The Instigator
jchung1029
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,993 times Debate No: 27713
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

jchung1029

Pro

The first round will be an acceptance round before any framework and contentional level arguments are addressed.

I thank the opponent in advance for accepting this debate and I hope it will be a learning experience for everyone.

The burden of proof (BoP) will be shared and arguments will be weighed on a tug-of-war system. The most compelling argument will win the round.

Good luck to the contender and have fun.
wrichcirw

Con

I also thank jchung1029 for co-hosting this debate. The topic is very debatable and I am interested to see where a vigorous debate on this subject will lead.

Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
jchung1029

Pro

Thanks for accepting, good luck and have fun!

Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

The pro defines the following for clarity and specificity in the round. The following is a brief framework for the round and for how the round should be judged. Any disagreements should be responded to within this round before starting contentional level debate.

priotize: v. tr. to arrange or deal in order of importance.
The Free Dictionary by Farlex
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

tax increases:n, often attributive.a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
Merriam-Webster Online
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The audience should prefer all of my definitions because they are taken from the first page of Google and from online sources encompassing the most intuitive understanding of the resolution. Democratic interpretations must be prefered because definitions with a single author are subject to author bias.

Observation 1:The con observes that the debate is not regarding location but rather preference. For example, making a list and putting the entry "tax increases" over the entry "spending cuts" is not upholding the resolution.

Observation 2: The United States is interpreted as the USFG. In terms of a body or organization that is actually able to change the levels tax increases or spending cuts for the United States, the United States Federal Government is the only option. The pro doesn't specify the branch of the government to implement anything.

Observation 3: Implementation of either tax increases or spending cuts is irrelavant. In a pro-con scenario, whether or not the USFG can increase taxes or cut spending is not topical.

The value to be upheld is quality of life. The United States government's key and only role is to assure the health, happiness, and the pursuit of health and happiness. Abraham Lincoln said it best in his Gettysburg Address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The role of the government is to ensure the enhanced quality of life for its citizens and the pro or con, under this value, shall succeed only when he or she can prove that his or her respective side better ensures quality of life by government actions.

wrichcirw

Con

In the future, I advise PRO to place definitions and stipulations in round #1 so that the bulk of the debate can be spent...debating. As of now, nearly half the debate is over and we have yet to agree upon what we are debating. I did not realize PRO had so many conditions for this debate, and unfortunately I do not agree with many of them.



1) The resolution calls for PRIORITIES. This means that taxes and spending cuts are dealt with in an "order of importance". Thus, the level of importance must be quantified. PRO needs to argue that net tax increases need to exceed net spending cuts. CON needs to argue that net tax increases do NOT need to exceed net spending cuts.

2) I do not understand PRO's "observation #1" and will wholly ignore it.

3) I will interpret PRO's "observation #2" to mean that the only action being considered is at the federal level. The consequences of federal action on other governing bodies (i.e. states), international entities, and the citizenry is still of paramount importance.

4) I DO NOT AGREE with PRO's "observation #3," that "implementation of either tax increases or spending cuts is irrelavant." Implementation is of paramount importance to this debate. Without considering implementation, this entire debate becomes a pointless exercise with zero basis in reality.

5) I will agree that "the value to be upheld is quality of life," in that the main goal is to provide the optimal situation for the citizenry of the US via action taken at the federal level.


I will wait for PRO to lead with an argument. I DO NOT ACCEPT the stipulations PRO has outlined in round #2 for the above reasons. If PRO chooses to debate with his stipulations intact, I will immediately ask for his forfeiture as his observation #3 is wholly unacceptable.

If PRO does NOT accept my stipulations then I will grant him the ability to call a draw on this debate, as his terms in round #2 should have been made clear in round #1. Otherwise, this debate will never get started.




Debate Round No. 2
jchung1029

Pro

jchung1029 forfeited this round.
wrichcirw

Con

Looks like this will be a dual forfeit. Draw.
Debate Round No. 3
jchung1029

Pro

Yeah, sorry my bad I'm new to debate.org. How do you draw? Maybe we can finish this in another, better framed debate.
wrichcirw

Con

just cycle through the rounds until it's done
Debate Round No. 4
jchung1029

Pro

Alright, I accept the draw.
wrichcirw

Con

DRAWN AND QUARTERED.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Please don't vote on this...it is supposed to be a draw.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Spending cuts are way more important. Our government is full of bloated programs like two year unemployment and welfare. I am studying hard and getting a double major in engineering in 3 years as opposed to 5. When I get a god job (which I have lined up for when I graduate) why should I have to pay more taxes just because someone cannot support them self. That would be like paying for someone else's kids that you have never met.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
No, you should have made them clear in round #1. At this rate, we will not even start debating.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
This is the public forum debate topic
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
This is the public forum debate topic.
Posted by jchung1029 4 years ago
jchung1029
k, you should contest them then? lol
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
These terms are wholly unacceptable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
jchung1029wrichcirwTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Draw