The Instigator
ramkrupa
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
EricEngle
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/3/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,272 times Debate No: 7222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

ramkrupa

Pro

I must affirm the resolution, Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

I would like to offer the following definition for the clarification of this debate round:

Just –violating no right or obligation (1)

My value will be that of justice, defined as the quality of being just (2). The criterion that I will be upholding my value with is that of government fulfilling its obligations.

Observation 1: Government obligations are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote the general welfare. (3)

Contention 1: Bailing out large corporations promotes the common welfare by keeping people in their jobs.
A: Without government intervention in the American auto industry, nearly 3 million people would be out of a job. (4, 5)
B: Therefore, not bailing out large corporations would lead to substantial job losses and would violate government's obligation to promote general welfare and so would not be just.

Contention 2: Bailouts of large corporations are just.
A: Just is defined as not violating any right or obligation.
B: The obligations of the government are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote general welfare.
C: Affirming does not violate any of these obligations and therefore is just.
D: Therefore by not violating any rights or obligations, and so bailouts are just.

Citations:

1 - Editorial Staff of the National Reporter System. JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES Second Series, Vol II: Deposition-Lamp. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1914.

2 - "justice." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 28 February 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;.

3 - Lay, Vicheka. "The Four Basic Obligations of the Government." EzineArticles Submission - Submit Your Best Quality Original Articles For Massive Exposure, Ezine Publishers Get 25 Free Article Reprints. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://ezinearticles.com...;.

4 - Cole, David, Sean McAlinden, Kristin Dziczek, and Debra Maranger Menk. "The Impact on the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers."Center for Automotive Resarch. 4 Nov. 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.cargroup.org....

5 - Saporito, Bill. "Is General Motors Worth Saving?."TIME.com. 13 May 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.time.com...;.
EricEngle

Con

Roadmap: AC/NC
Let's begin with my opponent's definition of "just" I accept his definition and realize that his entire case revolves around such. His entire case is contingent upon the idea that a bailout does not violate any right or obligation, I will prove otherwise.
His criterion is "government fulfilling its obligations" however he shows no where why this leads to justice except by saying that one of its obligations is to establish "Justice". However this is circular reasoning and does not make sense; how can the government fulfilling its obligations uphold justice if its obligation is to establish justice. If justice is not established, it cannot be upheld. The criterion is also flawed because if it is trying to lead to justice (and again this is one of its obligations) this excludes the other obligations of the government which in turn leads to injustice by violating those obligations. These reasons aside from the fact that my opponent offers no justification cause his criterion to collapse.
Okay so to his arguments, I am going to show you that bailouts in fact are unjust because they violate the basic human right to own property.
As Paul Hein explains:
"At the very soul of taxation is the belief that your property is yours only to the extent that the rulers allow it. Taxes are a frontal assault upon private property, which is a basic human right second only to the right to life itself. No government has ever existed without taxation, which is to say that no government has ever existed without the rulers claiming that what is "yours" is, in fact, theirs. You may quite reasonably point out that you need to replace your roof, repair your cracked foundation, and re-pave your driveway, and thus cannot spare any money for the rulers, at least this year. Your remarks will fall upon deaf ears, as their claim upon "your" income, or savings, precedes and takes precedence, over your own. Continue to ignore their demands, and you will discover that "your" property has, hey presto!!, suddenly become theirs to dispose of as they wish."
Since taxes are directly needed for a government bailout of a corporation, this shows that it is unjust according to my opponents own definition! You can negate solely on this fact.
This directly takes out my opponent's second contention and his first becomes irrelevant.
NC 
I negate and value justice defined as "fairness" by Philosopher John Rawls. The criterion is maximizing social and economic equalities. Rawls says that all rational individuals under the "Veil of ignorance" would establish two rules under Justice, these are:
"Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all."
I will no define a term from the resolution:
Seeing as how my opponent failed to define "bailout" the neg has the exclusive liberty to define it. Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout.
A federal government is the central government of a federation, or union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central government.
Observation one: Just government action requires popular support.
For an action of the government to be considered "just" it must adhere to the will of the people. If not, as Lock specifies, the populace has the right to revolt/overthrow the government. Because the power of the government to do anything at all comes from (as Locke says) "the freely given consent of the people," it is only if the people support an action does the government have the power to commit it, failing this the government is acting unjustly.
Observation two: the aff burden
Seeing as how a bailout by a federal government, the aff has the burden to show why that bailout cannot be done at a local or state level. The aff did not show this and therefore loses uniqueness to his impacts. He does not specify why it is the federal government that has to commit the bailout and since he fails this we have no reason to accept his case.
Observation three: we must use a US context
This is warranted because my opponent is using US specific evidence in his contentions and to deviate this creates an unreasonable scope for the debate that requires the neg to do almost infinite research. Also, just the very fact that he is the aff and set the context for the debate is enough to keep this.
Contention one: the continuation of failed policy is unjust
In the US there have been 5 bailouts already, none of them have worked. The economy continues to plunge deeper and deeper into a recession and the bailouts, whose totals have amounted to trillions so far (http://www.cnbc.com...), have only made things worse by spending taxpayer money and causing inflation. Bailout have empirically proven to fail and to continue to implement them is unjust since they perpetuate the economic recession, achieve nothing, and violate the rights of citizens.
Contention two: because bailouts are unfair they are unjust
Under Rawls definition of justice the bailouts are unjust because they perpetuate social and economic inequalities by throwing money at those who are already financially above the status quo (i.e. CEOs/executives of "major corporations"), but also because the resolution that the bailouts are only for major corporations. This is unjust because the other, smaller corporations are just as deserving of aid and yet are given none. The bailouts only expand the gap between that two and sets the stage for a flawed economic structure as minor companies collapse and only large companies remain.
These two contentions link to my criterion since they show how bailouts have negative effects on the social and economic equalities inherent to justice according to Rawls.
Okay, so lets go over the debate its very clear that I am winning.
1.I accepted my opponent's value and gave you a good definition advocated by Rawls.
2.I completely took out my opponent's criterion, gave you my own and told you why mine is the most important to use.
3.My opponent's case is entirely based on his definition of just as "not violating any rights or obligations" and I use the Hein's evidence to take out his analysis of bailouts and show how they do violate a very fundamental right.
4.My contentions show you why bailouts are not only unjust, but overall detrimental to achieving justice (the value for the round).
There is no ballot but for that negative.
Debate Round No. 1
ramkrupa

Pro

As a brief road map, I will be attacking the NC and then reiterate the AC.

First to attack his value.

He accepts my value of justice, however offers the definition of it as "fairness". My opponent however has not defined fairness and therefore it is open for me to define. I offer the definition of fairness as the property of being fair and define fair as being free from deceit and fraud (JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES Second Series, Vol II: Deposition-Lamp).

Now on to his criterion.

My opponent does not show how "maximizing social and economic equalities" is fair or just and doesn't show how maximizing social and economic equality achieves fairness (his definition for justice). This coupled with the fact that he didn't actually define his value causes his value and value criterion to fall and without a value and value criterion, his entire case falls.

Now on to my opponents contention 1:

My opponent states that bailouts "violate the rights of citizens" however does not explain at all how so. Therefore this statement is useless in the round as it is not properly explained and backed.

My opponent also states in his contention 1 that "In the US there have been 5 bailouts already, none of them have worked", however he doesn't have his facts straight. The fact is that in the US there have been 15 bailouts and counting and not all of them have failed. (http://www.propublica.org...). In fact, in most cases the government actually made profits (http://www.propublica.org...). Therefore, I can say that my opponent does not know his facts and is in fact making things up and so his 1st contention falls.

For his contention 2:

My opponent states that bailouts "set the stage for a flawed economic structure as minor companies collapse and only large companies remain". However he doesn't back this up at all and so there is no evidence that the government is only bailing out large corporations. In fact, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is an example of the government helping out individuals, not just large corporations.

Also, my opponent states that the bailout money is only going to CEOs and executives, however this is also wrong because money from bailouts go toward paying employees (and in the case of the banking industry, toward lending). Therefore again, we can see that my opponent's 2nd contention is fundamentally and factually flawed (just like his first one).

Now just for clarification:

My opponent states that "just government action requires popular support" and the bailouts actually have popular support and therefore are just. (http://pewresearch.org...).

At the end of the NC, my opponent states 4 reasons why he is winning and I will show you why he is wrong:

1) He states, that he "accepted [my] value and gave you a good definition advocated by Rawls". This is wrong because the definition he gave of justice, was another word, open for interpretation (which I did).
2) He states that he took out my criterion and showed you why his more important. However he doesn't. He never says why "maximizing social and economic equalities" is more important than government fulfilling its obligation.
3) He states that bailouts "violate a very fundamental right", basically by taxes. However this is saying that all taxes should stop, and therefore government would be unable to run and would result in anarchy. Also, he states that bailouts are being paid for by taxes and this is untrue as the bailouts are being paid for by selling 20-year government bonds.
4) He states that his contentions show that bailouts are unjust and are "detrimental to achieving justice", however this is not true because as I showed, his contentions are factually flawed.

Now, on to the Aff:

For my value and value criterion, my opponent states that my criterion of government fulfilling its obligations, doesn't lead to justice, however this is flawed because establishing (which means to bring into existence) justice (one of government's obligations) actually brings about justice.

As far as my first contention, my opponent drops it and so it automatically extends throughout all the rounds.

It states that bailouts promote common welfare by keeping people in their jobs. This point is not refuted by my opponent.

My second contention states that since bailouts are not violating any rights or obligations, they are just (by the definition of just that I offered and my opponent accepted). My opponent states that "since taxes are directly needed for a government bailout of a corporation", bailouts are unjust. However, as I had mentioned previously on my attack on the NC, taxes are not directly needed for a government bailout as they are paid for by 20-year bonds. Therefore this attack fails and is factually flawed (like the NC) and my second contention also advances throughout the rounds.

So in conclusion, you ought to vote affirmative because:

1) My opponents case and attacks are factually flawed and he is making things up.
2) His attacks on my value and value criterion fall (so my value and value criterion still stand) while he never explains why his criterion is fair (so his value and value criterion both fall, leaving him with no case).
3) My opponent doesn't understand the history of the subject (and so makes things up) and doesn't understand where the money that goes into them comes from (and so again makes things up).
4) He completely drops my 1st contention.
5) His attack on my 2nd contention is factually flawed and so falls.
6) I have shown why all elements of his case fail (value, value criterion, and contentions) so he has absolutely no case.

Therefore, you must vote aff.
EricEngle

Con

Roadmap: AC/NC
Okay my opponent says that I said that his criterion "doesn't lead to justice" and that, "this is flawed because establishing (which means to bring into existence) justice (one of government's obligations) actually brings about justice."
But he completely ignores my attack against the failed logic of his criterion. I said, "The criterion is also flawed because if it is trying to lead to justice (and again this is one of its obligations) this excludes the other obligations of the government." What this basically means is that if justice my opponent's criterion of "government fulfilling its obligation" seeks to fulfill justice, it does this through the obligation of "establishing justice." However, this clearly ignores the three other obligations that he states a government must have. The impact of this is because he did not prove that bailouts do fulfill these obligations it "to injustice by violating those obligations."

Now, look at my opponent's defense of this in his rebuttal the only thing he says in response is, "my opponent states that my criterion of government fulfilling its obligations, doesn't lead to justice, however this is flawed" he never actually explained why it is flawed/invalid and never explains how to account for the other obligations. This, along with the fact that he never offered a justification for his criterion in the first place, means that his criterion clearly falls. Following this you use mine (I will expand on the impact of this later).

My opponent says that I do not attack his first contention and so it falls, however this is clearly not true. Scroll up and you can see that I show his contention to be "irrelevant" first because it lies out of the scope of his criterion because it links with the value only through its first obligation, meaning that this contention has no impact anyway. Second, because bailouts violate a fundamental right anyway, the contention irrelevant.

In defense of his second contention my opponent says this, "taxes are not directly needed for a government bailout as they are paid for by 20-year bonds." However, this is not true because every action the government takes is funded at least in part by taxes, and also because the bonds are paid for through by the government through its revenue, which happens to be mainly taxes. Then, my opponent does not have any defense against the Hein card, that means that by his own definition and value, taxes are UNJUST because they are a "frontal assault upon private property, which is a basic human right."
The impact of this is that bailouts and all government action requiring funding is also inherently UNJUST. Remember, my opponents did not dispute this, meaning extend it all the way. Impact being: my opponent can never achieve his value of justice which he defines as "the quality of violating no right or obligation." Just off this you vote NEG.

So now to the NC.
My opponent says I never defined my value of justice but only said it was fairness, however I gave further qualifications from Rawls:
"Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all."
This means my opponents attack on my value definition fall and you still use mine. Then, he said I never show how my contention "is fair or just" however it is directly linked to Rawls explanation of justice. Because his criterion falls completely because of my undisputed attacks on it, and the fact that his attacks on my Value and Criterion are purely lies. My criterion must be used for this round.

Let's go to my first contention. He says that I don't have my "facts straight" and that "in the US there have been 15 bailouts and counting and not all of them have failed," even that that "most cases the government actually made profits." First of all, I meant that there have been 5 bailouts within the last year. But even then, in the evidence my opponent the last bailout in which the government made any profit was in 2001! 8 years ago, when the economy was in a completely different state. Lets take the example of the bailout of the auto industry which my opponent himself provides in his case. Clearly this has been inefficient and possible a waste of funds, seeing as how the auto-industry is in turmoil (http://uk.reuters.com...). My opponents arguments are not relevant and untrue as shown through his own evidence. Extend this all the way.

Now to my second contention. My opponent completely mishandles this argument. I said: "bailouts are unjust because they perpetuate social and economic inequalities" and this is because the resolutions says "that the bailouts are only for major corporations." Because of this it directly violates justice, my opponent does not address this. He gives examples of "Bailouts" that helped individuals besides major corporations, but in the resolution it is specified and can only be assumed (because of my definition of Bailout) that they will only help and only affect major corporations. The impact of this is that bailouts for major corporations can never be just! Extend this all the way, and you can vote neg solely off this.

My opponent attacked my first observation by saying that people do support bailouts by using statistics from last year. Here are some facts from this year to show you that, not only do people oppose the bailout, but at least half think it will have "harmful effects": <http://www.rasmussenreports.com...;. This completely nullifies my opponent's claim that people support bailouts and it means that because 50% of voters believe it is harmful, it is unjust.

Now to extend some vital pieces of the case:
Extend my definition of "bailout" where I said that "Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout." This affects his entire case since it means we can't accept that the government will be fulfilling any obligations and also that it will in fact impede justice by only helping major corporations and not the ones that most need it.

Look at my observation two, where I outline the affirmative burden. I specify that because the government is a federal one, the aff has the burden to "show why that bailout cannot be done at a local or state level" or "specify why it is the federal government that has to commit the bailout." Because of the harms I had already outlined, the aff has to justify the state action he is advocating. My opponent not only clearly failed to do this, but failed to address it thus accepting it. In other words, he consents to the burden, fails to achieve it, and thus there is NO possible way he can ever win.

Voters:
1.I have completely obliterated my opponent's criterion and justified mine, meaning you use the criterion of "maximizing social and economic equalities" as is directly necessary for justice. (specified by Rawls)
2.I showed you how through his own definition of "just" and the Hein's card (which goes not attacked and is extended) his entire case turns against him because bailouts are unjust.
3.both of my contentions are defended against the attacks made to it by using my opponent's own evidence! vote neg off this.
4. Finally, and this is a huge voting issue: extend my second observation outlining the aff burdens. My opponent consents to this by not disputing it and he never even comes close to achieving it. This is extended without any attack, you can vote NEG solely off this.
Debate Round No. 2
ramkrupa

Pro

As a brief road map, I will attack the NC again and then go to the AC.

First off with his value and value criterion. His definition of justice is" fairness" and that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all."

However, this doesn't define fairness so by his own definition doesn't define justice (and so we must use my definition) and therefore his value and value criterion fail because they have no way of being measured up to and have a plurality of definitions and are therefore meaningless.

Now, for his first contention, my opponent states that the government has not made any profit from bailouts since 2001, while this is true, my opponent doesn't understand (or purposefully omits) is that after 2001, the next bailout was in 2008 (and that was a line of credit). So only a few short months have passed and there has not been time to actually make a profit, yet. Therefore, his first contention fails (as I had mentioned in Round 2) and it is factually wrong.

For the second contention, my opponent misquotes the resolution and says that "the bailouts are only for major corporations". Keyword here, "only". The resolution never mentions the word "only" or in anyway suggests that the bailouts are "only" for large corporations. Again, my opponent is resorting to lies. He also states that because of his definition of bailouts, they only refer to large corporations, however his definition of bailout is "the act of giving capital to a failing business". He never mentions "large". Again, this shows he is lying. Therefore, his second contention fails (like I had previously mentioned) because it is nonsensical and untrue.

My opponent also attempts to attack my response to his Observation one which stated that that popular support was needed for a bailout. However he again provides false evidence that the bailouts don't have popular support. He talks about the stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), not the bailouts. I have proven in round two that public support for the bailouts is present (http://pewresearch.org...). So we can see that he is lying, again.

And just for clarification, my opponent never denies that he is lying, especially in his 2nd contention, therefore he clearly accepts that he is.

So as I have proven, his case is built on a collection of lies. My opponent clearly does not know what he is talking about and so is resorting to lies.

Now, for the AC:

He states that "if [government] is trying to lead to justice (and again this is one of its obligation) this excludes the other obligations of justice", namely maintaining social order, providing for common defense and promoting general welfare. This means that if government tries to achieve justice, it cannot maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote general welfare. First of all, this attack is completely nonsensical and secondly, he provides no evidence to back this up so the attacks fail, and my value and value criterion still stand.

For my first contention (bailouts promoting common welfare by keeping people in their jobs), in round one my opponent stating that my 1st contention was "irrelevant" and never explained why and therefore he dropped it. So the argument extends all the way.

To attack my second contention (bailouts being just), my opponent brings up that "every action the government takes is funded at least in part by taxes" however does not back it up at all, therefore this statement is meaningless. On top of this, it is untrue. As I stated, the bailouts are being paid for by the 20-year bond, not taxes. But don't take my word for it, listen to Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner in Economics and Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.... This shows that his attack on my second contention is not factual and fails and my contention 2 extends (as I had previously mentioned).

Now for some voters:

1) My value and value criterion still stand and are defined such that they can be measured up to (my opponents can't be and therefore are meaningless).
2) My contentions have extended throughout the rounds.
3) My arguments all have proper evidence and are backed up. My opponent's aren't
4) My opponent's value and value criterion are not properly defined and cannot be measured up to and so are meaningless.
5) I have effectively destroyed his contentions by proving them false.
6) I have proven that my opponent is a prolific liar.

Therefore you must vote affirmative.
EricEngle

Con

NC/AC
Value/value criterion debate. My opponent does not make any new arguments, he just reiterates the same ones which I have already refuted. Even if I didn't give justice a specific definition I gave the qualifications developed by Rawls. Since my opponent did not attack this you are still using my version of justice and directly my criterion.
First contention: My opponent attacks my contention by saying that there has not been enough time to evaluate profits. However, he does not even refer to my evidence from the auto-industry bailout. I showed you how even after numerous bailouts it is still in turmoil and companies are continually laying off more and more employees.
Second contention: My opponents ONLY attack on my contention is that the resolution doesn't include the word "only" and the definition of "bailout" doesn't specify the size of the company. However, look at my analysis of bailout which I extended all throughout the round (because it went completely unattacked): "Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout."
This means that my opponents attacks are irrelevant because I already addressed this. Although the resolution does not say the word "only" I said that for the purposes of the debate we can only assume that bailout will be specifically for major corporations. (again, this went unattacked).
"And just for clarification, my opponent never denies that he is lying, especially in his 2nd contention, therefore he clearly accepts that he is."
Haha. Seriously? I clearly denied I was lying and proved it through evidence and logical analysis.
To extend some items that went untouched:
1.Extend my definition-analysis of "bailout" where I said that "Bailout solely means the act of giving capital to a failing business, absent of further qualifications one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the "common welfare" or any citizen other than those directly accepting the bailout." This affects his entire case since it means we can't accept that the government will be fulfilling any obligations and also that it will in fact impede justice by only helping major corporations and not the ones that most need it. This is a big voting issue.
2.Observation 2: where I state the affirmative burdens. This goes completely unaddressed. Extend this my opponent has no way of EVER achieving this. He loses just off this.

AC
Criterion: my opponent's only defense of his criterion is such: "this attack is completely nonsensical and secondly, he provides no evidence to back this up so the attacks fail."
Clearly my opponent
1.Has no real defense against my attacks
2.Does not understand my logical refutation of his self-contradicting and intangible criterion.
His criterion has no defense. I said that it was self-defeating because the only link between his value, justice, and his criterion was one specific obligation. So what happens to the others? They are ignored. And because of this, in trying to achieve his value my opponent fails to achieve his criterion. Fail.
First contention: I explained that it was irrelvevant because of my bailout analysis where I said: "one cannot assume that the capital will in some unforeseen future benefit the ‘common welfare'. And because I showed how a bailout violates a fundamental right.
Second Contention: My opponent's defense is that taxes will not be used, however this is not true. Joe Nocera of NYTimes says: "Gobs of tax money is going to bail out unnamed companies" (http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com...). This clearly refutes my opponent's defense. Extend the Hein card. Impact being taxes are UNJUST because they are a "frontal assault upon private property, which is a basic human right" therefore bailouts and all government action requiring funding is also inherently UNJUST.
This debate is so clearly won I don't even know if I should bother with voters. But… I'll refute my opponents most malicious attack on me, he said: "My opponent clearly does not know what he is talking about and so is resorting to lies." This hurts my feelings, I worked very hard to build my case and completely destroy his in a very systematic manner. Don't let my opponent get away with this attack on my character, I have not resorted to lies.
Voters
1.I'm clearly winning
2.Criterion was easily defended, his destroyed ever since the first round
3.I turned his criterion and second contention against him
4.My contentions still stand
5.Bailout definition and observation two are untouched
Thank you, Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by animea 7 years ago
animea
Burnbird, many judges nowadays think justice is the only value you can strive for and will actually believe the "inherent in the resolution" argument. As such, there really is no other option.
Posted by burnbird14 7 years ago
burnbird14
Well, that may be true, but even if they are poor arguments, the cases themselves are decent. Except this one teensie weensie problem: THE VALUE OF JUSTICE. It's overused!!! Every blooming case I heard at district was justice this and justice that. Is NOBODY creative anymore?!
Posted by Cg09 7 years ago
Cg09
Um both have poor arguments, if your running this at a district tournament coming up or something consider revising. Your voters are childish and unwarranted (much like your cases).
Aff talks about- governmental obligations but doesn't say why they even have them who puts that burden upon them? not warranted
Neg- something about having equal rights or maximizing equality? (i think) um neither can ever be achieved because if i find a penny on the ground then i'm of higher economic status and you do not have equal access to that right. How do you maximize something that doesn't exist? If a just action is one that decided by the populus....um Hitler sound familiar? Populus of Germany wanted economic reform and nationality and the democratically elected Hitler. Genocide Yay!
Tips: make better arguments, Neg if you want to get rid of governmental obligation arguments get a Hobbes card from Leviathan he says obligation ends at the institution of a government.
Aff warrant your arguments i saw where you were going, but i'm not gonna do it in my head thats your job as the debater.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
ramkrupaEricEngleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro pointed out that government bailouts improved the economy and actually made taxpayers money and that won me over
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ramkrupaEricEngleTied
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 krazzybrandon 7 years ago
krazzybrandon
ramkrupaEricEngleTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Cg09 7 years ago
Cg09
ramkrupaEricEngleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
ramkrupaEricEngleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 ramkrupa 7 years ago
ramkrupa
ramkrupaEricEngleTied
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