Presidential Campaign Simulation Democrat v Republican
Alright, since I have received multiple applicants for this debate, I will elaborate a bit more.
THE RUNNING MATE WILL BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WHO SHARES YOUR IDEALS.
This will be a simulation of a presidential debate. I will be representing a liberal, democratic presidential candidate, and Con will be representing the party/ideology of their choice. I will choose my running mate, and announce them, and Con will do the same. The running mate will colaborate in the forming of arguments and opinons on certain policies and issues. The issues will occur in this order:
I'm a conservative, republican- leaning, person, but I feel I use logic interpretations of issues to decide my position, so I may not be all for certain things that most republicans are for.
I would like to thank Jcmiamiu7 for accepting my debate. My running mate will be Luharis and we will be cooperating on our opinion over certain topics. Shall we begin?
The education system in this country needs some work. There are an increasing number of college dropouts, causing the American workforce of adults to be unprepared and unready.
As you can see here, over one half of students attending public institutions are dropping out. This leaves the workforce uneducated and unable to be our future leaders. We need to encourage the general populous to go to, and complete college. Education plays a key role in the future of our country. This is why I propose the Douglas Education Plan. Essentially, this plan will mainly be targeting education on the collegiate levels, specifically community college.
Not even half of the students attending the public community colleges are graduating. If we can manage to drastically increase the rate of graduation, we can groom our adolescents to be the future of our country. My plan is to set up an effective credit after graduation policy. Students, after completing their allotted years at the community institution, will be credited 30% of their payment towards the college throughout their time there. This will help students pay off student loans, or get a head start after their recent graduation of college. By implementing this, the colleges will still get money, and students will be rewarded for their hard work and graduation.
Global Warming Exists (what I meant by climate change):
I one hundred percent believe in the fact that global warming exists, and is caused/increased by CO2 emmisions around the globe.
As seen in this easily interpreted and represented graph, it is proven that with the global emmision level of CO2 rising, the temperature in the world is rising, causing the polar ice caps to melt.
There is no other explanation for the corellation of the CO2/temperature rise and the polar ice caps melting. With this happening, the sea levels around the world will rise, and within a few hundred years, low-lying coastal cities will be covered in water. I want to prevent this from happening by limiting the CO2 emissions (within our country of course). I will elaborate more in the Energy topic.
My opinion over welfare is; it is doing good for our country and we need to continue to have it readily available for needy citizens. People that are in need in this country should have the right to receive help. Of course, there needs to be certain precautions taken to ensure that this is not taken advantage of. Applicants to welfare will have to undergo lengthy background checks, drug tests, and record searches. Once this is complete, the applicants will receive their benefits and be able to attempt to improve their lives and careers. By no means shall these benefits be taken away.
Ok I will be running with nick246 as my running mate. We will be running on the platform previously stated. We call ourselves The
We recognize that our education system and culture here in the U.S is flawed, and must be reformed. The problem seems to be, though, that too many unqualified people are entering our university system without a compelling reason to stay in school. Gone are the days where a full university education was considered a privilege. Let me remind the audience, if everyone was to have a B.A, the entire value of the education has now disappeared. Do not over-react, we do not suggest that less people attend a college. Instead, I would propose a bill somewhat similar to my opponents. This will change the landscape of colleges across the country, to return us to the days of true trade skills. It would shoot to establish the American Education Commission (AEC).
This new department would have two main goals:
This would not only raise the value of universities, but also allow students to obtain real skills they can use after graduation through trade schools. This would be paid through cutting expendable government programs (such as planned parenthood), which have shown to cost over $100 billion dollars.
Why do we believe this would work?
While this debate does not deal with immigration specifically, but I would like to put out that we take a firm stand against open borders. Our own citizens should occupy our own jobs, as we fully believe in full employment. So when nearly everyone attempts to get a college degree(many failing), this leaves the door open for blue-collar jobs to be taken by illegal or disloyal immigrants. The economy is run by production, so by employing all people, we believe we can begin to mass produce many item, and boost everyone to a new standard of living. This is why we take a stand, defending traditional jobs that should be run domestically.
Climate change is a very controversial topic in this day and age. We seem to take a middle ground. There are 2 big points that we support:
We do not support the idea that man made C02 emissions are going to kill the planet. What many people do not realize is that the earth flip flops between cooling periods and warming periods. It is natural for the planet to become warm. For example, during the Roman Era, the earth was warmer than it is now. While C02 levels are increasing fast, we must remember not to overreact, because C02 is not lethal, and is actually not that bad for the environment. A popular misconception is that C02 is a lethal gas, which can kill off the world. We support protecting the environment, but not freaking out, acting as if the world was coming to an end.
We must also remember to be careful with what we hear. Almost all predictions by NASA and popular global warming theorists have proved to be false, and in many cases the opposite. Just recently, NASA was investigated and discredited for deflating past C02 levels and temperatures, in order to make it seem the world is warmer now . In fact, even though Al Gore predicted an iceless world by now, ice caps seemingly are not shrinking as fast as you advocate. Denying the dangers of pollution and extreme emissions is harmful, but so is overreacting to this issue.
Welfare is one of our hard points. We must first acknowledge that unless we are in a socialist state, where a person receives all income from the government, welfare is temporal. Its sole purpose is to temporarily compensate unemployed people, and aid people with low-income jobs. It is not a livable wage. It is not supposed to be, and never should be. One of our main tenants is that the government should stay out of people's finances, and this is a big one. About 40% of the country receives welfare and food stamps, and this is simply unacceptable. The government positions itself as a Robin Hood, taking from the entitled and giving to the unentitled. But in the end, they take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful. Giving is supposed to be a communal affair, where a person can walk with his head high after giving to others. But when you choose not to give, and are stolen from, that is aviolation of our liberty, a supposed pillar of our nation. Paying taxes for services and government operation is ok, but when your money is taken simply to be given to the unsuccessful, the government enters into a personal realm.
So, due to our beliefs of limited welfare, we propose a "getting on your feet "plan to get Americans back to work. to do this, we'll reestablish the Civilian Conservation Corps, or CCC, but slightly modified. We will require all jobless welfare recipients to sign up for this. Obviously, if disabled or unable to work, you will not be required to do much. But for those who can, they will be asigned to local jobs such as picking up trash, cleaning parks, planting trees, and refurbishing roads. Those who have good records with the CCC will receive priority in welfare reception and a possible increase in cash. Naturally, this is not mean't to be a full time job. Essentially, this is a requirement for high welfare recipients to do minor work while recieving welfare. The benefits include friendship bonding, team skills, and a respected item on a resume.
We must remember, welfare is not a benefit- it is a sustaining flow of cash in necessary times. It is not a tool used to create jobs. It is simply an incentive not to work, especially if it is a living wage. May i remind the audience, most people who are on welfare remain on welfare. 70% of government spending goes to social dependency in the U.S, a number that is too high for us . So to sum it up for this point, welfare should not be a consistent livable wage, people should perform tasks for welfare, and the government must cut spending on fruitless social spending.
Douglas_MacArthur forfeited this round.
Now I would like to thank Douglas_MacArthur for providing me with the opportunity to carry out one of America’s most celebrated traditions in the United States presidential elections by allowing me, Luharis, the vice president in this election to post my arguments upon key issues, and I would also request the APFFAOTVL to follow suit and allow their vice president to post arguments for this round
And with that, let us begin.
First off, the matters of Social Security, I feel I must bring back the previously discussed topic of welfare, as these two topics are intertwined and must be discussed as a unit in order to properly understand it’s merits. As we can see from these following charts, Social Security is of upmost importance to the elderly population, and it is the absolute minimum a free state such the United can give to the people who work their entire life bettering the Nation.
Now, any cut to this program would be absolutely catastrophic to the elderly population. If we were to cut this program hypothetically, we would see a spike in the poverty of those who are too old to keep working, a spike in the death rate of the elderly who can no longer purchase medicine, and a sudden strain on charity System that cannot handle the sudden spike in poverty. I would go as far as to say that if we cut social security, it would be the same as signing the death warrants of millions through execution of hypothermia, starvation and disease. A cruel mental image, yes, but the reality all the same, we as a first world nation owe our people the peace and security to live in their older years, and allow those disabled to enjoy the same freedoms we relish
Now on to gay rights. I find it absolutely horrifying that in the United States of all countries we do not have equality for all. In fact I cite the declaration of Indolence with the following: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Now before the APFFAOTVL responds to this, I would like to ask them this, replace the word gay in gay rights with either the word black or women. Then tell me why they do not deserve the equal right that are guaranteed by our government. And this what is say to the potential religious objection, we are a secular state and therefore with that, we will NEVER base a law on religious segregation. I dare the APFFAOTVL to challenge this point. To challenge fundamental rights to the American People.
Finally, the big topic, Energy. Such a simple term, energy, yet with this, we can accomplish so much. We are on the verge of a breakthrough in the high the Industry and are on the verge of a new age of energy. The age of Atomic Fusion, the very fuel of the stars and cosmos, is just within our grasp, and with funding, we may have access to practically unlimited amounts of energy. With Fusion, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions to practically zero and reduce maintenance costs of these plants by millions of dollars, all while allowing our high tech Industry to thrive. This would also relive us of the burden of foreign oil that has crippled the average American with relentless fuel bills. If we truly cared about the American people, this is the stance to take.
We can see that by far, nuclear energy is the most cost efficient way to serve the American People.
To wrap things up, we must consider when we pick and choose our leader, not only their stances, but their ideas. Therefore, I challenge the APFFAOTVL to propose a different solution to any point they disagree upon, for it is meaningless to disagree with a point and offer no better alternative.
I would like to thank The Democratic Presidential Hopeful Douglas_MacArthur for continuing the tradition of allowing the vice presidents to debate
I want to thank jcmiamiu for nominating me as his vice-president over the vast field of canidates, as well as naming me co-dictator in chance of emergency.
Let me begin this topic by saying that we do not support cutting social security to a low security level. We would, though, like to point out that Luharis does not seem to understand that social security is in no way meant to be a full retirement fund, but instead is intended to provide financial aid to retirees to build upon retirement funds and reward them for paying taxes. Also, we were just wondering where the graphs are located, as they do not seem to be anywhere in your argument.
We believe in the original concept of Social Security, that it is an aid to old people
We here at the APFFAOTVL would like to sort out a formality first, being that there exists no such document named the "declaration of indolenece", while we believe he means the Declaration of Independence, you never can tell nowadays.
We accept your challenge good sir.
for further reading I recomend jcmaimiu's article http://www.frc.org...
Luharis is presenting an idealist's view of the world, without actually facing reality. The reality is that of course utilising efficient energy sources is a good way to sustain our country, but it does not address actual issues we deal with now. Money can be allocated for those issues, and we can work to improve our energy usage and sources at a later date. For now, though, we need to work to update our oil and fracking facilities. It has been shown that accidents and accidental emmission caused by oil drilling, fracking, and other forms of resource pooling is due to outdated and faulty construction. With proper education and refurbishment, we can rebuild our old energy sources and develop new ones at the same time.
As a closing statement, I want to ask voters to actually read through this debate, and decide who was more thorough on these issues. See who proposed a better scenario for our society and its future.
Thanks to Jcmiamiu for including me, and good luck.