The Instigator
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
LiberalHoyaLawya
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Resolved: The US founding fathers were Socialist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
DanT
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,616 times Debate No: 20075
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

DanT

Con

All Definitions in this debate will come from Princeton Wordnet; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Socialism is defined as

  • S: (n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)
  • S: (n) socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

A socialist is;

  • S: (n) socialist (a political advocate of socialism)
  • S: (adj) socialistic (advocating or following the socialist principles)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

__________________________________________________________________


Please keep this debate about the founders; no mudslinging, and no tangents

LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

I accept!

I assume Round 1 is for acceptance and terms, because this debate is 5 rounds long and my opponent didn't make an argument in Round 1.

To preclude my opponent from debating a straw man, I would like to clarify some terms from the outset. As requested, the following terms come from Princeton Wordnet:

1.Founding Father (noun): "a member of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787." [1]

As this debate focuses on an important question of constitutional law, "Founding Fathers" should refer to the individuals who actually drafted the Constitution. The views of individuals who were not at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia - like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, or Samuel Adams - are irrelevant.

2.Communism (noun): "a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership; a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society." [2]

3.Communist (noun): "a socialist who advocates communism." [3]

As Pro, I will not be arguing that the Founding Fathers were communists, because communism is only one extreme form of socialism. I will instead argue that the Founding Fathers could accurately be classified as democratic socialists, a term which isn't defined by Princeton Wordnet. Democratic socialists are characterized by support for heavy government intervention in the economy, including (1) heavy regulation of private industry, (2) redistributive welfare policies, (3) government subsidies, and (4) a nationalized banking system.

I trust that my opponent will find this argument acceptable.

Good luck!


Sources

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...;
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...;
[3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...;
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Con

The Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

Signers of the Constitution

Abraham Baldwin
Richard Bassett
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
John Blair
William Blount
David Brearly
Jacob Broom
Pierce Butler
Daniel Carroll
George Clymer
John Dickinson
Jonathan Dayton
William Few
Thomas Fitzsimons
Benjamin Franklin
Nicholas Gilman
Nathaniel Gorham
Alexander Hamilton
Jared Ingersoll
William Jackson, Secretary (attesting)
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
William Samuel Johnson
Rufus King
John Langdon
William Livingston
James Madison
James McHenry
Thomas Mifflin
Gouverneur Morris
Robert Morris
William Paterson
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
George Read
John Rutledge
Roger Sherman
Richard Dobbs Spaight
George Washington (president of the Convention)
Hugh Williamson
James Wilson

Delegates who left the Convention without signing

William Richardson Davie
Oliver Ellsworth
William Houston
William Houstoun
John Lansing, Jr.
Alexander Martin
Luther Martin
James McClurg
John Francis Mercer
William Pierce
Caleb Strong
George Wythe
Robert Yates

Convention delegates who refused to sign

Elbridge Gerry
George Mason
Edmund Randolph

------------------------------------------------------------------------


James Madison was one of the most important founding fathers. He is the Father of both our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; being the primary author of both, I will focus primarily on James Madison.


In reference to a bill on subsidizing cod fishermen, introduced in the first year of the New Congress, James Madison said;

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
[1]

Obviously James Madison was against Social Welfare.

James Madison also said;

"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
[2]


What is commonly referred to as the General Welfare clause is in Article 1, section, and reads;

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [3]

This clause simply grants congress the power to tax, and restricts taxation to paying off the debts, and financially supporting the Military, and General Welfare. Thus General Welfare is used in a restrictive sense.

Welfare Means;
(n) wellbeing, well-being, welfare, upbeat, eudaemonia, eudaimonia (a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous)
[4]

General means;
(adj) general (prevailing among and common to the general public)
(adj) general (affecting the entire body)
(adj) general (not specialized or limited to one class of things)
[5]

Thus General Welfare refers to the Common Good.

Social Welfare (social referring to a redistributive policy), has a much different meaning;
(n) social welfare, welfare, public assistance (governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need)
[6]

Another clause, which is often misrepresented is the Commerce clause in Article 1, section 8, which reads;

"[The Congress as the Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
[3]

In a letter dated February 13, 1829, James Madison wrote;
"It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government."
[7]

James Madison also stated, in Federalist Paper no. 45;
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
[8]


Obviously the commerce clause was not meant to grant the Federal Government universal powers of regulation, but rather to allow the Federal Government to regulate commerce between states, and foreign nations; The role of the federal government is to handle international, and interstate affairs, the commerce clause is a reflection of this.


On March 2, 1807, congress passed an act to "prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States ... from any foreign kingdom, place, or country", which took effect January 1, 1808
[9]

This is a perfect example of the commerce clause, as it only dealt with international trade, and trade between states; it made no reference to the slave trade within a single state.

It is good to note, that I do not consider people property, I am only using this as an example, because it's such a good example of the commerce clause.


There is also another quote by James Madison, which completely conflicts with socialism. According to The records of the Federal Convention of 1787, James Madison said;
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government
to support these invaluable interests and check the other many.
They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority
of the opulent against the majority."
[10]

1. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...
2. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...
3. http://www.usconstitution.net...
4. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
5. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
6. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
7. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...
8. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...
9. http://www.on-this-day.com...
10. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...


LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama caused quite a stir when he explained his proposal to raise federal income taxes for individuals making more than $250,000 per year. Speaking with a man known later as “Joe the Plumber,” Obama remarked that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s better for everybody.” [1] John McCain and other conservatives instantly seized on the comments as evidence that Obama was a socialist, [2] a charge that has only intensified since Obama was elected President. [3, 4]

If a desire to “spread the wealth around” is a dead giveaway of a socialist politician, however, then it should be clear to anybody that the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) were indeed socialists. This is clear from both the text of the Constitution itself, and from the views held by a majority of its authors.

1. The U.S. Constitution permits socialist policies

A. Redistribution of wealth

Two provisions in the Fifth Amendment expressly permit the federal government to redistribute private property: the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause. I shall address them in turn.

The Due Process Clause provides that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” [5]

The clear implication of this clause is that a person may be deprived of life, liberty or property with due process of law. In other words, if a legislature passes a law providing for the deprivation of private property, then such a deprivation is perfectly constitutional. Just as traffic signals may lawfully deprive the “liberty” of car drivers, tax laws and eminent domain statutes may lawfully deprive individuals of their property. The 5th Amendment does not enshrine an inviolable right to private property; it merely provides a procedural right against the arbitrary deprivation of private property.

Similarly, the Takings Clauses provides: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” [6]


Here again, the implication is that the federal government may take private property with just compensation. Importantly, the government’s power to take private property through the use of “eminent domain” does not require the consent of the property owner; as long as a court subsequently deems the compensation to be “just,” the taking is constitutional. For example, if the federal government wants to demolish a private home in the pathway of a proposed highway, it may seize the property by force in exchange for its fair market value. The fact that the home may have passed down several generations (making the home “priceless” to its owner) doesn’t matter, because the subjective value of the property to the owner is irrelevant. If the government wants to demolish a private home, it can demolish a private home.

Many conservatives and libertarians consider the use of eminent domain to be an unjust violation of individual property rights. If true, doesn’t that make the 5th Amendment a rather textbook example of “socialism?"


B. Government spending

Government spending is an indirect way governments redistribute wealth, because the beneficiaries of government spending are rarely the same individuals who finance it through their taxes. For example, if rich people pay a majority of the taxes needed to build a public road, then poor or middle-class taxpayers who also use the road have received a redistributive benefit from the rich. Similarly, a public education system freely available to all children is a redistributive benefit to poorer families from the wealthier taxpayers who pay for it. Thanks to the redistributive nature of such benefits, conservatives and libertarians often oppose government spending as a hidden form of socialism.

For the purposes of this debate, we must ask: does the Constitution provide for robust government spending? The answer is an unequivocal YES.

The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” [7] Here, my opponent attempts to distinguish “general welfare” from “social welfare,” and cites a few quotes from James Madison to prove that spending for the former is permissible while spending for the latter is unconstitutional. Unfortunately for my opponent, Madison’s views on the scope of the General Welfare Clause have always been in the minority.

The majority interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is provided by Alexander Hamilton, who served as Treasury Secretary under President George Washington. To Hamilton, the clause allows Congress to spend money on almost anything it wants:

"[T]he power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and ‘general Welfare.’ . . . The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.” [8]

President Washington endorsed Hamilton’s expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, and the First Congress (comprised of many of the same delegates who drafted the Constitution) subsequently enacted almost all of the ambitious spending recommendations detailed in Hamilton’s 1791 “Report on Manufactures.” [9] History has since vindicated Hamilton’s view, as Madison’s narrower interpretation of the General Welfare Clause has yet to be supported by a single Supreme Court Justice. I defy my opponent to show otherwise.

C. Government regulation of the economy

Another important plank of socialism is a preference for heavy government regulation of the economy. Not coincidentally, the desire for greater economic regulation was one of the prime reasons the Constitution was drafted in the first place. [10] As Hamilton explained in Federalist Paper # 26, "I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community." [11]

2. A majority of the Founding Fathers held socialist views

Interestingly, my opponent's argument consisted of little more than the quotations of one Founding Father: James Madison. Of course, there were 54 other delegates at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and a majority of them were Federalists who subscribed to the views of Alexander Hamilton. [12] The Federalist Party supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government, and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. In other words, they were socialists.

More arguments to come in Round 3.

Sources:

[1] ;
[2] http://articles.latimes.com...;
[3] http://www.foxnews.com...;
[4] http://thehill.com...;
[5] http://www.usconstitution.net...;
[6] Id.
[7] http://www.usconstitution.net...;
[8] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...;
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[10] Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 16 (2005) (“The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation.”)
[11] http://www.constitution.org...;
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Con

1. The U.S. Constitution permits socialist policies

A. Redistribution of wealth

I. Due Process

My opponent claims that the 5th amendment's Due Process clause allows the Government to take Life, Liberty, and Property from individuals through legislation.

This is wrong, and is a gross misuse of the definition of Due Process.

(n) due process, or due process of law ((law) the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life or liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards)
[1]

Due process is a Judicial Process, not a legislative process as Pro claims. Life, Liberty, and Property can thus only be taken from convicts.


II. Just Compensation

My opponent claims that the taking clause permits redistribution of wealth, but the fact that just compensation is required, means that it is not redistributing wealth. For one to redistribute wealth, one must take the property without just compensation.

(adj) equitable, just (fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience) [2]
(n) compensation (something (such as money) given or received as payment or reparation (as for a service or loss or injury)) [3]

(n) redistribution (distributing again) [4]
(v) distribute (spread throughout a given area)[5]

Both clauses better serve to prove, that the founders were not socialist, and that they even attempted to prevent socialism.

B. Government spending

I. Roads


The Federal Government is only allowed to establish Post Roads, such as the interstate.
Article 1 Section 8 states "[Congress shall have the Power] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" [6]

(n) post road (a road over which mail is carried) [7]

The local governments create local roads, because it is the locals who use those roads.

II. Public School

The Federal Government does not have the authority, according to the constitution, to create public schools, nor pay for people's education. The original Department of Education was created in 1867, and only served to collect information on educational standards. [8] Today, public schools are still locally funded, however the new Department of education, unconstitutionally pays loans and grants to students.

III. General Welfare

I already addressed the General Welfare Clause in round 1, the word General Welfare was used in a restrictive sense, and granted no power the the Federal Government.

The constitution reads;
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [9]

The Hamilton quote by Pro was not concerning congress's authority to do what ever they want, but rather the power to tax. Again, General Welfare was used in a restrictive sense, and Hamilton was attempting to explain that General Welfare referred to General Legislation. In other words, Hamilton was agreeing that a bill could be funded by tax, not that a bill could be passed. The General Welfare clause restricted taxation to having an approved purpose.

The quote basically said, Congress's power to tax is vague, and objects to which congress may appropriate taxes, is also vague. Thus congress may appropriate taxes to what ever legislation congress decides needstax payer funding.

The quote in no way says anything about legislating, only about taxation, and appropriation of taxes.

Also the 1824 Gibbons v. Ogden case concluded that "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." [10]

The 1936 Supreme Court case of, the United States vs Butler, later agreed with Associate Justice Story's interpretation. [11][12]


C. Government regulation of the economy

I. Federalist Paper #26

Pro's quote says nothing about economic regulation. The full quote states;


"The idea of restraining the legislative authority, in the means of providing for the national defense, is one of those refinements which owe their origin to a zeal for liberty more ardent than enlightened. We have seen, however, that it has not had thus far an extensive prevalency;... It may be affirmed without the imputation of invective, that if the principles they inculcate, on various points, could so far obtain as to become the popular creed, they would utterly unfit the people of this country for any species of government whatever. But a danger of this kind is not to be apprehended. The citizens of America have too much discernment to be argued into anarchy. And I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community. " [13]

Thus the quote had nothing to do with economic regulation, but rather preventing anarchy.

II. Commerce Clause

The commerce clause in Article 1 section 8 states;


"[The Congress shall have Power]To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" [9]

In other words Congress only has the power to regulate Interstate, and International Commerce.

The power is further limited by section 9, which states;

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." [14]

This gives insight into what the founders viewed as commercial regulation.

The founders viewed regulations as only applying to imports and exports, not what it has evolved into today.

2. Founding Father's views

I. Federalist Party


The founders were not Socialist by any means, and Hamilton's Federalist Party was i the minority compared to Jefferson's Republican Party (Later called the Democratic-Republican Party by historians). The Federalist Party was not socialist, but rather they were Nationalsts.

The Federalists believed in something called economic nationalism, where the nation's commercial interest was seen as superior to local or foreign interests. The Federalists' economic platform was;

  1. funding of the old Revolutionary War debt
  2. the assumption of state debts
  3. passage of excise laws
  4. creation of a central bank
  5. maintenance of a tariff system
  6. favorable treatment of American shipping

[15]

They by no means favored redistribution of wealth, however they did push for a strong central government.

II. Hamilton was an Individualist

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Hamilton gave a speech, in which he said,
"Every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government." [16]

III. Hamilton was for a strict constitution

In Federalist paper No. 32, Hamilton wrote;

"But as the plan of the [Constitutional] convention
aims only at a partial union or consolidation,
the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty
which they before had, and which were not, by that act,
EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." [17]

Sources;

Ran out of space, because there was too many sources; I had to create a new debate, here is the a link

http://www.debate.org...

LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

Note on spelling & grammar:

Last round alone, my opponent made 22 spelling errors ("opponet," "defintion," "Procss," "costitution," etc) and an even greater number of grammar mistakes. That kind of sloppiness is distracting, and makes it difficult to comprehend his arguments. As spelling and grammar is one of the criteria by which this debate will be judged, I would like to remind my opponent that it would be in his self-interest to spellcheck his arguments before posting them in the future.

Rebuttals


My opponent made almost as many mistakes about the U.S. Constitution as he did with the English language. Several corrections are in order:

1. The Takings Clause clearly redistributes property

To minimize the socialist nature of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, my opponent claims that the redistribution of wealth requires the taking of property "without just compensation." This is pure semantics. If the government commandeers a private plot of land from a non-consenting owner and uses it for a public purpose (i.e., a public road accessible to everyone), how can my opponent plausibly argue that the government hasn't "redistributed" the owner's plot of land for the general public? As libtertarian author George Leef argues, eminent domain represents "a dangerous departure from libertarian principles; government should no more make anyone 'an offer he can’t refuse' than should criminals." [1]

2. "Property" isn’t a fundamental right protected under the Due Process Clause

As evidenced by his citation to an online dictionary, my opponent has absolutely no understanding of what the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause actually mean.


To begin with, many conservative jurists (like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) subscribe to the notion that the Due Process Clause is merely a right to adequate legal process, rather than a right to retain other rights. [2] Even under a more expansive notion of “substantive due process,” however, the Due Process Clause only “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.”[3] While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized several “fundamental rights” under the Due Process Clause - including the right to marry [4] or the right to privacy [5] - the Supreme Court hasn’t recognized a fundamental “right to property” since the infamous and now-discredited Dred Scott decision, which equated black slaves to property. [6]

To be clear, the Founding Fathers did not believe in an absolute right to private property. The 5th Amendment’s endorsement of coercive eminent domain is evidence of this, notwithstanding my opponent’s semantic hairsplitting over the definition of “redistribute.” As Founder Ben Franklin wrote:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” [7]


3. The General Welfare Clause grants Congress a plenary spending power

Through his silence, my opponent has tacitly agreed with my argument that government spending is a socialist tactic of reducing inequality through the redistribution of wealth. In the last round, however, my opponent clung to James Madison’s minority interpretation that the General Welfare clause merely references the other enumerated powers that follow it in Article 1, section 8, with the implication being that the Founding Fathers did not envision significant federal government spending. As I stated before, however, such a constrictive viewing of the General Welfare Clause was always a minority viewpoint among the Founding Fathers, and has never been accepted by a single Supreme Court Justice.

My opponent tried to minimize Hamilton's role in advocating for an expansive reading of the General Welfare Clause, but this effort is hopeless. According to the Supreme Court, "Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [8]

4. The Founding Fathers supported aggressive government regulation through the Commerce Clause

I will concede that my opponent showed that my quote from Federalist Paper #26 merely referred to Hamilton's support of big government generally, rather than government intervention in the economy specifically. A better quote to support my point, however, comes from Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.

In his Report, Hamilton addressed a libertarian criticism of his support for subsidies and trading tarriffs:

"One [argument] turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require." [9]

In response, Hamilton argued that a domestic economies without strong support from their governments are put at an inherent disadvantage in the global marketplace. Thus, Hamilton concluded, for domestic manufacturers to prosper, "it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable." [10]

5. A majority of the Founding Fathers were Federalists with socialist tendencies

In the last round, my opponent argued (without citation) that “Hamilton's Federalist Party was i (sic) the minority compared to Jefferson's Republican Party.” This is factually wrong, as historian Kenneth C. Martis showed that Hamiltonian Federalists dominated the First Congress over Jeffersonian Democrat / Republicans. [11]

The Supreme Court has noted on several occasions that the actions of the First Congress are indicative of the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, since so many Philadelphia delegates actually served in the First Congress. [12, 13] If this is true, then the First Congress' decision to adopt almost all of Hamilton's ambitious economic proposals are indicative that a majority of Hamilton's fellow Founding Fathers shared his socialism. To take just one example, the First Senate - half of whom attended the Constitutional Convention - approved Hamilton's proposed National Bank unanimously. [14]


Due to character constraints, I must continue in Round 5.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[3] Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997)(emphasis added)
[4] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

[5] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
[6] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

[7] http://www.marksquotes.com...
[8] United States v. Butler, 267 U.S. 1, 65 (1937)
[9] http://www.freerepublic.com...;
[10] Id.
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12] Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)(Justice Story)(recognizing that the First Congress was "composed . . . not only of men of great learning and ability, but of men who had acted principal part in framing, supporting, or opposing that constitution."

[13] Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)(noting that the First Congress "numbered among its leaders those who had been members of the Convention")
[14] R.K. Moulton, Legislative and Documentary History of the Banks of the United States 13 (1834)

Debate Round No. 3
DanT

Con

Pro’s Personal attacks

I will like to point out to pro that one of the rules of the debate was no personal attacks; this includes criticism of grammar, and insulting one’s knowledge of the English language. If the voters feel my grammar is poor, or that I don’t understand my first language, than they can vote accordingly; they don’t need you to point it out to them.


Rebuttals


1. The Takings Clause

Pro asked, “If the government commandeers a private plot of land from a non-consenting owner and uses it for a public, how can my opponent plausibly argue that the government hasn't "redistributed" the owner's plot of land for the general public?”

For one, they did not seize the land, they purchased it; just compensation is required.

Furthermore, the 5th amendment is part of the bill of rights; thus it is a restrictive clause.

According to the Bill of Right’s Preamble, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”[1]

2. Due Process Clause

My opponent yet again demonstrates ignorance for the definition of due process.

First off, I never claimed due process is a right to retain rights, I claimed it was a judiciary process, and that you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property in America without due process.

Pro has claimed that the Supreme Court has not declared private property a right, like with rights not mentioned in the constitution, than we don’t have that right; however it is specifically mentioned in the bill of rights, so the court’s silence on that matter is evidence of our right to property.

Pro has used an out of context quote by Benjamin Franklin in an attempt to prove he was for redistribution of wealth.

However the original letter reads, “The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of.” [2]

In other words, Franklin was referring to taxes, and the repossession of property to compensate for taxes owed. Even in regards to taxes owed, Franklin recognized that the right to property forbade the state from reposing everything, as his essentials were his right regardless of his debt.


3. The General Welfare Clause

Again, I do not agree that all spending is socialist, only spending that does not benefit people who funded it. I was not silent on this issue, and I discussed it thoroughly.

Pro claims “such a constrictive viewing of the General Welfare Clause was always a minority viewpoint among the Founding Fathers, and has never been accepted by a single Supreme Court Justice.”

We are not talking about the Supreme Court; we are talking about the founding fathers. Furthermore, it was not a minority view; the Federalist Party had only 1 president, for 1 term, which was followed by 28 years of Jefferson’s Republican Party. [3] Hardly seems like the Federalists were with the majority.

Pro said that, “According to the Supreme Court, "Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States."

Pro yet again, misinterpreted a quote; the Supreme Court did not rule that general welfare was separate and distinct from taxing; it ruled the general welfare was separate and distinct from the clauses that came later in Article 1 section 9; such as the power to establish post offices, and posted roads.

Again, the General Welfare clause is a restrictive clause; it is a requirement for taxation. What the founders disagreed upon was how restrictive the General Welfare clause was, not if it was a restrictive clause.

4. Commerce Clause

Pro gave the following quote by Hamilton to support his views; "it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable."

However, the quote was yet again taken out of context; Hamilton was referring to international trade, in the Report of Manufacturers; and more specifically he was speaking of protective tariffs, which is a component of economic nationalism (a federalist policy).

Here is a scan from the report; [4]


5. Federalists Nationalism > Socialism

The Federalists were not Socialist, they were nationalist; a National Bank is also a Nationalist Policy, the bank of Amsterdam for example, predates socialism, as it was established in 1609.[5] The Federalist was not in favor of redistributive policies, they were for economic nationalist policies.

New Argument

  1. State Constitutions

We are a Federation of States, so the State Constitutions are equally important as the Federal Constitution. The State Constitutions clearly stated we have a right to property, some going as far as to make property requirements for voting.

NH, as of 1784

[Sec]1.[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.]

“All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.” [6]

MA, as of 1780

[Art.] 1.

“All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness”[7]

NJ, as of 1776

[Art.] IV.

“That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.”[8]

That’s all I can quote for now, due to character limits.

LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

In the face of overwhelming evidence that a majority of the Founding Fathers were indeed big-government socialists, my opponent has resorted to semantic nitpicking and irrelevant arguments. As this debate is a staggering 5 rounds, I will try to be brief.

Rebuttals:

1. State constitutions are irrelevant in determining the political orientation of the Founding Fathers

In the last round, my opponent claimed that "[w]e are a Federation of States, so the State Constitutions are equally important as the Federal Constitution." This is patently false, and calls into question whether my opponent has ever even fully read the U.S. Constitution. According to the "Supremacy Clause" in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." [1]

In other words, federal laws always trump state laws, including state constitutions. This reflects the Founding Father's weariness with federalism and their desire to form a stronger national government in the wake of the disastrous disorganization under the Articles of Confederation. This is why the Preamble to the Constitution provides that the federal government derives its sovereignty directly from "the People of the United States" rather than the states themselves, [2] and why Hamilton and John Jay claimed in Federalist #20 that "a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity." [3]

Given how hostile our Founding Fathers were towards state sovereignty, my opponent's citation to the provisions of earlier state constitutions is utterly irrelevant in determining the political values of the Founding Fathers, who - as we already agreed - are those who specifically drafted the federal U.S. Constitution in 1787.

2. Compensating property owners after seizing their property by force is not a "purchase"

In the last round, my opponent made an argument that, when the federal government takes property through the power of eminent domain, "they [do] not seize the land, they [purchase] it [because] just compensation is required." This is absurd. Taking property from non-consenting owners cannot be characterized as a "purchase" merely because the government provides some form of compensation. Purchases are consensual transactions; eminent domain has nothing to do with consent.

On a related note, I agree with my opponent that the 5th Amendment is a restrictive clause. Because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, [4], however, the 5th Amendment serves as proof that some other provision of the Constitution permits the federal government to actually use the power of eminent domain. Otherwise, the Takings Clause wouldn't make any sense, because there wouldn't be a reason to restrict a power that didn't exist.

Thus, through his rebuttal to my point on the Takings Clause, my opponent has unwittingly acknowledged the existence of certain implied powers (like eminent domain) through the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article 1, sec. 8. Alexander Hamilton, for example, cited the implied powers of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the creation of the first national bank, [5] which, as I stated earlier, the First Senate unanimously approved. Yet more proof that our Founding Fathers were big government socialists.

3. The Federalist Party's policies were socialist

My opponent claims that the Federalist Party "was not in favor of redistributive policies, they were for economic nationalist policies." This is semantic hairsplitting, given the fact that industry-specific subsidies ("bounties") and tarriffs are by their very nature redistributive. My opponent further cites the fact that some national banks "predate[d] socialism," but this is an unfair semantic loophole, given that the word "socialism" itself only became popularized almost 100 years after the Founding Fathers existed. Regardless of whether or not the word "socialism" actually existed at the time of the Founding Fathers, their economic policies were indisputably socialist. Given that Karl Marx advocated for the creation of national banks as a key plank in his Communist Manifesto, I think it is fair to attribute the Federalist Party's enthusiastic support for a national bank in America as evidence of their socialist views.

Due to time constraints, I will reserve the balance of my arguments for Round 5, including a breakdown of the actual political orientation of the Founding Fathers my opponent mentioned in Round 2.

Sources:

[1] http://www.usconstitution.net...;(emphasis added)
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...;
[3] http://thomas.loc.gov...;
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[5] http://www.constitution.org...;


s

Debate Round No. 4
DanT

Con

Rebuttals

  1. State constitutions are irrelevant in determining the political orientation of the Founding Fathers

Pro claims that due to the Supremacy Clause, the State Constitutions are irrelevant in determining the political orientation of the founding fathers. This is an extremely foolish statement. The Supremacy Clause simply eliminates conflicting laws; it does not eliminate the State Constitutions. The State constitutions are still relevant to their respective States.

Pro even went so far as to claim, “[the supremacy clause] reflects the Founding Father's weariness with federalism and their desire to form a stronger national Government.”

First off, the Supremacy clause it’s self recognizes that we are a Federation, and attempts to make laws efficient, by eliminating conflict. If the founders wanted an all power central government, they would have created a unitary state.

Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment to the constitution, in the US Bill of rights, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[1]

Therefore the US constitution is a limited constitution, and all powers not specifically given to the Federal Government, is the power of the State Governments.

Pro claims, “state constitutions is utterly irrelevant in determining the political values of the Founding Fathers, who - as we already agreed - are those who specifically drafted the federal U.S. Constitution.”

Actually we agreed the Founding fathers were those who established the Government. We are a Federation, so state constitutions are relevant.

  1. Compensating property owners after seizing their property by force is not a "purchase"

Pro claims that since the government forces a land owner to sell their land, it can’t be considered a purchase. That is just plain wrong, the power to take land with just compensation, is not derived from the restrictive 5th amendment, but rather Article 1, section 8, which reads;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”[2]

Pro said, “Alexander Hamilton,… cited the implied powers of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the creation of the first national bank,”

First off, the Necessary and Proper clause reads, “[congress has the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”[2]

(adj) necessary (absolutely essential)[3]

(adj) proper (limited to the thing specified)[4]

In other words, Congress may make laws which are absolutely essential, and limited to the powers specifically granted to the Federal Government.

Also in article 1 section 8, it grants congress the power to

“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin…”[2]

The First Bank of the United States was a privately owned bank, granted a 20 year charter, known as the Bank Bill of 1791. The Bank was granted a monopoly, and in return they printed Bank Notes for the Government (such as the dollar bill), and they lent the Government money, when needed. That was the extent of the Bank’s government powers, according to its charter. [5]

I’m pretty sure that’s not what Marx had in mind.

  1. The Federalist Party's policies were not socialist

Pro claims “[the federalist party was socialist] given the fact that industry-specific subsidies ("bounties") and tarriffs are by their very nature redistributive.”

First off Hamilton said other countries use Bounties, look at the quote again;

"But the greatest obstacle of all to the successful prosecution of a new branch of industry in a country, in which it was before unknown, consists, as far as the instances apply, in the bounties, premiums and other aids which are granted, in a variety of cases, by the nations in which the establishments to be imitated are previously introduced. It is well known that certain nations grant bounties on the exportation of particular commodities, to enable their own workmen to undersell and supplant all competitors, in the countries to which those commodities are sent. Hence the undertakers of a new manafacture have to contend not only with the natural disadvantages of a new undertaking, but with the gratuities and remunerations which other governments bestow.”

Hamilton was in favor of a protective tariff, in order to counter other countries’ aid.

A tariff is a tax, and a protective tariff is implemented in order to artificially raise the prices of imports, to make local goods more desirable.

Pro once again shows his ignorance of history by claiming, “The word ‘socialism’ itself only became popularized almost 100 years after the Founding Fathers existed.”

The term socialism is attributed to Henri de Saint-Simon. After Henri died in 1825 his followers used the term "socialism" to refer to his ideals. [6]

Pro than attempted to claim the federalist were Marxists, however the communist manifesto was published by Marx in 1848, while the US established the National Bank in 1791; there seems to be a problem in Pro’s timeline.

Argument

Pro’s argument seems to be based around the belief the Federalists were socialists, so I will prove they were not socialists, but rather Nationalists.

Federalist Platform

The economic policy of the Federalist Party was;

  • funding of the old revolutionary war debt , and the assumption of state debts
  • passage of excise laws
  • creation of a central bank
  • maintenance of a tariff system
  • favorable treatment of American shipping [7]

Assumption of State Debt, and favorable treatment of American shipping

State Debt assumption is not Socialist, but rather nationalist; it has nothing to do with private v public, it has to do with local v National. Assumption of State debt is a Nationalistic policy just like favoring American shipping, over foreign shipping, as they focus on the National interest.

Excises and Tariffs

Both excises and Tariffs are the only taxes mentioned in the constitution, which states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, imposts and Excises.”[2]

(n) Excise (a tax that is measured by the amount of business done (not on property or income from real estate)) [8]

(n) Impost (money collected under a tariff) [9]

The tariffs were used by Federalists to promote American goods, over foreign goods. Tariffs are hardly socialist. The Federalists favored Economic Nationalism, which is designed to promote National goods over foreign goods.

An example of an Excise would be the stamp act imposed by the British on sugar. The Excise tax does not tax property, or income, but rather sales; hence it’s not a redistributive tax, like the income tax.

The income tax was unconstitutional until the 16th amendment.[10]

Central Bank

As stated before the Central Bank was a Private Bank, with a Monopoly. It was employed by the Government.


Conclusion

The Federalists were Nationalist, and the constitutions, as well as quotes proves the Founders were anti-Socialism.
  1. http://www.usconstitution.net...
  2. http://www.usconstitution.net...
  3. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
  4. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
  5. http://www.applet-magic.com...
  6. http://www.arthistoryunstuffed.com...
  7. http://www.history.com...
  8. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
  9. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
  10. http://www.usconstitution.net...

LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

A few final points:

1. Con tried to change the rules at the end of the game


In Round 1, I clarified that the "Founding Fathers" mentioned in the resolution would refer specifically to "the individuals who actually drafted the Constitution," and that the views of individuals who were not at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia would be irrelevant. My opponent agreed to this clarification, and subsequently posted the names of the 55 delegates who attended the Philadelphia Convention to begin his argument in Round 2.

After I shot down his Round 4 argument about state constitutions as irrelevant, however, my opponent attempted to re-define "Founding Fathers" as "those who established the Government," including the state constitutions. This is a silly attempt at moving the goal posts as I approach the endzone; he cannot change one of the fundamental terms of a debate after he already agreed to it for 4 Rounds.

2. The Necessary & Proper Clause delegates broad implied powers to the federal government

Citing to one online dictionary, my opponent argues that the word "necessary" means "absolutely essential," so that the Necessary & Proper Clause limits Congress to only passing laws which "are absolutely essential" to fulfilling certain enumerated powers. As Alexander Hamilton warned in 1791, however, "[i]t is essential to the being of the national government, that so erroneous a conception of the meaning of the word necessary should be exploded." [1] In an argument which later convinced President George Washington and a unanimous First Senate to create the first national bank, Hamilton wrote:

"It is certain that neither the grammatical nor popular sense of the term requires that construction. According to both, necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to. It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted by, the doing of this or that thing. The imagination can be at no loss for exemplifications of the use of the word in this sense. And it is the true one in which it is to be understood as used in the Constitution. The whole turn of the clause containing it indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers." [2]

As a further argument against the existence of implied constitutional powers, however, my opponent cited the 10th Amendment, which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [3]

One word is conspicuously missing from the 10th Amendment: expressly. Compare the language in the 10th Amendment with a corresponding provision from the Articles of Confederation, Article II:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." [4]

By comparing these two provisions, it is clear that the 10th Amendment is merely a watered-down version of the provision it replaced from the Articles of Confederation. By omitting the word "expressly" from the 10th Amendment, the Founding Fathers were deliberately accepting the existence of implicitly delegated powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall explained as such for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1819 case Maryland v. McCulloch, which upheld the Second Bank of the United States as a valid manifestation of Congress' implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause. [5]

3. My opponent failed to address his own contradiction on implied powers & the Takings Clause

In Round 4, I challenged my opponent to identify the source of the federal government's power to exercise eminent domain. Obviously it must have the power, or else the 5th Amendment's requirement that the federal government pay "just compensation" to former property owners wouldn't make any sense. Remember that the Bill of Rights (including the 5th Amendment) originally only applied to the federal government. [6]

In response, my opponent cited Congress' power in Article 1, sec. 8, to "exercise . . . Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be . . . ", but that refers to Congress' power over land purchased from consenting States. This provision fails to address where Congress gets the power to take property directly from individual non-consenting property owners. If Congress didn't have an implied power to exercise eminent domain, where did it get a power that was later restricted by the 5th Amendment? My opponent's failure to adequately address this point speaks volumes.

4. Hamilton supported socialist policies

When I accepted this debate, I was fully aware of the fact that term "socialism" didn't exist at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1787. I never set out to prove that the Founding Fathers were card-carrying Socialist Party members; I merely tried to prove that a majority of the Founding Fathers supported certain economic and political policies which would classify them as "socialists" by modern-day conservatives or libertarians.

Judging his policies through a contemporary political lense, Alexander Hamilton was an unavowed big-government socialist. By describing him as an "Economic Nationalist," my opponent is attempting to mask this inescapable truth.

Consider the evidence:

1. Hamilton supported the creation of a National Bank through implied powers [1]
2. Hamilton supported tarriffs AND industry-specific subsidies [7]
3. Hamilton supported a strong centralized government [8]
4. Hamilton supported an unlimited interpretation of the government's taxing power [9]
5. Hamilton supported a near-unlimited interpretation of the government's spending power [10]

Given these policies, it is no wonder that many of Hamilton's modern-day critics call him a "socialist." [11, 12]

5. A majority of the Founding Fathers shared Hamilton's views

As I have shown throughout this debate, the majority of the delegates who actually attended the Constitutional Convention supported Hamilton's political views. That is why, for example, he successfully convinced President Washington and the First Congress to create the first National Bank and enact almost all of his economic policies, over the objections of minority dissenters like Jefferson and Madison. This is also why his expansive views on the Necessary & Proper Clause and General Welfare Clause carried the argument in the early Federalist-dominated Supreme Court.

In other words, this is why the Founders were socialists.


Sources:

[1] http://www.constitution.org...
[2] Id.
[3] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[4] http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
[5] Maryland v. McCulloch, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.archive.org...;(advocating for government subsidies to coal, raw wool, sail cloth, cotton, and glass manufacturers)
[8] http://www.constitution.org...;(criticizing federalism by concluding that history "emphatically illustrates the tendency of federal bodies rather to anarchy among the members, than to tyranny in the head")
[9] http://www.constitution.org...;("[T]here ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation.")
[10] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...
[11] http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com...
[12] http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
oh this resolution....

The founding fathers believed that Socialist programs that benefited the public were good and right....but, capitalist programs that benefited the United States people were also good. They supported aspects of socialism and aspects of Capitalism. In other words, they were neither socialist nor were they capitalist. The Founding Fathers, in fact, set up a syncretic government; taking both socialist and capitalist ideas. (Whether or not the terms were in existence at that time is irrelevant, the ideas were still there.) The Founding Fathers are the epitome of pragmatists.....

Con and Pro spent way to much time attempting to prove the United States was purely Capitalist and Socialist respectively. When, in reality, it is neither.....
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Wanna vote con but I will not vote on this one...yet
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
Incase you can't read the book scan due to the S's being F's here is what it says;

"But the greatest obstacle of all to the successful prosecution of a new branch of industry in a country, in which it was before unknown, consists, as far as the instances apply, in the bounties, premiums and other aids which are granted, in a variety of cases, by the nations in which the establishments to be imitated are previously introduced. It is well known (and particular examples in the_course of this report will be cited) that certain nations grant bounties on the exportation of particular commodities, to enable their own workmen to undersell and supplant all competitors, in the countries to which those commodities are sent.y Hence the undertakers of a new manafacture have to contend not only with the natural disadvantages of a new undertaking, but with the gratuities and remunerations which other governments bestow. To be enabled to contend with success, it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable."
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
by the way, settings changed
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
So you want this debate to be about 1 sentence, rather than the resolution?

The whole reason I reset this debate was because the last round was wasted over a single sentence, and had nothing to do with the debate.

I will drop that 1 line, as it's not needed for my argument. I won't replace it I will simply drop it. You claim my spelling errors was due to plagerism, well there was no spelling errors in that line, so you shouldn't mind if you are right.

That sentence will be dropped, if you want to debate over if it was plagiarized or not, do it in a separate debate; it wasn't plagerism, and side tracking the debate is a cop out.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
plagiarizing one sentence is no big deal.
Posted by LiberalHoyaLawya 2 years ago
LiberalHoyaLawya
When I tried to message you your arguments, I got a notification that "DanT is not accepting messages at this time." Can you change your user settings so I can message you your arguments?

If you insist, I can post your arguments here in the comments section, but that shouldn't be necessary.
Posted by LiberalHoyaLawya 2 years ago
LiberalHoyaLawya
DanT - I'm glad you've agreed to pick up our debate where we left it. I'll message you your arguments, but you have to keep the plagiarized sentence in (and your subsequent defense of it); no changing your arguments after the fact, and no escaping the consequences of your plagiarism (intentional or not). Every word of our arguments must be identical, as if the debate had never been reset.

If you think voters will buy your explanation, then what do you have to worry about?

I'll message you with your arguments after I post each of my rounds. Where we left off, it was my turn to post an argument for Round 4. PS - I will accept your separate debate challenge on the definition of plagiarism, because, as a matter of fact, plagiarism does NOT require intent on the part of the writer.
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
please message me my arguments.
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
If you have the original arguments saved on your hard drive lets' copy and past those and start from whee we left off. The line you claim to be plagiarized will be dropped from the argument entirely.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
DanTLiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments where too close. I am going via sources because cons sources where more accurate then pros.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
DanTLiberalHoyaLawyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and S/G were stronger for Pro, but the attack on S/G was irrelevant to the resolution and unnecessary, in my opinion.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
DanTLiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall my vote goes to Con, however it was very close. They both were equal in everything else.