The Instigator
Thiskid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vmpire321
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

In the U.S current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,533 times Debate No: 19414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

Thiskid

Con

I negate the resolution that in the untied states current income disparities threaten democratic ideals for three reasons, the american dream, government assistance, without income disparities job growth would decline.

First the american dream. america was made to were anyone could come from nothing to become everything, i will use bill clinton as an example, he didnt have much growing up his dad died before he was born and his mom was a student so he live with his grandparents most of the time. He was poor as a child, but he became president of the untied states

Second there are government programs created to help and assist people who dont make enough money to make sure that they have enough money to feed and cloth them, and there children.

Third it will hinder job growth. simple if everyone is at the same finacil level. then then noone can run or open a business.but if everyone is rich then there is no reason for anybody to work.
vmpire321

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate! Hopefully, we'll both learn from this experience.

==DEFINITIONS==

As the PRO side of this debate, I hold the right to define this resolution.
I define...

1) Income Disparities as "differences in the amount of money people earn, in which they have to at least earn some amount of money."

2) Threaten as "to be a menace or source of danger to"

3) Democratic Ideals
as the beliefs in which that our democratic state was founded upon.


==REBUTTALS==

In their first argument, Con states.... " First the American dream. america was made to were anyone could come from nothing to become everything, i will use bill clinton as an example, he didnt have much growing up his dad died before he was born and his mom was a student so he live with his grandparents most of the time. He was poor as a child, but he became president of the untied state "

However this reasoning if flawed. Con doesn't look at the larger picture here. Do most people recover from poverty? Often times, being born into a poor household puts you at severe disadvantages than rich people.

1) Worse Education-- The poor have less access to education and less options compared to the rich. They cannot afford the high prices of college, and sometimes are forced to drop out of high school in order to support their families.

2) Mental Health-- A study by the APA has shown that there is a correlation between a person's socioeconomic status and a person's risk for mental disability and psychiatric hospitalization. Furthermore, this was true no matter what kind of economic hardship the person went through. [1]

3)Food Problems-- You address this in your second argument, so I will expand there, but for now... People living in poverty have problems affording proper and nutritious food sometimes. And even if you aren't in extreme poverty, those living near the poverty line have a strong incentive to buy cheaper foods, and in turn damage their health. Long term or short term, people still have food problems that impact their health.


In Con's second argument, con states that "there are government programs created to help and assist people who dont make enough money to make sure that they have enough money to feed and cloth them, and there children."

1) Rep. Jim Jordan said in a committee meeting that, "Only seven of 18 federal food assistance programs have been associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes, while the remaining 11 have not been effective." I believe this almost speaks for itself. Even if some food programs work, almost 2/3 of them failing is simply too much.

2) Even if, some poor people were receiving money, they are still limited to lower quality things than rich people.

Con also said that "Third it will hinder job growth. simple if everyone is at the same finacil level. then then noone can run or open a business.but if everyone is rich then there is no reason for anybody to work."

1) How in anyway, would people at the same financial level hinder other people? Can middle class workers nowadays not start their own businesses? Furthermore, according to http://dictionary.reference.com..., a business is defined as:

  • an occupation, profession, or trade
  • the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.
  • a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern.
  • volume of trade; patronage

Logically.

1. If everyone was at the same financial level, they are earning the same amount of money.
2. If someone is earning money, they have an occupation, profession, or trade that allows them to earn that money.
3. Therefore, if everyone is at the same financial level, they all have an occupation, profession, or trade that allows them to earn money.

Through this, we see that in people must have a business.

2) Wealth doesn't last forever, and apparently CON does isn't aware of this. The situation that he presents, in which "there is no reason for anybody to work" is unrealistic, which is why I will not address this part.

==MY ARGUMENTS==

1) Burden Of Proof
-- As the Pro side of this debate, I hold the burden of proof. So, I shall devote this argument to prove that inequalities do exist...(lol this is obvious) According to ABC News, While the top 1% population's income went up by 275% in the last 30 years, the middle class's income levels only went up by 40% and the poor class only went up by 18%. This is solid proof that there exists an inequality between income levels in America. http://abcnews.go.com...

Further more, according to the New York Times, 46.2 million people are living below the poverty line, the highest number in 52 years. http://www.nytimes.com...


2) Influence
-- Everyone has heard of this before. "Money talks" Guess where else money talks? Within our political system. Although the US's foundation includes equality and equal voices among the people, that is simply no longer truthful. The rich and the poor simply no longer have equal voices. The rich, often with plenty of money to spare, can afford to campaign. They can afford air time, advertisements, attack ads, and they can afford to skip work. Nowadays air times can cost sometimes up to or over $468,000 for just 30 seconds of airtime on some popular T.V. channels. Now I ask you this. Who gets their opinions heard? A group of wealthy people paying for advertisements or a group of poor people struggling to survive? The answer is clear here. One group of people have a bigger voice than another. This is a clear violation of our democratic ideals of fairness and equality.

3) Education--

1) People who are educated to college level have a much higher chance of voting.
2) Poverty hinders and affects a person's education.
3) Therefore, those living in poverty are less likely to vote.
This simply furthers my point on fairness. Are these elections fair? Poor and struggling people often don't vote. Consider this. It is perfectly fine for a rich person to ask if they can leave work and go vote, since they can afford the slight loss in income and their bosses often don't care (if they have any lol) However, it is far less likely that someone who is desperate and falling into poverty will go vote, because they need the money and it is probable that they are working labor and that their boss is a lot less accepting.


I don't have much time to make any more arguments... (I'm busy right now) So I will probably expand and make more new arguments in the next round. Maybe...
Other than that, I await your response, con!


===REMINDER==
I'd like to remind my opponent to use proper spelling and grammar, as it helps makes your arguments more comprehendable.


SOURCES:


  1. http://mentalhealth.about.com...
  2. http://www.wn.org...
  3. Rep. Jim Jordan, June 1, 2011, in a house committee hearing






Debate Round No. 1
Thiskid

Con

So I'm going to use the round to attack my opponents case and start rebuilding my own.
in my opponents first contention he said that many poverty stricken family's don't go to college because they can't afford it, but if they focused and did well in school they could get student loans and scholarships. Especially being in poverty there are Evan more scholarships out there for low income families.

As for the food problems yes it is true that 7 of 18 food assistance programs are associated with healthy food, but that is the choice of the people who get it. If someone get food stamps and the choose to waste it on all chips and soda. Well then we cant control that. That decision is in the hands of those people.

I'm not exactly clear on what he means by influence, but I'm going to assume he means political influence because he mentioned campaing. but Evan if you are of low income they have fund-raisers, and endorsements, and there parties will help them with cost

Now to rebuild my own case. First America is the land of opportunity, you have a choice. You can better yourself if you truly want to. it doesn't matter if your poor, or rich, that is the great thing about America you can be a nothing and have a very successful life. The government will help you and assist you, but again it is the choice of the people who receive that money to choose what they want to do with it. Finally it will hinder job growth. we need the rich to run businesses and we need the poor and middle class to work those jobs. So just remember income disparities don't threaten economic ideals. the people do
vmpire321

Pro

Thank you, CON.
==DEFENSE==

Con said " in my opponents first contention he said that many poverty stricken family's don't go to college because they can't afford it, but if they focused and did well in school they could get student loans and scholarships. Especially being in poverty there are Evan more scholarships out there for low income families. "
There are many flaws in this argument.

1) "focused and did will in school they could get student loans and scholarships." Scholarships are only given to the best of the best. And CON fails to reconize the fact that, often, these students cannot focus in school. Impoverished comunities often have bad influences, such as drug dealers, within them that are quick to exploit students.
2) Furthermore, poor schools can only afford under-credentialed teachers... Rich schools hire the best possible teachers in order to attract rich students. Furthermore, failing school facilities bring more negative stigma to poor schools. The experiance poor students have in poor schools are very different from rich students in rich schools.

With this, we can see that poor students have a far less chance of gettting student loans and scholarships, as they often are in failing schools that do not help them.

Con also said that, " As for the food problems yes it is true that 7 of 18 food assistance programs are associated with healthy food, but that is the choice of the people who get it. If someone get food stamps and the choose to waste it on all chips and soda. Well then we cant control that. That decision is in the hands of those people."

1) This shows that CON agrees with the fact that poor people recieve less nutrition, which in turn drastically affects their health and wellbeing. Furthermore, sometimes these people do not know about the risks. Advertisements in today's world can easily influence people into making bad choices. But they are more likely to affect poor people, as they are less educated.
2) Sure we can't force people to spend money on certain things...But we can give them insight. We can give them knowledge about the health impacts. We can give canned food, which forces them to eat healthy, as they have no other option. Furthermore, I believe you are misunderstanding food programs all together. They do not "give you money." But rather they give you actual food and meals.

Con also said that..."I'm not exactly clear on what he means by influence, but I'm going to assume he means political influence because he mentioned campaing. but Evan if you are of low income they have fund-raisers, and endorsements, and there parties will help them with cost"

1) First off, who is going to fund someone who they have no clue is? In order to attract sponsers, you must first get your message out and convince this. Now doing this is very time-consuming and expensive. Do poor, struggling people have the time to spare? Do poor, struggling people have the money to spare? They cannot even get into the very basis and foundation of fund-raisers. They cannot convince people to fund them.
2)Endorsements...How will this help poor people get their voice out to the masses of America?
3)"Parties will help them with cost" Once again, these parties will not reconize poor people, simply because impoverished people cannot convince them.

==Rebuttals==
I will now attack their cases.

Con says "Now to rebuild my own case. First America is the land of opportunity, you have a choice. You can better yourself if you truly want to. it doesn't matter if your poor, or rich, that is the great thing about America you can be a nothing and have a very successful life."

1) This is very untrue in today's world. People are often held down by the circle of poverty and tied back by impoverished communities, with bad influences.

2) Sure America is called the land of opportunity, but how often do people make it out of poverty? And also, Con says that "you can be a nothing and have a very successful life."Once again, this does not apply to everyone. Consider an example. In a company, out of ten applicants, Person A is chosen. This one continues on to work with 10 other co-workers at Rank 1. Out of those 10, their boss choses, once again, Person A is chosen to be promoted. He then moves up and works with 10 other co-workers at Rank 2. Their boss, chooses Person A to be promoted to Rank 3. Now let's recap. For every one person who makes it to rank 3, 99 people are left behind. And the chances of you reaching rank 3 is around 1%. This example is similar to the real world. Rarely does any one actually go from poor to rich, from nothing to everything, and from a nothing to a household name.

Con says "The government will help you and assist you, but again it is the choice of the people who receive that money to choose what they want to do with it. "
1) First off, who said the government will help and assist you? And in what manner do they help you? And finally, why are they receiving money for? The government doesn't simply go around passing out money. If that was the case, we wouldn't be paying taxes.
2) I've actually never heard of the government giving you cold hard cash. No program out there does that. There are tax breaks although, and rich people get more tax breaks than poor. http://www.nytimes.com...
3) Can you care to explain how this is relevant to the topic?

Con says "Finally it will hinder job growth. we need the rich to run businesses and we need the poor and middle class to work those jobs."
Con simply repeats their argument from their previous speech.

I've already said that....
1) Buisinesses means an occupation, profession, or trade
2) The purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Do the middle class have an occupation, profession, or trade? Yes, they must! How else would they have the sufficient income to be deemed "middle class".

Logically.

1. If everyone was at the same financial level, they are earning the same amount of money.
2. If someone is earning money, they have an occupation, profession, or trade that allows them to earn that money.
3. Therefore, if everyone is at the same financial level, they all have an occupation, profession, or trade that allows them to earn money.

3)-- And finally, we must acknowledge the fact that their are other countries. Even if we were all at the same financial level, we haven't said anything about the financial levels of other countries. Ever heard of international trade?

==NEW ARGUMENTS==

1)Unfair Tax Cuts-- The Rich are recieving unfair tax breaks, and in turn, the middle class and the poor class are paying more to make up. Is this fair? Step back and ask yourself, is the government treating everyone equally? This is another violation of democratic ideals. Our country was founded upon the principles of equality and fairness.
http://www.aflcio.org...
http://www.faireconomy.org...;

==OLD ARGUMENTS==
I'd like to take some time to remind and reinforce some of my past arguments.

1) Education - I've stated this before, education is vital. Poor people are often put at a lower chance at good education than rich people. And this gap in education is extremely unfair. Poor communities are more subject to exploitation, bad influences, and poor voting percentages.

2) Influence - The rich have much more influence over politics than rich people. Large corporations can donate sums of money to cantidates, in hope to gain their favors. Thourgh independent expenditures, rich people can influence politicans. An independent expenditure is made by an individual or organization that is not connected with a candidate's campaign, but favors that particular candidate. Rich people can run ads that don't mention a particular candidate by name, but support issues that the candidate is known to stress. Also, the rich have the resources to lobby.
http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu...;

Debate Round No. 2
Thiskid

Con

Thiskid forfeited this round.
vmpire321

Pro

Well...Seeing that ThisKid forfeited this round....

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Thiskid

Con

Thiskid forfeited this round.
vmpire321

Pro

Well, he forfeited once again...


Arguments extended
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bagels 5 years ago
bagels
Hey guys i've recently started pf and im not sure what goes into each round can someone explain this to me thanks =)
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
vampire321 where did you find your definition for democratic ideals
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol... i ran out of space..

@SinceWhen, you can use whatever you want. JUST BE CAREFUL, SOME THINGS I SAY MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE! I do not research everything XD! And btw, be careful of other teams that see this debate round. This is public. So try to change the wording >.<
Posted by SinceWhen 5 years ago
SinceWhen
Vampire mind if I use you second point for my case at a tournament I am going to next week?
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
:O! This topic is going to get debated alot >.<!

I don't really care which side i'm on....
Posted by Thiskid 5 years ago
Thiskid
ok
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
K, since i'll be taking aff I'll instigate, just tell me when you're ready.
Posted by Thiskid 5 years ago
Thiskid
thet ill debate you on it as soon as i finish this one
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
lol what are you talking about? This resolution is one of the easiest to win on with Pro. I'll debate you on it.
Posted by Thiskid 5 years ago
Thiskid
thats because on this issue con is WAY easyer to defend
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Thiskidvmpire321Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Rackin' up the vote count
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Thiskidvmpire321Tied
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: nono