The Instigator
davidmau2008
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SenatorZhen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is a government entitled to hold a referendum to decide whether the country should pay its debts?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 269 times Debate No: 71973
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

davidmau2008

Pro

Definition:
Government - national government
Referendum - direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal. The government must adhere to the results of the referendum.
Country - sovereign nation.
Debts - sovereign debts.

Argument:
Just like Iceland. A country's sovereignty is vested in its people so the people can decide on their own. The sovereignty does not belong to the creditors. Why can't we just vote and decide? Why should we be listening to the creditors who tell us what to do? If they don't want to lend us money, then don't. A country can run itself without borrowing money.
SenatorZhen

Con

I hereby accept this challenge. This is my first debate in a while, so please bear with me.

Since I am not sure if this is my opponent's official argument considering no empirical data or reputable sources were introduced, I will be more conservative in my judgement and state what exactly I am going to be arguing in this debate.

1. Sovereignty is great, but debt is a "contract" that should be honored. Negotiations may occur in the future, but my opponent's argument nor does the title of the debate specifically address this. Based on my interpretation of Pro's contention that "a government is entitled to hold a referendum to decide whether they should pay their debts or not", this idea in itself is inherently unethical because the creditor countries will likely not have a say in this referendum, as the referendum is targeting the population of the debtor's country.

2. Currently, there are too many technicalities and ambiguities in order to make this proposal work. Obviously, forgiving a $2 billion debt versus a $18 trillion debt is a clear disparity. If this proposal were actually implemented exactly according to what the resolution is implying, this could pose a potential of numerous referendums to forgive enormous amounts of debts, which would inevitably lead to tension and potentially conflict.

3. Refusing to pay back debt could have negative implications on not only the way the country is perceived in the international market, but also could contain negative economic implications for the private sector and debt management in ways such as sovereign credit downgrades. In my subsequent argument, I will specifically address this with data and statistics obtained via university studies and expert opinions.
Debate Round No. 1
davidmau2008

Pro

Alright, do you agree that people have a right to decide on their own state affairs? Do you agree that it is the people that the government is responsible to, not the creditors? The people are not entitled to pay the debts because these debts are not theirs. So what's wrong to use the most democratic to let the people say?

You sound like those capitalist hypocrites who talk about 'money ethics' all the time but reward nothing to people who work very hard for them. If you are the bank, would you lend money to someone who is surely incapable to repay all the debts? Of course not, but this was how the banks did in the past decade. These banks pursued profits by lending cheap but very risky credits to those people who have poor credit records. Now , these people could not pay the debts and the banks go bankrupt. It's not we do wrong, the banks doom themselves. If our government is so short-sighted that spend so much on welfare that our income cannot actually afford, why when things end up, we have to repay all these things then? Ask those bloody politicians to pay the debts, not us who work tirelessly for you know, just making a fxxking living!

You know what? Much sovereign debts are actually owned by THE PEOPLE themselves. Like the USA. The social security owns about 16% of the debt followed by other federal government entities (13%), and the Federal Reserve (12%). Japan, US$10.46 trillion debts, sound so much right? The Bank of Japan alone holds about 20% of outstanding Japanese government bonds and their own citizens own much more! So don't tell me that the people cannot decide on their own. Don't exaggerate the consequences so as to intimidate us. We can

You say we will suffer when we don't pay our debts. I tell you, even if we pay all those debts that we should not pay, the economy will just get worse. Look at Greece, the GDP has never returned to pre-2008 level because simply they just listen to the creditors who only care about their own. Conflicts are far more serious than if the people can JUST DECIDE. The extremists rise up in the elections. The Golden Dawn, fascist, neo-Nazi get seats in the parliament for the first time! You say we will not live worse if we pay our debts!? We do not live better. We just want live worse and worse and these politicians drive us to disaster. GIVE THE POWER BACK TO PEOPLE. THE COUNTRY BELONGS TO US.

Yes, we cannot borrow money in the financial market anymore. But who say we have to borrow money to survive? We can run this country by ourselves, and by our hard work. IS ARGENTINA DEAD NOW? IS ICELAND DEAD NOW? They are still doing good. So again, don't intimidate us. We are fearless.
SenatorZhen

Con

SenatorZhen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
davidmau2008

Pro

davidmau2008 forfeited this round.
SenatorZhen

Con

SenatorZhen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.