Is Egalitarianism or Elitism better for America?
#1. Be factual, accurate, & aggressive for the onlookers...
#2. Be my Devil's Advocate, attempt to weaken my arguments ( Adds to my debating experience)...
#3. No PLAGIARIZING!
I will lay down my foundation to my argument in the 2nd of 4 rounds. Good luck to my challenger. Enjoy the debate future voters!
I will accept my opponents challenge.
MY POSITION: Egilatiarianism is better for America than Elitism.
I would like this debate to be such that my opponent and myself share the Burden of Proof; Elitism and Egaliatarianism are, in general, ideologically opposed philosophies. Given this, i believe this debate would be more entertaining and enjoyable if we must prove our respective sides to be more useful and beneficial than our opponents. (I am for Egalitarianism and must show how it would be better than Elitism. My opponent must do the opposite. The term "better" is highly subjective. While "more useful and beneficial" is also subjective, it is easier to provide evidence, arguments, and support for an idea when you have a specific goal to aim towards.)
I believe it might be wise to remind my opponent and the audience that elitism and egalitarianism are more than political philosophies. If my opponent agrees to it, i propose that we find a middle ground of debate subject matter, possibly three specific topics, in order to challenge each of us. While our arguments need not be entirely focused upon these, i request that we be required to discuss them at length with our arguments.
I believe that having a set range of subject matter forces you to find a different way to prove your point. This also provides the audience with a way to compare the two philosophies on equal and even criteria. If i were to discuss the social effects of egalitarianism, and my opponent discussed the political effects of elitism, the winner would have to be based on a subjective belief of which is more important, or something to that effect.
First and foremost would be politics, and how power distribution and delegation would work, under our respective philosophies. I hope this would be agreeable. /as stated above, elitism and egalitarianism are among a variety of polotical philosophies.
In fairness to my opponent, I would like to choose one other area, and have my opponent choose the remaining area. The area which i wish to bring into this debate is that of social interaction. Possible subjects could be jobs, friendships, maybe even relationships, though not specifically those things. The main reason i select this is because i can see aspects of each philosophy in these social interaction. The secondary reason is that i believe my opponent and myself will be able to make a great argument for which philosophy would be "better", in relation to the social sphere.
I leave it to my opponent to choose the final topic. I hope you will take into consideration how i might be able to make my case, as i took this consideration for you. Should you (Con) desire to discuss more, or perhaps different topics, please notify me first in the comment sections. I will make it a point to regularly check this debate, in order to make sure we remain on the same page, and i hope you will do the same.
I understand these are very strict, maybe even hindering, propostions, however, i believe they will provide a better opportunity for learning, critical thinking, and argumentation, as well as providing a backdrop for myself and my opponent, in regards to outlining. I hope i have not asked for to much specificity from my opponent, but i did not wish for Con or myself to have such a wide expanse of accessible material that we did not hit upon the same topics.
So to summarize:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. At some point within each debaters argument, they must hit upon each of three topics:
a. Political Implications of their respecitive philosophy
b. Social Implications of their respective philosophy
c. The implications of a third topic, to be presented by my opponent in the following round.
3. Any changes to the aforementioned topics must first be discussed in the comments section.
4. We must provide evidence and support, towards the goal of proving which philosophy is more useful and beneficial.
These are my only clarifications. I hope they agreeable.
Good luck to my opponent. I hope this will be a highly energized, challenging, and enlightening debate. I look forward to debating this, as i am sure my opponent is, as well.
To have the few rule the many provides structure for our government. Our politicians are better equipped as they already acquired a higher education. The majority hasn"t been well-educated with the knowledge necessary to run a country. To have the many that lack the skills rule the nation, that is madness.
The elite look after the best in any situation. This is not a flaw but a gift. TJHSST is considered the best high school in the nation, and entices students to be better. Ivy League schools encourage the best in people. These are elite institutions, aren"t they any better? Yes, they are better because they refuse to be equal to other schools. My point here is that elite provides the best minds, while egalitarianism seeks to bring down the rich so the poor can feel better about themselves. It is vengeance structure that egalitarianism is based on. Egalitarianism attempts to provide equality for all, yet at the expense of the best. Is that fair? No it"s not, because it weakens the best of our country to meld with the lesser. Elitism tries to make others better while the latter leeches off one to better the other. Egalitarianism is communism that seeks to get rid of individuality.
The economy is spiraling towards a detrimental $18 trillion debt. Why? It is the fault of Egalitarianism. Our country invests in foreign aid, US bases on foreign land, support for the UN, and other activities that doesn"t benefit us in any way. Elitism expresses how this is detrimental, and says that the best shall receive the best. Well, the US is better than any other nation in many aspects, but we"re struggling to defend that. In order to make America better, we must cut any form of foreign influence and make ourselves independent. Our energy needs to be in the US, foreign aid must redirect to American aid, and alliances only hinder us by unnecessary involvement. In addition, US jobs get outsourced because America is focused on making every minority equal, rather than getting the best minds jobs that need to be filled. Our nation needs to see that elitism seeks to advance us and not hinder US growth.
The aristocrats, intellectuals, and the strongest will prosper the nation. Why hinder them by making them anything less then what they are. We shouldn"t steal from them through taxation but give them room to grow. Many seek the best for the nation because they have the most to lose, so why would they mess up America? There isn"t any reason. Egalitarianism cannot carry the world, let alone carry the nation. Elitism is the better-hand because it was design to seek perfection in all aspects of America.
My argument in the 3rd of 4 rounds will tighten this argument and provide links for further research.
I would like to thank my opponent for his fast response.
This does not mean that sources need to be reallocated from the wealthy to the more disadvantaged. The Finnish education system is funded by the government, much like ours is; the difference is the way in which the funds are distributed. Socio-economic status changes the way a student functions in the classroom, which leads to further disadvantages later in life. If I can elaborate by means of analogy:
A young male student, let’s call him Alex, comes from a well-off suburban family. (I will not bring in race, as this is a socio-economic example, and race would further complicate it.) Alex’s parents pay for him to have a private education. Another student, let’s call him David, comes from a low class urban family. He has to go to a poorly funded public school. Both students are in high school. Alex makes straight C’s throughout his high school career. David makes straight A’s through his high school career. Should these two students apply to the same college, Alex, who went to the more prestigious private school, would be picked sooner than David. While it is common to apply to multiple universities at once, Alex would be able to pick higher tier universities than David. Generally speaking, universities and employers make note of the prestige of the educational institution a candidate is coming from prior to making note of the quality of the student. If this is the case, Alex will get into a better university than David, regardless of the intellect of the student.
The above is the current situation of the United States. This is not the case in Finland, as socio-economic status does not become a factor. I wonder if my opponent would agree that we need education to better the economy.
The egalitarian philosophy states that inequities do not allow a comparative medium. Therefore, ways to eradicate inequities are sought. Egalitarianism and communism are mutually exclusive. My opponent attempts to portray it as this, and that is not the case. The above explanation of education is one of many ways in which egalitarianism can be expressed. The second portion of egalitarianism is fairness. It would thus be entirely allowable that the wealthy hold onto their wealth. The issue comes in when there are tax deductions allowed for donations to charities. The only people who are capable of making hefty donations to charities are the wealthy, which leads to the question: why do the wealthy donate to charity? It can be for any number of reasons, but being able to subsequently write the donation off as a tax deduction decreases tax revenue, which then decreases the amount of government funds that can be injected back into the economy.
My opponent mentions the concept of rule by the elite, as well as the way the United States is unnecessarily allocating funds to foreign aid. I will not discuss whether or not foreign aid is required, however I would like to note that it is the elite who are making these decisions. Those individuals that have an education that makes them qualified to make decisions, without consideration for the will of the people. While the concept of voting is indeed egalitarian (all people who want to vote have the means to do so, when elections roll around), it is then up to the elected officials, the so-called “elites” to decide what is best for the people. Another issue then arises when these elected officials do not make decisions that best for the people. The opinions circling the Obama Administration should be evidence of this. The election process simply puts the best candidate in place for the presidency, but that does not take into account the power that Congress (another group of elites) is able to exercise. An egalitarian government would take into account the fact that a small group of people cannot be aware of how the greater portion of society feels about certain legislative actions.
Egalitarianism places the same importance upon the highly achieved that Elitism does. The difference is that Egalitarianism does not allow the Elite special rights, simply because of their status. Egalitarianism would hold that a celebrity gets the same amount of jail time for a crime that the average citizen does, as well as the same protection from the public eye (in relation to the trial) that the average citizen does. Elitism would have this not be the case. The United States has been heavily based in the idea of elitism, from only allowing land owners to vote, to allowing tax deductions for donations to charities.
I deny the idea that elitism is better than egalitarianism, specifically because of the aforementioned points.
This parable should teach you theoretically, that Elitism is a healthy ideology and the egalitarianism could drive this nation into oblivion. You're possibly think this is mad reasoning and lacks logical points of view. In response, the point wasn"t meant to be intensively logical but rather emotional. You should feel for the people of America, that this country"s full power could fall in the hands of the people. Please care about the upper class. Also note that you might end up in that upper class, do you want to lose everything you worked hard for?
My opponent has tried to paint a picture of the benefits of egalitarianism, but in truth, my opponent is cherry picking his argument. The mentions of Finland are invalid because Finland has so much different aspects to it. I never said egalitarianism was bad in general, only for America. As to my contender"s mentions of education, not all need to acquire it in order to live good lives. Another topic my opponent tackles is that the elites are already running the government. That is true at the federal level; however, the local/ state officials are assigned by the people in a more direct manner. Plus, not all politicians are considered elite; some are wolves in sheep clothing. Egalitarian folks are politicians to make the elite look bad so they can make things worse (Hint: Democrats and Libertarians).
My contender says I"m the straw man, yet I"m really a "truthful"instigator. I value my inteliigent auidience, and they know the real "truth" in this debate. As for the links I promised, I"ll move that all into the 4th of 4 rounds. My audience, begin to grasp the truth that America is better off with Elitism.
Elitism is the most beneficial for America, case soon to be close. Good luck my contender, I would be looking forward onto how you would dismantle an argument of this kind.
I would like to thank my opponent for his response; I would also like to thank the audience for reading and assessing the arguments we have presented thus far.
The Parable of Haley and Matt
I deem my opponents parable to be extremely lacking in evidential support, and extremely saturated with emotional appeal. While a debater must incorporate logos, pathos, and ethos into the presented argument, these appeals (to logic, emotion, and ethics respectively) must be distributed in a way that utilizes its partners. That is to say that an argument presented entirely upon a basis of emotion is prone to fallaciousness. The entirety of the parable presented is based in an argumentum ad consequentiam (Appeal to Consequences) wherein it is the consequences of a chaotic, anarchistic, and destructive revolt that are portrayed as the end result of egalitarianism, thus “proving” that we should believe elitism is the better philosophy. What I find interesting is that my opponent makes no mention of how the elitists were treating the non-elite, or whether the elite have any responsibility to the non-elite. I would be hesitant to assume that the elite are indeed good- natured people, just as much as I would be hesitant to assume they are evil-natured people. Could this parable stem from the idea that the elite are greedy? Possibly. Could it stem from the idea that the elite are deserving of certain rights? Possibly. My opponent seeks to portray Egalitarianism as a “disease”, while assuming a Simple Cause of the actions of the people in his parable. This Simple Cause being that those that revolted were not in their right minds. My opponent’s fallacious parable is not evidence in support of the claim that Elitism is better for America than Egalitarianism. Rather, it begets more questions than it answers. Indeed, my opponent and I must show how the opposing philosophy is flawed, but this parable fails to display the flaws of Egalitarianism. Indeed, it Begs the Question: Why did this occur? There are a myriad of reasons, and my opponent selects Egalitarianism as the reason Elitism is better than Egalitarianism. There very well could have been pervasive ideals within the citizens of this imagined society that lead to the desire to violently overthrow the government, in an effort to achieve freedom from what could be an oppressive government. Given these issues that I noted within this parable, I ask that my opponent provide better evidence in support of the “Con” position.
“Painting a Picture of the Benefits of Egalitarianism”
My opponent fails to explain why it is that my mentioning of Finland is invalid due to the differences between the U.S.A. and Finland. Indeed, the U.S. and Finland are extremely different. What works in Finland may not work in the U.S.A., any more than what works in the U.S.A. works for other countries. However, a major piece of finding what works is realizing the current system does not work, and making arrangements to find a way that does. Egalitarian education reform has made Finland one of the top countries in education.
I will concede to my opponent that there is a difference between state/local government and federal government. However, I would ask that he explain why it is that this is important. I would like to be provided with evidence that explains how a government run by the elite is a good thing.
My opponent asserts that egalitarians are the ones that want to make politicians look bad. I would like to receive an explanation of how these politicians should be seen. I would also like to receive a definition of the term “elite” as my opponent understands it. As I understand it, the idea of “elitism” was ever present in colonial America, in the institutions of slavery, even now. Maybe my opponent can clear up my confusion. The idea that everyone should have the right to vote is not elitism. The idea that all people should have the same protection under the law is not elitism. The idea that education should be federally funded is not elitism. Even the act of distributed institutional scholarships is not elitism.
Egalitarianism in the Economy
I began my opening statement by mentioning that my opponent is attempting to argue these points by displaying a strawman of Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is present in communist theory, as well as socialist theory. I will not deny this; the idea that people should be equal on all fronts is indeed pervasive within these philosophies. Karl Marx makes mention of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, asserting that the rich bourgeoisie oppresses the lower class proletariat, by virtue of their access to power in the economic and social spheres. While Marx’s solutions are somewhat radical, as they call for a massive redistribution of wealth, they do take into account the socio-economic disadvantages that result from a system wherein the rich are able to exert control and power over the individuals without access to the resources of wealth. While I will not assert that Marx is correct, I suggest that we take the time to dissect his theories, at the very minimal level at which I have presented them. It is the rich and well-educated who have the most influence; it would seem to me that these are the “elite”.
Whether they “oppressed” the lower class citizens is a discussion worthy of its own time and place, but as a semi-recent historical reference point, Marxist Theory, and the societal structures it points out, is tangible evidence against a fully Elitist society. We see here in America ways in which being extremely wealthy can lead to special treatment. I mentioned in my opening statement the idea of tax deductible charity donations, and how you can avoid income taxes through donating to charity. My opponent makes no mention of this topic. I would argue that it is pervasiveness of elitism that allows this to be the case. While there are some well-off individuals who are extremely philanthropic, who desire to assist the “less fortunate”, we cannot assume this is the case for the entirety of the upper class. Given the unknowable nature of human motive, we must look at as many possibilities for something as possible, and assess the probability of said action. We must then assess the actuality of action, as it relates to the probability of action. Are there those who donate specifically for the tax deductions? Possibly so. Does this apply to all of those who donate to charity? Probably not. However, the avenue is open. I will not presume to know what the best solution is, but I must say that the flaws in the system allow its abuse; flaws which can be addressed in order to thoroughly distinguish the greedy from the genuine.
Egalitarianism and “Earning It”
There is one side of Egalitarianism that I have yet to discuss, and that is the two-fold idea of Fairness. I mentioned the influence of socio-economic status on the attainment of education, and how this influence is eradicated in Finland. My opponent attempts to assert that the success of egalitarian reform in Finland is irrelevant to the success of egalitarian reform in the U.S. I shall leave it to the audience to decide this.
My opponent seems to believe that egalitarian reform would seek to remove the marking of hard work from the successful. While this idea may be true for egalitarianism for communist societies, this does not hold for the United States. The U.S. runs on a free-market economy, which actually promotes market competition and seeks to give consumers the best possible good, at the best possible price. The form of egalitarianism that I am espousing, indeed the form of egalitarianism that is often espoused in the U.S., is imply a belief that all people should have access to similar opportunities, and that race, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status should not affect a person’s ability to become successful. This is the first fold of fairness, as understood by egalitarianism. The second fold is that those who do achieve success should hold on to the fruit of their labors. This is what can be understood as “fairness”. So when my opponent states that elitism would allow you to maintain the fruits of your labor, I simply state: Egalitarianism does this as well.
In short, Egalitarianism dispenses the idea that there is only certain groups of people that should be valued, and values people based upon their humanity. A garbage truck driver and a doctor have entirely different places in society. The doctor would be considered an “elite”, and the garbage truck driver is a member of the “non-elite”. I would like for my opponent to explain to me how we should value these two individuals. Is the doctor more valuable because he has to have a higher education, makes more money, and is likely to have better housing arrangements? How should we interact with him? Do we respect him for his status as a doctor, or do we respect him for his humanity? Do we do both? Should we continue to value him, even if he is corrupt in his practices? Do we disrespect the garbage truck driver for his lack of status? What should we do if the garbage truck driver regularly contributes to community service projects? Elitism places more value upon status, profession, and education, and success, than on character, morality, ethics, and ambition. I am not going to argue which is better. However, I should state that egalitarianism values both.
I look forward to my opponents response, and hope that my questions are taken into account.
My audience, now we have arrived for the finale of this debate. This will be my last stretch to justify myself. Before I do that, I would like to thank my opponent for his participation & tenaciousness in this debate. Thank you my audience for reading all the way down to this section. I hope myself and Pfalcon1318 have entertained you for the duration of this debate.
Addressing the definition of Egalitarianism & Elitism
What is Egalitarianism?
1. A belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2. A social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
Who are the Elites?
1. The people who have the most wealth and status in a society : the most successful or powerful group of people
Addressing section 1: the Parable of Haley & Matt
The story is indeed lacking logical points as I stated afterward. However, it does drive my argument because you can feel the “innocence of elitism.” If I must elaborate a little further, I will.
The officials at the capitol were right-winged individuals. They were setting policies in motion that dealt with economic issues. The officials desired to cut taxes for the rich & “poor,” so that people can keep what they work hard for. The officials also implemented policies to cut the federal budget, for example: ridding of useless federal agencies like EPA. In continuation to their plans, they started to cut Medicare spending by increasing retirement age, removing min. wage, and investing in education + military.
The people from the north held a more left-winged point of view. They saw some of the policies unfair, for example: lowering taxes for all classes. They considered this unequal and argued that the rich should be taxed more. What happened to the equality in that situation? Egalitarianism finds ways to avoid inequality, but as you can see in this situation, it applies to the majority getting more wealth while disvaluing the hard work the upper-class did to get there.
The people got angered not because of tyranny of the elites, but because of pure “jealousy” that they are the have-nots. Elitism doesn’t stop anyone from bettering themselves; rather it prevents people that are lazy getting equal things to the bread winners.
Addressing Section 2: “Painting a Picture of the Benefits of Egalitarianism”
In addressing the argument about Finland and how egalitarianism benefited their system, I would like to say again, US & Finland are different. In order for me to justify myself, I express the difference. Finland is a smaller country that lacks the diversity of America. America is the unity of many cultures, and this requires a different approach to the educational system. In addition, egalitarianism would in fact downgrade the standards in America, because the diversity cannot be meant at an equal level as say…Finland.
In addressing local/ state governments vs. federal, they’re different because who elects them. The federal government’s officials are ultimately elected by the Electoral College; however, congress is still getting heavy influences by the people to whom they should choose to win office. The lower-leveled governments are more directly influenced by the people, for ultimately the people decide who runs office. The people are heavily involved in too much sections of our political system and they should be restricted to the lower-leveled ones, for the sake of the country. The majority of people barely have the knowledge of knowing how our government works, so I would further prefer that voting should be restricted as far as possible. In order to vote, you have to be an American citizen, along with having some college education. Unfortunately, the system fails to even meet basic standards like these. Elitism is not at work in our politics, egalitarianism is. If you want to know the benefits of elitism, look to our “founding fathers”.
Everyone should not have the right to vote, for the population is saturated with biased information. Some are not even citizens! Furthermore, everyone should have protection under the law, but…it does not grant (or at least shouldn’t) access to opportunities, free wealth gain, and further insensible requests by the populace. Finally, federal funding for education is elitism, but it goes to the best and goes from there.
Addressing section 3: Egalitarianism in the Economy
My opponent has openly admitted to the correlation of egalitarianism to socialism, which is ideally communism. Communism is what happened to the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin rule. How is it possible for a nation that seeks equality end up hurting itself? I’ll tell you this… the people were tricked into thinking it was best to lend over all their possessions to the government. When the people eventually found out that this system sucked, it was too late, they were trapped. Egalitarianism doesn’t provide equality, but rather empowers the state to treat the people like cattle. Elitism values individuality, private property, and “you reap what you sow,” concept. It’s even recorded in history that during this time in history, the Soviet Union lost the most casualties in WW2.
Marxism is opposed to a capitalist economy. America is based on capitalism. We must value privatization of companies and the free market in general. This is what makes the western world a better place. In a further account in my opponent’s argument, he explains how the elites get special treatment. They should get special treatment, if I worked hard to get where I am, I would like to be treated with more respect. Elitism values those who improve themselves, and get the jobs done themselves. Elitism refuses to answer to whiners who beg to have things. Egalitarianism answers the whiners and attempts to satisfy everyone’s needs. In order to do that, someone must be handicapped to provide the necessity to do so.
In addressing the idea of tax deductable charity, are you suggesting anything to change it? If the upper class feels generous or greedy, do their motives truly matter? What matters is that the charities are receiving what they need to run. If the government budget gets lowered, that’s because the rich did their job for them. Case in point, they assisted the needy, nothing more to argue there.
Addressing Section 4: Egalitarianism and “Earning It”
My opponent tries to separate communism and egalitarianism, but the truth is that they both are brother-in-laws. You cannot separate either of them, for they both share a common root, which is spreading the wealth thin. America is currently being run by an egalitarian government (hint: democrats), and that is causing problems with our national deficit. My opponent my try to inform you again how the elite are running the government, but that is not always the case. Lately, the people with the wealth, success, and power are getting downgraded through taxes and such. Why would a government run by elites injure their own? The answer is that it’s not being run by elites. The rich have control over businesses, but the political field is a struggle to maintain. The people who believe egalitarianism lead to benefits for the country; they are pushing through the federal system and causing a ruckus. That’s why we had the government shutdown after nearly two decades.
Addressing the list of Q’s in the last paragraph
My opponent puts too much emphasis on “humanity” in a world of good and evil. My opponent fails to realize that “humanity” is a marginal element when it comes to improving a country like America. What America needs is an oligarchy, where the few rule the many. This system will provide structure and real benefits for the country. The deficit will go down, because the people’s influence has declined. The people need to be silenced if they want their situation to get better. Democracy must be replaced for a oligarchy, and when things get better, a republic should rule. At this time, Americans should be restricted in the political and economic spectrum of things. Give time for elites to rule purely, and then allow a republic to arise to truly grant freedom and a better America.
My opponent presents to me two people with two very different professions. One is a garbage man and the other is a doctor. I believe it’s best for the doctor to be valued more and receive the extra respect for healing people. People should interact with the doctor with a pleasant face, and high trust in the doctor. When it comes to a garbage man, he should receive the lesser because it isn’t a true profession. A blue-collared job has a servitude aspect to it already.
My opponent addresses how people should interact with them if the doctor did malpractice, and the garbage man did his job well. My response is that the doctor should be put in jail, but not a prison. We are already stressed in the medical field as it is, we should then revoke his license and require him to further his studies. As for the garbage man, he should get a promotion, and if he climbs to an office job, then he will receive the respect he worked for.
It has been a real good challenge to argue with this contender. I hope I proved to you, the readers, that elitism outranks egalitarianism. May America shine the flag of Elitism! I would like to thank the audience again for reading this. I would also like to thank my opponent for his strong will to knock my arguments dead. I learned some lessons from my opponent that I could use for later arguments.
It has been a pleasure to debate with you, good luck in your last & future arguments to come.
Pfalcon1318 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|