The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
masterzanzibar
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Polticans expensies in the UK are outrage and should be stopped.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/11/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,433 times Debate No: 7796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

I will leave my opponent to prove that , polticans claming hundreds of thousands of pounds in expenses for things like furniture , luxery houses , cars and oh yes porn movies , is justified and should continue.

my view is that they should be stopped or limited.
masterzanzibar

Con

Good luck opponent.

First off, I'm not exactly sure what this resolution is meant to say. I for one hope this doesn't turn into a round of a moving target affirmation (primarily because I will have to do the dirty work of pinning the affirmative down.)
so, to clarify the resolution, and to articulate what each side must do to win I will now cover some burden analysis.
BURDENS:
1.) the pro must show that on balance or taking everything into account that, politicians salaries are out of control or "outrageous" as prescribed by the resolution.
2.) the Pro must show that some entity, whether it be by divine force, jack bower, Oprah Winfrey, biggest loser contestants, or perhaps three of the American Idol Judges ( excluding Paula she's somewhat incompetent.) would be justified in stopping these people from getting paid.

since the resolution is a statement this statement cannot be proven true unless these two burdens are fulfilled. if my opponent meant something else by this resolution, than they my clarify what they really meant R2.

until this time I did not actually read the comments made by the affirmative, so my guess is that he could quite possibly just be referring to politicians spending money on things that are perfectly legal like cars, homes, furniture to furnish those homes, and yes... oh yes, pornographic films. My opponent does not warrant, or even warrant by implication as to why this would not be justified. people have the freedoms to spend money, and are encouraged to do so by the man. perhaps the question should be, is the man justified in always making people spend their' money? I think he is, so that's probably not the question that should be asked. anyway vote con as statement is inherently false.
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

thank you for accepting this.

i shall start of by defining what i reall mean even though its already in the title and you should not have took this up if you do not know what i mean when i refer to a poltician.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
politician
Noun
a person actively engaged in politics, esp. a member of parliament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now let me define what poltical expenses are.

poltical expeneses - money provided by the taxpayer for polticans to cover the cost of polticans using their own money for work.
_________________________________________________________

now in your last comment you said , that

"just be referring to politicians spending money on things that are perfectly legal like cars, homes, furniture to furnish those homes, and yes... oh yes, pornographic films. My opponent does not warrant, or even warrant by implication as to why this would not be justified."

my response - basically you are saying it is acceptable for a poltican to claim money from the taxpayer for items which are completey non-work realted and they did not use their own money for.

I would like you to justify why polticans can use my money to spend on items which are not work realted , when the have their own sallery to pay for this. they earn �55,000 a year and that is their money which they may spend on whatever luxerys they desire , they claim expenses which are spent on luxerys , but are only suppose to be used for work realted costs.

Polticans treat expenses as a second wage . The majority of polticans buy a second house near their work on expenses , fair enough , but when they are done they may sell this house and keep the money made.

My local mp Adam Igrim who is retiring after being exposed has FIVE jobs outside polticis and was still one of the highest claimers of expenses , what the hell ?

I would like to ask my opponent one more time , why he has said it is justified for polticans to claim expenses from the taxpayer , ansd use them on non-work related items.
masterzanzibar

Con

Alright so to clear a few things up before we get down to the nitty gritty
a.)contrary to the popular belief I do know what a politician is.
b.) quite consistent to the popular belief, I did not know what you were referring to by political expensies, nor could I have possibly known because the opening statement given by the affirmative is so awfully vague and fragmented.

any whom, I am prepared to debate the resolution as I have seen the light through the awe-inspiring analysis given by my opponent in R2.

my opponent defines political expenses as

"money provided by the taxpayer for politicians to cover the cost of politicians using their own money for work."

from my basic understanding political expenses are used by politicians in the UK to cover costs of staying away from their main home, running their main offices, staffing costs, resources, supplies, ect.

now that we actually know that this debate is about, lets get on to the real burdens and some arguments.

BURDENS:
1.) the pro must show that on balance, these political expenses are in fact "outrageous" as prescribed by the resolution.
2.)the pro must show that discontinuing these expenses would be justified.

until the pro can fulfill these burdens you must negate.

NEGATIVE CASE
1.) Government jobs funded by government appropriations

the sole reason why there are expenditures in the U.K is to cover the expenses politicians use to do their job. To not compensate these politicians for their money would be like your boss at pizza hut coming in and saying, "Hey Mr. employee, we're running low on money man, so what I'm going to need you to do is buy your own ingredients and bring them here to make pizzas for our company on your dime." and rationalizing it by saying, "we let you keep your tips!" it's ridiculous. although the salaries given to these politicians are quite handsome, they are promised compensation for resources, working locations ect. in order to do the functions of their job. the notion that the majority, or even a large amount of people are abusing their political expenditures is completely unfounded, and has in no way been substantiated by any sort of evidence given by the affirmative. I agree whole heartedly that those who are abusing the system and buying unneeded luxuries at the expense of the taxpayer wallet should be brought to justice, however to say that this represents the whole is entirely fallacious.

PRO CASE
PRO SAYS:"I would like you to justify why politicians can use my money to spend on items which are not work related , when the have their own salary to pay for this. they earn �55,000 a year and that is their money which they may spend on whatever luxuries they desire , they claim expenses which are spent on luxuries , but are only suppose to be used for work related costs."

1.) the vast majority politicians are not spending this money on these luxuries, and the ones who are go through a great deal of public and governmental scrutiny. for example Richard Timney, the husband of Jacqui Smith who is a member of parliament, recently admitted to the allegations of purchasing pornographic films with his wife's political expenses. As a result, Home Security and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are now investigating Smith's previous purchases with the expenses, and she is now in jeopardy of losing her expenses altogether. If Home Security and the British parliament regulatory committees are threatening to revoke her expenses over two 5 dollars porn films it's obvious that the abuse of this system is taken quite seriously by the British parliament. the tax payers are protected, and the claim that politicians on balance are using these funds for luxuries is bogus.

to conclude, my opponents case is focused upon the fallacious premise that politicians are abusing these rights, when the truth is that this is illegal, and can in no way be applied to represent politicians within the U.K. vote C
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

thank you for clarifying were you stand.

one point i shall make right now before i say anything else.

http://www.mirror.co.uk...

thats �93,000,000 in poltical expenses , now unless my opponent can justify were in a country like the u.k polticans are expected to shell out �93,000,000 of their own money so they can do their job , remember you claimed that this money was for the good of their job you therefore have the burden to prove that the 93 million pounds they claimed , helped them do their jobs and take into consideration the amoun of mp's in the uk before you answer.

i have proved my first point , i have gave the burden of truth that �93 million is outrageous. unless you care to argue that spending �93 million in a current credit crunch , is acceptale when it has been widley acknowledged that , the majority of their spendings are not work realted.

Now i shall prove that the expensives beign stopped shall be justified.

If we set up large cheap hotels near parliment , then thats where the polticans can live. therefore they have no reason to claim expenses for houses , if we provide them with a couple of large buses to tansort them , it will elimate the need for mp's to spend thousands of pounds on taxi's EACH.

poltical expenses should be halted as it has been proven over the last couple of years , the polticans expect the taxpayers to shell out for whatever they want.
masterzanzibar

Con

now unless my opponent can justify were in a country like the UK politicians are expected to shell out �93,000,000 of their own money so they can do their job , remember you claimed that this money was for the good of their job you therefore have the burden to prove that the 93 million pounds they claimed , helped them do their jobs and take into consideration the amount of mp's in the uk before you answer.

MY RESPONSE:
if all I have to prove is that the expenses that mps claimed was used to assist them in doing their job to win this debate, this should be an easy win for the negative. This is not only because they spent it allow them to do their job, but because that is ALL that they spent it on. Here are the charts for the amount of money that MPs spent last year and what specifically they spent it on http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk...'allowanceexpenditure.pdf notice that these funds go into doing things like running the office and staffing their offices; all work related. if politicians spend the money on anything other than assistance within their jobs they run into trouble with the British parliamentary regulatory committees. (see Smith Example in R2.) thus, this money is only used to do their job.

AFF SAYS:
have proved my first point , I have gave the burden of truth that �93 million is outrageous. unless you care to argue that spending �93 million in a current credit crunch , is acceptable when it has been widely acknowledged that , the majority of their spending are not work related.

RESPONSE:
93 million euros may seem like a lot of money, but when it costs tens of thousands of dollars to run an office, pay staff, travel, and purchase resources for EACH MP that adds up quite quickly. times that by 646 (the number of people in parliament ) and you get the 93 million that the affirmative speaks about. NOTICE that the affirmative makes the claim that" it has been widely acknowledged that, the majority of their spending are not work related." this has NEVER been proven by the affirmative in any way, is not widely acknowledged, and is just plain not true. if mps have any suspicious activity regarding their pay, they are immediately put under investigation by the regulatory boards I have mentioned in this speech and R2. these politicians spend what they need to, to get the job done.

AFF SAYS:
If we set up large cheap hotels near parliament , then thats where the polticans can live. therefore they have no reason to claim expenses for houses , if we provide them with a couple of large buses to tansort them , it will elimate the need for mp's to spend thousands of pounds on taxi's EACH.

MY RESPONSE: okay great! lets do set these hotels up! lets provide these huge buses! however the fact is these hotels aren't there, they aren't going to be there, (unless you step in my friend!) and the mps need the means to travel and do their job in parliament. to do so would only mean a portion of these expenses would be reduced

to conclude, the stance taken by the affirmative has completely traveled out of the realm of logic and factual based debating, to one purely composed of emotion. as such, the affirmative does not fulfill either their burdens which were presented in R2, and has thus lost the debate. those burdens were again:
1.) the pro must show that on balance, these political expenses are in fact "outrageous" as prescribed by the resolution.
2.)the pro must show that discontinuing these expenses would be justified.

the sheer neglect of empirically based argumentation has been absent from this round, and as a result, you must negate. thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
the link to that article about the MP investigation is http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
sorry ran out of characters
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
ok then for those of you who failed to read the title ... my case is that polticans expenses are outrages and should be stopped .... i will psot what i mean if i have failed to make myself clear on my next argument soon.
Posted by Mr_smith 7 years ago
Mr_smith
Dude, this stuff happens all the time in the U.S. too. It happens everywhere.
Posted by MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
Does no one on this site understand how to debate? Regardless of the original proposition, there is not case stated whatsoever.
Posted by SniperJake94 7 years ago
SniperJake94
You obviously have no case and is very unfair for Con to prove everything wrong. You WILL bring up new arguements in rounds 2 and 3 which is also unfair because your opponent must also research more. Besides most people here live in the U.S and are used to U.S "news." No offense. But the UK isn't really all that bad. I would take it but the resolution didn't state when and what expensies they wasted. (expensies isn't a word). Because the resolution never stated when I could say things in the future.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
i dont get it , if everybodys so confident that i am an idiot , why dont you tke this debate up and we can see who wins.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Maybe you should edit your debate now to bear the burden of proof.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
sorry i was a wimp by posting sarcastic comments mr.wjmelements
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Don't give your opponent burden of proof. You are the instigator. You are PRO. Don't be a wimp.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
why dont you take me up on this debate , you are making it out like my taxmoney is of good use to buy polticans some sexual relife , could use that as one of your arguments i dont mind , or how about them having a nice house decorated with my money will benefit how the feel .

once you start paying taxes and actually work for a living , you will soon become slowly annoyed by this ...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
rangersfootballclubmasterzanzibarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
rangersfootballclubmasterzanzibarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07