The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Thiskid
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Income and Democratic ideals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,390 times Debate No: 19428
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

thett3

Pro

The full resolution is: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. I changed it in the title to deter debaters from finding it by googling the resolution and stealing my sources and arguments.

Round 1 is for acceptance. The other 3 are for rebuttals. New arguments brought up in the 4th round will not be considered.
Thiskid

Con

ok i accept your challenge and just a question i have debate tournaments at school if i like one of your arguments are you ok with me usuing it for my school case?
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

I dont intend to post anything of particular significance on this debate, just the general, expected arguments so sure, you can use it.

I affirm the resolution and offer the definition of democratic ideals as ideals including justice, political participation, human rights, and the pursuit of happiness. In this context, "threaten" would best be defined as harming the exercise or procurement of an ideal.

No time in our history have we suffered income gaps so great, nor have we seen such bleak prospects for incoming immigrants or those in poverty. I also observe that large income disparities are un-democratic by nature; a simple look at the GINI index confirms this[1]. According to the CIA, the U.S. scores a humiliating 45 on the GINI scale (which measures income inequality). Other countries around that area are Mexico (52), China (41), Argentina (45), and Mozambique (45). There is not a single other liberal democracy that has such an income gap. This already leads us to a pro ballot.

Contention one: Cycle of poverty

It's no secret that in the U.S., many unfortunate people are trapped in the misery of poverty. They are born poor, they will live poor, and they will die poor. Our social programs designed to help the poor actually backfire, as CATO institute writes[2]:

"What’s really striking, if we look at the chart, is that the poverty rate in America was steadily declining. But then, once President Lyndon Johnson started a “War on Poverty,” that progress came to a halt.

As explained before, the so-called War on Poverty has undermined economic progress by trapping people in lives of dependency. And this certainly is consistent with the data in the chart, which show that the poverty rate no longer is falling and instead bumps around between 12 percent and 15 percent."

The poor now have little choice but to remain poor, and truly have no options left. With such a high unemploment rate they can't seek quality jobs (assuming they can even find any job at all), and it's common knowledge that inner-city schools are education centers in name only, more akin to a place where teenagers buy drugs, hang out, and hook up with the opposite sex as opposed to a place where they actually learn anything of significance. So this leads to a class of under educated peasents with no opprutunity and clashes with the democratic ideal of pursuit of happiness, as well as justice.


I know it's short, but since this is an online debate I dont want to give out too much. Also, I want to see my first contention tested, so I look forward to my opponents response.

1. https://www.cia.gov...
2. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...;

Thiskid

Con

America is know as the land of possibility, and that's exactly what it is. For this reason I strongly negate the resolution the in the U.S, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals, for three reasons, the American dream, income gaps are natural, and it will hinder job growth

First the American dream. As my opponent stated we have an increasing number of immigrants in America they come to America because they can make something of there lives here, and Evan in the U.S I will use bill Clinton as an example he was born into a low income family. his father died before he was born and his mother was a struggling single mom also trying to be a student to become a nurse. He educated himself and better himself to become president income disparities don't threaten democratic ideals. The choices that people make do. for this reason I only see a con ballot.

Second income gaps are natural. Like I said in my first contention the people that choice to education and better themselves make more money and have an easier to finding jobs because they have more to offer, and they are more valuable to there company.

Third it will hinder job growth. there are some European countries out there that have tried to make a "safety net" if you will to try to keep finical equality. but that in the end hurts them. if everyone is poor than none can open or run a business, but if everyone is rich there's no reason to work.

So to conclude income disparities do not threaten democratic ideals because in America you have a choice, income gaps are natural and important to a working society, and finally it will hinder job growth if we try to make everyone equal fancily. That's why you should vote con
Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

Thanks for the reply TK.

I'll now refute my opponents claims. My Rebuttal WILL be shrt, primarily because not much refutation is needed, and many of my opponents arguments are non-topical.

First, he claims argues about the American dream. 1. You can see from my argument that this ideal is one that current income disparities are destroying, and thus you can turn this to the Pro side. 2. He cites a single example, Bill Clinton. You prefer my evidence to his, because mine gives stats and logic, one example is not enough to negate the resolution. 3. This doesnt touch on CURRENT income disparities. My Oponents profile says he's 15. President Clinton was already in office when my opponent was born! Thus even if this example was enough to vote con on, my oppoennt hasn't provided a link as to how it still applies.

Secondly, my opponent argues that income disparities are natural. So what? He hasn't linked this to democracy at all, and since (with the exception of ancient Greece) democracy has been around only ~250 years in human history it clearly isn't natural either. So you can ignore this argument.

My opponent then argues that "it will hinder job growth" (?????). What will hinder job growth? Note that the resolution is a matter of fact not matter of policy. His disadvantage not only isn't even argued (just asserted), but can also be ignored because I am not prposing any form of policy to solve these problems, nor am I obligated to.

Therefore I see a pro ballot for this debate.

Thiskid

Con

Thiskid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

Forfiet= I win.
Thiskid

Con

Thiskid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
:O! The exact same argument :D!
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Nope, you can do however many you want
Posted by Thiskid 5 years ago
Thiskid
ok im i held to one contention to open?
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Well that and the framework.
Posted by Thiskid 5 years ago
Thiskid
so your only usuing one contention?
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Coreection: round 2 is for cases, the rest are for rebuttals.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
thett3ThiskidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Government stats require the form used, absent that they are useless. eg there are at least three ways the government uses to determine unemployent stats.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
thett3ThiskidTied
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: Conduct goes to PRO for the forfeit... Arguments stood unchallenged b/c CON failed to respond.... lol Good job i guess XD!