might even give the government a harder time to borrow for later projects, including the education portion of the pro with low interest rates: "Big infrastructure projects enrich the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Big, politically connected construction contractors do well, while the little guy with the misfortune to live in the path of “infrastructure” gets told to get lost. 9. The mere fact of low interest rates is not sufficient reason to borrow. If the government uses its borrowing capacity up now on infrastructure, it may have a harder time borrowing in the future for some more urgent need."

(https://reason.com...)



Capitalism Kritik

To begin with, transportation infrastructure "facilitates growth", sure. However, this sustains capitalism and is really just an orthodox part of capitalism.

Iowa State Daily, December 7, 2011, “Road, Rail Infrastructure is Part of Orthodox Capitalism,” Michael Belding, http://www.iowastatedaily.com...

However, this expansion of infrastructure is only oriented to accumulation and growth. It ensues socioeconomic and political crises which will lead to extinction.

Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition”

Their encouragment of ethics - or the encouragagement of the capitalist attitude is basically refortifying the slavery and genocide of founding American ideas.

Lindsay 10—(Peta, She is a Youth and Student “Columbus Day: US Capitalism Built on Slavery, Genocide”, Red Ant Liberation Army News, October 11, 2010, http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com...) –Singh


The alternative is to reject the pro. The only way to destroy capitalism is “an inside attack” which necessitates total rejection of all capitalist relations. This ensures we destroy the system at its source and do not merely reform it in the short term

(James Herod, “Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods,” Boston, 2007, http://www.jamesherod.info...)


Resisting reliance on capitalism is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale. [This better solves for education because some people are so low in class they can't even go to a public school.]

Zizek and Daly 2k4 (Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16)



Debate Round No. 2
justiceandtruth

Pro

Hmm, it seems that you have misunderstood my stance on spending. I am not advocating government spending, I am rather advocating consumer spending . Specifically I said, "the taboo of spending is lifted and consumers now have an incentive to spend more in the economy." Thus, the premise of government spending and the evidence you provided which negates the effectiveness of such spending is irrelevant.

Furthermore let us address the ideas advocated by the con. In your case you say that infrastructure projects " look shortsighted" and "destroy[ed] functioning neighborhoods." However, economist Balaji Viswanathan advocates the converse:
Infrastructure projects - electricity, roads, airports, water systems and telecommunications are the foundations of modern economies. They have a huge multiplier effect (a dollar spent on infrastructure leads to an outcome of greater than two dollars [1]).

When you put up a power plant, you not only generate employment directly through construction and operations at the power plant, but also create an industrial base around the plant who would want to tap the power. These industries would get more entrepreneurs and employ more labor. These workers would purchase more goods from the markets, creating a virtuous cycle.

When you put a road through a backward area, you bring them close to employment options, markets and better healthcare. Infrastructure is the key to wiping poverty."


(https://www.quora.com...)

Rather than being short sighted, infrastructure investment is a necessary perquisite to facilitate economic growth and act as an incentive to get the labor force moving. Also, rather than disrupt and usurp the harmony of Sub-Urban communities and "enrich the powerful at the expense of the powerless." , infrastructure projects connect suburban communities to labor opportunities which has the incredible potential to help the powerless become powerful.

Now, on to the Cap K.
As a former debater I so vividly remember the innumerable Cap K's that various opponents brought up. The problem with each Cap K is that it denies pragmatism in favor of theory. In other words, a cap k provides no alternatives to capitalism, rather it provieds a list of inherent grievances. As such, I shall address and disavow each grievance separately;

1)"However, this expansion of infrastructure is only oriented to accumulation and growth. It ensues socioeconomic and political crises which will lead to extinction."
The con provides no scenario as how growth will lead to extinction. Thus as an unwarranted claim, this assertion carries no weight. Furthermore, rather than catalyze extinction, capitalism deters extinction through medical advances.
Stossel '15;
"Trying to take money out of medicine will deprive us of the very innovation we want. Drug companies are the ones with the resources to create cures. It's insane to limit their access to medical research.

Tom just wrote a book about this titled Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation.

One way that the anti-capitalists want to purify medicine is by urging people not to trust scientists who consult for industry and to ban them from government advisory panels and scientific studies. But it's usually the smartest researchers who are hired by industry. Banning them means banning the most qualified scientists.
"

2)"Their encouragement of ethics - or the encouragement of the capitalist attitude is basically refortifying the slavery and genocide of founding American ideas."
In his book, Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan proposes that Capitalism is a self correcting system. Interestingly enough, the United States has outlawed slavery with the 13th amendment. Furthermore, Case turn, genocide was present under the Fascist regime of Adolf Hitler; the Communist Regime of Yosef Stalin; and the Communist regime of Mao Zedong. This shows that genocidal regimes are present regardless of the presence of capitalism and further negates the legitimacy of the "Kritik".

3) (I will lump these arguments together) "The alternative is to reject the pro. The only way to destroy capitalism is "an inside attack" which necessitates total rejection of all capitalist relations. This ensures we destroy the system at its source and do not merely reform it in the short term" and "Resisting reliance on capitalism is the ultimate ethical responsibility " the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale. [This better solves for education because some people are so low in class they can't even go to a public school.]"

By destroying capitalism you destroy innovation. The books you read, the articles you cite, and the very computer you type on are products of the competition of capitalism. Capitalism promotes growth, innovation, work ethic, and efficiency. Without capitalism, man kind would be decades, perhaps even generations behind. Imagine not having the medicinal advantages we have today. If you got sick with even the most rudimentary illness it could mean a one way ticket to the morgue.

Lastly the con again perpetuates a claim without a warrant. A rejection of capitalism will not foster better education, similar to the reasons stated above.

The cap K should be rejected on grounds that it provides no alternative for us to choose. Granted capitalism may have its flaws, the system of capitalism does have necessary advancements that have only aided the human condition. On one hand, we have a world that rejects a system of competition, has no incentive to work hard, and devalues innovation. On the other hand, we have a world that has competition, values ideas that are outside the box, values work ethic, and stimulates innovation.

In closing, as I previously stated, low interest rates provide an incentive for consumers to spend into the economy, which, by definition, facilitates growth. Lastly, the education contention basically went uncontested and thus should be accepted as true within the round. All factors being considered promote growth and thus facilitate progress.
dripht

Con

**I don't know if I missed anything, when I hit review it erased some of my stuff...***
Capitalism

The pro starts off that the K doesn't do anything because of it's theoretical objection.
Our alternative is to reject capitalist action in every instance–in this round, we are presented with the plan, and we say you should intellectually reject capitalism instead. We don’t need to win that this one round spillover to all of capitalism, simply that intellectual is the best mechanism to solve.

The role of the ballot is to use the ballot as an opportunity to criticize the system of capitalism as good and here to stay. Our responsibility as intellectuals is to consistently attack this notion –only by continued relentless criticism and spreading of this belief can we delegitimize the system. Each incremental victory is a rupture within capital

Kovel 02 (Joel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studes at Bard College, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? pg 223-224)

Our alternative also says, and I quote:
"This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else.It calls for totally replacing capitalism with a new civilization. This is an important distinction because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms as a system."

This change of civilization overrides the genocidal regimes - fascism, Stalin's reign - and Zedong, we are a long term change rather than the short term alternatives proposed before. Besides, this is just liberal democratic blackmail.

They say capitalism is self-correcting: it's not, i.e., ecosystem collapse is a market externality.

"i"ek 2008 [Slavoj, Professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and writer for Abercrombie & Fitch Quarterly, In Defense of Lost Causes pp.421-424]

They also say just because the United States got rid of slavery all of a sudden it's gone? Slavery still exists, and to answer that I'll give you a quote by Zizek: "It is the very success of capitalism (greater efficiency, raised productivity etc) which produces unemployment, rendering more and more workers useless: what should be a blessing – less hard labour needed – becomes a curse. Or, to put it differently, the chance to be exploited in a long-term job is now experienced as a privilege"


View their turns sceptically - it's flawed by the logic of capital, and is probably just liberal blackmail.

Meszaros 95 (Istavan, Prof. Emeritus @ U of Sussex, Beyond Capital: Towards a Theory of Transition, p 71)


Capitalism doesn't "deter" all of extinction, they provide one specific form that I will discredit in my next part, my card talks about larger things than medication - socioeconomic, political, etc.

Disease exists in the squo because of capitalism, and ensures any action against an outbreak will fail - "The environmental preconditions for the rapid inter-species evolution of influenza have spread far wider, including the developed world, in the wake of the rise of the intensive, factory-line industrialisation of poultry and pork production. The “viral food supply” has dramatically enlarged, especially in the “disease factories” of the massive slum peripheries, home to 1 billion people, in the poor world’s mega-cities."

Shannon 2007, book reviewer of The Monster at our Door, by Mike Davis, professor of history at the University of California

[Phil, “Bird Flu – the not-so-natural-disaster of our times,” Cultural Dissent, July 18, http://www.greenleft.org.au...]

They also say the Meszaros card (extinction) has no warrant - but rather it talks about how capitalism's accumulative destruction of socioeconomic and politics. It talks about how two world wars were created by this process, and creates SELF-DESTRUCTION for the social reproductive system and humanity. The implications of this power of uncontrollability only secures capitalism's victory. -

Our Herod evidence is incredible – rejection of the capitalist system is unprecedented – it deconstructs capitalism while replacing it with noncommodified relations and the debate round is a site for transformative pedagogy – voting con has the potential to replace capitalism with an ethos of democratic discussion

Giroux 2005, phD, Carnegie-Mellon University; Chair Professorship at Penn State University [Henry, “Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalism,” Fast Capitalism 1.2 2005]

(Richard Peet, prof of economics @ London School of Economics, 1975, “Inequality and Poverty: A Marxist-Geographic Theory”)

Capitalism in the present fails- reform to eradicate poverty possible using social business- debaters key to future

Yunas, Managing Director of Grameen Bank, co-winner of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, ‘07

.” http://web.ebscohost.com...


They say we don't do anything for education but if you read further into our Zizek and Daly ev, it says:
"global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation."

The developing world doesn't have much education, considering how much we've exploited them in the name of "Growth"

Case
They conceded my first part that all of these have a trade-off, proving they can't solve for any of the three. Means you presume con, because there's nothing that they do.

They missed the BIG part of my infrastructure argument. Empirically, infrastructure development - including terms of low investment rates still displaces people. I will repeat that it says: " Building interstate highways through the middle of cities destroyed functioning neighborhoods, hastening suburban sprawl (and enabling both white flight and school re-segregation) [which will, of course, hurt education.]" The economist doesn't ever take into account what HAS happened and repeats the same mistake TWICE. It's also the creation of new tech that makes the older obsolete - and causes the states/companies to acquire resources THEY DON'T HAVE. I'm going to call into the question of their fiated solvency, since when has building infrastructure actually created jobs? Many people already hold these jobs. It doesn't give power to the people, part of the argument says that big, politically connected contractors give the little guy nothing to work with by taking his house.

Debate Round No. 3
justiceandtruth

Pro

I will present no new arguments for my side but I will address your notions.
This debate has come down to the perspective of two prevalent issues; 1) My economic policy consisting of low federal interest rates and investment in education and infrastructure; and 2) the capitalism "kritik".

On the first issue, I believe it is accepted in this round that my plan will in fact facilitate growth because the con has advocated a cap K to dissuade the growth. Furthermore, the con assumes that "cap" provides solvency for education and infrastructural investments. This is totally missing the boat: the aim of the projects was not solvency on the issues of education and infrastructure but to promote econ. growth.

The con poses the following concerns in terms of infrastructure investment
-relocation of suburban communities
-infrastructure investment is obsolete because new technologies usurp old ones

Premise 1: The relocation of suburban communities is not a bad thing. As stated by Balaji Viswanathan, "When you put a road through a backward area, you bring them close to employment options, markets and better healthcare. Infrastructure is the key to wiping poverty." The rebuttal as stated by the con ,"[ Balaji] doesn't ever take into account what HAS happened and repeats the same mistake TWICE." accentuates the negatives but blatantly denies the positives. Beyond urban sprawl, as I stated in my opening arguments, America needs infrastructural investments. " According to The Washington Post :"The gloomy bit: America's infrastructure only warrants a D+, with the ASCE estimating that we'll need to spend an extra $1.6 trillion between now and 2020 to patch things up." Infrastructure investments are not a want but a need. On one side of the coin you have a dilapidated infrastructural system that holds america back from competing on the global scale; on the other hand, you have an infrastructural system that promotes efficiency and thus econ growth. Suburbanites pale in comparison to national well being and thus preference should be given to infrastructure investment.

Premise 2: Infrastructure investment is obsolete because new technologies usurp old ones
This argument is ironic given the cap k. If we refuse to invest in infrastructure to give way to new technologies, then the con automatically links into their own k. Let me explain it like this, new technologies lead to innovation, innovation leads to progress, and progress leads to growth. So, either the con advocates for new technologies or the con advocates for the cap k. These promotions are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Henceforth, if we refuse to invest in infrastructure, then I surmise we will invest in our own economic deterioration. We must enhance our national infrastructure period.

On to the K.
Again the con fails to supply a feasible alternative. Rather than provide a concrete substitute for capitalism,like socialism, communism, or fascism, they advocate an ambiguous policy which "replac[es] capitalism with a new civilization"; and "Our alternative is to reject capitalist action in every instance...we say you should intellectually reject capitalism instead.."
What does this intellectual rejection of capitalism look like. Should we starve ourselves just to boycott capitalist practices? Or what if every time we went to the store we picked up an item just to put it down? Anyway, this alternative is much worse than capitalism and should thus be rejected.

Furthermore, the idea that "Disease exists in the squo because of capitalism" is outright false. This advocacy would suggest that an eradication of capitalism would alleviate all diseases. However, as I stated before, capitalism promotes medicinal progress. Extend Stossel '15:
"Trying to take money out of medicine will deprive us of the very innovation we want. Drug companies are the ones with the resources to create cures. It's insane to limit their access to medical research.

Tom just wrote a book about this titled Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation.

One way that the anti-capitalists want to purify medicine is by urging people not to trust scientists who consult for industry and to ban them from government advisory panels and scientific studies. But it's usually the smartest researchers who are hired by industry. Banning them means banning the most qualified scientists."


On to the slavery argument, your Zizek quote mentions nothing about slavery, rather it is an observation about unemployment, which will be alleviated with an overall increase in economic growth.

My plan will facilitate growth, low interest rates create an incentive for consumers to spend, infrastructure increases economic efficiency, and education produces a more innovative labor force. Combine these factors and you have an atmosphere that gleams with the potential for economic growth and development.

Finally in summation, let me compare the pro vs. the con interpretations of capitalism. In my world, capitalism provides innovation and creativity. Individuals are inspired to work hard and ingenuity is awarded. Although there is poverty, bias, and corruption sprinkled within the inherent structure of the system, capitalism provides a way for the poor to move forward, the oppressed to find their voice, and the corrupt to be displaced by men of good will. In the other world, a "intellectual rejection of capitalism" leaves people dazed and confused. Creativity and innovation become stifled because ingenuity is seen as a means to "[refortify] the [ideas] of slavery and genocide. " Strides in medicine are squandered and poverty becomes an inescapable abyss.

The choice is simple, choose my capitalist plan because it not only facilitates growth but also provides the freedom for individuals to pursue their passions. The alternative provides a stark and bleak future with little hope for a better life.

Great Round, I thoroughly enjoyed it!
dripht

Con

Case

The burden should now be placed on the pro, as it was defined in the very first part of the debate, when I must prove why it's bad OR provide my own.

He conceded that he links to the Cap K.

They conceded my trade-off argument: the education of promoting growth, infrastructure spending, and consumer spending will not all work together. This is an inherent part of the pro's arguments, meaning that you can have ONE but not the others.

On his first premise:
How would you feel if you had to move from a house you've lived in for your whole life, much less if you just moved in? Big boss CEO would be like: "Get over it, you're either with us or against us. Work for me, or I won't let you 'live a happy life'." That type of extortion is the same reason why capitalism happens to be bad. That big boss CEO just sees money: he doesn't see the people living there. That's kind of also the part of Zizek's quote, which I will explain why it explains why slavery is gone. Infrastructure and consumer spending doesn't do anything for housing options, just creates roads and power plants - almost as if it's a farm for production. It also puts in place segregation, and white flight. Another impact to voting pro.

The reason why I'm so ideologically restrained against infrastructure? Back when I was 7 to 10 years old, I faced the looming threat that the concrete plant (Dolese) I've lived next to - all of my LIFE was going to demolish my home, and use it as a means of producing more concrete. I have a personal story versus this, they use the perspective of priveleged economists who don't have the experience of living in a suburban community undergoing so much sprawl.

To the second premise:
It doesn't undermine the capitalism critique in whatever way at all: if we refuse to engage in a capitalist action, i.e. - creating infrastructure technology -- in the name of ECONOMIC GROWTH would be gone in the ethos of democratic debate. I never provide any other link except using infrastructure for growth, and that being net worse. Also, they never challenged why my stance of using multiple worlds is better, and I'll provide a reason to prefer after I'm finished with the second premise. His last point on this proves he can't solve for economic growth, and proves my trade-off argument.

Now, multiple worlds are key to debating, and here's why:
A) Education - In order to provide the most offense and defense, debate centers around this theory of multiple worlds. It allows for con flexibility and offsets the potential infinite prep that the pro could've had.
B) Pro strategy - where does he spend more characters on, case or the critique?

Err con on theory - they provide no reason as to why using multiple worlds are good.

The K-
The alternative actually has multiple sets of literature. Let's go back to the Giroux card, what does he mean by replacing capitalism with democratic discussion? We have to oppose the authoritarian politics of capitalism, and provide means for developing an enclave of resistance and movements. Our pedagogy is crucial, it creates a hope as a precondition for agency, to find a way out of the manufactured cynicism that accompanies capitalism. Agency is, and must be organized through pedagogical relations - and reclaimed through collective resistance. These kind of movements / resistance has actually worked before. We're talking about empirics. What about the Zapatista movement? The pro only persists that this intellectual resistance down to an oversimplification. Socialism works as an existential part of this (although not what is exactly advocated, we need something better than capitalism is what I do advocate, and socialism has no offense) - and solves for any of their late claims.

They also conceded from my last speech the explanation on why infrastructure would lead to extinction - more of a reason than their impact to prefer con. They provide no analysis.

Pro concedes my Yunas card - reforms to eradicate poverty using social businesses, also known as the alternative is the only way to eradicate it. The alternative rather takes poverty away, and I'll quote it: "The reason is simple: "unfettered markets in their current form are not meant to solve social problems and instead may actually exacerbate poverty, disease, pollution, corruption, crime, and inequality. [...] . A social business is not a charity, but a business in every sense that must recover its full costs and recoup investments, but with the profit-maximization principle replaced by the social-benefit principle."

Now, on my Shannon card- they disregard anything minus the first few words that disease is possible in squo because capitalism

Shannon explains it further than that- he states that the evolution of the flu has expanded DRASTICALLY -- especially in DEVELOPED countries. Diseases also expand faster in what the card calls "disease factories", also known as [suburbs*]slums that were subject to urban expansionist policies such as the pro's infrastructure policy. It also says that just because they hire the better scientists, these scientists still manage to cling to the policy of finding the fastest and most often least effective route to trying to eradicate that disease. Remember the ebola crisis, that existed for longer than the United States itself? How we discovered it in the sixties, and how we never did anything until we had an outbreak here? What about the African communities who still suffer from newer, stronger diseases? When will they be helped?

Now, to explain my Zizek quote. The reason he says it's easier to be exploited in a long-term job is because apparently capitalism "Self-corrected" itself, and made it worse for those, providing unemployment for those people. Capitalism rid of slavery because it realized that it could use people that already had the status of "worker". It won't be alleviated - he even makes the parenthetical comment on how economic growth replaces these workers.

Now, to answer their summation of the arguments:
Individuals are only inspired to work hard because they see no other alternative. They only are rewarded when they work hard - because capitalism makes them very complacent in the system. However, those in undeveloped countries tend to work very hard, but where's their reward? The oppressed don't have their voice, they're still in the mist of what Zizek and Daly confront. Those "men of good will", seemingly should have already displaced the corrupt, considering capitalism has existed for six hundred years. Those men of good will become complacent with the logic of the system. Now, his argument is still a claim, that it would leave people "confused", but Herod explains way more than his broad assumptions of the average capitalism critique. The Zapatista's prove my point. They aren't confused, they're actually very intellectual individuals who know who they are. They can discuss each pedagogical standpoint in what has happend to them. The "creativitity" and "innovation" were already stifled - these people are rewarded for thoughts only relevant towards the current system.

The reason you should vote con:

The pro can't solve any of their economic growth - pro concedes that it all trades off on one another.
Also, they concede each of my extinction impacts on the K. Capitalism is now proven to cause extinction, and they conceded the links earlier - no impact on disease.
The alternative proves to provide a better life regardless, without poverty. See above.
They concede role of the ballot

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dripht 1 year ago
dripht
Whatever the 12-13 topic was, I believe so
Posted by justiceandtruth 1 year ago
justiceandtruth
Was the topic hsr?
Posted by justiceandtruth 1 year ago
justiceandtruth
Thank you as well. I know I definitely had to think outside the box to answer the k. Good luck in your debate tournaments the rest of the year!
Posted by dripht 1 year ago
dripht
Thanks for the good debate man, it'll help me in later rounds, even if I used most of something from a topic three years ago!
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
I'm not debating you unless I know what the policy is.
No votes have been placed for this debate.