The Instigator
Kdkhan12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Extinctfiber
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Obama Nationalizing the Suburbs

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: 7/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 77926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Kdkhan12

Con

Hi guys
Obama is nationalizing the suburbs through HUD. HUD is going to collect data on every single nighberhood, and if it's not "diverse" enough, they will reform the community. They want poor housing right next to million dollar homes. Do they actually think they'll get away with this? The reason people move to the suburbs is to get AWAY from crime and poverty. If poor people want "equality" they should work thier way up. Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example of this. I warn that poor housing in the suburbs will NOT be tolerated by the community. They will either move out or violently get rid of it. If they place poor housing in my suburb, I myself will tear it down.
Extinctfiber

Pro

The whole idea of Obama nationalising the suburbs is about moving people from crime ridden poverty struck areas to suburbs where they will have more security where they live. You said that "If they place poor housing in my suburb, I myself will tear it down." The point of nationalising the suburbs is, I reiterate, is bringing people from situations where their lives are at risk into suburbs, such as your own, to supply them with the basic human right of living without the fear of constantly occurring crimes such as theft. You are denying these people of safety by not welcoming them, not wanting them to move into the suburbs.
Debate Round No. 1
Kdkhan12

Con

Life without crimes is NOT a right, just as Healthcare, education, and gay "marriage" are not rights. The poor have put themselves in thier situation. It's not my responsibility to get them out of it. Also remember that these people will be going to the same public schools as the suburban kids, and NOT paying property tax. This is disgusting. Why doesn't Obama let all of these people live with him in the White House? Why are the poor entitled to everything. Most people who live in the Suburbs worked HARD to get there. This is communism plain and simple. If Obama wants equality he should move to Cuba. The rich already pay a HUGE amount of taxes to subsidize the poor. Now the rich will be forced to welcome them into thier nieghnerhoods? I'm sorry, that's not happening. The time for civil disobedience has come. If the poor want total "equality" SHIP THEM TO CUBA. I have a compromise for you. Obama is free to nationalize all the Sburbs, but NOT the ones that vote Republican. He can nationalize all the Liberal/Progressive suburbs. That way I'm happy, and you're happy. Will you accept this deal? This is America. We are a Capitalist nation. If you don't like it; just leave. I have another idea. If you Liberals want a country with free Healthcare, free college, no suburbs, abortion, and gay marriage; HAVE IT. Maybe it's finally time for America to split. Liberty in America is dead. The American Dream is dead. We get the East Coast, and the Southeast, you guys get the entire West Coast.
Extinctfiber

Pro

You've firstly incorrectly stated that safety, health care, education and sexuality are not human rights, when they evidently are. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (Article 3) This defines a humans rights to freedom within society from oppressive restrictions, as well as the behaviour of others, such as crime.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services..." (Article 25) This is straight-forward; humans have the right to adequate health and medical care, undeniably rendering your statement of no right to health care incorrect.

"Everyone has the right to education." (Article 26) This indisputably contradicts your claim of no rights to education.

I would also like to remind you that, recently in The United States of America, gay marriage has been legalised. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation... have the right to marry and to found a family..." (Article 16) MARRIAGE is a right.

Furthermore, impoverished individuals have certainly not put themselves in their situation. The majority of those who are poverty stricken do not choose to be. They may have been born into a family that is already poor, have limited jobs available to them or have an underlying factor such as sustained injury that doesn't allow them to work, have to supply for a large family, inherit little wealth or have little government assistance. Poverty can lead to death from starvation, disease, dehydration or even hypothermia. I can assure you that little to none of the population says to themselves "I want to be impoverished. I want to have little resources; I want inadequate housing; I want to starve; I want disease." Would you want that? President Abeam has nationalised the suburbs to give these human beings a chance at life. Likewise, does that seem like "the poor are entitled to everything?" Agreed, it is not your responsibility to "get them out of it." No one told you it was. Albeit, it is the President Ob ma's responsibility to serve justice and equality throughout America - it's his job. Thus, he is allowing those families and individuals living in crime-ridden, poverty stricken areas to someone where resources, jobs, adequate housing, etc. are available. In 2013, there were 45.3 million impoverished people in America. Are you saying that 45.3 million people chose to be poor? Well, they didn't.

Additionally, there is no problem with children of financially unstable families attending the same public schools as "suburban kids". You say that "the rich will be forced to welcome them (families of lesser wealth) into their neighbourhoods." Thus, you have stated that "suburban kids" are rich. Their wealth could grant them access into a private school, seeing that poorer children attending the same school is such as problem. It's a public school - there are no restrictions to your finical status that limit you from attending. Likewise, if suburban families are "rich" as you've stated, why is it a burden for them to pay property tax? Yes, equality is imperative, and the moving families should be required to pay it, but, considering their circumstances, why can't we allow them time to gain financial stability before doing so? It is true that the most people within the suburbs work hard, but they've had the opportunity, and now President Abeam is giving these families the opportunity to get onto their feet.

You come into this argument seemingly sided Republican, speaking from the point of view of a wealthier, suburban individual. I come into this argument looking for the just, equitable solution, and that is to give these impoverished families the opportunity to live by nationalising the suburbs. You do not know the experiences and struggles of these people, nor do you have to, but to be a decent human being you should consider using empathy. Step into their shoes. See how it feels to live with inadequate food, clothing, shelter and opportunity. See what it looks like to look up at wealthier people and just wish that the opportunity would come where you could supply for yourself or your family like they do. Step back into your own shoes. See how your own struggles are little compared to the everyday battles these families fight. Realise that you, as a wealthier family, could be doing something to HELP, just as President Abeam is doing by nationalising the suburbs.

Finally, I would like to point out that you can not simply ship the lesser part of the American population to Cuba. If President Abeam did this, America would shift from a capitalist country to a country with a dictator; a totalitarian government. It would be similar to committing genocide, wiping out, per say, an entire regime of individuals; the impoverished, those who weren't fortunate enough to be born into better circumstances. He may not kill the individuals, but he would be getting rid of them, all to create this utopia you have pictured where the poorer families do not meet with the wealthier. In your mind, you want equality too, but you don't realise it. You want everyone to have the same wealth and live in the same suburbs. There would be no poorer people. But there are poor families, thus President Abeam is nationally the suburbs to bring the poor up to the standards of those in the suburbs so they can assimilate almost, but more importantly, get the opportunity of equality, which, by the way, is a human right. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." (Article 1)

SOURCES:
http://www.un.org...
http://www.census.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Kdkhan12

Con

Kdkhan12 forfeited this round.
Extinctfiber

Pro

Extinctfiber forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HaileyL 1 year ago
HaileyL
You really don't understand the irony of your statements. I don't hate capitalism; I hate neoliberalism.
Goodbye
Posted by Kdkhan12 1 year ago
Kdkhan12
It's hard to reason with a Liberal. It's even harder to reason with a Socialist. However, I do respect you because you admit you support Socialism. Let's agree to disagree here. This is why America MUST split. You can have your Socialist nation, I'll live in my capitalist nation. There are quite a few conservatives in America, and we love capitalism just as much as you love Socialism. There must always be ONE capitalist nation, even if every other nation is Socialist. I predict a peaceful split by 2025.
Posted by HaileyL 1 year ago
HaileyL
First of all, you do realize that nothing that we say in this debate has an actual impact on anything. So, your "deal" is meaningless to me. Secondly, I never said that low-income families didn't move into suburbs ,but I fulfilled my BOP by proving that families moving doesn't raise crime rates.
I do support democratic socialism. You never fulfilled your BOP; you just spewed your RADICAL ideas. So ,technically you lost.
Posted by Kdkhan12 1 year ago
Kdkhan12
Please don't bring up the courts. 6 of the 9 justices are just an arm of the Obama administration. Also, the marriage ruling was FIVE to FOUR. The court was very divided on this issue, and if you think that debate is over you are kidding yourself. Conservatives are starting a movement to call an Artice 5 Convention of the States. The Feds will have no role in it whatsoever.
Posted by Kdkhan12 1 year ago
Kdkhan12
Please don't bring up the courts. 6 of the 9 justices are just an arm of the Obama administration. Also, the marriage ruling was FIVE to FOUR. The court was very divided on this issue, and if you think that debate is over you are kidding yourself. Conservatives are starting a movement to call an Artice 5 Convention of the States. The Feds will have no role in it whatsoever.
Posted by Kdkhan12 1 year ago
Kdkhan12
@HaileyL
Thanks for proving me right. The suburbs are being nationalized. I want to ask you an honest question. Do you support Socialism?
Also you have NO right to call me "radical." The founders would agree with me.

Here's a compromise for you. HUD is free to put poor housing in EVERY suburb, EXCEPT the ones that vote Republican. Put the poor housing in all the Liberal suburbs. That way, I'm happy and you are happy. Will you accept this deal?( if you do, I will end the debate)
Posted by HaileyL 1 year ago
HaileyL
Also, according to the Supreme Court all the things you mentioned in your last argument ARE indeed rights.
Posted by HaileyL 1 year ago
HaileyL
@Kdkhan12

Before I even start this I already know that someone with radical ,outlandish beliefs won't change their mind, so honestly this a waste of time. But I'll do it anyways.

1) Poverty

You have absolutely no right to talk about poverty until you understand it.

Poverty is not a choice, it stems from a lack availability of the necessary resources to obtain wealth. This lack of resources is 99.99% of the time not the fault of the person who is in poverty. Poverty leads to things such as insufficient housing, fewer jobs opportunities, underfunded schools. Why would anyone in their right minds willfully let this happen to themselves;the argument the poverty is the fault of the poor is ridiculous. The educational background of those who live in poverty has become more proportional. In 2010 3.6 million U.S. people who were impoverished had a bachelor's degree . These are people who have worked hard to obtain a degree ,yet the "chose to be impoverished".
source:http://www.census.gov...

2) HUD

You don't really seem to understand what HUD is.

Poor people don't just start moving into higher income neighborhoods all of the sudden.
Public housing was created to provide safe decent living conditions to low-income families.
Research conducted from 1998-2008 found ,that safer neighborhoods with low-income vouchers holders saw an improvement in crime rates.

Sources: http://www.benefits.gov...
http://www.huduser.org...
Posted by Kdkhan12 1 year ago
Kdkhan12
@HaileyL
If you can prove to me that I'm wrong about HUD nationalizing the Suburbs, I will end the debate immediately. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
Posted by HaileyL 1 year ago
HaileyL
@Kdkhan12
In your next debate, try providing some actual evidence with real sources.
No votes have been placed for this debate.