The Instigator
Blake_Humphrey
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
carpediem
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

My Political Views are better than yours.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
carpediem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,539 times Debate No: 20531
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Blake_Humphrey

Pro

I am right. Please review these issues and respond.

I. LEGISLATION: I will fight hard to fund education properly. Our schools are overcrowded, our teachers are underpaid, and new technology is often unavailable due to lack of funds. Education affects every aspect of our society, from crime and unemployment to welfare and our economy. Better education will make a difference in all these areas. How can we expect our children to take education seriously, when our state Legislature doesn’t?

II. TAXES: We need to take a serious look at our current tax structure and make sure it is going to be adequate for our future needs. We need to provide future incentives for small business and make sure West Virginia is tax friendly for new industry.

III. FISCAL PRIORITIES: We should be able to fund education and other state services by making state agencies more accountable and creating public-private partnerships to save much-needed funds. If this can be done effectively, then there won't be a need for new taxes.

IV. SCHOOLS: I don't support vouchers or anything else that takes desperately needed funds out of our state education system. If our legislators had not allowed the state education system to get into the state of disrepair that it is in today, people wouldn't feel the need to enroll their children in private schools. I believe in public education and I attended public schools all my life. We need to make our public schools somewhere that parents will be proud to send our children.

V. BUDGET PRIORITIES: Our No. 1 budget priority should be education. Even with the recent funds put into education the past legislative season, we are still far below the levels prior to the lottery as a percent of general revenue funds. With the number of new students entering the system, we are barely even keeping up. I feel that we should continue to look for ways to cut the bureaucracy of state government and try to bring more control to the local level. These cuts could be done in most areas of government without services to the taxpayer being affected.

VI. TOBACCO LITIGATION: The state has the right to sue the tobacco companies just like anyone else who has suffered losses due to a defective product. If the product was a defective toy that was killing or injuring children, you can bet, and rightfully so, that the manufacturer would be getting sued. In this case the product is cigarettes. The state has suffered losses because of smoking-related illnesses to people on Medicare and Medicaid and has been picking up the tab.

  1. VII. SPECIAL INTERESTS: I don't have a problem with special interests influencing the Legislature as long as those groups are West Virginian-based and made up of West Virginia citizens. It's the groups outside of our state that should be limited to the amount of influence that they have on our Legislature. I give state-based groups more credit for being involved with our political system than people who don't even bother to vote or participate in the system. One area where I do feel that this influence is inappropriate is when industries donate to lawmakers' campaigns when that lawmaker sits on the committee that is supposed to regulate their industry. This should not be allowed.
  2. VIII. ABORTION: I am committed to allowing people in the state to choose their own ways of dealing with their personal issues. I am Pro-Choice, because someone has a constitutional right to something if they choose. I am for the government getting out of the citizen’s lives and doing what they are intended to.

IX. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: As my religion teaches me, Reform Judaism promotes equality in life, liberties, and marriage. People should be given the right to marry freely in their own privacy and comfort.

I ask for a strong PRO vote today!

carpediem

Con

I thank my opponent for initiating this curiously stimulating debate. I will indeed attempt to review and refute his proposed interpretations of the stated issues as he requests in the beginning of the debate, and in order to satisfy the resolution: "Resolved: My political views are better than yours," we will assume that the way in which I negate my opponent's views constitutes my own.

I.LEGISLATION: My opponent's take on legislation refers primarily to education as he states that education, affecting every aspect of our society, deserves the attention of our state. I could not agree more with what he states here, however when he states "our schools are overcrowded, our teachers are underpaid, and new technology is often unavailable due to lack of funds" as reasons for why our educational system is lacking, I must beg to differ. If my opponent truly wished to endow legislature with the respect for education that is deserved, he would first investigate the topic to ensure that it is being handled effectively before he mindlessly threw more funds at it. The educational system of America needs rejuvenated, through such forms as following the country who is number one in education, Finland, for example in incentivizing our teachers, not through increased pay checks, but through status achieved through higher standards and requirements we set for them. This is merely one, roughly outlined example, however the point is maintained, being that the educational system needs not more money to waste, but new ideas to revitalize it.
II.TAXES:
A."We need to take a serious look at our current tax structure and make sure it is going to be adequate for our future needs."
This statement made by my opponent sounds hopeful, but in truth is vague and uncertain. It holds no plan for a country that is desperately in need of one. In truth, there is here hardly any statement to rebut.
B."We need to provide future incentives for small businesses."
By "we" I must assume that my opponent is referring to the federal government. The federal government should in no way attempt to interfere with the workings of entrepreneurs and small business owners. When involving itself in the movements of those it knows very little, (the government hardly every involves itself except in unnecessary and idiotic ways such as "incentivizing", regulating, etc.) the capitalistic society this country was made to uphold is weakened through government interference. Government disrupts the flow of the social Darwinism that constitutes a capitalistic economic system—providing incentives, then taxes, then, finally, debilitating regulations.
C."[We need to] make sure West Virginia is tax friendly for new industry."
As I had assumed and continue to assume that the issues stated here by my opponent are on a national level, I fail to realize the significance of making West Virginia, a mere one out of fifty states, tax friendly for new industry. Perhaps my opponent will deign to enlighten me.
III.FISCAL PRIORITIES: My opponent states that in order to fund important services, it is necessary to begin by "making state agencies more accountable and creating public-private partnerships to save much-needed funds."
A.Making state agencies more accountable is a noble aim, however my opponent remains rather vague in relation to how one might carry out this goal. An end is useless without first a means to that end.
B.In reference to the use of public-private partnerships, my opponent perhaps fails to recall that in most types of PPP's, the financial load is not taken solely by the private investor, but by the federal government. The government shoulders much of the risk of failure and therefore, if this private company does meet failure, the tax payers will greatly suffer the consequences.
IV.SCHOOLS:
A.My opponent states that our legislature should not have let our public schools fall into their current state of disrepair. This is a wonderful statement, however I challenge my opponent to create something more than an observation, perhaps an opinion of how our schools can pull themselves from the brink of despair and back into the former glory for which my opponent so longs.
B."[If it were not] in the state of disrepair that it is in today, people wouldn't feel the need to enroll their children in private schools. I believe in public education and I attended public schools all my life."
While it may be true that parents would seek first public education were it a well-founded education, my opponent should in no way undermine and eliminate his support for private education. If we eliminated private education, public education would have no incentive to maintain an excellent education, all competition being removed. Private education is just as necessary to public education as are government funds and should be viewed as assets and opportunities, not unnecessary and trivial pursuits as my opponent seems to view them.
V.BUDGET PRIORITIES: While my opponent mentions "budget priorities" (plural) he only mentions one, and so this one I will duly address. My opponent speaks of "budget priorities," and yet he demands that we furnish our educational system with more money. If truly attempting to budget and prioritize, he would perhaps assess the way in which the money already given to the system is used and make sure that it is being used wisely. At this time the problem lies not in that we lack funds, but rather, that we are not utilizing the funds we have. Considering the condition of our national debt, instead of limiting spending for these programs, and immediately redirecting these funds to other programs, that, in this case, are not crucial priorities, but in fact are wasting monetary assets, we need to put these reserves toward the balancing of the budget, for it too directly affects our students and their future role in society.
VI.TOBACCO LITIGATION: My opponent speaks of the states' right to sue tobacco companies. He cites this example to justify his argument: "If the product was a defective toy that was killing or injuring children, that manufacturer would be getting sued." The logic of this example is flawed because of one important oversight: namely, that tobacco companies are mandated by the federal government to adhere a product warning to all their products. Therefore, to correct his example, this defective toy that was injuring children would have had an attached warning that told of these effects. Thus, the company could not be held liable for the idiocy of its customers. We are told through warning labels that a stove may be hot, so when we get burned we do not sue that company. In view of this, states, instead of suing these tobacco companies, should reconfigure the systems of Medicare and Medicaid to include standards for accepting participants that disavow excessive tobacco users.
VII.SPECIAL INTERESTS: Using a specific state as an example of his justification of special interests, my opponent refuses to acknowledge that whether or not a group is stationed within the domain of specific legislature, this special interest group will feed corruption within legislative practices as legislature attempts, not to benefit the common good, but to benefit themselves through favors given from these groups. Merely because these groups interact with the economy does not mean that government officials will not illegally accept bribes and enact private legislation detrimental to the economy.
VIII.ABORTION: While people should retain their individual rights, they should not have the power to control whether another being lives or dies. Whether or not life begins at the moment of conception, abortion allows an individual to wield the power mandating whether a person will enter into existence. This is an abusive power that will lead to an even greater disregard for human life, even for the elderly, another vulnerable sector of society.
IX.SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: While my opponent champions the rights of states and individuals, he refuses to grant religions their respective rights granted them by the first amendment. While civil unions may be permissible, marriage is an institution created by certain religions, not the state, and therefore these religions should not be coerced by the federal government into disregarding their established principles.
Debate Round No. 1
Blake_Humphrey

Pro

I would like to thank my judges and opponent for dedicating the time to this debate. However, my opponents arguments that have been presented in this debate are flawed.

I would first like to start out by making an observation regarding today's debate. My opponent did not provide any of her political views. Since a political view helps to win this debate over no political view, I have already won this debate. Therefore, I have provided the proper criterion of giving a political view and I expected her to respond with hers. However, she failed to make note that the resolution says 'yours' which she failed to provide.

A2: Legislation
In her response to my stance on legislation, my opponent stated "I could not agree more with what he states here"and she atempted to give an observation of her own that attempted to counter my stance. However, when she says "If my opponent truly wished to endow the legislature with the respect for education that is deserved, he would first investigate the topic to ensure that it is being handled effectively before he mindlesslythrew more funds at it" she fails to note that I opened the issue by saying "I will fight hard to fund education properly." My opponent misinterpreted my view and twisted it into something it wasn't. Also, my opponent made an areial assualt on the fact that I asked for an increase in pay checks, which I blatantly didn't. I simply asked that we create a better system of education for future generations.

A2: Taxes
Once again, my opponet agreed with my stance on taxes by saying "This statement made by my opponent sounds hopeful". She moved on to claim that my tax plan was vague and unstructured, but failed to provide her own plan on tax reform to refute my view. Instead she subverted the fact that this is "hardly a statement". However, she provided no statement in rebuttal to my own.
On the issue of business incetives, my opponent generalized that I said "We" as in the Federal Government. My opponent made a hasty generalization that conskewed the message I was conveying. She made it sound as if I was for giving government handouts. I clearly stated that I was looking for ways to find businesses incentives through tax breaks in order to create jobs. My opponent stated that I subverted the ideals of capitalism, but she has the concept of capitalism wrong. Capitalism relies partially on the govenrment to protect the consumer and make sure the businesses are working in a correct manner with the consumer. She, again, is wrong and provided no clear stance on the issue.
In response to my opponets attack on West Virginia, she claims that my views weren't representing the nation as a whole. However, I am allowed to convey my political views on any level, whether it be federal or national. To enlighten my opponent, I am proposing, again, that West Virginia restructure it's tax system to provide incentives for businesses to create jobs. This can also translate into a national issue, but my opponent missinterpreted my argument and failed to provide her counterargument on the issue.

A2: Fiscal Priorities
When I stated that I want to make state agencies more accountable, my opponent stated "that it is a noble aim." Once
again, she claimed I remain vague on my stance but I stated clearly that I want to "make state agencies work with private businesses in attempt to create a lower tax burden." She then failed to give a counterargument with her views.

A2: Schools
This was a big issue in the debate. I stated that "the Legislature should not have allowed the schools to fall into the disrepair they are in now." She responded to this by saying it was a "wonderful statement." I'm not sure what the tactics of my opponent is, but she is using a method of continually agreeing with me and then asking for more information without providing her own views. She challenged me to create something more than an observaiton,but my views can be to my discretion. Secondly, my opponents skewed my belief that I supposedly think that public schools are superior. However, I stated that we need to continue to support public schools and I never undermined or subverted the well being of private/charter schools. She criticized my ideas my saying that Private School promotes competition. I never said it wouldn't. She, once again, messed up in the interpretation of this issue.

A2: Budget Priorities
Once again, my opponent assailed on the point that I only gave one budget priority. Regardless of that, she gave not one example of her views in prioritizing budget priorities. She stated we need to cut spending for schools and put it into a federal reserve.

A2: Tobacco Litigation
My opponents understanding of this issue is 100% incorrect. She claims that it is the consumers fault that they do not investigate a product to the extent that I am advocating that state and federal governments do. She made an allusion that a toy manufacturer should put a warning on a bad toy. Do manuafactures initially think they are making a bad toy? No, they submit a warning to consumers after the defect is found and indetified. I stated that the states have a right to sue for a product that is killing people. And, the people are being picked up by the Medicare and Medicaid Tabs of the State and Federal Government.

A2: Abortion
She claims that people shouldn't choose who lives and who dies. I never said I want live human beings to die. I am saying that PEOPLE have the right to choose. This is an issue we simply disagree upon.

A2: Same-Sex Marriage

1. Homosexuality is not a choice

Homosexuality has a significant genetic component: According to Time Magazine, "It's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves. With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line. What's going on? Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings." [1] In addition, according to New Scientists, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [2] In addition, many studies link being gay with pre-natal testosterone exposure (which would be determined genetically, since the fetus's genetics determine which hormones it manufactures). According to the Seattle Times, "In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure. Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. 'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women,' Breedlove said. This can't be a fluke.'" [3]

Therefore, I ask for a strong PRO vote on the resolution!
carpediem

Con


I thank my opponent and judges for their involvement in this debate.



My opponent begins by making an observation in which he states that because I have not presented any of my political views, I, by default, cannot win this debate. I would like to mention that I realize I am obligated to fulfill the requirements of the debate stated in round one: namely, “Please review these issues,” (“review” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “consideration for purposes of correction”) along with the resolution: “Resolved, my political views are better than yours.” Given only the space of 8,000 characters in which to do it, in order to feasibly execute this debate, I created an observation stated within the introduction of my debate that my opponent seems to have overlooked. For the ease of my readers, I will now reiterate that observation.



“In order to satisfy the resolution: “Resolved: My political views are better than yours,” we will assume that the way in which I negate my opponent’s views constitutes my own.” When I, in my previous speech, rebutted my opponent’s views, I aired my own simply through the way in which I refuted them.”



I will now move on to address some arguments that will help to crystalize the debate and clash with a few of my opponent’s more specific criticisms.



The majority of my opponent’s rebuttal lies in his assertion that I agree with his views. He extracts quotes such as “I could not agree more with what he states here” and “this statement made by my opponent sounds hopeful” along with “that it is a noble aim.” This was said as one might say: “Although this bill has good intentions, I simply cannot afford to support it.” Although an end carries importance, it is the means to achieve that end that afford agreement or disagreement. In acknowledging good intentions, one is by no means bound to consensus.




  1. I. LEGISLATION: I would like to assure my opponent that I do note his opening statement, however I would like to remind him that this is not all he said. He also stated that the educational system lacks funding, therefore implying that he would wish to additionally fund it. In response to this I would like to reiterate my argument that we should use the funds we have efficiently instead of continually wasting excess funding.

  2. II. TAXES:

    1. A. My opponent attacks what he believes to be a “hasty generalization” on my part, in assuming that his use of “we” meant the federal government. I believe that I mentioned when I made this assumption in my first speech, that the reason I had to make this assumption was because my opponents vagueness as to defining “we” and his excessive use thereof.

    2. B. My opponent suggests that I “have the concept of capitalism wrong.” He states that a capitalistic society relies partly on the government. While it may be inevitable for government to somewhat involve themselves in the economy, a capitalist economy, or an “economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned” relies not one the government but the private individual. To sum up, the less government, the more pure the capitalist economy.

    3. C. My opponent states that he has the right to convey his political views on any level, federal or national. I merely caution my opponent not to use specific and extreme examples in order to justify or argue the whole.


  3. III. FISCAL PRIORITIES: My opponent failed to clash with my stance of public-private partnerships which constituted the whole of his “fiscal priorities” views.

  4. IV. SCHOOLS: This section of the debate revolved largely around public vs. private schools. My opponent, to clash with this, states that he “never undermined the well-being of private schools.” In response to this, I can only quote him thus: “People wouldn't feel the need to enroll their children in private schools.”

  5. V. BUDGET PRIORITES: My opponent did not clash with my arguments pertaining to his budget priorities.

  6. VI. TOBACCO LITIGATION: My opponent here simply is not following the line of logic in my argument. Let me reiterate the misinterpreted scenario for purposes of clarification. Given: tobacco companies are mandated by the federal government to adhere a product warning to all their products. Therefore, to give an applicable example, a defective toy sold with the knowledge that it was injuring children would have had an attached warning that told of these effects (just as tobacco is known to cause harm and has proper warning labels). Thus, the company could not be held liable for the idiocy of its customers.

  7. VII. SPECIAL INTERESTS: My opponent failed to clash with this section of the debate.

  8. VIII. ABORTION: My opponent states that he “never wanted live human beings to die.” So does my opponent want human beings to die? Just not “live” human beings? So claims his argument.

  9. IX. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: While I’m sure we all thank my opponent for copying and pasting this excerpt from, no doubt, a revered source, this argument has no bearing on his case and in no way clashes with my argument. I did not state that homosexuality was a choice; I did not state that civil unions should not be made legal to all. What I did advocate was for the right of religions to practice said religion without being told by the federal government what marriage they must consider permissible.




It is for all the afore-mentioned reasons that I ask for the negation of this resolution. Again, thank you to all judges, readers, and, of course, my so very dedicated opponent. I hope this debate was well worth the time and thought that was so obviously invested in it.




Sources



Black’s Law Dictionary


Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
Thanks for the advice. I actually tried to format the debate in a readable fashion, but because I was about 300 characters over 8,000, the site would only let me post if I didn't re-format.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Annemarie: Format your debate better; it looks like a wall of text. Use rich text and use the features along with spacing to make your next argument readable. Avoid grammatical and syntactical errors.

Blake: Use better evidence to support your positions, and explain each position further.

Next time, choose one or two issues to debate. Debating nine (really eight) issues in the span of two rounds is too much.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Blake_HumphreycarpediemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: The debate lacked sources; it would be better to "we should do x because it was shown to work in y" with references. Pro had the burden of proof, so a tie due to lack of evidence would go to Con. However, Con wins on the merits. Vague calls for efficiency are commonly accepted goals, but a political viewpoint ought to say how they are to be achieved, and Con recognized that need. Pro left some of Con's arguments unanswered. Con clearly won the tobacco argument. "conskewed" > "construed"
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Blake_HumphreycarpediemTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had BOP. Pro provided a model, and con accepted most of that but for some minor differences. In trying to find differences, however, con twisted and misinterpreted pro's model to the extent that it cost him conduct. Nevertheless pro failed to respond to the breadth of con's counter-arguments, and so con won a few points. Con established some uncertainty over pro's views, and even though con had no case of their own, they still stopped pro from meeting their BOP. Neg win.