The Instigator
john101
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Milton.Pullen
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Should governments be obliged to borrow money to create new infrastructure

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 4 votes the winner is...
Milton.Pullen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 397 times Debate No: 75435
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

john101

Con

Governments should not be forced to lend money because it would jeopoardize their financial position.
Milton.Pullen

Pro


I would like to thank my opponent.


BOP is assumed split since the instigator is Con, so 50/50 BOP


Government should be obliged to borrow [for the debate I insist these means assume debt of some kind through treasury bonds] money to create new infrastructure when voters want it and through their representatives pass legislation. Con states, “Governments should not be forced to lend money because it would jeopardize their financial position. But clearly the debate resolution says, obliged to borrow, so Con’s point that the government is being forced is a canard. Who is forcing the government? I would assume the representatives and the people that elected them. Infrastructure is not only a good investment; it helps both private business and individuals by providing contracts, jobs, and wages. Moreover, in the United States out infrastructure is crumbling, so in reality we need to renew our investment in roads, bridges, sewer systems and all the rest.


Debate Round No. 1
john101

Con

john101 forfeited this round.
Milton.Pullen

Pro

My opponent forfeited the last round but I will continue to make my argument. First, public infrastructure as The Economist notes in a recent article is essential to our economy, or as they nicely summarize it: “Ports, power lines and schools are essential to the smooth running of the economy.”[1] Not only is public infrastructure vital and necessary for the economy but not doing poses problems, if not potential threats to the country. As Senator Cory Booker recently highlighted in an interview with NBC News the Amtrak derailment recently could likely have been prevented had the nation spend the time and money on fixing an ageing rail system.[2] At the same time, this is going on, other advanced economies are putting money and resources into building high-speed rail, including China.[3] The United States should be competing with China in this area because it is a benefit to citizens, the public and provides a boost to the entire economy. My opponent has failed to dispute any of these points. Please consider voting for Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
john101

Con

john101 forfeited this round.
Milton.Pullen

Pro


I extend my argument.


Reasons for points:


Pro should get conduct points for Con’s forfeiture.


Pro should get sources for using sources that were relevant to the argument.


Spelling and grammar tie


Arguments should go to Pro for advancing an argument without any of Pro’s points being undermine


Vote Pro!


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
john101Milton.PullenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
john101Milton.PullenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by willhudson79 1 year ago
willhudson79
john101Milton.PullenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used actual arguments and provided reliable sources for those arguments. FF also.
Vote Placed by RobertMcclureSmith 1 year ago
RobertMcclureSmith
john101Milton.PullenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro gets points for conduct based on forfeit of Con. Pro's arguments were more convincing and Pro used sources.