The Instigator
BaldEagle
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Questions for the left.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 5550
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

BaldEagle

Pro

I'm new at typed debate so excuse my lack of articulation. I'm an ignorant redneck so I leave out all the courtesies and semantics.

1. Why one person is more responsible tax wise than another.

2. Why happiness and comfort in their lives isn't their responsibility?
3.Why does class warfare work on you?
4. Why its ok for the Govt to spend money to save your house?
5. Why you are owed something?
6. Why do you have zero understanding of the past?
7 Why you have never read the Federalist Papers?
8. Why do you blindly follow leaders in your party that will destroy the opportunities that have been created by private enterprise that exist for you.
9. Why you are economically illiterate?
10. Why you have not moved t the right as you got more mature and wise?
JBlake

Con

For the purposes of this debate I will consider myself a proper 'liberal' or 'leftist'.

For the sake of brevity I will respond to my opponent's questions/claims in the order in which they appear. Then I will present my argument.

1. A person who earns more money is more responsible 'tax wise' because they have the ability to pay more. With a progressive tax structure the poorer classes pay the little that they can, so that they can afford to eat. In a tax structure where everyone pays the same amount, the tax burden would fall more heavily the further down the income bracket you go. For instance, $2000 per year means a whole lot more for someone making $12,000 per year than is is for someone who makes $250,000 per year. (Note: these figures do not reflect any actual policy, they just serve to illustrate the point).

2. Happiness and comfort are ultimately the responsible of the individual no matter how much money they make or how much the government is involved. Certainly my opponent can conceive of a depressed billionaire and a happy family living below the poverty line. I challenge my opponent to back up this statement with some substance because as it stands this point is irrelevent.

3. I'm not entirely certain what my opponent means by "Why does class warfare work on you?". Is he claiming that class warfare is more efficient when aimed toward 'leftists' or 'liberals'? Some clarification here would be welcome.

4. I assume by what my opponent has written that he means the Subprime Bailout. This is an issue that has been picked up by the left as much as it has by the right. Conversely, it has not been picked up any More by the left than it has been by the right. I must also remind my opponent that the Subprime Bailout plan was intoduced by Henry Paulson, who is a member of the Republican party and can thus be characterized as being on the 'right'.

5. I'm not certain where my opponent picked up the notion that those with 'liberal' or 'leftist' views feels like they are owed something. I challenge him to back up this question/claim with substance.

6. I assure both my opponent and the reader that I am more knowledgeable about the past than is he. Myself, and many other 'left' leaning people have just as much understanding of the past as do those on the 'right'. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim. I await the next round to see the relevence of this claim.

7. I have indeed read the Federalist Papers in their entirety on several occaisions. I have a copy of it no more that five feet away from me at this precise instant. I hope my opponent has some relevence for the question in R2.

8. I present a counter question: Why does the far right blindly follow leaders when their Pure Free Market ideology is clearly damaging to our nation and our lower classes. Pure Free Markets have the tendency to work well for the wealthy at the expense of the masses. This can be seen by British attempts of the past to institute such a policy, and by our own recent deregulation of the past several years. I could not put it better than my Debate.org colleague, Lightkeeper, "According to the US Census, between 2001 and 2007 the lowest, second and third fifths of households in the USA have in fact sustained a reduction in yearly household income (based on figures adjusted for inflation). The Fourth and the highest fifths were the only ones to experience growth. In other words, during Mr Bush's presidency, the poor have become poorer and very few rich have become richer." (Quotation by Lightkeeper of Debate.org: http://www.debate.org... in Round 1 4.a). This is a result of George W. Bush's policy of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush is, notably, 'right-wing' and 'conservative'.

Furthermore, the 'left' does not "destroy" private enterprise, they merely seek to regulate it so that unethical practices do not cuase, for instance, housing crises and Wall Street crises. It is also important to note that such regulation has been picked up by 'rightists', or 'conservatives' in light of the results of these practices.

9. I ask my opponent to substantiate the claim that those on the 'left' are economically illiterate, and to explain what it is he means by "economically illiterate".

10. Is a shift to the right a requisite for maturity and wisdom? I once again challenge my opponent to provide evidence for why it would be mature or wise for such a shift.

Conclusion:
My opponent has provided no evidence for any of his claims and no substance to his empty questions. I challenge my opponent to come up with valid and relevent arguments in his R2.
Debate Round No. 1
BaldEagle

Pro

Thank you sir for responding. I recognize my questions were generalizations and not really specific.

1.The main thing here is that we define "more". If you actually read your post it doesn't make any sense.
If I use your example above with one person earning 12,000 and another 250,000 dollars per year and the tax rate is the same. Lets say 10% tax. The person making 12k per year pays $1,200.00 and the other pays $25,000.00 dollars per year. Huge difference in the amount they pay but they were taxed at the same amount. That's a fair tax.

2. I didn't think anyone would get that one.

3. Yes I am. Leftists are generally failures and think someone else is to blame and when you cant take responsibility you will look for others to punish.

4. This has nothing to do with political parties. repugnants will take us to socialism slower than democraps.
Neither are for the AMERICAN people. Its not within the scope of the GOVT to use tax payer money to rebuild your house because you built it oceanside or in the woods in N California where it get burned down every other year.
Take a house in the mtn of N GA. If it burns down, your insurance will take care of it.
In cali if this happens to you, you don't need insurance because the tax payers will pay for it.

5. By the way they vote.

6. If you did then you would know that what is America is about Freedom.
7. If you read the Fed Papers you would know their intention was never to fund disaster emergencies like hurricanes and fires.

8. Pure Free market ideology? Buddy we are no where near "pure free market"
That's a real popular saying saying about the rich getting richer poor getting poorer.
The truth in that's statement is pure. The rich keep getting richer because they do the things that keep them rich and the same goes for the poor. Think about that for a moment. Rise in class isn't guaranteed. You like many of your ilk think rise in class should be automatic instead of based in hard work.
Why do Asians do so well in this country within 1-2 generations? Simple....They work hard and smart.
They make good decisions and value education and excellence. God Bless them for it too.
Your response I could have guessed.

8 RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT BEGINNING WITH FURTHERMORE.
Things like Enron and the like are criminal matters and should be dealt with harshly.
They shouldn't get fed prison but regular "You gone be my boy" prison.
I have zero sympathy for them. The same goes for the cop that got busted on video stealing money and lotto tickets.
We don't have enough control of our own Govt to stop this behavior.
If we did, The punishment would fit the crime 10 fold and people at these levels would stop what they are doing.

The free market assumes everyone is honest just like your socialism assumes that everyone will work.
The fallacy is that human nature takes hold. There are going to be dishonest people and our laws could deal with that issue much better. Our society as a whole should punish and vilify those guilty of fraud.
Again, I have zero confidence in both parties.

9. The truth always comes out.

10. When you get over 30 generally you should have learned that the world is tough, its tougher when you're stupid.

Conclusion: Look a the CBO (congressional budget office) figures for the past 25 years.
Look what happens every time taxes are cut for the people that actually pay them.
Revenues into the treasury went up. Its a fact you can look up yourself.
Cutting taxes does not reduce the amount of money the Govt receives.
Leftist think the rich don't pay their fair share.
Google it people....Look at what percentage they do pay.
Unless you work for Govt, someone else has created the job you have.

We can narrow this to a few items to keep it shorter. You choose.
JBlake

Con

I will respond to my opponent in the order in which they appear on his R2.

1. Since my opponent hadn't clarified in his R1 I was left to assume that he meant that he was advocating a flat tax rate. Some more clarification is necessary here. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? It sounds like now you are advocating a progressive tax like the one we have right now.

2. My opponent seems to concede this point.

3. My opponent erroneously generalizes that 'Leftists are generally failures" though he provides no evidence for this. This is just one of the many unsubstantiated claims. The fact is such evidence could not exist because the claim is utterly false. There is nothing to suggest that leftists are 'generally failures'.

4. As my opponent points out, some states have relief programs and others do not. This has nothing to do with the left. My opponent has provided no connection.

5. I was unaware of a vote or poll asking liberals if they were 'owed something'. Please provide examples or evidence.

6. Wrong. The Rhetoric of the founding generation was freedom, but one finds ample evidence that it was anything but the foundation. Property rights were required in almost all regions in order to vote, this left a substantial portion of the population excluded from a voice in the government. Very few women were eligible to vote, and that was soon removed as well. Worse than suffrage is the fact that at the very same time that men were demanding freedom they held fellow human beings in bondage.

For these reasons, one could hardly say that the American past was about freedom.

7. I wonder if my opponent can point to a specific essay or essays that show that this was not their intention. I would love to argue the Federalist Papers, but my opponent should cite specific examples rather than issuing broad claims.

8. It could be argued with equal validity that the rich become richer through exploitation of the middle class and the 'poor'. This is evident in these same cases my opponent derides, such as Enron and countless others. Regulations are necessary. The market should not be trusted to correct and police itself. In a pure free market, like my opponent advocates, the practices of Enron would be perfectly legal.

The poor do not remain poor simply and entirely because of a lack of hard work ethic. In fact, many work hard in very low paying jobs in an attempt to provide for their family. The problem in many cases is a lack of opportunity. The rich set up obstacles for lower classes to climb the social latter. Not everyone can obtain the business loan or credit required to move up that latter, it is generally reserved for those who already have money. It is also not true that the wealthy always work hard to get where they are. Most of them are born with wealth. In reality, hard work is usually reserved for the lower classes. They work hard at a wage labor position, while their wealthier employer earns the majority of the fruits of the laborer.

I would hardly call it 'my socialism'. A balance between free market and socialism should be found. Too much of either is dangerous.

<"socialism assumes that everyone will work">
This is not the case at all. Those advocating socialism freely admit that there will be people unable to work. This is why they advocate a public welfare system. In that way the community as a whole provides a tiny portion to provide the basic necessities to these people who cannot work.

9. I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about here. I asked him to provide evidence for 'economic illiteracy' and he responded with "The truth always comes out." I ask him again to prove his claims. That is the idea of debate, to back up your claims with evidence, not empty statements.

10. Another unsubstantiated claim. My opponent's world view should not be assumed to be the worldview of everybody. Not everyone shares his pessimism.

Response to his conclusion:
It is not my job to provide your evidence for you. Please provide the requisite evidence for your claim. Going by this same premise I could say 'An Alien landed in the Baltic and has taken over all of the governments of the region, google it.' This does not make it true, and in such a case it would be my responsibility to provide the evidence.

Note: If my opponent wishes to condense the argument into fewer points that is fine with me.

Conclusion:
My opponent has ignored my requests for evidence and examples. His claims lack substance and therefore should be disregarded. I will once again request that my opponent provide examples, clarification, and evidence to support his claims so that we may have a meaningful debate based on substance.
Debate Round No. 2
BaldEagle

Pro

BaldEagle forfeited this round.
JBlake

Con

It is unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited this round. I hope that he will come back for R4 and R5.

My arguments stand unrefutted.
Debate Round No. 3
BaldEagle

Pro

Sorry.
Im moving to a new house and signing the papers this morning.

I forfeit for lack of time but do not concede defeat.

I will say one thing.

The right, left, and middle all are against We The People. You mentioned the obstacles the rich setup. That is in fact true but your misconception is that its just the right. The political class has us divided so they can continue to enrich themselves. The truth is that I believe the left is worse than the right but not any better.

You bring up many good points.

When I get settled we can pick up a particular subject and discuss.
You dont seem to be filled with vitreal as most people I encounter on the left.
You are actually carrying on a conversation without being personal.
I respect you immensely for that sir despite our disagreement.

I have never had the opportunity to discuss politics with someone that I disagree for the reasons above.

I concede defeat more easily because of the courtesy you afforded me sir.
Congratulations and please save me as a friend.
JBlake

Con

Although you have forfeited this debate, I will take a pass on this round in case you decide you want to argue the points above further.

Thank you for the debate, and I look forward to potentially debating you in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
BaldEagle

Pro

BaldEagle forfeited this round.
JBlake

Con

My opponent forfeited gracefully, therefore you vote Con.

I look forward to debating my opponent, BaldEagle, in the future.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
JBlake wrote: "In a tax structure where everyone pays the same amount, the tax burden would fall more heavily the further down the income bracket you go."

This sounds like a perfectly good argument for charging lower-income individuals less, and higher-income earners more, for all sorts of products and services. That's the problem with liberalism; when carried out to its logical ends, it can produce some absurd outcomes. If liberalism is allowed to prevail, I believe there will be a time when businesses are forced to charge two different prices for the same item based on the incomes of their customers. Afterall, it's not fair that a person who makes $10K per year pay the same for a loaf of bread than someone who make $100K per year. Same logic right?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Question for the right...

Why do the right repeatedly try to advocate the same thing the left do as long as the word "God" gets added?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I voted CON. Will post as a cleaner later.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I would also like to note that my opponent CONCEDED defeat. There should be no reason that I am losing this debate..
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I realize what you are saying. You are absolutely correct, we do not pay a flat tax. That was precisely my point, and I was pointing out how a flat tax (which was what was advocated by my opponent) would work.

Did I read your point wrong, and you are advocating a flat tax as well? Otherwise, we are on the same page with a progressive tax system.
Posted by johnnyrockit 8 years ago
johnnyrockit
"A person who earns more money is more responsible 'tax wise' because they have the ability to pay more. With a progressive tax structure the poorer classes pay the little that they can, so that they can afford to eat. In a tax structure where everyone pays the same amount, the tax burden would fall more heavily the further down the income bracket you go. For instance, $2000 per year means a whole lot more for someone making $12,000 per year than is is for someone who makes $250,000 per year. (Note: these figures do not reflect any actual policy, they just serve to illustrate the point)."

I just wanted to say a couple things whether the debate is over or not. This example you gave makes no sense. People who "earn more money" do not and never have paid the same amount as middle or lower class citizens. They may pay near the same "percentage," not the amount. Your example of someone earning $12,000 annually and someone making $250,000 annually and both paying $2000 in taxes is irrelevant because that's not how it happens. Let's assume that the tax rate is 30% for both which is close, someone making $12,000 a year would pay $3,600 and someone making $250,000 would pay $75,000! You don't think that is pulling there own weight? We're talking percentages and ratio's of INCOME. Not total amounts overall. For example, why should one person pay out 1/3 of their income in taxes and someone else pay 2/3 of their income in taxes? This is the argument. Would you like to begin another debate? I'm sure you could have figured out the math for yourself I just listed the examples for the sake of my argument. Again those were examples and I did not accurately convert the percentages into fractions.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
There is only one of the items i wish to address and that is the reduction in tax rates. If you care to look back around 1960ish JFK also lowered taxes and increased the revenue. I do believe that both parties are conducting class warfare and the media helps them out. If this was not the case then why do we only get 2 people in which to watch in these debates when there is clearly more than that running for the highest office in the land? Last I checked I counted about 12 possible people wanting to be President and yet we are only given 2, go figure.
Posted by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
Thank you for the compliments, BaldEagle. I would extend the same to you except I'm not exactly certain where your ideology lies.

I will wait the alloted 3 days before typing a pass on the round, allowing you time to pick these points back up if you are able to find the time.
Posted by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
Too late, Kleptin. I couldn't resist taking this one up. My argument will be up this evening, for now I have to pick up some light fixtures for my house.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
5 rounds is too long. 2 rounds and I'll accept the debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
BaldEagleJBlakeTied
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 MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
BaldEagleJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by johnnyrockit 8 years ago
johnnyrockit
BaldEagleJBlakeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
BaldEagleJBlakeTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
BaldEagleJBlakeTied
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 Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
BaldEagleJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50