The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Should small businesses have restrictions from the Federal Government?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 256 times Debate No: 89112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I take the Con side. You will take the pro side. I believe government should have NO PART in restricting and business. You believe they should. First round accept debate. Second state facts. Third rebuttals.


I accept the debate.

Good luck to Yeeet2016, I hope we have an enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe a strong government is a total disaster for small businesses. Under president Obama our national GDP has hovered around the .9% area. This is unacceptable. We know that as a country our government has a VERY hard time figuring out what small businesses need as well as healthcare and other important projects for our country. Once again under the Obama presidency we have seen small businesses regulated to a point where they leave the country. Under his presidency ALONE millions of jobs have been sent over seas, corporate inversion is bigger than ever and we are falling in debt. So how do we fix this? We remove labor unions, remove restrictions on small businesses, lower the corporate tax and allow businesses to grow without the governments hand. It's been proven that in a country where the Federal government isn't regulating small businesses the country brings tremendous wealth to the economy. This was evident under Reagan's presidency, as well as Eisenhower. One other crucially important fact worth noting is that big businesses are thriving in Obama's administration. Why? Because Obama isn't taxing the wealthy at a higher cost, approved NAFTA and couldn't care less about the important small businesses leaving this great country. It's time for a change. It's time someone makes a difference in this economy. We need a strong leader who won't let the governemnt control everything. Someone who will stick with what built this country and what will continue to build this country. Lastly, it's worth noting under Obama taxes on the middle class have been raised, premiums for healthcsre have raised, illegal immigrants get fre healthcare etc and more people are unemployed than ever. A democrat can't run this economy. They simply don't know how.


Basis of Argument

This debate is about whether small businesses should have restrictions from the Federal Government.


Federal Government = Federal Government of the United States of America. Although there are other federal governments, from context I believe it is clear that this is what CON meant.

Small Businesses = Businesses with less than 500 employees. [1]

Restrictions = a law or rule that limits or controls something, the act of limiting or controlling something [2]

Argument summarisation:

The topic of contention is about whether small businesses should have restrictions from the Federal Government. I will make the case that it is superior for there to be restrictions imposed by the Federal Government rather than no restrictions at all.

At some points I may refer to businesses generally rather than small businesses specifically. This is only because the point refers to all businesses and so specifying it also includes small businesses is unneccesary.

Social and Economic Case

Even the most strident Capitalist does not simply insist that capitalism works by magic, but rather by asserting that the process of producing commodities is driven by the desire to accumulate capital on the part of the employer and the desire for wages from the employee.

Some negative side-effects of work can be accounted for in a market based structure, even if doing so is somewhat callous. If a employers wants to have someone do incredibly dangerous work, they must therefore pay higher wages to compensate. But not everything fits within the framework and must therefore be dealt with by regulation.

Cambridge Professor of Developmental Economics, Ha-Joon Chang has talked about one obvious example of this kind of failure, pollution. As Professor Chang points out:

"Even Milton Friedman admitted there there are instances in which markets fail. Pollution is a classic example. People 'over-produce' pollution because they are not paying for the costs of dealing with it. So what are optimal levels of pollution for individuals (or individual firms) add up to a sub-optimal level from the social point of view"

Pollution is not something that businesses need to worry about producing. Their individual impact is small and even the accumulated effect will largely impact future generations. However as a society the combined levels of pollution do matter to us very much and may have an impact that threatens the entire future of human civilisation.[4] Therefore this is just one example of how the market cannot handle all issues that come from economic production and the federal government needs to step in to enforce critical standards.

Another important example is fishing, where unregulated fishing by individual firms can deplete the overall amount of fish, damaging prospects for everyone. [5]

Unrestricted Capitalism is very poor at handling areas where co-operation is in the greater long-term goof of everyone involved - even it's own future economic good. Capitalism's focus on short-term profit means that restricting the ability of small businesses to take actions which result in long term damage is beneficial.

The Moral Case

Much of what we consider to be moral today has only come to pass due to federal regulation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a key landmark in the rights of People of Colour. It was this act which made it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race. Indeed at the time it was discrimination in employment which was thought to be "the most widespread and undoubtedly the most harmful to its victims and the nation as a whole." [6]

Whatever your stance on the issue of racism today, I don't think I need to quote sources for the repellent and widespread racism that abounded before the 1960's to be seen as a negative.

Therefore as the market does not enforce moral boundaries which we as a society care about, regulations which restrict the right of businesses to discriminate are needed for a more just and equal society to stop people's human rights being violated.

Democratic Case

As a democratic nation, the people of the USA have the fundamental right enshrined in the US Constitution to elect representatives who will pass laws on their interests. The constitution specifically includes the provision for the regulation of interstate commerce [7], which due to the nature of commerce in modern society is most commerce that happens.

As there are obvious examples of businesses impacting consumers and communities, such as the high cancer mortality rates around the Appalachian coal mines as just one of numerous possible examples[8].

Trying to deny people access to their constitutional right to elect representatives who will pass laws to address their grievances is therefore against the most basic and fundamental rights of the USA.

[3] 23 Things they Don't tell you About Capitalism, p. 169
[7] United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)

Debate Round No. 2


You have yet to give me a clear reason as to why small businesses need to be regulated. Yes, the Federal governement isn't the devil. They have had a positive effect on the country in certain areas but overall they haven't done their job. They continually kill small business by imposing regulations on them. One example is giving a certain business a certain wage or minimum wage that they HAVE to follow. This sounds fair but the only problem is that the Federal government has zero idea what a company should be paying it's employers. Another example is recently in California, this made be a little off topic but essentially they raise the minimum wage which will effectively raise housing prices, while also making it harder on the small businesses. They will be forced to hire less if they can't afford this higher wage. Now looking at what the Federal government has done their is a clear correlation between government regulation on businesses and economic growth. As seen like i stated previously Obama has essentially killed the economy of this country. With a lower GDP, a higher unemployment and a higher debt what is he doing wrong? He's controlling small businesses by raising the corporate tax and federal tax and allowing corporate inversion to occur in big businesses. The funny thing is, this only seems to happen under democratic presidents. They don't understand that regulating or restricting a company to do what it wants will infuriate the business. With these higher taxes imposed by the federal government and more regulation these crucial jobs move to Japan or China. This all ties in with how we need to treat a company. We need to allow them to make decisions for themselves. The only way for a steady economic growth and a higher GDP is too remove the foot of the Federal government off the neck's of small business. Let them live or die, because that's when America's at it's best.


As per the original, I will use R3 for rebuttals.

I would note that my opponent mostly seems to have dealt with continuing his argument from R2 rather than rebutting, violating his R1 rules of "First round accept debate. Second state facts. Third rebuttals." I would therefore ask to be awarded conduct on this basis.


Before I deal with specifics, due to the lack of sources used by my opponent there is no evidenciary value to my opponent's statements. In fact as he also doesn't use logical constructs or reason, his argument contains little besides unevidenced claims and assumptions that are never grounded.


My opponent does not ground his claims in the topic at hand. He fails to do this in two ways.

Example 1: "It's been proven that in a country where the Federal government isn't regulating small businesses the country brings tremendous wealth to the economy. This was evident under Reagan's presidency, as well as Eisenhower."

Unless my opponent is trying to claim that there was no small business restrictions under Eisenhower, this kind of claim is irrelevant. The purpose of the debate as made clear in the topic and my opponent's R1 statement of " I believe government should have NO PART in restricting and business" is that there should be no restrictions. Not less then there are currently, but none. As he's presumably not trying to claim that there were none (which is prima facie absurd) it is irrelevant.

If he is trying to claim there are none, then he's clearly wrong. For instance the Sixteenth amendment which allowed the federal government to force businesses to pay various kinds of taxes and duties which they couldn't previously (a restriction, as they must do this to operate and which fits my R2 definition) then he is obviously wrong.[1]

Another example of this includes a statement like "As seen like i stated previously Obama has essentially killed the economy of this country." Was the country previously run without any restrictions? Again, it was not. His point might be relevant to a debate entitled "Should small businesses have LESS restrictions from the Federal Government?" where he hadn't specified in R1 that he was talking about "NO PART" in restricting business.

These are not relevant to the topic as they never relate to the central point under discussion.

Example 2: "Under president Obama our national GDP has hovered around the .9% area. This is unacceptable."

Random claims of badness, generally linked to Obama. He does not offer any proof that things would be better without restrictions for small business, so there are irrelevant to the debate at hand.

This argument forms the core of my rebuttal, that his argument is unevidenced and non-topical. I believe that if voters search his argument for topicality applying the examples I've given, he does not at any way relate his claims back to the central topic at hand.
Beyond this however I will also deal with a couple of specific claims. Although based on my explanation I believe I don't need to, I think it will be beneficial to further show that his claims cannot be taken at face value.

"Under president Obama our national GDP has hovered around the .9% area"

Incorrect. The GDP has changed substantially over time. It has not been at .9% or below since 2009[2] which was due to the economic crash that happened before Obama took office.

Since then it has consistently been over .9%, usually in the 2%+ range. The World Bank has forecast it will stay at this 2%+ range for the entirety of its current forecast, assuming no changes (like getting rid of all restrictions.

"Because Obama isn't taxing the wealthy at a higher cost, approved NAFTA and couldn't care less about the important small businesses leaving this great country."

Although most of this is too vague and unsupported to address directly, at least in the amount of time and space it would take, his claim that NAFTA was approved by Obama stands out as this is easily checkable.

NAFTA was spearheaded by the first Bush and signed into law by Clinton over a decade before Obama was elected president[4].

"You have yet to give me a clear reason as to why small businesses need to be regulated."

I believe I have, and that in part the rationale is the same as yours. Both of us made claims that there would be an economic effect which justified there being an advantage in their being/not being restrictions.

The main difference is that I elaborated on how and why my economic outcome would actually appear rather than just giving an opinion and I offered sources to back this up.

I then went further and offered moral and democratic based reasons on top of the economic reasons, again not merely giving opinions but explaining why I held them and offering evidence and reason to back them up.

More importantly I connected these back to the main topic, showing the difference between no restrictions and restrictions and how restrictions were better.

I believe you are the one to have have failed to justify any of your claims and that additionally what unsupported claims you have made are blatantly off topic. Moreover, I believe that I have shown that this is the case by quoting you and explaining the reasoning behind my claims in relation to what you have said.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by illegalcombat 6 months ago

The position that Con sought to defend was very broad, arguably way to broad, like unregulated capitalism/markets too broad.

Reading Cons arguments I think what they had in mind was that certain specific restrictions should not be imposed on business (tax rates ?). Whether this was the case or not in the end doesn't matter, the debate is what it is.

Pro argued a greater good that justifies at least some restrictions, eg pollution, anti-racism, protection of natural resources, preventing a small group enriching themselves at a greater expense to society as a whole.

Arguments to Pro.
Posted by Yeeet2016 6 months ago
But they don't put rat poisin in their food. It's a fact that companies make money more money when the federal government stays out of it.
Posted by dsjpk5 6 months ago
So should small food companies be allowed to put rat poison in their product?
Posted by Smartacus 6 months ago
At first i thought the guy in your profile picture was Bernie sanders, and got really confused. Would accept debate, but we agree
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 6 months ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.