The Instigator
adealornodeal
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Resolved: The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 18 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,263 times Debate No: 13812
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (83)
Votes (18)

 

adealornodeal

Pro

Definition:
Better: the "better" party is that which, when in power, makes decisions that benefit the American people.

GOP: the Republican Party.

Framework:
In order to win today's debate, it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party. The burden of the con is to disprove these points.

--

Part 1: Democratic Party

C1: Democrats are Better for the Economy

In his article, "Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't" [1], Michael Kinsley analyzes the annual Economic Report of the President [2] and concludes that "beyond doubt is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans." The study finds that Democrats did a better of job of:

1) increasing the US's GDP ($212 billion compared to the GOP's $165 bil. [4])
2) less inflation (3.81% compared to 4.5%),
3) lower unemployment rates (5.33% compared to 6.2%). Under Bush, 2 million jobs disappeared between 2001 and 2003 alone – 1 million each year he held office. [3]
4) less federal spending (19.6% compared to 20.6%), and
5) deficit reduction.

It's evident that with Democrats in power, the economy fares much better than when under the GOP.

C2: Environment

According to poll conducted by Pew, 56% of Republicans still don't believe in climate change [5]. That means that any attempt to pass legislation promoting alternative, clean energy, will be opposed by Republicans (who most likely have ties to big oil corporations, whose number one fear is alternative energy. Ex-VP Dick Cheney and Halliburton, anyone?) On the contrary, 80% of Democrats believe in climate change, and are taking valuable steps forward in proposing legislation to ensure a clean and sustainable future for America's energy. America's energy future will determine it's economic success; continuing to depend on foreign oil makes the United States vulnerable, making Republican ignorance towards climate change nothing short of economically devastating on the long term.

C3: Regulation

While Republicans strive to deregulate and remove government oversight, Democrats strive for the opposite. The very purpose of government is to ensure a country's safety and stability, and the key to its stability is its economic stability. A recent example of the detriments of deregulation was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was passed by Republicans in 2000. It deregulated banking investment oversight and lead to the bursting of the housing bubble, causing the recession. [8]The CFMA also deregulated the oil futures market, creating the Enron Loophole, which allowed Enron to bilk Californian customers out of over $40 billion dollars through market manipulation. [9] Republicans go hand in hand with deregulation; and deregulation goes hand in hand with corruption.

C4: Healthcare

Earlier this year, Democrats addressed the problem of high healthcare costs with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Not only do these acts reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion in the first decade alone, but they also help both the doctor and the patient. It ensures that all doctors who treat Medicare patients will now be fully reimbursed, and it provides all patients with an affordable "public option" in order to ensure that more Americans will receive the benefits of health insurance.

C5: Gay Rights

The Republican Party stands in blatant opposition to the rights of gays to marriage and military service. On the contrary, most of the support for gay rights comes from Democrats. [7]

C6: Party Strength.

Out of registered American citizens, 44 million are independent, 55 million are Republican, but a whopping 72 million are registered Democrats. 26 states have Democratic governors, compared to 23 Republican governors. [6] A Republican victory in the House will be short-lived, due to their promise of "no compromise" with Dems, the GOP will inevitably put Congress into a state of gridlock for the next two years, and they will be voted out of office in 2012. Democrats continue to constitute a majority in the Senate. When Americans clearly favor Democratic policies and agenda, it's clear that the numbers say it all.

---

Part 2: Republican Party

C7: The Party of No

Republicans, more than any party in history, have pursued an obstructionist agenda, meaning that they will oppose every piece of Democratic legislation simply because it was proposed by a Democrat, regardless of whether or not they believe in it. This thrusts Congress into a state of gridlock, making it impossible to pass moderate legislation because Republicans are refusing to even DISCUSS legislation with Democrats.

Subpoint B: The Tea Party is killing off moderate Republicans

Cast as traitors by the Tea Party for reaching across the aisle to work together with Democrats, moderate Republicans are now pandering to the extreme fringes of conservatives in order to gain Tea Party support. For example, Tea Party fury over Senator Chuck Grassley's willingness to negotiate with Democrats over the healthcare bill forced Grassley to change his stance on healthcare from "I'm doing everything I can to make the reform effort in Congress a bipartisan one" to "the simple truth is that I am and always have been opposed to the Obama Administration's plan to nationalize healthcare, period."

The purpose of Congress is to debate issues to compromise and craft moderate legislation that satisfies the needs of Americans. The Tea Party is turning Republican politicians into useless slobs who sit on their hands in Congress and refuse to discuss, thus undermining the very purpose of Congress itself.

C8: Republican Agenda vs. Conservative Ideology

In the Washington Post article "Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers", Michael Kinsley explains how "Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values -- if in fact they ever really had such values." [4] While Conservative ideology touts small government, less taxes, and less spending, Republicans have perverted this into an agenda that meets their personal needs while putting the entire nation at economic risk. Republican politicians want to lower taxes and the deficit – but once they assume office, they begin spending like no other. George W. Bush signed every single spending bill that was put under his nose, while still cutting taxes. Simply put, you can't spend money if you don't have it; and when you lower taxes the way Republicans like to do, you don't have money to spend.

C9: Framing

The GOP enjoys to "framing" bills in a manner that perverts their true meaning. An infamous example of "framing" would be the so-called "Death Tax". The real name of the tax is the Estate Tax, and it only taxes the heirs of large fortunes – it imposes a 35% tax on sums of over 2.2 million, and only applies to 12,000. At first glance, the "Death Tax" sounds like it's a tax on those who die – and that's exactly what Republicans want it to sound like. The flaw in this argument is obvious - the person receiving the thing of value is being taxed - not the giver. Since many GOP politicians fall into this category of wealthy Americans, they framed the bill as the "Death Tax" and created the illusion that it applied to ALL Americans, and that if it passed, all Americans would be taxed when they died. This was an outright lie. The repeal of the Estate Tax has resulted in a tremendous blow to the US deficit; in ten years alone, it will cost the US nearly $1 trillion dollars.

A recent example of framing was "death panels"; the notion that there would be a panel of officials who would decide whether a patient would be allowed to live or die. This frame was used in order to scare Americans away from Obama's healthcare overhaul. None of the things it stated were true.

---

I strongly urge a PRO vote. I thank my opponent and look forward to an exciting debate.
LaissezFaire

Con

I contend that the Democratic Party isn't better than the Republican Party because both parties are equally bad. The differences between them are largely differences in rhetoric, not reality. Both parties are filled with incompetence and corruption; both parties always favor the corporations over the people, and both parties support larger and more intrusive government. They are nothing but competing criminal gangs fighting over stolen loot—their disagreement isn't over how much to rob the American people, but over which group gets the proceeds of the theft.

C1-Economy:
Contrary to the title of the article my opponent cites, numbers DO lie. The fact that certain economic figures are better under Democratic regimes than Republican regimes proves nothing unless you can show that the party in power directly causes those figures. Inflation, for example, is entirely caused by the Federal Reserve, not the political parties. And both parties, when appointing Fed officials, tend to have the same policies (For example, the two most recent Fed Chairmen, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke were each appointed or reappointed by both Democratic and Republicans). How much inflation the Fed happens to be causing at any given time cannot be blamed more on one party than the other, since each party has the same policies regarding the Fed. Same with unemployment—also caused in part by the Fed, because it creates the business cycle. Booms and busts come in cycles, and the time the bust happens to occur has nothing to do with which party happens to be in power.

C2-Environment:
This point would indeed be a point in the Democrats' favor—if man-made global warming were real. It is, at best, inconclusive, so the disparity in support for laws to stop it, at best, show that neither party is better than the other. As for dependence on foreign oil—so what? My opponent states that it makes us vulnerable—but only to an increase in the price of oil, which is exactly what the policies the Democrats propose would do anyway.

C3-Regulation:
The CFMA was actually passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties [1], so this can't be considered a point for or against either party. Another popular example of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, which also had wide bi-partisan support, and was signed by a Democratic President. [2] The truth is that both parties have the same policy on regulation—overall, huge increases in it, with the occasional special breaks for their friends.

C4-Healthcare:
Democrats did "address the problem of high healthcare costs"—by making it worse. The deficit reduction figure is misleading—it reduces deficits in the next ten years because the parts that decrease deficits are implemented before the parts that significantly increase spending. If you look at the 10 years after Obamacare is fully implemented, it increases the deficit. That figure also doesn't include the increased costs passed on to individuals and businesses—even the CBO admits that Obamacare will increase, not decrease, healthcare costs. [3]

Furthermore, Republicans don't really oppose the Obamacare reforms. If you look at their supposed "Pledge to America," they suggest health care reforms nearly identical to the ones that actually passed. The only real problem they have with Obamacare is that it has Obama's name on it. Whether you view the bill as good or bad, it isn't a point in either party's favor, since both parties really support the same changes—Republicans are just making a show about their supposed opposition to it for votes.

C5-Gay Rights:
If only the pro-gay-rights rhetoric of the Democrats translated into actual policies. However, the actual policies they (both parties) enact are the likes of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. On this point, neither party is really all that much better than the other.

C6-Party Strength:
Which criminal gang is bigger has nothing to do with which is better. Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't something to brag about, nor is being better at buying votes with stolen taxpayer dollars.

C7-Party of No:
This point is only valid if a "moderate" agenda and compromise are accepted as desirable. I contend that any expansion of government is an immoral assault on Americans' rights, and that compromising on exactly how much to expand government is not a good thing—the only acceptable compromise is one that reduces the power of the state. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show that the expansion of government power is good, and that the Republicans are wrong for not aiding it.

C8-Republican Agenda vs. Conservative Ideology:
I agree that the Republicans lie about supporting small government, and are actually the party of big government. But the Democrats are openly the party of big government—neither party has the upper hand here.

C9-Framing:
The death tax really is a tax on those who die. It affects them before their deaths, when they are writing their wills, deciding what they want to happen to their estate. It prevents them from using the money that they earned as they see fit, by taking a percentage of it. Just as a consumption tax is a tax on people that buy things because the government is taking a percentage of the money that they'd normally use to purchase goods, lowering the amount they're able to purchase, the "estate tax" is a tax on people that are dying, lowering the amount of their money that they're able to use as they see fit. Furthermore, regardless of who exactly is being taxed, it's still theft, and the Republicans are right to oppose it by any means. Repeal does not "cost the US nearly $1 trillion dollars"—it doesn't "cost" the US government anything, since it's not the government's money. Just as me refraining from breaking into your home tonight and taking your stuff doesn't count as something that "costs" me money, the government refraining from robbing citizens doesn't "cost" the government anything.

As for the "death panels" scare tactics—it doesn't matter whether or not Obamacare actually included death panels. As I said in C4, Obamacare would increase government spending, the deficit, and the cost of healthcare for individuals and businesses. It's a bad policy, and the Republicans were right to oppose it by any means. In addition, claims of death panels aren't as unreasonable as you think. The US government already has death panels—the FDA. They often withhold potentially lifesaving drugs from dying people—they're the very essence of the death panels Republicans fear. You may still support the FDA's death panels, but that doesn't make them not death panels. It isn't unreasonable to believe that death panels could expand under Obamacare, as government programs always grow in scope as time goes on.

[1] http://www.govtrack.us...

[2] http://www.govtrack.us...

[3] http://www.cbo.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
adealornodeal

Pro

In order to give each contention adequate discussion, I have split my case into two parts. I will use Round 2 to defend and extend the first part of my case, Round 3 to defend and extend the second part, and Round 4 to summarize and highlight important points and voting issues in today's debate. I will also add my final contention (C10) in Round 2, thus giving my opponent adequate time to respond.

Framework: I accept my opponent's framework. If the Pro can prove that, on even one point, that the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party, he thus disproves the Con's argument that both parties are "equally bad", and wins the round.

C1: Economy

My opponent's claim about the Federal Reserve is entirely false. The very purpose of the Federal Reserve is to correct the imbalances created by government policy [3].

The Democratic Party believes in empowering the middle class with more tax breaks while taking that money from the upper class. Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, explains:

"There were several important consequences [of the negotiations between business and labor]: first, large economies of scale, generating high productivity and hence significant profits; second, tens of millions of steady jobs; third, a wide distribution of the profits (downward to blue-collar workers and outward to smaller communities, farmers, and other constituents) The result was a large and growing middle class across the country that stabilized the political system."

This is a formula for economic growth. It's clear that party policy has great influence on the economy.

C2: Environment

According to CNN, "Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists." There is an immense amount of evidence proving that man-made global exists. Almost every government around the world is racing to reduce their carbon footprint. Simply and logically put: you can't spew tons and tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and expect nothing to happen.

While the effects of global warming might not be apparent on a day-to-day basis, but it's existence is near undeniable. Listing arguments to prove that global warming exists would use up much more than my 8,000 characters, so I will provide the following links that my opponent may read and refute if he should choose to do so.

National Geographic: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...

CNN: http://articles.cnn.com...

NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov...

Back to my original point: the fact that the Democratic Party embraces such problems and strives to find solutions proves that as a political party, they are far more forward-minded than the Republican Party, which for the most part still denies climate change. This is an example of how Republicans prioritize short-term benefits over long-term safety.

Next: My opponent sees dependence on foreign oil as a "so what?" issue. However, I ask, has he forgotten the 1973 oil crisis? OPEC, "in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military" [1], quadrupled the price of a barrel of oil and caused inflation in the US to rise by 10% in one year alone [1][2].

In addition to dismissing foreign oil as a minor issue, my opponent completely overlooks the roots of where such dependence began. Republican-supported oil companies are the same ones that have lobbied policies to favor the production of oil, thus increasing our dependence on unstable countries for oil. By lobbying for tax breaks for oil corporations, Republicans have added to the US's trillion dollar deficit while making alternative energy development unprofitable (compared to oil drilling) and hindering economic recovery that could use the alternative energy sector as a stimulant [10].

My opponent refers to Democratic policies that would increase the price of oil, but does not provide any specifics. Thus, his claims cannot be considered in this round.

C3: Regulation

The CFMA passed unanimously because "CFMA was lumped in with other acts, and since it was the last vote of the year, before holidays, there was no further discussion, committees, hearings, nothing. They all said "all right just pass the junk" and went home to Christmas vacation." [60 Minutes]. Unanimous consent was a result of lack of research. "The Senate vote was unanimous consent, and I have yet to find anywhere where this act was even discussed in the Senate except just a few hours before the vote." [60 Minutes].

Republicans support deregulation both their words and their actions; the CFMA, FSMA, Enron Loophole (which also created the London Loophole and bilked Californians out of $40 billion), the collapse of Wall Street and the recession speak for themselves.

C4: Healthcare

My opponent responds to this argument as though it were an economics contention; however, it isn't. "Obamacare" extends healthcare to millions of Americans and helps both the doctor and the patient. I agree with my opponent that healthcare will increase the deficit after the first ten years, but I have three responses. 1) This is no surprise. When you create such a large program, such an effect is obvious. The point of this contention is that millions of Americans who once did not have healthcare are now being given healthcare; something Republicans have failed to do. 2) The initial deficit reduction is a huge aid to our economy as we recover from the recession. Lack of universal health insurance is what causes people to fall into bankruptcy and costs taxpayers millions every year. If tax cuts are supposed to keep taxes in people's pockets as the Republican party contends, they must figure out a way to keep it there given that half of all bankruptcies declared are because of healthcare costs due to lack of insurance. [9]

My opponent also states that Republicans "don't really oppose Obamacare reforms." I have two observations.

1) My opponent, in his introduction, states that the differences between the parties are "in rhetoric, not reality". His own statement on C4 is contradictory to this point: whilst the "rhetoric" of the GOP is same as that of Democrats when it comes to their visions for America's healthcare, the "reality" of their actions is that the GOP had opposed the bill. "Actions speak louder than words". Even if Republicans agree with the tenets of Obamacare, they still opposed a bill that would give healthcare to millions of Americans who had been denied it in the past.

2) The fact that my opponent contends that Republicans opposed Obamacare simply because it had Obama's name on it shows that he has conceded to my 7th contention regarding "The Party of No", which explains how Republican obstructionist policies undermines meaningful, moderate legislation from passing in Congress. My opponent's own example shows how obstructionist practices almost prevented moderate legislation (on which Republicans agreed with Democrats) from passing.

C10: Tax Cuts

The Bush Tax Cuts are tauted by Republicans as having spurred economic growth. David Leonhart of the New York Times states "Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7. The competition for slowest growth is not even close." [8] On the contrary, by granting tax cuts to the lower and middle class but taxing the rich (a progessive tax), the Democratic Party sticks to their formula for economic growth, explained by Professor Robert Reich (quoted in C1) which spurred the numerous economic benefits as stated in Round 1 C1.

Vote PRO.
LaissezFaire

Con

Framework: Pro's phrasing of the framework is incorrect. I did state that I think the two parties are equally bad, but that doesn't mean I think they're equally bad on every specific point. He has to show that the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in more ways than the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party. So if, based on the arguments presented, voters are convinced that he's shown that the Democratic Party is better on one point, but the Republican Party is better on a different point, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.

C1: "My opponent's claim about the Federal Reserve is entirely false. The very purpose of the Federal Reserve is to correct the imbalances created by government policy"—I made 2 claims about the Federal Reserve, so I'm not sure which Pro is referring to. First, I claimed that the Fed causes inflation, as evidenced by the general lack of inflation before the Fed existed.

If my opponent was instead referring to my claim that the Fed causes the business cycle, it does do that, but there isn't room to go into that here. But it doesn't really matter—my point was that the bust part of the business cycle happens regardless of which party happens to be in power, so neither party can take more credit or blame than the other. Thus, his earlier statistics about the relative rates of unemployment and inflation and such under Democratic vs. Republican regimes mean nothing, since economic downturns are going to happen anyway—which party happens to be in power when the crash hits doesn't matter. Since the only evidence for his claims that the Democrats' policies are better for the economy were those statistics, this point is not in the Democrats' favor.

For my opponent's points on tax policy, see C10.

C2: My opponent is correct in saying that we can't expect "nothing" to happen if we release tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, he has failed to show that 1) Significant warming will happen as a result of the high amounts of CO2, and 2) That the costs of doing nothing about greenhouse gases outweigh the costs of the anti-global warming legislation that Republicans and Democrats disagree on—the cap and trade bill.

As for 1, Pro has not provided an argument, merely a series of links. "Listing arguments to prove that global warming exists would use up much more than my 8,000 characters, so I will provide the following links that my opponent may read and refute if he should choose to do so."—Well, Pro, I also have an 8000 char limit, so instead of an argument, I will respond to your series of links with another series of links.
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

On point 2, he also has not shown this. The cap and trade bill will only reduce global warming by about .1 degree F by 2050—an insignificant amount. [6] Even a more extensive bill would likely have little to no effect on global warming, because developing countries like China and India will never agree to significantly reduce their emissions. With their current economies, they depend on fossil fuels to continue their growth, and would not jeopardize that. If fossil fuel use is reduced in the U.S., that just means more for China and India, who burn less efficiently and in less fuel-efficient ways. [7] In addition, the bill, by raising energy prices, would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, as well as increasing energy costs for the average American, with "electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015." [8]

C3: The shady way the CFMA was passed doesn't matter. Both parties do that sort of thing, and both parties voted for the bill without bothering to find out what was in it. Nothing my opponent has said here contradicts my claim that the Republicans and Democrats have the same policy on regulation—increasing it, while occasionally giving breaks to their friends.

C4: Pro dismisses the huge additional costs to both future taxpayers and the individuals and businesses who will have to pay trillions more because of Obamacare by saying that it provides health insurance to millions. But, surely, the goal of health care reform should be to improve health care outcomes. While the bill hasn't taken effect yet, we can get a good idea of what effect it will have on health care outcomes by looking at the Massachusetts health care reform, which was essentially the same bill. It has been a failure. Health care costs have skyrocketed, and while more people are covered by health insurance, it has not the actual health of the people of Massachusetts overall. [1] [2] Pro claims that it could reduce the amount of health-care caused bankruptcies, but this is a small gain for the price of trillions of dollars in costs to taxpayers, individuals, and businesses.

While Pro claims that the extremely small reduction in the deficit over the next ten years will aid the economy, he neglects to consider the damage to the economy the other costs of Obamacare will create. By increasing the cost of healthcare for individuals and businesses, the bill will undoubtedly harm the economy and lead to less job creation. [3] In addition, provisions such as the new 1099 form requirements will greatly increase the amount of red-tape businesses have to deal with, reducing their ability to create desperately needed new jobs. [4]

My opponent correctly points out that reality matters more than rhetoric, so even though the Republican's don't really oppose many of the parts of Obamacare, the reality that they tried to stop it is what matters. Since Obamcare is a terrible bill, this point is in the Republican's favor.

C10: The years after the Bush tax cuts were indeed a period of slow growth. But that doesn't mean the Bush tax cuts didn't help—it just means that other factors slowed growth significantly. Looking at other periods, the 60s after Kennedy sharply cut the top marginal tax, and the 80s after Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate, were periods of high growth. But those examples were of cuts to extremely high tax rates, and are different situations than then the Bush tax cut, which cut the top marginal tax rate 5% from 39%. Let's look at a comparable situation—Clinton's tax hike, which moved that tax rate up to 39% in the first place. The four years after the tax hike of 93 were years of moderate growth, averaging 3.2%. [5] The growth should have been much higher, since the economy was recovering from a recession, when growth rates are generally far higher than normal. But that doesn't prove anything—the slower growth could have been caused by factors other than tax rates. However, if we compare that period to the 4 years after the cut in the capital gains tax in 1997, it's clear that the tax hike hurt growth. The real boom years under Clinton were the years after 1997—even though the years right after the economy was recovering from a recession should normally have been higher, they weren't; the economy averaged 4.2% growth during the 1997-200 period. [5] And it wasn't just GDP that was better during the latter years—real wages increased by 6.5% during the 1997-2000 period, vs 0.8% during 1993-1996. [5] Not only that, but the budget surpluses of the Clinton years only happened after the cut in the capital gains tax. [5]

As I pointed out before, the statistics my opponent cited in Round 1 C1 mean absolutely nothing (see my Round 1 C1 for an explanation).

So, if anything, this is a point in the Republican's favor.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

[6] http://tinyurl.com...

[7] http://tinyurl.com...

[8] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
adealornodeal

Pro

C5: Gay Rights
My opponent brings up two bills; Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Don't Ask Don't Tell is merely a derivative of The Uniform Code of Military Justice from the 50s. The Defense of Marriage act was passed in 1996 by a Republican Congress, demonstrating the anti-gay policies of the GOP. In some cases, the GOP has tried not only to make gay marriage illegal, but to make homosexuality itself illegal. [3] Ironically enough, however, "he Right's attempts to whip its base into opposing gay rights in 2004"have actually made the public more accepting of it. [4]

My opponent has made a rather vague statement regarding gay rights as an issue on which "neither party is better than the other" when Republicans are clearly the ones who have openly dismissed this groups' right to express themselves as people and serve their country in the armed forces. This fact only supports the fact that Republicans are the party of No (C7), where they are using their majority in the House of Rep to block the lifting of Don't Ask don't tell and denying American citizens the right of expression, clearly outlined in the Constitution which the Republican party claims to defend. [1]

On the other hand, Democratis are currently trying to add gay rights into the immigration debate, hoping to pass both to secure rights for lesbians and gays. [5] My opponent is right that the legislation has not yet passed; but the intent is clear, and it's much more than mere rhetoric, thus placing the GOP one step behind the Democratic Party yet again.

C6: Party Strength

Today's resolution asks which party is better for the American people. Thus, logically, the party with more popular support is the one regarded by the American people as more fitting of their views. Since the Democratic Party has 72 million members versus 55 million Republicans, it's clear that the American people have chosen the party which better represents their interests and values.

He also states that "Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't something to brag about". Actually, it is – the "lowest common denominator" is actually the deciding factor who will spend their next term in office.

My opponent makes a random, vague jab at "stolen taxpayer dollars". Without specifics, this statement holds no ground in today's round.

C7: Party of No

My opponent's response is merely a cop-out to responding to my actual argument. Contention 7 explains how the purpose of Congress, which is to form compromises and thus craft moderate, meaningful legislation that appeals to as many as possible, is being undermined by the Tea Party's influence on the GOP. He states that "compromising on exactly how much to expand government is not a good thing", but does not explain why. My opponent is entitled to his opinion, but because he believes that compromising on how much government can expand is bad does not make it so.

Furthermore, the scope of my contention is much broader than my opponent's response. Compromises are not being made on ANY major issues in Congress, and Republican obstructionist policy and the Tea Party is killing off moderate Republicans that would normally have the decency to simply discuss legislation with Democrats. My opponent has yet to respond to my contention fully, and thus you can extend the specifics of Contention 7 from the previous round.

C8: Republican Agenda vs. Conservative Ideology

My opponent has conceded this point to the Pro.

Republicans are not part of big government; bills such as the CFMA and FSMA, which deregulated the oil futures market, created the Enron Loophole, and deregulated the economy and ultimately lead to the recession are clear examples of how Republicans are for less government involvement. My opponent's claim is, at best, false. Although the GOP likes big spending, big spending is not the equivalent of big government.

The government provides public and social services like security, welfare, schooling, libraries, community centers and other programs on which our community depends- in addition to regulation to ensure our banks and large corporations don't endanger the economy as we have already seen in the past few months... a small, broke government (due to tax cuts) rendered powerless by deregulation cannot be "small" as Republicans want and still maintain oversight of the largest economy in the world while still providing necessary programs to its whole population.

C9: Framing

I have numerous responses.

1)My opponent is right; the death tax is a tax on those who die. However, the reason "death tax" is referred to as an example of framing is because Republicans pretended that this tax would apply to all citizens; not just the elite. Only 12,000 fall into this category, and many GOP candidates do as well; hence their distaste for such a tax. However, the economic impact of removing the death tax was a devastating $1 trillion in ten years alone.
2)My opponent then states, "the "estate tax" is a tax on people that are dying. lowering the amount of their money that they're able to use as they see fit." Simply put, this is false. The estate tax is only a tax on inheritances, and is only applicable to an individual after his or her death.
3)My opponent calls this "theft". His argument regarding "theft" is one not against the Estate Tax, but one that is applicable to any tax in general. However, the reality is that taxes exist; and they are not theft. Taxes are the average citizen's way of repaying a country that has allowed them to garner such prosperity by providing the government with money to ensure services will remain funded.
4)"As for the "death panels" scare tactics—it doesn't matter whether or not Obamacare actually included death panels." Actually, it does matter. There are no "death panels" that are being created by Obamacare. My opponent proves this point himself with his reference to the FDA, where he states that "death panels" already existed. The reason framing is such a controversial issue is because it is a LIE; the death panels frame was a lie, and my opponent has proven that point.
5)Glenn Beck has called those who don't pay taxes "un-American" while the tax cuts his party advocates do just that- tax cuts rob the government of funding it requires to provide security, social welfare and services to its citizens. Failing to provide to the people = "un-American" by the GOP's own standards.

-----

I will now refute my opponent's points.

C1: Economy

My opponent has two responses.

1."First, I claimed that the Fed causes inflation"

As I stated, the Federal Reserve has no hand in controlling inflation; they merely respond to the policies enacted by the political parties in power. Since, when the GOP is in power, they enact policy which requires the Fed to react in a manner that increases inflation, it is actually the GOP's fault for proposing and passing such legislation, not the Federal Reserve's fault for fulfilling it's purpose by reacting.

2. My opponent's second claim is about the business cycle, and how it occurs regardless of the political party in power. I agree that the economy fluctuates naturally; however, policy enacted by the GOP has an undeniably drastic effect on the economy, as exemplified by the current recession. Since inflation and unemployment rates are dependent on the state of the economy, which is dependent on the policy enacted by the political party in power, it's clear that my contention and all my statistics regarding the Democrat's economic superiority still stands.

Both of my opponent's responses to this contention are false; thus, you can wipe his response off the flow and extend my first contention.

I will respond to the remainder of my opponent's responses in Round 4. Vote PRO.

1]http://tinyurl.com...
2]http://tinyurl.com...
3]http://tinyurl.com...
4]http://tinyurl.com...
5]http://tinyurl.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

C5: My opponent makes a strong case that the Democrats do in fact do more for the Republicans for gay rights with regards to the current debate over DADT. Unfortunately for him, this does not prove anything. His burden of proof is to show that the Democrats are a better party for the American people overall, and to fulfill that burden on this point, he must show that the repeal of DADT is what is best for the American people. He argues that it violates gay soldiers' right to freedom of expression, as outlined in the Constitution—but this of course is irrelevant, as soldiers do not have any such right. The 1st amendment does apply to Americans in general, but is void in certain cases, such as schools and the military, where free speech rights could pose a threat. Until Pro proves that the repeal of DADT is best for the American people overall, this point remains a tie.

C6: Here, my opponent again fails to show why more members makes a party better. His claim that more members means that the Democrats' policies are in the best interests of the American people only holds if one assumes that 1) the American people know which policies are in their best interests and 2) the American people vote for whichever policies are in their best interests, rather than for other reasons. Both are extremely questionable, if not blatantly false, assumptions, so this point remains tied.

C7: Pro claims that I responded to his arguments with mere assertions that compromise is not a good thing, without backing up my claims. This is true—but I don't have the BOP in this debate. He has to show that compromise and moderate legislation are in the best interests of the American people—merely claiming that moderation and compromise are good does not do this. Pro has not fulfilled his BOP, so this point remains tied.

C8: Here, Pro claims that Republicans aren't the party of big government because of deregulation, even though they support high spending. I've already responded to this point C3—both parties supported the deregulation Pro blames the Republicans for. As Pro has not shown that Republicans have a different policy than Democrats on big government, this point remains a tie.

C9:
1)My opponent has not shown that the Republicans have stated that the death tax applies to all Americans, rather than just those with large estates. He also claims here that the economic impact of the repeal of the tax is $1 trillion. This is misleading. It doesn't mean that the economy lost $1 trillion—it means that $1 trillion dollars that otherwise would have been dispersed by the government is instead dispersed by the people that earned it.
2)Pro is wrong here too. When someone is taxed, they are hurt because they can't spend or distribute the money they earned as they see fit. If the government plans on taking half of your estate once you die, then you are prevented from distributing your money as you see fit. It's only a tax on heirs in the sense that an income tax levied on me is a tax on the people I buy stuff from.
3)My claim that the death tax is theft is indeed applicable to any tax—all taxes are theft. It doesn't matter if the government provides goods/services in return. If I break into your house tonight and take your stuff, sending you a bouquet of roses the next day does not make my actions no longer theft. If I get your money by selling you those roses, then it is not theft, because you gave me your money voluntarily. What matters is how I get the money—not whether I give you anything in return.
4)When I said it doesn't matter if the death panels claim was a lie, that was because Obamacare is a bad policy, as I explained in C4. Pro's BOP is to show that the Democrats are better than the Republicans for the American people—not to show that they are more honest. If they supported a bad policy, and the Republicans opposed it, then that is a point in the Republicans' favor, no matter what tactics they used. But I also showed that it is *reasonable* to conclude that Obamacare could lead to death panels in the future because 1) the U.S. has death panels now, so it wouldn't be anything new, just an expansion of something we currently do and 2) new government entitlements never stay as small as they were in the original bill. My opponent has not responded to either of these points.
5)I don't care what Glenn Beck thinks—this has nothing to do with the debate.

Pro's BOP for this contention is to show that the Democrats are better than the Republicans on this point. To do this, he must show 1) that the Republicans really are framing policies in a dishonest way and 2) that this framing is not only dishonest, but also is bad for the American people overall. He has not done either. Since Obamcare is a bad policy, their framing of it as "death panels" is a good thing, and this point is in their favor.

C1:
Here, Pro claims that the GOP caused the current recession without offering any proof. Supposedly, this is because of the CMFA deregulation, but both parties supported this. In addition, this claim is entirely false; deregulation did not cause the current recession, the Federal Reserve did. To be fair, I haven't provided any evidence to show why this is true, or made any arguments explaining why this is true. But Pro the BOP here, and he hasn't shown why Republican policies caused the recession either. It would take an entire additional debate to show why Austrian economics is correct and Keynesian economics is wrong, so I won't go into the details here. But, even without going into the logic behind how the economy and boom-bust work, it is still clear that the Austrian theory, which claims that central banks and fractional-reserve banking are responsible for recessions, is correct. Even someone who understands nothing about economics can logically conclude that a group of people who actually saw the housing bubble and predicted the recession are a more reliable source of information about the recession than the group of people that continued to maintain, throughout the housing bubble, that there was no housing bubble and that there would be no recession. Austrian economists, such as Peter Schiff, have said throughout the entire housing bubble that the growth was illusionary and that it would end in a severe recession—the mainstream economists Pro listens to just laughed at them. [1] Austrians have known that Fannie and Freddie were distorting the housing market and unsustainable for years. [2] [3] They've warned about the housing bubble for years, while mainstream economists, including the ones that are supposed to be stabilizing the economy through the Federal Reserve, denied it. [4] [5] Austrians warned that Greenspan's money printing after the 2001 crash would inflate a housing bubble and create an even worse crash further down the road—while everyone else ignored them. [6] [7] Austrians said that if the bailout was passed, the recovery couldn't happen, while mainstream economists said that if it were passed, along with the stimulus, the economy would be almost back to normal by now. [8] [9] Is the economy, with unemployment recently edging back up to 9.8%, stagnating, or recovering?

As I explained in round 1 C1, my opponent's statistics are completely meaningless. He next tried to show that the Republicans are bad for the economy because their deregulation caused the recession. This is clearly false, aside from the fact that the Democrats supported that deregulation too. Pro has not fulfilled his BOP on this point, so it remains a tie.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://mises.org...
[3] http://mises.org...
[4] http://mises.org...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://mises.org...
[7] http://mises.org...
[8] http://mises.org...
[9] http://mises.org...
Debate Round No. 3
adealornodeal

Pro

Framework:

The burden of the Pro is to prove that the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in more ways than the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party.

The contentions in this round.

C1: Economy

The Democratic Party beats the GOP in overall economic benefits in five ways.

1) increasing the US's GDP ($212 billion compared to the GOP's $165 bil.
2) less inflation (3.81% compared to 4.5%),
3) lower unemployment rates (5.33% compared to 6.2%). Under Bush, 2 million jobs disappeared between 2001 and 2003 alone – 1 million each year he held office.
4) less federal spending (19.6% compared to 20.6%), and
5) deficit reduction.

C2: Environment

My opponent denies that man-made global warming exists. Since he doesn't know why man-made global warming is a severe problem, I will explain. When we emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it traps heat in the Earth. When heat is trapped, it causes polar ice caps to melt – the evidence for this is undeniable, as immense chunks of polar ice caps have been breaking off in recent years [1][2]. The effects of polar ice caps melting is disastrous. Here's why: The North Atlantic current is a current that runs from the Equator to Northern Europe and back. The waters are heated at the Equator, and once heated they rush north, where they release heat and are cooled by the polar ice caps. By releasing heat, it ensures that Northern Europe retains a habitable temperature. The water then is cooled by polar ice caps and returns to the Equator. Here's how man-made global warming factors in. By releasing dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, we melt the polar ice caps. By melting polar ice caps, we gradually bring the North Atlantic current to a grinding halt, as there will no longer be a force to cool the water at the North. By bringing the currents to a halt, heat from the Equator will no longer move north. This will lead to drastic climate change in Europe, and then around the rest of the world. Initially, this is global warming. But the end result - some call it a future Ice Age – but for the sake of sounding realistic, let's call it "climate change". As explained, the effects are disastrous. This is the largest impact in today's round; and my opponent and the GOP blatantly ignore it.

As for evidence: I took a summer course at UC Davis where Professor Dave Osleger explained this science to the class. Every year, Professor Osleger makes a trip to Antartica for a six weeks to do research that supports these claims. [3][4]

In recent news, there is a Pacific island nation that is under threat of being entirely submerged by water due to rising sea levels caused by global warming. [6]

Since Democrats are the only ones who even acknowledge this reality, it's clear they are leagues ahead of the GOP.

C3: Regulation

My opponent narrows this contention down to the CFMA alone. As I proved in C1, the policies enacted by Democrats are much better for the economy than policies enacted by the GOP. The Con has failed to respond except to say in regards to corruption in the CFMA that "both parties do that sort of thing". Well, it's Round 4; my opponent has yet to show us how the Democrats have done anything remotely similar that had such a disastrous effect on our nation. It's clear that regulation is good for the United States – and since the GOP opposes it and the Dems encourage it, the Democratic Party's policies are once again better for the United States.

C4: Healthcare

I make three points in this contention.
1)First and foremost, and most importantly: Obamacare places healthcare within reach for millions of Americans who once didn't have it. My opponent concedes this fact, and loses this contention by default for doing so.
2)It will reduce the number of healthcare related bankruptcies. As I clarified in Round 2, there are more bankruptcies due to healthcare than anything else. My opponent dismisses this as a "small gain" – contrary to his claim, this represents immense long-term economic gains.
3)The deficit reduction in the upcoming decade will help pull us out of the recession. My opponent states that taxes will increase later – well, we already knew that.

He has also stated that Republicans opposed Obamacare simply for the purpose of opposing Obama, which means he conceded to "C7: The Party of No" Thus, you can extend both C4 and C7 for the pro.

C5: Gay Rights

This point is undeniably in favor of the Democrats; whilst the GOP tries to do anything they can to rid the US of homosexuals by banning gay marriage and trying to prohibit homosexuality itself, Democrats are taking strides in the opposite direction. My opponent's only response is that DADT is a "threat" to the United States; first of all, the scope of this contention is greater than the army itself, and the Democrats clearly win in securing equal rights for gays. The Democratics benefit Americans by accepting - not alienating - a large group of people.

C6: Party Strength

Simple logic tells us that the party which better represents the American people's interests will have more popular support. Democrats number at 72 million, compared to 55 million for the GOP.

C7: The Party of No

In C4, my opponent conceded to this point by saying "Republicans don't really oppose the Obamacare reforms… The only real problem they have with Obamacare is that it has Obama's name on it."

This is called obstructionism, and hampers the ability of Congress to pass meaningful, moderate legislation. That is why compromise is important; it ensures that the bills that pass fulfill the interests of as many Americans as possible. The BOP my opponent asks for has been answered.

My opponent has also failed to respond to Subpoint B, that the Tea Party is pressuring moderate Republicans to pander to extreme conservatives such as the Tea Party, which also hampers the ability of Congress to deliberate.

The GOP's political strategy undermines the purpose of Congress itself. It's clear that the Democratic Party is again better for the United States.

C8: Republican Agenda v. Conservative Ideology

My opponent has conceded to this point. Republicans have perverted basic conservative ideals in order to maximize short-term benefits without watching out for the long-term economic stability of the United States. Due to the short-sightedness of the GOP, the Democratic Party is once again better for the United States.

C9: Framing

It seems that my opponent fails to grasp why we have taxes in the United States. Imagine the United States as a local country club – you have to pay to enjoy the benefits. If my opponent thinks taxes are so bad, then he can stop paying them… as long as he is willing to not drive on public roads, stop attending public schools, to buy a car because public transportation will not exist, to cancel his next trip to the hospital, and so on. Taxes are - simply put – a reality.

Republicans lie to the American people – it's that simple. By exploring the examples of the "Death Tax" and "Death Panels", it's evident that Republicans will outright lie to Americans in order to keep their wallets stuffed.

C10: Bush-era Tax Cuts

The Bush-era Tax Cuts just don't logically make sense; The Federal Reserve responded to GOP party policy by stating that in order to help close the gap in our budget, extending the Bush-era Tax Cuts would be a bad idea. Why? Because these tax cuts increase the deficit; they hurt the economy. [5]

About the CFMA – Democrats voted for it because they did not know it included deregulatory provisions. Those provisions were added in secret by Republican senators, most notably Senator Phil Gramm. Thus, the recession was clearly caused by Republicans – a win for the Pro.

It is evident that the Democrats are better than the GOP in representing America's economic, social, and environmental interests. I urge a vote for the PRO.
LaissezFaire

Con

First, I'd like to thank adealornodeal for a fun debate.

C1: I've already addressed why Pro's statistics are meaningless in round 1 C1, and he has not disproven my claims. He also failed to address the evidence that the Fed is responsible for many of the changes in the economy, regardless of what the different parties do (round 3 C1). As Pro has not provided a single shred of actual evidence that the Democrats have better economic policies than the Republicans, this point remains tied.

C2: Because I don't understand or care about climate science, I will concede that man-made global warming exists for the sake of the argument. However, his burden of proof is not merely to show that it exists, but to show that the Democrats' response to it, the cap and trade bill, benefits the American people overall. Earlier (round 2 C2), I provided evidence that the bill's effect on global warming would be negligible, and that the costs to the American people in terms of higher energy costs and lost jobs would be huge. Pro failed to respond to this evidence (some of the things he said don't even have to do with the US, like the Pacific island in danger of sinking, and are irrelevant), so on the basis of the evidence presented in this debate, we must conclude that the cap and trade bill is a bad policy for the American people. Since the Democrats support this policy and the Republicans oppose it, this point goes to the Republicans.

C3: All of the specific deregulations my opponent mentions were voted for by overwhelming majorities in both parties. Pro says, "my opponent has yet to show us how the Democrats have done anything remotely similar that had such a disastrous effect on our nation."—yes I did, in fact, I showed that they did the exact same thing, since they voted for the bill he blames the Republicans for. Since both parties have the exact same policies regarding the bills Pro mentions, this point remains tied.

C4: Again, whether or not I concede parts of my opponent's arguments has no bearing on whether or Pro wins a contention. I admit that Obamacare results in greater coverage, but provided evidence showing that it won't improve actual health outcomes, which my opponent failed to address. I also provided evidence that the cost of Obamcare to businesses, individuals, and the taxpayers far outweighs the costs of bankruptcies that Pro claims it will prevent. As for deficit reduction helping the economy, even the stated figure is ~$150 billion over TEN YEARS. This is nothing compared to the damage increased healthcare costs to businesses and individuals will have on the economy, or the damage caused by the additional red tape (1099 forms mentioned earlier) businesses will have to deal with. Based on the evidence presented in this debate, Obamacare is clearly a bad policy. Since the Democrats supported it and the Republicans opposed it, this point goes to the Republicans.

C5: I conceded that the Democrats were more supportive of the DADT issue than the Republicans. Pro's burden of proof remains—he has to show that the repeal of DADT helps the American people overall. Besides vague assertions about benefits that are "greater than the army itself," he has not done this, so this point remains tied.

C6: As my opponent has not addressed my arguments here, I will restate them. "His claim that more members means that the Democrats' policies are in the best interests of the American people only holds if one assumes that 1) the American people know which policies are in their best interests and 2) the American people vote for whichever policies are in their best interests, rather than for other reasons. Both are extremely questionable, if not blatantly false, assumptions, so this point remains tied."

C7: Pro claims that the purpose of Congress is to pass "meaningful, moderate legislation." While I would disagree—the real purpose of Congress is to put on a show for the voters, to trick them into believing that their interests are being served, rather than the interests of Congress' corporate masters—it doesn't matter. His burden of proof is not to show that Republicans are the "Party of No," but to show that the "moderate" legislation they oppose is good for the American people overall. It doesn't matter if a party undermines "the purpose of Congress itself"—what matters is if Pro has shown that the obstructionism of the Republicans is against the interests of the American people. Since he has not, this point remains tied.

C8: I did not concede this point; I said it was a tie. Pro has failed to show that the Democrats are better for the American people than the Republicans in this area. Arguments that he has made, about the economy and regulation and such, were already made in other contentions. They don't count twice, so even if they were valid in the other contentions, they aren't here, so this remains a tie.

C9: I do not "fail to grasp why we have taxes in the United States," as Pro claims. The reason we have taxes is the same reason we have any other form of theft—some people want money, but don't want to earn it. It is not anything like a country club fee—such fees are voluntary. Even if both governments and country clubs provide services, governments provide them after taking your money by force, while clubs provide them after convincing you to voluntarily give them your money. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether taxes are theft or not—what matters is whether or not Pro has fulfilled his burden of proof here. He claims that the Republicans lie about the death tax and Obamacare—which I addressed—but has not shown that their lies hurt the American people overall. Since I have shown that the policies they oppose are bad policies, it doesn't matter what tactics the Republicans use—if they oppose them, and the Democrats support them, then this point goes to the Republicans.

C10: Previously, I explained why raising taxes on the rich would hurt the economy, using evidence from Clinton's tax hike. Pro failed to respond to this evidence, merely asserting that the Fed—which, in round 3 C1, I showed was incompetent about economic matters—opposes tax cuts. Since Pro failed to respond to my evidence that raising the top marginal tax rate would hurt the economy, this point goes to the Republicans.

As for Democrats voting for the CFMA because they didn't read the bill—I can't imagine why Pro considers this a point in their favor. In addition, I provided evidence in round 3 C1 that the Fed, not deregulation, caused the recession, which my opponent failed to address. Regardless, the fact of the matter is, support for the bill was unanimous in both parties. So this (which really should be under C3) remains tied.

Conclusion:
C1-Economy-Tied
C2-Environment-Republicans
C3-Regulation-Tied
C4-Healthcare-Republicans
C5-Gay Rights-Tied
C6-Party Strength-Tied
C7-The Party of No-Tied
C8-Republican vs conservative-Tied
C9-Framing-Republicans
C10-Taxes-Republicans

Clearly, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
83 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FeartheBeard 6 years ago
FeartheBeard
LassiezFaire - My decision on the debate is based upon what is in the actual rounds. I will ignore any claims you make defending your case in the comment section. Your debating is done.
Posted by FeartheBeard 6 years ago
FeartheBeard
Sigh the things I do to appease paranoid minds...

Considering I agreed with the Pro after the debate, he obviously had to have more convincing arguments. Those two go hand in hand.

Let's move on to the strength of sources. Con used a number of citations from CATO and Heritage, two distinctly right-leaning think thanks. And those citations from the Mises Institute? The Austrian School of Economics (which the Mises Institute belongs to) is possibly the most conservative school of thought regarding economics. They advocate EXTREME laissez-faire policy, so obviously their publications would be in line with and support GOP economic policy. Of course, given the Con's username, the extensive use of this source does not surprise me. The bias of the Con's sources was much more evident. On the other hand, while I do not agree with all of the Pro's sources, there was significantly more diversity, and objectivity. NASA trumps CATO. Various news sources (CNN, etc) will give a far more balanced outlook than conservative think thanks. Point to the Pro.

Conduct and Grammar- I'll group these two together. I dinged the Con for posting their opinion of the winner of each contention in their final round. Don't tell me how to vote. Moreover, the Con's finger-pointing regarding the vote bombing definitely merits a loss in the conduct column. While grammar and spelling may have been a tie, I felt the Pro was much more articulate than Con. I interpreted grammar as use of language, and Pro had the upper hand in my opinion.

I hope this is satisfactory. Private message me if you have any more concerns about my authenticity so we do not continue spamming this debate.

- FeartheBeard
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Also, his BOP wasn't just to show that global warming is real--the debate is about whether the Republicans or the Democrats had a better response to it. I provided evidence showing that even if man made global warming is real, the Dems cap and trade legislation would hugely increase energy costs, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and only reduce warming by .1 degrees by 2050, none of which was addressed.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
And the other 4 points you gave him?
Posted by FeartheBeard 6 years ago
FeartheBeard
Since there's been a lot of controversy regarding my "vote bomb" I've decided to post an RFD. Yes, I am new to this site, and haven't had any other activity because: a) I haven't found a debate I would like to participate in, b) This was the first debate I saw that piqued my interest, and c) I've been out of town the last 4 days and haven't had a chance to do anything since "vote bombing." Without further ado, here's the rationale behind my decisions.

I made my decision on the only important aspects of the debate. There some stupid contentions, and those I ignored.

Economy- Become really muddled, and I was going to give it to the Con until he himself declared it a tie, so it was a tie, (which went to him anyway)
Environment- Obviously for the Pro. Con denied man-made global warming... Really? Pro did a good job of explaining the processes, goes to pro
Regulation- Really just an economic contention, didn't include it, neither gets this
Healthcare- This was a tough sell, and it didn't work, tie
Gay Rights- At least Democrats are for it. Pro
Party Strength- Pointless contention, neither gets this.
Party of No- Pro.
Republican vs. Conservative -Doesn't matter. If the pro was correct, it doesn't make the Democrats better than the Republicans. If he's false, it doesn't mean anything either.
Framing - Definitive for Pro
Taxes - Definitive for Con

Under the framework, all ties go to the con. I gave all ties to the Con and did the math to see who won more contentions.

Pro - 4
Con - 3
Nonsense contentions that don't go to either debater- 3

Close debate but it went to the pro.

-FeartheBeard
Posted by RIPxVanWinkle 6 years ago
RIPxVanWinkle
Oh yea and btw if someone went through all the trouble to create a fake or biast account that is stupid seeing as you need a new email and a new phone number each time.
Posted by RIPxVanWinkle 6 years ago
RIPxVanWinkle
I noticed you both used contention style debate and adeal used framework like LD. I just don't understand how that frameworks matters at all or is even applied with a strong link. Seems that your opponent didn't refute the burden framework so it stands. But it nun the less has no link that is stated also you titled it framework but all you had is a burden no value no criterion not even a standard which is bad because it makes it very difficult for me to weigh these arguments you are putting out there because you have more than 6 contentions and a load of info to read through the arguments seem like floaters and that is not good because the only reason i am able to follow this is because its on the computer so i can go back and forth. As oppose the guy who went for con you didn't do much better. In the first round you did nothing about his framework no matter how weak the link. This is bad simply because if you would of thrown somehting more applicable that was in your favor that had substance his framework would not of mattered. You seem to just go along with him ( not agreeing wise but how the debate goes wise). This debate is vastly problematic in that area. As far as the debate goes itself and who I vote for will be entirely up to refutation. BTW: Resolution was not defined and there is a huge problem that is able to be refuted it is stated as a fact no evaluative terms i guess is could possibly be one in some odd word but ehh not really.
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
Laissez Faire, I wasn't accusing you of creating a fake account. I was merely mocking how easily defensive you become when someone votes against you.

Zeyneb8989 appears to be a user from Illinois, so you may contact her if you like. FeartheBeard, however, is from San Jose, and I will message him to find out who he is so that he may either post an RFD or retract his vote.

For the time being, I vote-bombed in your favor to quell your fears of a vote-bomb attack. For future reference, please try to tone down the accusing note.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Palin2012, while obviously votebombing, was also actually a member of this site--participating in a debate and voting on other debates that I was not in. He's likely just voting for whatever the conservative side is, but he has no connection to me.

http://www.google.com...

Fearthebeard and zeyneb8989, on the other hand, have done nothing on this site except votebomb in your favor. Zeyneb8989 voted for you on 4 different debates--but has done nothing else on this site.

I can guarantee that if moderators were to check Palin2012's IP logs, or the IPs of anyone else who voted for me, they'd find that these accounts have nothing to do with me. Can you say the same for your voters?
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
Lol bombed*, not nomes. Oops
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FeartheBeard 6 years ago
FeartheBeard
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 RIPxVanWinkle 6 years ago
RIPxVanWinkle
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by zeyneb8989 6 years ago
zeyneb8989
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Palin2012 6 years ago
Palin2012
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 xStyles 6 years ago
xStyles
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 
Vote Placed by negrodamus 6 years ago
negrodamus
adealornodealLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03