Occupy Wall Street
I would like to thank Kryptic ahead of time for accepting this debate.
Round 1 is rules and definitions for Con, Pro may begin his Constructive Case.
Round 2 Con may begin his Constructive Case (No Rebuttals), Pro will begin his rebuttals.
Round 3 Rebuttals (Pro may also post his conclusions)
Round 4 Rebuttals and Conclusion by Con. Pro will post "No round as agreed upon."
If Pro posts anything, but what is posted above then it is an automatic forfeiture.
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is the name given to a protest movement that began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district, receiving global attention and spawning theOccupy movement against social and economic inequality worldwide. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
I would like to get some dictionary definitions down and state my reasoning as to why I am for it. I would also like to set boundaries as to where my limits of accepting it lie. Obviously as your argument will be based on the negatives or what you see as problematic, I will not conduct my self in showing what the negatives could possibly be.
"Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is the name given to a protest movement that began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district, receiving global attention and spawning the Occupy movement against social and economic inequality worldwide."
Social inequality - "Social inequality refers to the ways in which socially-defined categories of persons (according to characteristics such as gender, age, "class" and ethnicity) are differentially positioned with regard to access to a variety of social "goods", such as the labour market and other sources of income, the education and healthcare systems, and forms of political representation and participation."
Economic inequality - "Economic inequality refers to how economic metrics are distributed among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries."
The occupy wall street movement begins with upholding equal rights for society and economic distribution. It should also end there. When high ups do not listen to the public, the public has no option than to go PUBLIC. When people are treated worse than others because of their gender, age, colour or location then we have a serious problem when in a country that upholds values of respect, honour, freedom, unity and peace.
When the US gets a black president but black people are still treated the same, the only difference is black people in a suit are treated like white people, but any other black person is treated the same as they were.
An increase in over the top responses to black crimes or cases where the police draw or even shoot before asking questions. We just recently had a case where a black male was running away from a police officer, the officer turned, drew his weapon and began unloading his clip into the gentlemens back. *UNDER NO LAW* is it legal to fire on someone who is currently no threat, whether the guy killed 100 people or was going for a run. At the point his back was turned, he was NO THREAT to the officer.
This kind of oppressive response to black people is resulting in a stereotype that is not only being labelled to the black communities, but is being owned by the black communities.
We can only grow in this world if we begin to accept equality, if we begin to accept people, if we begin to love, appreciate and help people.
Kids are like sponges and take in information like there is no tomorrow. If the kid has a thug dad, then the kid will be a thug, simple. If the kid is told he is trash, a criminal and will always be trash and a criminal by people that are supposed to uphold the law, and he is treated like crap by them. He won't grow very much if he doesn't get some serious help from someone wise.
You can't put bad things into a blender and expect to get a nutrient filled shake. You get out what you put in. This occupy wall street movement is one of the few things keeping the black community from going back to the days of being called 'boy'...
This also applies to the Hispanic community and any other oppressed person/s. I am not subjecting the African American population to this, it is just the most recognised and easy area to talk about as it is so prominent in todays society.
This is part 1 of my argument, I don't want it to be overly long. I am looking forward to seeing your arguments :)
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge, now let's get to the debate.
First, I would like to discus the beginning of the OWS movement. This will be in two separate parts in the beginning of it's actual beginning and the Radical Left's Occupy movement.
Occupy supposedly, sprung out of nowhere, but what people fail to realize is that the OWS came from an internet lie that the band Radiohead would be playing at Occupy. Of course the band declined this as they were never coming in the first place as they would get sucked in to this, but they found that this was indeed a lie. 
After the initial phase out there was one mainstream media member named Natasha Lennard who supported the Occupy Movement helped spread the rumor and got this going. Not only that, but in the next phase they marched on the Brooklyn Bridge to block traffic and were getting arrested. Natasha Lennard was arrested while she was actually part of the protest. To extend to that not only was she biasly feeding the media we can see that she was actually at a Communist rally speaking out against Capitalism. [see youtube video 1]
A lot of them purposed of them being peaceful, but many of the female members reported rapes and that the Occupy "Security" wouldn't do anything about it.  Females have grown worried and not to mention the drug abuse and other things that even in New York that they had to stop cleaning out the Port-a-Potties due to the sharp objects and drugs in there.   The violence had gotten that bad amongst the Occupiers. A few years after the movement began emails were uncovered that showed that those in charge of MSNBC were actually contacting the leaders of Occupy telling them to be as vague as you can. That way you get enough support and lots of people which leads me to my next point. 
Contention 2: Goals are unclear?
Look at the above Occupy sign. What does it even mean? Congrats you have debt, but that doesn't mean anything and there are government agencies to help you pay it off. In an interview with Occupy LA's media director, Davis, he stated that, “I wouldn’t say that we’re the anti-tea party. I wouldn’t say we’re anti-anything. I would say we’re for things, we’re not anti-anything," and that “I wouldn’t say that we’re the anti-tea party. I wouldn’t say we’re anti-anything. I would say we’re for things, we’re not anti-anything."  Here we can see that the Occupy movement at Occupy LA which was said to be the most organized of all the Occupy movements across the US that actually had "goals" that they don't stand for anything. This, once again is to gather up support for the movement, because if they don't stand for anything they can get people aboard. This of which is one of the Saul ALinksy's Rules for Radicals that he made.  Alinsky was a Social Democrat who fueled the Anti-Vietnam War movements and the anarchic movements of the 60's and 70's. His writtings were even said to fuel Tim McVehige's Okalahoma City bombings. He was also the mentor to BOTH Hilary Clinton and Obama (but that's for another debate). We can see that Alinsky's followers learned from their failures in the 70's to not go and telgraph that their working against the government to overthrow it like that of Bill Ayers in the 1970s. Just how is Alinsky connected? Well his mentor was none other than Al Capone's number 2. After prohibition the mob went into the Union industry and Alinsky and his gang formed a Union later to be known as the SEIU who publically announced their backing of the Occupy movement. 
Contention 3: Occupy State of the Union and the Violence
In 2012, Obama gave his State of the Union Speech calling for; Fair shots, fair oppertunities, and if threatend wealth redistribution.  Now is when the Occupiers began their violence by targetting banking officials and minorities. This is part of Alinsky's plan where they are to create chaos and from the chaos they will establish structured chaos. They marched on an executive for Bank of America's house of which was trapped in the bathroom of their home while his home was surrounded by hundreds of angry protestors with blownhorns shouting things at him.  The SEIU bussed in students for their march on Bank of America. The SEIU when they got close to the bank ran ahead and started ushering people into the bank and the students were arrested NOT the Union members who created this attack on the banks.  Then the Occupy movement began to associate with "Terror" groups like Code Pink and Earth Liberation Front.  The ELF (What I'll refur to the Earth Liberation Front as to save space), started creating fires and burning building to continue the chaos of the Occupy movement. 
With that I'll hand it back over to my opponent.
I have nothing to say on top of what you have as these are simply true statements. However I do have an argument outside of this; it is about time we have a movement for justice that is mostly surrounding honesty and respect. I do not doubt there are bad people in this movement to give it a bias outlook, attempting to overrun it similar to the feminist movement.
I would also like to suggest that you will always find extreme people within movements that want to make it legalistic and fundamental, look at religion and previous movements that went out with good intent, instead, turned bad... Black panthers, feminists, even the internet group known as anonymous.
Each one of these groups had good people rising up making it seem very nice, but then we had intolerant and ignorant people taking advantage and control of this.
So if we look at the OWS movement, we can see that it was started with a lack of good intentions, we see crime, and other things arising that claim to be in the name of the movement. I will not deny these things, I do not like it and wish it to leave also. However we see honest people that previously had nothing to cling to in hopes to support equality, but now they do. Feminism and Anonymous were very exclusive, not many variations of people can join, feminism started and stopped with women's rights... but more specifically, the 'oppression' and lack of respect by the male population.
Anonymous was a group from the internet with intention of fearing the government and authorities to do the right thing.
However, if we don't have public awareness to any degree, we will breed ignorance and misinformation.
I live in Cairns Queensland Australia. At the school I went to, we were taught that the 'white men' that first came to Australia and claimed it as their own land said that the aboriginals attacked them and they had no choice but to peacefully remove the threats.
I later found out that the aboriginal people didn't mind sharing, but when they were offended, their only retaliation they knew was to threaten. They realised some of the men were sleeping with their women and the tradition is not completed this way.
Instead of apologising, the European settlers simply killed them, starting a war. They never viewed the aboriginal people as, well... people. They literally saw them as animals up until the 60's.
We stopped a lot of bigotry and ignorance to give the aboriginal people equal rights back in the 60's, and we are educating people now through public awareness. Of course there are still angry and bitter aboriginals that hate what happened to their ancestors, and there are racist people who hate the aboriginal people. But the line between what they are fighting for and what they aren't is drawn up well.
The OWS movement, although starting off bad has seen light and potential. Even if it is simply for authorities to possibly address on an issue of education. Whether we like it or not, if we don't have any movements, we will see a lot more oppression. We need to stand up for what we believe in, and if we are misinformed, then a group needs to step up and educate.
Sorry if my argument seemed out of place, I am incredibly tired and needed to reply before it would run out of time.
I understand and agree that the thoughts behind the OWS movement were not as sincere and authentic as one would hope to begin a movement.
I understand and agree that the motives of a lot of the people in this new movement are not acceptable or simply misinformed.
I understand and agree that there are a lot of grey areas in terms of goals that are unclear.
However, to remove this movement for them three reasons instead of educating and making disclaimers is just foolish. We need a movement for people to fight for, we need to promote peace, education and acknowledgement / respect. We need goals that are black and white that are simple and direct.
The only people that take this now 'some what' clear movement are those who are uneducated or who have bad motives and will lie or break the law in order to get there.
I thank my opponent for waiting for me. Now let's get to the debate.
My opponent's ENTIRE opening case is negated as we can see that he has escentially dropped the entire case by the de facto point that my 2nd Contention escentially negated it. My opponent raised the violence of police against the OWS movement, but as I have already have shown we can see that movement targeted the minority police officers at it viewed them as "Fools of the System" and of course the Leftist media in the United States and even on Youtube made several examples of this to point it out. Just like at the 2008 Republican National Convention an undercover activist turned in two protesters that were going to bomb the building.  Instead of the national headlines being about the bombers it was about the Undercover Activist betraying the people.
My opponent then in his second round brings up the factor of education, but the fact is that it is not so simple in the US. I'm not sure who owns what in Australia, but a majority of the media is owned by the left. This is one of the only nations to censor Stalin's Ukrainian Genocide and even Ho Chi Mihn's Massacres. The Leftist media and public protested to get the US out of Vietnam, but when the US left over 4 million were massacred under the new Communist regieme.  BUT where was the leftist coverage on that? So we can see that there is a Leftist issue when it comes to the US, meaning that said educations are impossible without hearing a Leftist purposal while you're at it.
If we observe the above graph we can actually see that income inequality actually worsens under the Democrat solutions. Now you may wounder why, but the simply the matter of fact that the Leftists are following the same economic plans and all of these things hurt the economy. We can see that these things based on Price controls and the regulations of the business are all things that harm the economy and that's one thing that the Democrats champion themselves on.
In the current system, the industries have always been free and open. We can see that Entrapenuers have been free to do as they please and they have set reasonable prises and entry fees for the consumer. We can see that without a great amount of high internet regulation by the federal government that the internet has thrived in the current situation. Without this regulation that this resolution is purposing we can see that current industries like the internet have thrived “"due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before."  So we can see that regulation would kill inovation and it does this by ending and placing a cap on speeding up the internet.  As economist Milton Friedman argues in his book Capitalism and Freedom, we can see that if we abolish these price controls we permit the market to show us the scarce resources and these resources cost more, but with these controls it limits the company’s fixture to this issue and once again harming the economy.
My opponent brings up Austalia as an example. It is said to be a Penal Colony full of Criminals, but this is simply not true. The main reason that they were a "Penal Colony" full of "Criminals" was that many of them were actually Irish POWs from the Brittish conquest of Ireland. That is one of the reasons that the steroetype of the Irish is that they're criminals. Just a fun fact for you there.
Now, I am not arguing that this movement should be abolished, but we must see that this needs to be closely observed and there are some that need to be jailed. I AM arguing that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is harmful and does way more harm than good.
We are debating whether or not it is a good movement, although, since we have began this debate we have both (if not you, then at least me) have become a lot more aware of this issue, on why it is good, what the problems are and all around situations.
Personally, I have come from an environment where if you don't speak up, you miss out, a lot of peoples opinions on world view are completely different, as you would expect. As a result, when a rule or regulation gets put through, everyone should have a say as to why they believe what they do, even if it isn't changed to the persons point of view. At least they get the respect they deserve by being a citizen who pays taxes and in some way, helps society.
Since there is just so many points of view, I feel as if it is very liberating to see people join hands for one cause. Sometimes though, people are just ignorant and bigoted or they are intentionally either sabotaging or trolling the situation; or ... just uneducated. I am aware that this was started on a bad premise, based on lies, deceit and the intention for quick money and popularity. However, regardless of how it began, it should be what the drive is and what the potential is.
Regardless of how bad it is, it has potential to be invigorating and liberating for the people if the time comes when the government does something the people do not like.
Think of any movement like a protective shell, the bigger the group is, the less transparent the shell becomes, and the safer you will be. The accusations and crimes committed within this movement are unnecessary and unwanted by the majority. Most people that are in this movement are not in it because of how it began but because of the potential, and because of what they believe it stands for. There are problems, I do not deny this, there is ignorance, we can't avoid this. However, not one movement was perfect when it began; I don't want to be that guy that brings up Hitler... But look at Hitler and his movement, if his entire intention stopped at the German revolution to get out of English control, he would be viewed as a hero. A leader among leaders and a face to one day be revered. However it ended badly... I don't need to go into the details about that.
This movement has the potential to go far just due to the numbers, the problem we have is a large mass of ignorant and uneducated bigots that have become an 'extreme' section of it, similar to the feminazis. If the group some how has order, and direction, it would be a movement of reverence and respect.
The Anzacs in Australia and New Zealand are revered for the response, not the action. They literally lost the war, but it was how they finished as to why they are heroes to this day.
If they ended how they began they would be a failure for us to see and no one would blink an eye other than the 1 minute of silence to salute brave soldiers. Instead, we are proud because of how our allies committed them selves to protect.
If the government ever does something that needs to be stopped or needs to be turned over, not many movements can successfully say they have the capacity to do such things. But this movement has already established numbers, it just needs to establish direction and order.
In terms of corruption and insincerity:
"A few years after the movement began emails were uncovered that showed that those in charge of MSNBC were actually contacting the leaders of Occupy telling them to be as vague as you can."
This is clearly not acceptable and there is no real defence for this. I am appalled that it began like this and I would be no advocate for it, if it wasn't already here. My only response to this is. Why not make the best out of it? It was manipulated for popularity and ratings, why can't we manipulate it for something good? It is now a dormant giant.
"Contention 2: Goals are unclear?"
"Contention 3: Occupy State of the Union and the Violence"
"My opponent's ENTIRE opening case is negated as we can see that he has escentially dropped the entire case by the de facto point that my 2nd Contention escentially negated it."
I would not say entirely, I was very busy and the argument was rushed, however I would say it has merit. I suppose it depends on how much we each trust the government; currently I don't trust them that much, I respect that they are aware that they need the populous, they also need to make sure security is at a maximum, as well as with current threats arising, such as terrorism and gang violence being very prominent; cops are becoming very aggressive towards civilians (not all obviously, but definitely a lot more has been recorded.)
"My opponent then in his second round brings up the factor of education, but the fact is that it is not so simple in the US. I'm not sure who owns what in Australia, but a majority of the media is owned by the left."
Australia media is owned by the Liberal / Coalition party. Feed the rich, conserve money, tax more to get out of debt. They hide anything that we may vote against that will lose money.
"Now, I am not arguing that this movement should be abolished, but we must see that this needs to be closely observed and there are some that need to be jailed. I AM arguing that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is harmful and does way more harm than good. "
I agree with you that justice needs to be applied, so far it has done some damage, in regards to public awareness though; rarely do you ever see change.
I could argue the Chinese school massacre here, where the students were gunned down by military; in the eyes of the government, the students were doing a horrible thing, if an uprising took place in a communist nation, the numbers would destroy the leaders within moments. However, in the publics eyes, students were killed for standing up for what they believe in.
It comes down to perspective. You could argue that this movement has done more harm than good, and you would be right... SO FAR... So far the movement sucks and it has done very little, it has no direction or driven leadership. It has been manipulated, fabricated from little to make money and ratings / popularity. If we look at the now, it's terrible.
However, regardless, it has potential, it has numbers coming it; i.e... for a bad reason, non specific rubbish, but it pulled in people.
If done correctly, it could make public awareness a whole new ball game.
Public awareness is one of the hardest things to address and catch on, it took 60 years for the Aboriginal people to be as respected as they are today, most people are still unaware and show little care for what actually happened in the stolen generation. I was shocked when I found out, and was completely appalled. That is when I became an advocate for public awareness, I try and see the good in all areas of communication. It just seems that so many groups of people have unsuccessfully made an impact, now we see one doing something. Getting more people involved. If they get over this phase of violence and crime and lack of direction and leadership, it can go so far.
If this movement was in Australia, we would see a lot of people understand what the Indigenous populous went through.
As for your base argument, "Occupy Wall Street Movement is harmful and does way more harm than good."
It's too early to tell, the direction and purpose of the movement in contrast to the change it has caused and how much damage has been done. So far... of course they haven't done anything. Neither did those chinese school students that are now dead. But they had potential.
Yes, so far the movement has done more harm then good, but it can do a lot more good then harm in the future.
I thank my opponent for this debate, but I believe that it time for things to come to an end here.
Contention 1: Grassroots Movement
"The birds did not understand Snowball's long words, but they accepted his explanation, and all the humbler animals set to work to learn the new maxim by heart. FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD, was inscribed on the end wall of the barn, above the Seven Commandments and in bigger letters"
I begin this argument with a quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm. My opponent argues that this is a good thing even if they are uneducated, but this is the tragedy here. If we have great movements with the uneducated masses we can see that they will follow blindly or start something rediculious. We already know that there is no actual platform for the Occupy Movement and they don't actually stand for anything. When many Occupiers don't even know what the movement actually stands for. was a major reason that many were actually against democracy in the early 1600 and 1700s as the majority of the people were uneducated and couldn't make sound decissions. We can see that Yes they have the right to assemble, but the vagueness is a major flaw in this movment for the same reason we see the Sheep in Animal Farm.
My opponent wants to change Occupy, but the thing is that Occupy Movement currently is dead. We can see that there really isn't be used as a mission for good while we can see that the Occupy hype is practically over and we would need a new movement to make a change. You can't revive Occupy Wall Street.
Contention 2: Goals are Unclear
My opponent concedes here. All points extended.
Contention 3: Occupy State of the Union and Violence.
My opponent concedes here that this violence and such was unacceptable as it also is a concession of the Leftist Media targetting Police attacks without showing the full story. So that part of my opponent's case is negated. My opponent tries to shift the blame again to cops, but we can actually trace this back to Bill Clinton's Bill that permitted US Military to arm the local law enforcement to combat crime and this has definately caused an increase in violence on both sides. I would love to debate this by arguing the passage of the CAMERA Act of Rand Paul that would mittigate Clinton's Bill. Yes, I agree that the public has to be informed, but this is the wrong way to do it. I can also argue that economically that what Occupy was pushing for was also invalid and contradictory to their own beliefs, but that is also for another debate.
With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con!
I liked this debate a lot, and from a position of knowing very little, I have learnt an extreme amount; I want to thank Con for being very informative and honest with his/her positon and did not undermine any of my arguments, but used a proper format in which to argue with me I won't make any rebuttals due to this being the conclusion, although will address areas that were misinformed and show why you should vote for Pro.
Throughout the debate our stances and reasons were completely different. My stance (Pro) was that there needs to be a movement with public awareness in America. This was my grounding point in round 1; I suggested that the OWS movement has actually helped with public awareness, and it has, if people know about the movement then public awareness has been achieved.
However Con would show clearly later that the direct intention for the reason was for publicity, popularity and ratings, at least as far as the public can conclude. Con also said that the movement had vague reasons and a lot of violence; we can safely argue that the violence was done by extreme ignorant, bigoted, uneducated, hateful, bitter people that wanted to hurt the government or at least authority figures in some way.
Later I argued that even though the movement may have been started with bad reason, it has a large following regardless of what has happened. I also suggested that violence is going to occur anyway and by no means do I condone or advocate this, for some reason Con used this to suggest victory over part of his debate. However I would have to disagree on the premise that asking an opinion or stating a fact doesn't prove your argument to be true. Only that the statement is involved; with in ANY movement, we see violence. We see violence with the most peaceful kinds of people in the world currently over in the Middle East. There is a sect of Buddhists that is beheading Islamic followers. The rest of the Buddhist community does not condone this, and this doesn’t prove the movement of Buddhism to be bad or dangerous; it shows the uneducated and hateful people with any community.
In round 3, Con made a statement saying
He is correct that it has done harm, but he is completely misinterpreting the potential it has, as well as how powerful public awareness is. This movement also shows us how potent bad leaders are. I do not agree that this movement has completely done more bad than good as it is completely subjective and based on perspective. I will say that simply making a public statement can do more help than bad.
Con also says “My opponent brings up Austalia as an example. It is said to be a Penal Colony full of Criminals, but this is simply not true. The main reason that they were a "Penal Colony" full of "Criminals" was that many of them were actually Irish POWs from the Brittish conquest of Ireland. That is one of the reasons that the steroetype of the Irish is that they're criminals. Just a fun fact for you there.”
Just to be clear, I was referring to the lack of public awareness of the history of the indigenous communities we have in this country. If it was not for public awareness, we would still not be aware of the crimes committed to these people all of those years ago. As a result of these crimes, they were treated as animals, made into slaves, not given the right to vote and up until the 1970’s were allowed to legally be shot.
Public awareness saved these people and public awareness can change the course of the next generation.
The funny thing about my argument is that we can see the problems within a public organisation because of the awareness, we can see the problems up close and personal within the OWS movement because of what they are pushing forward.
“My opponent wants to change Occupy, but the thing is that Occupy Movement currently is dead. We can see that there really isn't be used as a mission for good while we can see that the Occupy hype is practically over and we would need a new movement to make a change. You can't revive Occupy Wall Street.” – Con
Why? All they have to do is go up against something worth fighting for, they already have the name, they would be fine.
In conclusion, without a public awareness movement with potential, the media can portray what they like, how they like it. If we want change we need to realise how important it is, how needed it is. I gave the example of the indigenous community in Australia; another thing about that movement is the amount of uneducated people that are within it fighting for freedom and rights for their people. Most of them don’t know what they are doing or what they are fighting for, and I have no doubt that if lead astray they could essentially fight for anything, but they are not because their leaders are positioned correctly.
Public awareness is the most powerful source the civilian community has left.
|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:||6||0|