Me (Pro) vs. You (Con) Presidential Debate
I made this impossible to accept, so if you're interested mention so in the comments. If you want to know my stance on things go to my profile to look at the "Big Issues". I might not debate exactly according to what's there, but it will be similar.
First round is acceptance and in the second round, we'll both present our platform and then begin rebuttals (a lot to cover, but hopefully it will work).
Also, we're bound to agree on at least some things, so you would still mention it in your opening argument, we just wouldn't rebut that point.
One of the most important parts of my platform will be to restore many civil liberties lost in previous administrations. This means if elected, I will immediately begin working to repeal the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, while putting an end to the NSA spying on citizens without a warrant from a court. People have the right to privacy, and that right must be protected and my administration will work towards that.
I would also decriminalize drug use and legalize prostitution. One of the most important rights is the right to liberty and that means people should be able to do as they choose, even if it is potentially dangerous or otherwise frowned upon. Ultimately, people who don’t harm others will not be punished with jail time and a criminal record. This will also save lots of money that is currently spent on the disastrous War on Drugs. Not only that, if these acts are legal, they can be conducted in a much safer manner as you know what you’re buying with drugs (so they won’t be laced with anything the consumer doesn’t want) or prostitutes are less likely to be abused.
I will also work to abolish affirmative action based on race and allow employers and schools to accept people based on their accomplishments and ambitions, not based on race or gender. They may also choose whether they give preference to those who come from lower income backgrounds or not.
Finally for domestic policy, I will enact stricter gun regulations. One must demonstrate they can handle and treat a gun safely and properly, much like one must pass a driving test before they can drive, before they can legally purchase and carry a gun. They will also need to take tests to show they are psychologically sound and pass a universal background check. This ensures, that most people with guns will know how to properly respect and treat such a potentially dangerous tool.
The first thing I would do in foreign policy would be to cut foreign aid. This is taxpayer money which could either be spent on things that benefit Americans or paying off the large national debt the United States faces. I will also decrease the enormously large amount of money the US currently spends on the military, as this money could also be put to more productive use.
I will also work towards ending the War on Terror and withdrawing most American troops from the Middle East. The soldiers have worked hard and shown great bravery and it’s time for them to come home.
Otherwise, we will always try to negotiate in situations before ever risking soldiers’ lives in war. This will include continuing President Obama’s current negotiations with Iran. However, we will maintain an international presence and work with the UN to keep peace in regions across the globe.
I believe the government should not be involved in marriage and no one should receive any perks because they are married. This will solve the controversial gay marriage topic, so a Church (or wherever) can choose whether they marry a gay couple or not.
I also believe that euthanasia should be legal, as long as consent is given. It is humane, because if someone does not wish to go through unthinkable pains and just wishes to die, they should be allowed to do so. The right to liberty should include the right to choose to die.
I will also work towards legalizing abortion in all 50 states. It is often practical, as the parent won’t be able to raise the kid in a proper environment. It is also often humane, because a woman who was raped, did not choose to be rape, so therefore she did not want to have a baby (at least with the person that raped her). The Supreme Court has also already declared abortion as a right.
Finally, I believe the Death Penalty should be implemented in cases of murder (unless it was an accident, such as killing someone in a car accident). Along with this, I believe we should encourage cities and states to increase their police force. This will help act as a deterrent to crime, and ideally make the US a safer place.
I believe we should give tax cuts to startups in nuclear power. Nuclear power can harness great amounts of energy and has little emissions. It is the most realistic option to replace coal power, which is too damaging to the environment. As one of the world’s largest energy consumers, it is our responsibility to the world and future generations to make an effort to protect the environment.
The American education system has many flaws and needs to be revamped. It must have a greater focus on STEM subjects, much tougher marking, and require understanding of concepts just not how these concepts are implemented. An example would be, students would need to demonstrate they understand the theory behind physics problems, not just how to solve questions with physics concept. This combination will lead to America having some of the brightest minds of the future, as they have strong thinking and reasoning skills, while growing up in a competition, where they will push themselves to improve.
I believe anyone who passes a universal background check, should be able to become a citizen easily, provided they can pass a citizenship test. The US was built off immigrants, and they or their children can often add great things to society.
I believe healthcare is a basic human right. I would transition into a Canadian style healthcare system. It will cover everyone from birth to death and be paid for as part of national budget, where everyone paying taxes pitches in. This system is also more pragmatic as people will be less concerned about large medical bills and therefore have more money to spend in the economy.
I also believe all children should be required to be vaccinated. If a child is not vaccinated it is not only a threat to the child, but others. Following the same reasoning, I believe there should be a smoking ban in public areas.
I believe that welfare should be abolished and replaced with a negative income tax, as described by Milton Friedman, paired with a flat income tax. This is an example of how this would be run (1):
-“The income tax rate is 50%.
-The tax exemption is $30000.
-The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate.
Under this scheme:
-A person earning $0 would receive $15000 from the government.
-A person earning $25000 would receive $2500 from the government.
-A person earning $30000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax.
-A person earning $50000 would pay a tax of $10000.
-A person earning $100000 would pay a tax of $35000.
However, I would drop the income tax rate to 25%, so people have more money to spend in the economy or save for later use.
Also, I believe minimum wage should be abolished as companies can hire more workers, there is less incentive for companies to automate jobs that people could be working, and it makes it easier for teenagers to get work experience. Not only that, but if a person and a company agree to a wage, the government should not interfere with that deal.
I believe that retirement pensions should gradually be phased into a private system. This way, people who have spent many years paying into the system would be compensated, but then future generations do not need to rely on the government to take care of their savings and they can spend/save their money as they choose.
I would also encourage the Federal Reserve to lower the inflation targeting rate from 2% to about 1%. The recession is over, so there is no reason for the inflation rate to be that high. One percent is still needed though to avoid deflation, which can have dangerous consequences, economically.
I would also put a higher priority on paying back the national debt, even if some social programs or infrastructure projects need to be cut.
I deeply appologize to my opponent as I'm running short on time so I will give my shortend version of my platform and will go in depth on some of them next round if need be.
Running Mate: Subutai
Abortion- Pass the Life at Conception Act
Gay Marriage- Allow Legalization gradually in the states via state legislature.
Abolish all tarrifs on imports.
Tax System- Go to Flat Tax 20% rate.
Repeal the NSA collection programs.
Pass the Defense of Envirnment and Property Act.
Reinstate the Glass-Stegal Act.
Pass the Monetary Reform Act.
Audit Fort Knox.
Move US embassy to Jeurusalum. Increase aid to Israel's Iron Dome Program.
Ban Euthanasia in the United States.
Legalize the Death Penalty in all 50 States.
Work Towards Porto Rican Statehood and their consolidation of their debt. Give them Hawiian "escape" status.
End tax credits to wind and solar energy fields.
Pass the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Repeal Obamacare. Government shouldn't be involed in healthcare.
Do not allow people to be forced to pay for contraceptives in their health care.
Allow School Prayer.
Abolish Common Core.
Issue school vouchers for private schools.
Work to replace Welfare with Private Charity.
Privatize Social Security.
No raising of the minimum wage.
Add Hamas and Iran back on the international terror list.
Draw back involvement with the UN.
Abolish fire arm bans.
Repeal the Brady Bill.
Establish "Stand your ground" "Defend your castle" and Open Carry Laws.
Enforce tougher Drug Laws.
Legalize Prostitution, but have 20% Sin Tax on it.
Abolish Affirmative Action.
Repeal any remaining reminants of "Don't ask Don't tell."
Like Con last round, I have almost no time to post this round, so I’ll briefly address his stances that I did not in my platform, and rebut one or two of his points.
Anything I don’t rebut or mention this round, that was in Con’s opening statement I agree with.
I briefly discussed my stances on these already, so I’ll let Con address these next round.
I’d like to reform my position on the negative income tax. I said I’d want a 25% rate, but I’d rather keep the 50% rate in the example. I’ll try to explain it better:
Anyone making under $30,000 will receive money from the government. Before taxes they will receive 50% of $30,000. However, they have to pay 50% flat income tax on their income. $30,000 will not receive anything or pay any taxes. Anything after that, a flat tax rate of 50% will be paid on income over 30,000. This is why someone making $100,000 pays $35,000 in taxes:
100,000-([100,000-30,000]*.5)=$65,000 after taxes ($35,000 in taxes). However, I will let Con expand his platform on welfare first before I go into the benefits of the negative income tax.
Defense of Environment & Property Act:
I’m against this bill, but I’ll let Con explain why he’s for it.
Monetary Reform Act:
The Monetary Reform Act would end fractional reserve banking. Without fractional reserve banking, banks could not give out loans, which would be devastating.
Homeownership is part of the American Dream. However, homeownership would be impossible for most people if it was not for bank loans. Before banks began giving out loans for mortgages only 40% of families owned homes. (1) However, banks loans are also really important for those who wish to purchase a car. Like houses, most people are unable to purchase a car without a loan. Cars are the primary form of transportation for most Americans and most Americans rely on them for their commute to work and in general getting around. However, if the Monetary Reform Act is passed, the very important purchases of houses and cars would be much harder for the average American.
Another reason bank loans are important is to fund small business startups. The costs of starting a business are very high and most entrepreneurs require financial assistance to start. However, if banks couldn’t give out loans many entrepreneurs would be unable to start their business. This is a major problem, due to the importance of small businesses. Small businesses were found in 2006 to employ over half of America’s workforce. Also, small businesses were found to employ 32% of scientists and engineers, while large firms only employ 27% of them. Plus, small businesses were found to produce most patents than both large companies and universities. Finally, many small businesses are major innovators in many industries. Not only does this advance society, but it can create new jobs that never existed before. (2) Therefore, by making small businesses harder to start, which in turns hurts the economy and innovation, the Monetary Reform Act would be dangerous.
Vouchers for Private Schools:
I’ll let Con elaborate, but I am against his stance on this.
I’ll let Con elaborate, but I am against his stance on this.
I’ll let Con elaborate, but I am against his stance on this.
I’d like to apologize to Con as I probably ended up slowing the debate down with this round, but something popped up this weekend.
I appologize as I have to rush this round again.
My opponent wanted me to clearify these here.
Abortion, We need to fundamentally recognize the fetus as a human as we've seen it scientifically proven
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, â€œafter fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.â€" He stated that this â€œis no longer a matter of taste or opinion,â€" and â€œnot a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.â€" He added, â€œEach individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€"
You can see here that this further my point as one can see that life begins at conception and throughout the child's life is concidered a human life. The moment of conception is when life starts. This is because this is when you start being and because you are beginning to being. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), created a movie that showed the realities of abortion to inform Americans. In his movie Silent Scream he stated, "â€œModern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Here the founder of an Abortion Rights group showed that modern technology shows us that the unborn child is indeed another human being and a valued memeber of the community though he is still unborn. (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).
"In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood.â€" (http://socrates.berkeley.edu...)
If that is true then we can see that itâ€™s degrading as different levels of self-awareness would vary across the board. Meaning that certain people like that of â€œspecialâ€" peoples and those in different medical conditions would not be considered FDH and be up for â€œabortionâ€" depicting as such in the Unwind Trilogy by Neil Shusterman. Meaning that they would also be considered less of a person than the average American. With the quote bellow we can see that people are people because they are human, not due to something they gain nor loose in their lifetime, so this can work all across the board in this debate.
I won’t deny that life begins at fertilization. However, I’ve already discussed reasons why abortion should be allowed. Another reason is like drugs and prostitution, a black market for abortion can begin.
I’ve already discussed why euthanasia should be a right. However, Con asserts that if voluntary euthanasia is allowed, then soon things such as non-voluntary euthanasia will be allowed. This is absurd. A slippery slope argument, like the one Con’s offering, can be used against almost any right. For example, I can say that the people should not have the Right to Vote, because it can and has produced incompetent leaders. Since Con has yet to provide a reason why choosing to die is not part of the unalienable right to liberty, we currently will accept it as an undisputed right, then the logic I applied to the Right to Vote is the same logic he applied to euthanasia:
P1-”x” is a right.
P2-But, ”x” can potentially lead to bad.
C-Therefore, ”x” should not be allowed
I agree with Con that punishment for drug use should be dramatically reduced. However, keeping it illegal is violating on one’s right to liberty. I already discussed this and problems with keeping drugs illegal, such as making them more dangerous and the costs associated with the War on the Drugs.
I’d like to clarify my stance on healthcare, to avoid any confusion. I believe healthcare should be part of the national budget and should cover every citizen, for most medical treatments (not counting non-threatening or things that cannot become threatening, such as nose jobs). Obamacare fails to do this, so I am against it. However, Con asserts that Obamacare cost 2.9 million jobs, however, that isn’t true. Most of those lost jobs were reported by the CBO. However, that isn’t what the CBO actually reported. Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director said, “The reason that we don’t use the term “lost jobs” is there’s a critical difference between people who would like to work and can’t find a job or have a job that is lost for reasons beyond their control and people who choose not to work.” (1) Elmendorf also confirmed that employees aren’t necessarily being laid off, just the equivalent labour will decline. (1)
However, Con also ignores potential economic growth which could arise from universal healthcare. Like I already mentioned, people will spend less money on healthcare, and can put their money into other sectors of the economy. It also will mean businesses will pay less for employee’s health insurance, so they have more money to invest into the economy. Not to mention, the Institute of Medicine found the American economy loses $65-130 billion a year, due to diminished worker productivity due to poor health and pre-mature death. (2)
It is also more humane as less people will die or be in financial trouble due to healthcare bills.
The US currently has a lot of national debt and cannot afford to be sending money to other countries. Con fails to prove that recent cuts in aid to Israel have strengthened jihadists in the region.
Flat Tax & Welfare:
Ignore what I said last round about the tax system, stay with what I put in the 2nd round (sorry for changing it again, but Con still hasn’t addressed it yet, so it’s not too late). The benefit of my system would be that it would save a lot of money currently spent on things such as public housing, food stamps, cash welfare, and salaries of those running pension programs. Only the IRS would be needed. Another benefit of the negative income tax is that it would be easier to abolish the minimum wage, which in turn means businesses have less overhead, and can hire more workers. Finally, is it puts more money into the hands of poorer people, which in turn increases aggregate demand. With more demand, the supply can be increased, so businesses can hire more workers, and the economy is stronger.
Plus, corporate and capital gains tax can be abolished, so in general businesses have less overhead.
Defense of Environment & Property Act:
This bill undermines the Clean Water Act. For one, the bill would prevent protection of water which flows “intermittently or ephemerally”. (3) However, the EPA estimated that 59% of streams in the continental US either just flow seasonally or due to rain. (3) These streams are important to protect, as water from streams have an effect on larger bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, and oceans. (4) Also, water from these streams supplies about a third of America's drinking water. Plus, limits federal pollution control authorities ability to examine the waters, if its on private property. (3) However, that makes it much easier for people & companies to hide how much they’re polluting and if they are committing illegal acts, in regards to the environment.
Monetary Reform Act:
Con says that banks can loan what they have in the bank under this act. However, that is not true. The bill is saying that banks have to keep 100% of deposits in the bank, to be payable on demand. For this reason, they cannot loan. I’ve discussed how dangerous that is, and that is a fundamental falw in the bill.
I’ll quickly go over a few problems with this. For one, private schools are often religious and teach religion in them. Therefore, the government would be violating the Separation of Church and State, by funding teaching of religion. (5) Also, private schools are not necessarily better and can often be worse than public schools. Finally, studies have shown vouchers don’t improve academic performance. (5)
I probably should have specified. I was talking about why Con believes Iran & Hamas should be added to the international terror list.
I’m dropping this argument, because I felt the US should become more involved in trying to maintain balance of power around the world, and I more or less agree with Con on this.
lannan13 forfeited this round.
lannan13 forfeited this round.