The Instigator
zdog234
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
perfectionist48
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,773 times Debate No: 4082
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (20)
Votes (14)

 

zdog234

Con

My opening argument is very simple.

1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme

2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class

3) It gives a very low amount of money back.
http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return

4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.
perfectionist48

Pro

Hello. Before I start off, I want to say a couple things. First of all, I won't actually have much to argue in this debate, because there's only so much I can say. Second, I want my opponent to know that I agree with everything he just said in his opening argument. This might seem that I have just disproved my entire argument, but that is not true. Unfortunately, my opponent is fighting the wrong battle.

The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory."
My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed."
The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay.

To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it?
And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?
Debate Round No. 1
zdog234

Con

Hello. Before I start off, I want to say a couple things. First of all, I won't actually have much to argue in this debate, because there's only so much I can say. Second, I want my opponent to know that I agree with everything he just said in his opening argument. This might seem that I have just disproved my entire argument, but that is not true. Unfortunately, my opponent is fighting the wrong battle.

The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory."
My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed."
The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay.

I would like t go bit by bit.

1) My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default.

"To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it?
And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?"
2) The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed. My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.) But it doesn't say that we can't make a new social security system.

3) For example, the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60.

4) I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine.

Vote for the best argument, please.
perfectionist48

Pro

I would like to say/ask a few things before actually debating.

1) Why did my opponent post my entire argument over again at the top of his argument? (Without quotation marks, I might add.) What was the purpose of that?

2)"My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default."
I have read over ALL of my opponent's previous debates, and in every single one of them he points out to the readers what his opponent failed to do, why his opponent's arguments are "null and void", why this means he is the winner. Please, zdog234, the constant repetition of this sort of behavior in which you address the readers and actually tell them how to think, in which you attempt to make up their minds for them, becomes quite aggravating after some time. It is only common courtesy to allow a person to have their own thought process and to make their own decisions. If you refrained just a bit from your constant instruction toward the readers on how to vote, I have a feeling that your arguments would be more appreciated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the actual debate.

"My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default." (again)
In this case, this statement is faulty. I did in fact address my opponent's points. I said that I agreed, but that these points addressed the wrong issue. I did not go into detail on each point because there was no need.

"The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed."
Actually, the topic of this debate deals with the CURRENT social security system. The current one has not been changed.

"My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.)"
Umm, where does his argument say that? Yes, that's the topic of the debate, and he took the con position. However, I don't remember reading that statement at any point up to this moment. I would also like to make note of the fact that my opponent just agreed with my argument.

"I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine."
He has? I remember reading him agreeing with the fact that no one would pay, but I do not recall seeing a single remark about my second question: "And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?"

To Recap:

My opponent's arguments are this:
1. The current social security system is unfair: it is not even, discriminates against the poor, and gives very little back.
2. The social security system could/should be changed: "the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60."

My argument is this:
1. The current social security system is messed up, that is true. But by making payment into the current social security system optional, no one would pay. The only outcome of that would be that the people who need financial support CURRENTLY would not be able to get it. And those people would suffer. Yes, the social security system could be changed, but the CURRENT one has not been, and that is the system we are dealing with. I hate to break it to you, but in this debate we are not talking about a brighter future. We are talking about the present. And in the present the social security system might be horrible. But by making payment not mandatory, we would only be creating more problems, not solving any.

It is quite common that debaters stray from the topic of their debate, and try to distract readers by bringing in other issues. I do not deny that my opponent is a good debater. But in this argument, my opponent and I did not take two different sides of an issue, we fought two different battles. I agree with my opponent that all readers should vote for the best argument, but I also think that readers should make sure they carefully assess this before making a selection.
Debate Round No. 2
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
Again, I did address your points. And this is getting old. The debate ended about a week ago. Voters can keep voting, but we can and should stop arguing about what happened or didn't happen in the debate. It's done, it's over. So just let it go. Anything you feel you should have said can haunt you for the rest of your life, you can keep that guilty feeling of not having included it in your arguments, but stop posting additions.

Yes, you used sources. Yes, I didn't. The argument path I chose did not require them. Also, I just clicked on your links and they brought me to Wikipedia's home page, not to an actual article. But maybe that's just my computer...

And as to: "I did say where people would get funding from!

The topic of the debate was paying into the social security system, not taking out of it!

Old people should just take money out of the current social security system, as if it has worked the way it was made to, they will get the same amount of money they put into it as they took out of it!"
Again, you should have put that in your argument. But I don't really think it counts now. These are comments, not part of the debate.
Posted by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
Technically. Perfectionist did not address any of my points. And to say that I won them by default for that reason is perfectly normal.

Source:
http://www.debate.org...

And it is technically childish for you to to bag on me for that.

Oh, one more thing. I did not accuse the other party of boundless crimes. I did not accuse you of any crimes. The correct phrase would be "faulty errors." And I did not even directly say anything about you or perfectionist.

And you saying that is very corrupting (inkslinger).

Also: I used sources!

She didn't!

I did say where people would get funding from!

The topic of the debate was paying into the social security system, not taking out of it!

Old people should just take money out of the current social security system, as if it has worked the way it was made to, they will get the same amount of money they put into it as they took out of it!
Posted by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
wait you know zane as well (25)
Posted by InkSlinger4 9 years ago
InkSlinger4
Zane was annoying. The fact that he tried to win votes by accusing the other party of boundless crimes is shockingly repulsive. I'm glad that voters were able to discern his warped presentation.
Posted by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
oh well... zane still lost and i just didnt like his argument
Posted by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
Um, thanks I guess Juan. But I don't actually approve of biased voting like that. I'd prefer it if your vote came from an honest opinion that I had the better argument.
Posted by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
i voted for you because zane is a douche... also to ruin his win/loss ratio
Posted by DDRPsycho 9 years ago
DDRPsycho
interesting, to say the least
Posted by perfectionist48 9 years ago
perfectionist48
debatechampion, I also basically agree. I don't think anyone could argue with that.
I think it might actually be a good idea to mention that I chose the pro side to this debate for the sole reason that zdog234 chose con. I argued the position I was given. I don't actually feel very strongly about this topic, but I was challenged, so I accepted and then stuck to pro.
Posted by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
that's basically my idea. 25
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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 
Vote Placed by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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 
Vote Placed by DDRPsycho 9 years ago
DDRPsycho
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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 
Vote Placed by debatechampion 9 years ago
debatechampion
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by InkSlinger4 9 years ago
InkSlinger4
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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 
Vote Placed by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by advanceh 9 years ago
advanceh
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
zdog234perfectionist48Tied
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