Debate Rounds (3)
I accept and shall be arguing that he is detramental to British politics.
Surely that has to be healthy and positive for the nation as a whole? I have total faith in the people of the United Kingdom and their ability to make a choice, which they have been denied for so long.
I'll note to my opponent that I'm an American, so I'm not well read in British politics, but I'll give it a good shot.
First I would like to point out that it would be highly impossible for Jeremy Corbyn to get elected Prime Minister due to the fact that very little Leftwingers actually get elected in Britian. We have to look at the Blairite rule which shows that everytime the Labour Party moves left it loses elections.  We can see is the reason for this is that the general base is more moderate than not. When the Labour Party moves left, even Socialist left, it worries much of the Middle Class. People look to perserve Captialism and being able to work well and abandon their party for that of the Conservative Party.
My opponent brings up a great deal of questions about nationalization and other things. We have to remember last time Britian had such a large government. Margerate Thatcher had to come in and clean house. Doing this Thatcher broke up unions and saved the UK from a great economic collapse and helped nail down Inflation in the UK. Continuing with the Labour Party, especially a socialist, you'll wind up in a heep of trouble.
I disagree with your view that Blair was Left , he was definitely centre if not kicking to the right. On what do you base your opinion with regards the 'Middle Class' ? What on earth do you mean by "People look to preserve Capitalism and being able to work well and abandon their party for that of the Conservative Party" ? With respect you have totally no idea that this is the case and have no evidence to back it up. You make an assumption.
As regards Margaret Thatcher "Cleaning the House" as you put it, she certainly did that. She used the Police Force like A Fascist Dictator would have done to break the Miners Strike. Thanks to that woman this country has never recovered from the effects. She also took this country to an unnecessary war with Argentina which could easily been prevented, just so she could win the next Election, which she won on a landslide. Her Cabinet then proceeded to get rid of her before the country did.
My argument is this, Jeremy Corbyn is good for British Politics because it WILL get people talking and asking questions as to whether or not there is a GENUINE alternative to the present system? Because as I said, it's about time we had one! By the way, we must not forget the 17 million people that did not exercise their right to vote in the last election, they might just be listening......watch this space.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
There is a huge similiarity between Crbyn and Obama in 2008. (Outside of the fact Crbn won't get elected PM). It's that of Change. Crbyn ran his entire campaign on change and hope much as Obama did in 2008. The thing we have to realize here is that it is easy to say that you are going to change something, but it is impossible to do so. Another huge issue is there is no large expierence that Crbyn can chose from.  He doesn't have people that can help him out as there's not a whole lot of of Socialists in power. With that he really cannot mobalize much against David Cameron.  So even if people no showed to the polls we can see that such an event will happen regardless in a Democracy unless you make voting complusery. My opponent is just simply caught up in the whole "Change" surge as many Americans were in 2008 when they voted Obama. Corbyn is just making a general threat to purge out his opponnents though just about every canidate says that making it a bland promise. 
There are many things that the Middle Class in the UK still want. Leaving the Euro isn't one of them amongst many of Corbyn's bold moves.  My opponent claims I have no evidence to back my Moderation claim (source 4), but we can see that with over 100 Labour Party MPs defying Corbyn and going against him is already showing a fracture in the party of which I perdicted last round.
My opponent goes to slam Ms. Thatcher, but we have to look at the economy. He says that the UK hasn't recovered, but if we observe the chart bellow we can see that when she took over the economy was crashing and in a terrible state, but she increased UK profit margins in the economy by 12% in her regin as Prime Minister.
s://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />
With that I have refuted all of my opponent's points and have shown how Corbyn is a terrible choice and I showed how he's already splitting the Labour Party.
With that I thank you and please vote Con!
2. ( https://www.gov.uk...)
3. ( http://www.independent.co.uk...)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
|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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con because he only used them. In this debate, Pro needed to show that Jeremy Corbyn is a positive for British politics. In his first round, he doesn't really analyse the poltiical positions of jeremy corbin, but he just lists them. I need a better reason to consider these a positive. Lannan actually showed evidence and proof such as the rising inflation rate from labour party members when it moves left. i don't have to analyse Pro's rebutall, because he had the BOP of showing Jeremy Corbyn was a positive, but he simply just listed his political positions without explanation.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.