The Instigator
Con (against)
21 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 74382
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)




This is a simulated presidential debate between walle_ras and I. He chooses his stance, and I choose mine. In this debate, we shall both campaign for President in the United States, as Independent candidates, with our own stances.

There shall be an Electoral College [of judges] to vote on this debate, consisting of (if they accept the nomination): 16kadams (Texas), ResponsiblyIrresponsible, 1Historygenius (Wisconsin), Subutai, Theunknown, Zarroette, whiteflame, bladerunner060, Blade-of-Truth, and bsh1. I thank the Electoral College for voting.

This debate shall require the presentation of platform in Round 1, followed by presentation of foreign, economic and domestic policy.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Con presents platform, Pro presents platform
Round 2: Con defends and refutes, Pro defends and refutes
Round 3: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defends
Round 4: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defends
Round 5: Con refutes, defends and concludes, Pro refutes, defends and concludes


Foreign policy and economic policy should be pretty self explanatory.

Domestic policy considers basically business, education, energy, health care, law enforcement, money and taxes, natural resources, social welfare, and personal rights and freedoms, but mentioning all of these topics is not necessary. Further, other topics may be added.


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. No forfeiture.
3. No trolling, lawyering, semantics and kritiks of the topic.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside the debate. Arguments and sources may not be posted in the comments section or in an outside link.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

My Platform

Foreign Policy: Non-interventionism, no-aggression policy, universal non-violence policy.

Domestic Policy: Environmental protection, expanding energy resources via. OTEC, nuclear power, tidal power, solar power, wind power, etc., strict animal welfare reforms, extensive personal rights and freedoms e.g. pro homeschooling, reduce and shut down affirmative action, stop state death penalty and limit to federal death penalty, begin on measures stopping the DP, adopt a cosmetic animal testing ban (not clinical).

Economic policy: Major tax reform - first begin with a flat income tax, then graduate to removing income taxes and adopting a progressive consumption tax, remove the small fiscal stimulus but prepare in case of recession, limited capitalism, lessened-to-no minimum wage.

Note this isn't an all-encompassing list. I may list things in my argument not in this list.

Best of luck to my opponent.


Foreign Policy: I will stop our foreign dependence on oil using tax umbrellas. I will stop giving money to foreign aid. If people want to do that they can. We should not rebuild countries we destroy in war. I shall also do my very best to not allow ISIS to threaten American citizens. I shall also build a border fence. It will save billions.

Domestic Policy: I will slash to the bone spending. Taxes will go down. It will take years but I will wean us off of law and free stuff. I will also stop stealing from Social Security. IF you put money in there you will get it back. I promise. I also promise that freedom will rise. I will cut nannie state laws. You do not need the government in your life more than necessary. As taxes go down and inflation reaches a low percentage the economy is going to bust. It is a result of Obama's policies. But after a few months prosperity will permanently return until inflation begins again. I will fight it. Inflation is defined as an increase in the amount of money. Causes money to lose value so prices rise. (Whatever Happened to Penny, Candy Richard J. Maybury P.179) I also want to stop the war on drugs.

Economic Policy: I stated this in Domestic Policy, but I will say it again. I will lower government spending and taxes. I will lower inflation and stop subsidies, which are poisoning the economy. I will sell the post office to the highest bidder. It is a drain. I promise that I will imitate Grover Cleveland. I will also not have a minimum wage. It will cause hurt to the people you want to help. (The economics of the Hauxley's Proxy(?))

In conclusion I am a PRO freedom, christian, Libertarian. I am ready to uphold the constitution at all costs. I will lead America into prosperity.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank walle_ras for accepting.


My basic stance shall be social liberal and economic conservative. My fiscal policy shall be center-right, in shifting to a Bradford X-tax, lessening the minimum wage and abolishing the very low fiscal stimulus. My aim will be to allow the Federal Reserve to keep very low rates of inflation, around 1-2%, and no deflation. My opponent has stated that he will *majorly* reduce current inflation levels. The Fed maintains inflation levels at 1-2% stability, so a major reduction will be introducing deflation, which is poor for the economy. My social policy shall be liberal except financially; I will abolish most levels of affirmative action, and strongly advocate for complete separation of the church and the state. I shall take on some levels of welfare nonetheless. I shall attempt to lessen and remove the failing NHC. I shall strongly support nuclear power and environmental protection, and recognize that global warming *is* real and man-made (more on this later). My foreign policy shall be based on the principles of non-intervention and the universalization of non-violence. I shall also have a stringent national security policy to *ensure* the United States is safe, but nothing beyond that.

Economic Policy

(1) Taxation

The United States currently follows a progressive income tax. [1] Progressive taxes reduce growth. In a progressive income tax system, the rich pay a larger percentage of their income to the government compared to poor people, i.e. there is a higher tax rate on the wealthy. Forcing the rich to pay higher taxes reduces economic growth as the income tax penalizes saving and investment.

The standard economic model today says wealth must first be *produced* before consumption can increase. Income taxes disrupt wealth production, so progressive taxes harm the economy by taking their toll on both rich and poor. [2]

“Progressive income taxes, where higher income is taxed at higher rates, reduce the returns to education, since high incomes are associated with high levels of education, and so reduce the incentive to build human capital. Progressive taxation also reduces investment, risk taking, and entrepreneurial activity since a disproportionately large share of these activities is done by high income earners.” [3]

These are the results of a study published using NBER data and IRS data in order to construct two proxies of progressivity.

Therefore, our current tax code needs reform, which I shall attempt to introduce gradually as President. The tax code I shall advocate for is a Bradford X-tax, a form of the progressive consumption tax which “splits consumption into two pieces, wages and business cash flow, and taxes them separately. Workers are taxed on wages at graduated rates, above an exemption amount, and businesses are taxed on cash flow at a flat rate, equal to the highest wage tax rate.” [4]

The X-tax is better than the ‘fair-tax’ (flat consumption tax) as the fair-tax is regressive and penalizes level of consumption by rate, thus being very harsh on the lower-wage classes. [5]

“[T]he wealthy have been enormously successful in getting special treatment, shifting an ever greater share of the burden of financing the country’s expenditures — defense, education, social programs — onto others. … One of the reasons for our poor economic performance is the large distortion in our economy caused by the tax system.” [6]

Thus, I shall request Congress to shift to an X-tax gradually, from a flat tax with lower wage-class negative graduation to an X-tax.

I shall also abolish the estate tax.

(2) Minimum Wage

I will attempt to lessen or abolish the minimum wage. According to neoclassical economic theory, excessive minimum wage may raise unemployment as it fixes a price above demand for labor. [7]

Monopsony and minimum-wage legislation.

Thus, lessening the minimum wage will increase employment. [7]

(3) Fiscal Stimulus

According to most economics, the federal fiscal stimulus is “killing the economy”.

Under a fiscal stimulus, “federal outlays and debts explode. In 2008 federal red ink was ‘only’ $479 billion. Since then Uncle Sam’s annual deficit has exceeded a trillion dollars. In addition, the Federal Reserve launched a massive ‘stimulus’ campaign—costly bail-outs and mortgage purchases, near zero interest rates, and two rounds of ‘quantitative easing.’ Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted earlier this year that ‘Beginning in 2008, the balance sheet of the Fed doubled and then rose to three times its earlier level.’ ” [8]

Thus, I shall abolish the Fed’s fiscal stimulus.

Domestic Policy

(1) Social

I shall advocate for marriage privatization, separation of the church and the state, abolition of most affirmative action and complete equality of citizens based on non-financial status. That is the base of my social policy. I will legalize abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, and legalize the rest in extreme situations only. Illegalization of abortion is impractical currently.

(2) Border Fence

My opponent advocates the building of a border fence. I will be against a border fence as it is impractical.

“It is critical to recognize that fencing (even with barbed wire, electrification, and possibly a moat filled with alligators) is not a solution, it is only a tool. There's a fundamental misunderstanding about what a physical barrier—even the triple-layer fencing in San Diego--actually does or doesn't do for the agency charged with building fencing and securing the border. All it really does is buy you time where a crosser could otherwise quickly escape or assimilate. None of the fencing is impenetrable. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it or go over it, but it gives you enough time to respond and apprehend them. Some fencing makes sense tactically in areas selected by the Border Patrol, as where we deployed some 700 miles of it under my tenure, and in many of those areas it has been a tool to provide permanent impedance to deter and slow illegal entries on foot or by vehicle.” [9]

“Since 2001, we have more than doubled the Border Patrol, deployed highly capable manned aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft, and installed fixed and mobile surveillance systems. And, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing its plans to deploy additional technology capabilities along key areas of the border to enhance the effectiveness of these agents.” [9]

According to most reports, the above strategy is more effective than a border fence. In the face of constrained budgets, spending *billions* on ineffective border fences is a bad idea. It will absolutely cripple the economy and crush the constrained budget, which is necessary to maintain further domestic policy.

Building a border fence is impractical, ineffective and does not, in any way, solve illegal immigration. This idea of my opponent’s is flawed.

(3) Energy & Environmental Protection

I shall advocate for environmental protection. My opponent (please clarify if otherwise) has not mentioned environmental protection in their platform, and I shall assume till contrary clarification that they are against environmental protection (as also seen in their Big Issues message).

I acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years.

Above is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years. [10, 11] As seen, the concentration and density of CO2 has risen by 390 ppm in the Earth’s atmosphere over this period from 8,000 BCE. This excess CO2 traps heat via. the greenhouse effect. [12]

Global average surface temperature.

As seen above, according to research conducted at NASA, “[d]espite ups and downs from year to year, global average surface temperature is rising.” [13]

“According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered - a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.” [14]

These global uranium deposits have enough energy to last 230 years of the current known reserves. I will utilize clean nuclear power thus.

Foreign Policy

(1) Non-Aggression & Non-Violence

My foreign policy is entirely based on non-intervention and non-aggression. I strongly oppose the war in Afghanistan because “[f]or 12 years, the US has given military solutions every chance to work. It is clear these efforts have failed. For example, the Afghan NGO Safety Office, a highly respected group that tracks insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, recently noted a 47% increase in attacks by armed opposition groups from the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013. Inclusive political negotiations are extremely difficult in the best of conditions. As violence grows, any efforts are very unlikely to bear fruit without first securing a ceasefire between international and Afghan forces and the insurgency.” [15]

I will halt the bomb raids and invasion of Syria and cease intervention in the Syrian Civil War, as this will merely escalate tensions between the US and some of its powerful competitors, e.g. Russia and China, who are allies of Syria. [16]

Thus, my entire foreign policy shall be based on upholding national security, and on principles of non-intervention and non-aggression.


On balance, my domestic policy, economic policy and foreign policy are stronger than my opponent’s. Vote Tejretics 2016.





No Disagreement here. I agree with you about the flat tax.


The minimum wage is a feel good measure and I agree, it must be abolished.


I am pro fiscal stimulus. But wait, fiscal stimulus is anything that stimulates the economy, right? Therefore, my tax umbrellas count? RIght?

Domestic policy (Would someone tell me in the comments how to underline and bold text?)


No, let them have a civil union but not a marriage. I don't want seperation of church and state. The church is protected from the state not the other way around. It is unfair. You will legalise the slaughter of millions? First it is abortion then it is killing infants, then toddlers, and soon teens. Do you want him to be president? We need to nip this in the bud and remember, despite all these fancy names they are made in God's image. It is death. (Can someone clarify how to post pictures? I want to post a picture of a baby who survived her abortion and is now armless.)


A border fence will help the economy not hurt it. Illegals are taking jobs that American's used to do. A border fence would cost 40 billion at the top estimate. We wouldn't need this if we didn't have illegals sapping our economy. If you desire more stats I can gladly supply as long I have found my Arguing with Idiots book.

Please establish how it will kill the economy please.


I shall advocate against senseless regulation on all fronts. If we want to destroy this planet it is our right. Granted I think we shouldn't, it is the only planet we have, but we have the right. If I want to 'go green' I will do it by making tax exemptions to 'green' energy industry.

Man made global warming is a myth. The sun causes it.

We agree in nuclear energy. Let the uranium fission.

Foreign policy

(1) Let Afghanistan go and destroy ISIS with maximum prejudices. They will kill us all.

Walle Ras for a better tomorrow, an Austrian tomorrow.
Debate Round No. 2


Economic Policy

(1) Stability > Deflation

My opponent entirely drops the rebuttal which I presented showing that he was Pro-deflation while I intended to maintain stability at a 1-2% inflation rate. Thus, my opponent has *conceded* this, and their basic inflation-deflation economic policy is poor.

(2) Flat Tax

My opponent is for a flat income tax. Income taxes disrupt wealth production and penalize saving. [1]

“Person A pays $20 of tax on his wages and consumes the remaining $80, which is 20 percent less than he consumed in the no-tax world. Person B also pays $20 of tax on her wages and lends the remaining $80 to the firm. On her $80 loan, she earns $80 of interest and is therefore repaid $160 by the firm. However, a $16 tax is imposed on the $80 of interest. Person B is left with $144, which is 28 percent less than the $200 she consumed in the no-tax world, compared to a 20 percent reduction for Person A.” [1]

My proposition is to shift to a Bradford X-tax, a form of the progressive consumption tax that “splits consumption into two pieces, wages and business cash flow, and taxes them separately. Workers are taxed on wages at graduated rates, above an exemption amount, and businesses are taxed on cash flow at a flat rate, equal to the highest wage tax rate.” [2]

The X-tax is better than the ‘fair-tax’, i.e. a flat consumption tax, as a flat consumption tax is regressive, as already mentioned above. Pro drops this entire argument and still hails the flat tax. A flat income tax is poor compared to a Bradford X-tax, and most economists hail the X-tax as the best. [3]

(3) Minimum Wage

My opponent agrees with me on this issue, thus I need not address anything here. Fight for reducing or abolishing the minimum wage.

(4) Fiscal Stimulus

My opponent has entirely dropped my fiscal stimulus argument, in which I absolutely demonstrated why a fiscal stimulus will negatively impact the economy. A fiscal stimulus is *not* “anything that stimulates the economy”. Rather, it is federal spending to ‘stimulate’ the economy.

I will drop the fiscal stimulus, but my opponent holds on to it without *any* defense whatsoever. My opponent has not shown *why* he wants the fiscal stimulus, and I have shown the electors it is a bad idea.

(5) Federal Reserve

My opponent is against the existence of a Federal Reserve, according to his Big Issues. Since this is a Presidential Debate, personal opinions *do* matter, though my opponent may clarify if he is Pro the maintenance of the Fed.

The Federal Reserve has ensured fixed stability in the US economy. The Fed has kept a low rate of inflation, at around 0.8% last year [4], and the US has not experienced deflation since the gold standard [5]. This is amazing stability that will be impossible without the Fed. The quantitative easing programs of the Fed have been successful in reducing unemployment by around 1.5% [6].

My removal of the fiscal stimulus, which my opponent shall retain, will further strengthen the Fed, and there will be no need to abolish it.

Domestic Policy

(1) Social

If the church and the state are together, as my opponent is pro-Christian, the United States will no longer remain a secular nation. The secular policies of the United States must be embraced, and I declare that one is free to practise their own religion.

My opponent claims that abortion is ‘cruel’ with *no* justification. However that may be, it is impractical to illegalize abortion, thus it shall remain legal as is the status quo. My opponent is implying a change in the status quo, thus they must properly defend it.

(2) Border Fence

My opponent has *dropped* my argument that the border fence is *ineffective*.

“Since 2001, we have more than doubled the Border Patrol, deployed highly capable manned aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft, and installed fixed and mobile surveillance systems. And, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing its plans to deploy additional technology capabilities along key areas of the border to enhance the effectiveness of these agents.” [7]

These drone aircraft and surveillance systems in addition to additional technology capabilities are much more cost-efficient and more effective in blocking illegal immigration, thus spending money on building a border fence with the already low budget is impractical and useless [7].

(3) Environmental Protection

3A. Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years.

As seen, there has been a drastic increase (by about 180 ppm) of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in a period of 10,000 years. [8-9] “In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.” [10] As seen, a rise in CO2 levels is caused by humans.

The above graph shows that CO2 emissions majorly influence rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. [10]

The level of CO2 is correlated with a rise in temperature, as atmospheric presence of CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere and Earth via. the greenhouse effect. [11]

In the above graph, there is shown a statistical correlation between rise in CO2 levels and rise in atmospheric temperature.

The below graph shows a rapid decline in cooling in the lower stratosphere and rise in heating of the mid-to-upper troposphere. [12]

As shown in the NASA graph in my previous argument, there is a documented rise in temperature. Thus, we can infer the following:

(1) There is a documented rise in atmospheric and sea-level temperature.

(2) There is a documented rise in human-caused carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which traps heat.

(3) There is a major correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

(4) Global warming is primarily man-made and anthropogenic.

The graph that my opponent presents is from a study by Friis-Christensen (et al) in 1991. Christensen’s study actually made some major mathematical errors, and the supposed correlation between solar cycle length and rise in temperature has since been falsified. [13] The arithmetic errors are given below. [14]

The arithmetic errors made by Christensen were corrected by P. Stauning in 2012, and have new data that falsifies the correlation. Below is Stauning’s graph [13].

As seen, Pro’s source is flawed and newer measurements prove that solar cycle lengths cannot explain the modern warming.

3B. Nuclear Power

My opponent and I agree on this, so there is nothing to refute.

Foreign Policy

My opponent seems to agree with my principles of non-aggression, so there is nothing to defend or contend here either.


1. I will present a Bradford-X type progressive consumption tax which is much more effective, equal and fair than my opponent’s flat income tax.

2. My opponent wishes there to be deflation, whereas I will maintain a stable economy. Pro also wishes to abolish the Federal Reserve, without which there will be major instability, and major increases in unemployment.

3. I will abolish the ineffective fiscal stimulus, but my opponent wishes to retain the stimulus and engage in stimulus spending, thus increasing government spending, contrary to their claims that they will decrease government spending. I have demonstrated the flaws in the fiscal stimulus which my opponent has still not responded to. This also contrasts with my opponent’s claim that he will maintain an Austrian economic policy.

4. I will maintain complete social equality and prevent discrimination. My opponent *claims* he is a libertarian, but contrasts this by maintaining that there should be no separation of Christianity and the state, thus placing him in an authoritarian right position.

5. My opponent wishes to spend money on an ineffective border fence, instead of the effective and cost-efficient means I will use to prevent illegal immigration.

6. Pro denies the existence of anthropogenic global warming using flawed and outdated studies, while I have presented conclusive proof that global warming is man-made.

Vote Tejretics 2016.


















You may say that but you need to go by my definition since you didn't contest my definition. Inflation is not the rising of prices. I didn't mention it because you used the wrong definition.

(1) Flat Tax

Don't get me wrong I hate income tax, but it is in the Constitution. What you propose is a violation of the Constitution. If you want to tell me how it isn't please do so.

(2)Fiscal Stimulus

What I said was meant to be slightly amusing. (Atleast I thought it was.) I will not spend my way out of a recession. It is poisen. I will however do tax umbrellas to simulate the economy.

(3) Federal Reserve, 11 reasons why I hate it.

(Moved to the comments due to space)



I said that we need to protect the church from the state. I would like to quote something. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are CREATED equal and are endowed by their CREATOR, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

It sounds realy christian, and those words are the law of the land. So if you say that we are not christian then read our founding documents.

I am not saying that we should ban other religinouns. All I am saying is that we are not a secular nation. Secularism is a religioun. Christianity is the American way. In God I trust. Do you?

Abortion is murder I have said that I will keep saying that. Abortion scilences a beating heart. Smile man, your mother chose life. I will defend with these words. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Life started in the womb. Murder is the taking of anothers life in cold blood. Therefore, abortion is murder.

(2) Border Fence

You said it was ineffective. I said it would save money. THerefore if it would save money then it would be effective. The main purpose of the fence is to make it tough. If the entire country was fortifired like fort knox illegals would still get in. So we make it tough and take away the jobs. I will crack down on people who break our laws and the companies that do to. I will also cut off food stamps and stuff to all illegal immigrants. Then they will leave by the droves.

Global warming

I call foul. Global warming is irrelevant in a political debate. If you want to debate global warming then do it with a person who isn't tricked by the changing of topics.


1.I wish to uphold every part of the Constitution. Pass an amendment please.

2. Wrong definition, wrong definition.

3. We already talked about this in the comments. I want tax umbrullas but no spending.

4. There will be a seperation. It is called relgious freedom. The government, when it was christian, was more tolerant and understanding then now. I want freedom for all the people. And secularism is not the way to go.

5. How will you do it?

6. This topic is irrelevant to the presidency.

7. My oponent has placed the burden of proof on my for prooving that abortion is bad. It is murder. All murder is bad. Therefore, all abortion is bad. Why is it murder? Murder is the taking of another life in cold blood. The fetus is alive and reacts to stimulus. Abortion takes the life in cold blood. Therefore abortion is murder.

8. Why did this topic of religious freedom pop up? Because I am against Gay marriage. Let them have a civil union. If they can marry then they will want to do it in churches, which will refuse. They will then sue and our churches will die off. That is not protecting the church from the government.

Vote Walle Ras 2016 I have cookies.
Debate Round No. 3



Federal Reserve

Ob1: My opponent’s Federal Reserve argument is in an external link, which is a direct violation of Rule 4. The argument is a 11-point one against the Federal Reserve presented in a Google Document. Pro PM’d me regarding the violation, and confessed that it was because the character limitations did not allow it.

Ob2: Regarding the Federal Reserve argument, it was directly plagiarized from, thus I request voters to consider Pro’s misconduct.

Ob3: The Federal Reserve argument has eleven reasons for abolishing the Federal Reserve in an external link violating character limitations, thus this is a perfect example of the highly misconducted Gish Gallop debating technique [].

Conclusion of Observations: Thus, I request judges to consider the Fed argument dropped. I apologize to my opponent for this, and request that he address it in the next round.

Global Warming

Ob4: The GW argument regards environmental protection. Pro says he shall abolish all environmental protection, so I alert the people about the dangers of climate change and the need to control CO2 emissions.

Ob5: As the argument is not addressed, this argument is also dropped, thus I extend the argument that global warming is anthropogenic to this round.

Conclusion of Observations: Thus, please take into consideration that Pro drops this argument and still does not dispute that he will abolish environmental protection, thus I request the College to remember that I’m supporting the much-needed environmental protection.

Economic Policy

(1) Stability > Deflation

This argument is entirely dropped. My opponent says, “wrong definition, wrong definition …” - this is not justified. To clarify the definitions, “[I]nflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time;” [1], while “deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services” [2], also called a ‘negative inflation rate’.

Deflation is a problem in modern economy because it increases the real value of debt, and may aggravate recessions and lead to a ‘deflationary spiral’ [3], i.e. “a situation where decreases in price lead to lower production, which in turn leads to lower wages and demand, which leads to further decreases in price.” [2]

As mentioned, the Federal Reserve has ensured no deflation since the gold standard, and a highly stable inflation rate of around 1%, with 0.8% in 2014. If the measures my opponent cites are carried out, it would result in huge deflation combined with the abolition of the Federal Reserve. This would mean a rise in the value of debt and a deflationary spiral, which would result in economic recession that would be further aggravated by the deflationary spiral.

(2) Flat Tax

Pro implies this would mean a change in the Constitution by urging Congress to pass amendments. If he refuses to even urge Congress, that would mean he wants no amendments, which would mean the abolition of a legislative body in the United States government.

Pro does not wish there to be the slightest change in the status quo except for reduction in spending, stopping environmental protection, tax umbrellas, building a border fence, and other such poor or useless changes (except reduction in spending and tax umbrellas, which I too shall have).

I have shown why a Bradford X-tax is a good idea, and I shall urge Congress to implement it unlike my opponent who seems to seek no legislative body whatsoever, leaving us with the progressive income tax and higher taxes on the upper-wage classes. Do you, the voters, want to be penalized for saving? If not, I urge you to help me by voting for Tejretics in 2016 and helping me urge Congress to shift to a Bradford X-tax.

In addition, Pro has shifted their stance on it, first saying they are Pro flat tax, and then changing it to Con income tax, which means they want a fair tax. I have shown how a flat consumption tax is regressive, thus even if they are prepared to pass amendments, mine are better.

(3) Fiscal Stimulus

My opponent has informed me that he didn’t know I meant ‘fiscal stimulus spending’ when I said ‘fiscal stimulus’, and assumed it meant ‘anything that stimulates the economy’, thus we both agree on this.

(4) Federal Reserve

See the “Federal Reserve” category under “Observations”, as this is a violation of Rule 4 and usage of Gish Gallop.

Domestic Policy

(1) Social Policy

My opponent alleges secularism is a ‘religion.’ Abolishing secularism contradicts my opponent’s claim that he would not modify the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence clearly says, “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” [4]

Pro thinks this ‘sounds’ Christian, thus he will ascribe special privileges to Christianity by making Christianity the religion of the state? This is rather non-accommodating of other religions and implies a change in the status quo that Pro must defend.

(2) Border Fence

“A 2009 analysis by the GAO found that the cost of pedestrian fencing ranged between$400,000 and $15 million per mile with an average of $3.9 million a mile. The price of less expensive vehicle fencing ran anywhere from $200,000 to $1.8 million a mile, for an average of $1 million a mile.” [5]

Thus, my solution to secure the border is far more cost-efficient, and, in addition, more effective than a border fence in preventing illegal immigration.

Furthermore, Pro’s logic here is that ‘even if something doesn’t work, if it’s cheaper, it’s better.’ So, let us say there is a choice between buying a lamp or a pencil to light up a room. The pencil is ineffective, but by Pro’s logic, as it is cheaper, we should buy it to light up the room. The thing is, here, the lamp is cheaper as well, thus the pencil is absolutely useless.

(3) Environmental Protection

Pro says global warming is “irrelevant in a political debate.” As mentioned in the “Global Warming” subheading of my observations, my opponent wishes to abolish environmental protection, and I’ve illustrated why it’s a bad idea.

Foreign Policy

Both of us have agreed on our foreign policy.


1. My opponent wishes to have deflation in the economy, thus leading to recession aggravated by deflationary spiral, and increase in the value of U.S. debt.

2. Passing amendments is enough to guarantee an X-tax, but my opponent wishes a flat consumption tax as he agrees with me on the income tax, which is regressive.

3. My opponent wishes to abolish the Fed, and I’ve shown why that’s a bad idea.

4. My opponent contradicts himself in wanting to change the Constitution by making Christianity the official state religion, while I intend to keep the status quo by ensuring the U.S. is a truly secular nation free of discrimination to all creeds, even atheism and agnosticism.

5. Pro wishes to build a costly, ineffective border fence, rejecting the highly effective and more cost-efficient methods to prevent illegal immigration.

6. The proposition absolutely denies AGW and thus wishes to abolish all environmental protection schemes, but AGW exists, thus environmental protection and renewable energy is necessary.

Ultimately, I win on all parameters. Vote Tejretics 2016 for a better future.




3. J.R. Hummel (2007). “Death and Taxes, Including Inflation: the Public versus Economists.”




walle_ras forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Let me summarize the debate and show you *why* you should vote Tejretics (Con).

Walle_Ras' motions:

- Encourage deflation to control inflation
- Abolish the Federal Reserve, thus further increasing deflation
- Build a useless and costly border fence along the Mexican border
- Stop all environmental protection and deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming with no justification
- Keep changing position on tax, first saying he's pro flat income tax then changing his position in accordance with mine
- Change the secular roots of the United States by making it a non-secular Christian nation and making Christianity the official religion of the state, but allow others to practise their religion

My motions:

- Abolish the income tax and shift to the more efficient Bradford X-tax
- Maintain the current economic stability and remove the fiscal stimulus
- Use more cost-efficient and effective methods to control illegal immigration from Mexico
- Advocate nuclear power
- Lessen and eventually remove the minimum wage to control unemployment
- Remove the estate tax and other unnecessary tax burdens
- Stop the state-level death penalty and lessen practise of the federal death penalty
- Create strict animal welfare policies, such as lessening the horrendous practises at slaughterhouses, etc.

Please vote Tejretics 2016. DO NOT vote based on personal bias; instead, vote based on the *debate* itself.

My opponent CANNOT present *new* arguments in the final round, instead only defending their policies and attacking mine.


I would like to apoligies for my forfeiter. I just got home from vacation. I was going to update at the hotel but I forgot my charger so I just turned off my laptop, since it was at 4%. I would have done it tuesday but the wifi was out from 12 to when we had to leave. I didn't post in the morning because Tejretics kinda ticked me off so I didn't want to go rant mode in my debate. I apoligies yet again for forfieting.

What I actually am going to do.

-Get a handle on both deflation and inflation
-Abolish the Federal Reserve due to the fact that it has been messing with our money.

-Build a border fence which will stop the lazy mexicans and take away the jobs which will stop the hard working mexicans. Drones are all fine and dandy but they cannot do what a fence does.
-Stop all stupid environmental protection. For instance I will not allow toxic waste to be dumped. I will also keep our enviroment healthy without being a pain.
- I am Pro flat tax and am con fair tax. I don't like taxes and desire to abolish the 16 amendment. However, we eat to much money to do it in 8 years. Therefore, I will do a neither regressive nor progressive flat tax that will assist in our economy.
-Our roots are not secular they are Christian. Our founding fathers were Christian. They made Christian roots. Let me clarify what I have said. I desire one peice of the Judeo-christian world view to be in Washington. The part about that morales are not relitivistic. You people all hate corruption. I will stamp it out. That is the Christianity I plan to introduce. Nothing more, and no less. Morales is what I want. Two laws will be taught in all public schools. 'Do not encroach on other peoples persons our property,' and 'Do all you have agreed to do'. (Whatever Happened to Justice, The Death of Common Sense) Is that to much to ask?

Straw man is a logical fallacy where the oponent inflates what his oponent wants to do, thus making it easier to attack. (The Fallacy Detective) My oponent has inflated what I want to do in many areas. He says I like deflation. I said that I prefere deflation to inflation, but I loath both. It is like how I feel about Jeb/Hillary. Jeb will get my vote... to keep Hillary out of office. He also said that I deny anthropogenic global warming, therefore I will kill the Earth. (He did say that though not directly.) I will not. If you want to debate global warming then go debate it. If you want to debate politics debate politics.
I was going to provide an illistration displaying the effects of inflation. Sadly I cannot. It would be introducing a new argument.

Here is what else I will do.

-Create tax umbrellas to make oil and natural gas cheaper. (Thus lessening coal which I am con use of. I will not raise taxes on coal however.
-Abolish Capital Gains tax.
-Abolish Unions of public servants. (Private employees can unionise all they wish.)
-Advocate for nuclear power
-Abolish federal minimum wage
-Let the states do the death penalty if they so desire.
-Let muckrackers loose upon the slaughterhouses, politicians, and all places which are acting like jerks. The muckrackers will print news stories which will cause public outrage. Then the states can take care of the buisnesses and I can fire the incompetent clods.
-Stop Terrorists from getting through the Mexican/American border using a cost effective border fence.
-Crack down on buisnesses using illegal employees.
-Manage your money like it is yours, not mine.

I also ask you to vote on who was the better debater, who accuratly stated what the oponent was agaisnt while refuting instead of refueting something I am not for *cough* no enviromental protection *cough*

Vote Walle Ras 2016 *cue selfie with an adorable baby* I will protect this country like I will protect my son.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

Suffice it to say that I've got problems with this type of debate. Presidential debates end up being facsimiles of actual debate " they contain all of the various features, but dumbed down and with certain parts emphasized to the exclusion of others. Both debaters engage in many of the hallmarks of a presidental debate that make them unbearable to watch, but one side does stand out with their arguments, and that's Con.

I'm not going to go through each point. Instead, I'll give some overview points, and then a quick conclusion to round this out.

1) Details

Let's start with this: neither side does a complete job with their arguments. Warrants are few and far between, and links between arguments sparing at best. However, Con does provide much more of the analysis I need to see in order to be at least partially convinced by his arguments. Pro's argumentation comes off as assertions " he expects everyone to agree with his plan, so he doesn't have to provide all of the various warrants, links, or even substantive impacts in order to explain why anyone should care about his perspective.

2) Platform

Ugh. Guys, stick with a platform. Select a stance on a number of issues, present them, and then stick to them. Don't be side-tracked by your opponent's argument, focus on your own points. Instead, both sides spread out constantly in this debate. Pro is far more guilty of this than Con, presenting (by my count) 11 new planks to his platform in the final round alone, all without warrants, links or impacts. It makes your case look weaker rather than stronger, as I end up asking a lot of questions as to why you feel the need to expand and why I should support all of these new positions. I'm also seeing numerous contradictions in Pro's platform, which at least makes me skeptical of his views, and at worst makes me concerned that he doesn't have a view.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 2)

3) Evidence

Again, both sides are guilty of a lack of evidence to support their claims, but at least Con takes it to a decent extent. I don't see Pro do much of anything to support any of his points, and most of what he does do is in the comments of the debate itself, which I won't and can't factor in. Support your case, guys. It garners you adherents.

4) Conduct

Obviously, the forfeit wasn't good. Neither was posting so much of your support in the comments, even if you ran out of space (that's a problem of word economy). Neither is plagiarism. All of these things are slams at Pro, who can little afford them. Remember, you're acting like a presidential candidate. I should and would evaluate you based on how you act as well as what you say. I do think bringing in information from outside of the debate about your opponent is a bit of a stretch, Con, but he doesn't take it too far and Pro goes with it, so I can't say much against him for it.


On all these fronts, Con is winning the debate. His arguments get more support, both logically and through evidence. His platform is more consistent and stable, and his conduct in general is far better. For all these reasons, I vote Con.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 3 years ago
Oh, and nominal GDP > Inflation; inflation numbers are heavily distorted by supply-side factors spawned by bad policy which say little of cyclicality - at least in reference to, say, the New Keynesian Phillips Curve (which is flawed, by the way, though I digress).
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 3 years ago
Lol is that the gross CPI index, presumably indexed somewhere back in the 1800s?

I mean, I don't know what the source of those calculations are, because they seem rather high, but the whole point of the Index is that it *will* increase over time at some positive rate of inflation; that it increases at all isn't indicative of "hyperinflation."

To provide more clarity, most estimates I've seen start at 1980. The index for the general price level for that year is 100. Let's say that prices rise, on average, 2 percent over the next year. The index, therefore, becomes 100 * 1.02, or 102.

The inflation rate is the percent change in that index. So this calculation is easy (and, mind you, I'm using an annual frequency here for simplicity, though you need not when describing short-term deviations in inflation):

(Year 1 index value - Year 0 Index value) / Year 0 index value * 100
(102 - 100) / 100 * 100 = 2 percent

Provided that inflation is positive - and ideally it would be, and we expect it to be, because some variation of adaptive expectations leads past inflation trends to be embedded in projections such that they become self-reinforcing - the index continues to rise. It's hard to look at the index over some 200 year period and say, "See, it's rising! Inflation!"

We care more about where the index was drawn - i.e., was it started at a time of deflation, whereby we expect a faster rebound in the index if we were to return to normal - and the percent change.

Anyway, I'll read this later.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 3 years ago
I'll try to vote on this later.
Posted by walle_ras 3 years ago
Kudos to those that realized I don't have a son.
Posted by walle_ras 3 years ago
Here is my argument against the federal reserve.

Curses it can't go here either? ARG

Posted by walle_ras 3 years ago
Ok *starts playing classical*
Posted by walle_ras 3 years ago
Ok *starts playing classical*
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Just clarify that in the next round ... there's no need to address it, so chill.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Representing Texas, it is impossible to support Walle. He terms Mexicans as "lazy", which is incorrect. His arguments for getting rid of the Fed are bad, and Tej offered multiple reasons why a fiat money system is superior to the gold standard or other half-baked theories. Walle disbelieves climate change, which is an issue to the Texan environment. Many support the oil revenues, sure, but Texans know that their superior wealth can be transfered into other technologies. In all seriousness, Walle's arguments were just kinda bad. And he FF'd a round... So that hurt him.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In this debate I found Con's arguments of higher quality and of better detail, such as specifically stating what Bradford-X Tax and the Federal Reserve. There were also a lot of arguments they agreed on. Conduct goes to Con for the FF and for Pro bringing new arguments in the end when he shouldn't have.