The Instigator
ThatcheriteEd
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Themba
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Thatcherism is a force for good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
ThatcheriteEd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,929 times Debate No: 56732
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

ThatcheriteEd

Pro

What do you think? my opponent will be con. This is my first debate, so be nice!
Themba

Con

Thank you Pro, I will be taking the negative stance. Pro did not specify any rules, So I'll just go ahead with arguments. Let the fun begin.

I'll have something light and easy

Overall view of Thatcherism

Thatcher's major shift from comprehensive to market values within the system have caused immeasurable harm. Riots arise along with banners that wrote 'The Milk Snatcher'. Though the conservatives are very vocal in their views, often criticizing comprehensive as socially divisive whilst fanatically in favor of grammar schools, their policies however, speak and garner a completely different sight. The head proponent herself eviscerated the Unions, throwing hoards of working class members and children into poverty.

Not only that, she usually gets away with these crimes by twisting and flip-flopping contentious issues such as gay marriage. She even claims that the homeless are 'mentally retarded'(1.http://tinyurl.com...) for lying across the street, ignorant that these were the consequence of her actions.

Furthermore, as if claiming homeless people retarded not enough , she went on the offensive against children, stealing their milk by removing the subsidy in order to meet her 'interest' and election pledges. Everything is always about the party, forget the children(2.http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). She also claims that the children got 'richer under thatcher' but only to see overwhelming figures that forcast the exact opposide, an increase in child poverty by 121% (3.http://www.leftfootforward.org...).

In conclusion, these consequences are as Anthony Giddens puts it 'Pure ideology' (4.http://en.wikipedia.org...), it is nothing more than a political maneuver rather than a platform with economic reasons.

The resolution of Thatcherism being a force for good is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
ThatcheriteEd

Pro

To begin, Margaret Thatcher stopped free school milk for children when she was Minister for Education, before she was Prime Minister and even before she was leader of the opposition. She did so because it was better to stop wasting money on milk no one drank anyway (even my parents who vote Labour admit that) than compromise children's education by sacking teachers or cutting resources at a time when cuts were necessary. May I point out that it is Labour who began to scrap the milk in 1968, but no one seems to remember that.

Secondly, Thatcher didn't 'eviscerate' the unions, she put them back in their place. The militant, self-admittedly communist leaders of the trade unions were calling strikes without a single ballot. They were threatening democracy, and stopping those who wanted to do the right thing and get to work. Our country was on its knees in the late seventies. Socialism was failing. Inflation was up and competitiveness was down. We had a three day week because resources were so scarce and unaffordable. There were frequent power cuts because there was no coal for the power stations as the miners were on strike. The streets were filled with rubbish as bin men were on strike. We even had corpses littering our nation as, surprise surprise, the grave diggers were on strike too! The trade union's job is to look after it's members, but bringing the country to its knees helped nobody. The result of their actions was the end of many traditional industries as decades of socialism and trade unionism meant the industries were so uncompetitive that even British people wouldn't buy British products.

In addition to this, I'd like it if you would listen to the video on the homeless you linked carefully. Mrs. Thatcher said that SOME of the homeless were 'mentally retarded' because they WERE. She then goes on to say what she had done to help the homeless, which included spending millions on solving this problem. Despite this, I do not recognise the problem is that bad when the number of homeless people in a city is less than the number of empty council homes.
My final point of rebuttal is that one of your facts is WRONG. The website 'leftfootforward.com' has deceived you. Child Poverty didn't go up 121%, rather the RATE of Child Poverty went up by 121%. In actual fact, child poverty went up by 14% (according to the same site). This still seems a high number, but please remember that in a developed country like ours, the poverty rate isn't measured by absolute poverty, but relative poverty. Thanks to our Welfare State, no one in Britain has to live in absolute poverty. The fact is that ALL levels of income rose under Thatcher. Yes, the gap between rich and poor grew however I would argue that 'The Gap' is irrelevant, as long as all levels of income are rising above the inflation rate. People at all levels of income became richer under Thatcher, it's just that the gap between rich and poor widened which makes the relative poverty rate look high even though the actual, real life, children never felt they were worse of in 1990 than they would have been in 1979. It seems that the left would rather have the gap were smaller, even if it meant the average Brit ended up worse off. Mrs. Thatcher said so herself in the video: 'Margaret Thatcher Bows Out With Style!' Uploaded to YouTube by thatcheritescot at 3:13.

The rudimental point of Thatcherism are this: All people should be free to do as wish to help them, their family and their nation prosper in a sustainable fashion. She implemented this in many ways, including the Right to Buy scheme, lowering tax, spending sustainably, controlling inflation and standing up for her nation in all arenas, from the Falklands the the European Community as it was then known. Thatcher brought liberation to Britain. After her eleven years as Prime Minister, we were no longer a nation in decline but a prosperous nation ready to face the 21st century.
Themba

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for his generous response, let's dive right into it.

Defense: Overall view of Thatcherism

Pro began to criticize my point on the milk snatcher by claiming that she hold a ministerial position. So? Point being is whether it acts a force for good or acts a detriment to society. I have proved in each instances in the debate that She did this out of election pledges and she was willing to sacrifice children for the sake of it. This shows that Thatcherism isn't a platform with economic reasons. It is more or less affiliated with Pure Ideology, using evidence to justify the premise instead of using the evidence at hand to conclude what was right.

Moreover, Pro asserted that people would stop wasting money on milk no one would ever drank. The mentality of this argument however, is that it is too simplistic and it serves as an attempt at generalizing that every child no longer need milk without considering various economic backgrounds of children. Pro's argument came with no evidence, no consideration of various types of school such as Grammar School, Westminster, Faith Schools whatsoever.

Pro makes way too much assumptions and argue things of which are irrelevant to the debate.

Next, Pro criticize on the failures of socialism in order to reconcile with Thatcherism. Pro is trying to shift the goal post by saying on the premise that

1.Socialism Fails
2. Therefore Thatcherism is sound

How is this conclusion valid when in the first place, it involves an entirely different ideology. Both policies are different but what we are dealing here is on Thactcherism, not socialism. Pro's argument is irrelevant at hand.

Furthermore, Pro's argument on homeless is unbelievable. Pro attacks the credibility of homeless, using personal attacks that they were actually 'mentally retarded'. I am shocked by his concession. Just look at his exact quote

"In addition to this, I'd like it if you would listen to the video on the homeless you linked carefully. Mrs. Thatcher said that SOME of the homeless were 'mentally retarded' because they WERE"

We have already passed Post World War period of which anti-semitism and Facsism are a thing of the past and here you came with an absurd claim similar to how Hitler deported and sterilized Gypsies because they were inferior and 'retarded' just like your argument. Your argument is full of fallacies.

Your second point on attacking source credibility is a concession. Inequality is a huge issue, are you telling me that Inequality is irrelevant? the distribution of chances of success are not based on merit but on status? This Classism nonsense is absurd. Inequality raised in the UK is greater than any other OECD country(5.http://uk.reuters.com...). Pro's argument is guilty of classism, ignoring inequalities in a feeble attempt to prove that Thatcherism is a force for good. I will not delve in such class discrimination. Success should be dependent on efforts, not on 'which class you came from'.

In addition to that, Thatcher's policy resembles similar to what Monetarists advocate, controlling inflation at any cost. However the policy that Thatcher advocated weighs more cons than pros. One evidence was when Thatcher proposed the Poll Tax which involves lower classes to pay more than the rich in terms of their income(6.http://en.wikipedia.org...). A clear evidence of discrimination. This ran polar opposites to socialists, the socialists favour the working class while the thatcherites favour the rich class, neither of which proves that thatcherism is a force for good.

There is clear discrimination of which my opponent ignores here. What perhaps strikes me the most is when Pro claimed that the homeless is mentally retarded because they were, and the claim that inequality is irrelevant when it clearly suggest otherwise. My opponent brings no such evidence with only his subjective merit to be taken into account. His argument involves too much generalisations with poor reasoning.

The ideology isn't a force for good neither is it a platform with sound economic reasons. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
ThatcheriteEd

Pro

Firstly, my argument is not that the "milk snatching" was irrelevant to Thatcher"s legacy; it was the best way to save money without having to reduce the quality of education by reducing numbers of teachers, etc. Poor children were entitled to subsidised milk, and even those who now had to pay for milk were better off, as taxes were slashed leaving families with more disposable income even after paying for milk. I still stand by what I said, because most of it did end up down the drain. This applied to all types of schools.
You also misunderstood my brief mentioning of socialism. My argument is not that Thatcherism works because socialism doesn"t; I just mentioned the huge problems socialism caused in the UK that Thatcherism solved.
I am also deeply offended by Con"s rude and irrelevant accusations when he calls me "fascist" and "anti-Semitic". I didn"t even mention Jews! How dare you use an Ad Hominem!
The fact remains that inequality didn"t grow by 121% as you said, it was 14%. The article from reuters you linked said this: "The average income of the richest 10 percent of earners in the UK was almost twelve times that of the bottom decile by 2008, up from eight times the bottom 10 percent in 1985 and above the European ratio of nine to one, the report showed."
May I point out that this increase took place since Thatcher"s day (1985) despite eleven years of Labour government since then. This means that Britain was more equal under Thatcher than the Labour Blair and Brown in the 2000"s.
The facts also remain that 38% of homeless people are mentally ill(http://totalassist.co.uk...). Why can you not accept that? I fully support Margaret Thatcher spending "100 million on improving life for the homeless? Don"t you?
Inequality is an issue, however I disagree with the fact "The poor should be poorer provided the rich were less rich", which is why having all levels of income rising above inflation is more important than the gap between rich and poor narrowing. Thank you for accepting my first debate, however I do feel my points were not successfully negated.
Themba

Con

I thank Pro for his response. To be perfectly honest, I am quite displeased more or less obnoxious at what my opponent locked his horns towards. He seems very firm in his accusation of Ad Hom Conduct, along with defenses that are based on rhetoric alone, leaving evidence out of the window. I will defend my conduct fervently as my opponent strawmanned conduct in an attempt to gain a win. He cannot do this! He cannot misquote things and point fingers and expect a vote in his favor.

But before I begin, I apologize to readers for all the misunderstanding that have arised from this debate. I will make it perfectly clear for my defence and why my opponents failed to fulfill his burden due to the lack of arguments and the constant repetitive reassertion that yields little substance. I would also like to extend my apologize to my opponent for not properly welcoming him to this website with open arms.

Pro's Strawmanned Conduct Accusation

Pro said and I quote

"I am also deeply offended by Con"s rude and irrelevant accusations when he calls me "fascist" and "anti-Semitic". I didn"t even mention Jews! How dare you use an Ad Hominem!"

When? At what point and on what basis did I said you were anti semitic? Wasn't I clearly contesting your case?

I expressed it perfectly clear that I was criticizing his argument, not his image. Here is a direct quote and the evidence that contradicts his claim(Please take note, he merely asserted it without evidence that I accused him of AntiSemiticism which I did not)

"We have already passed Post World War period of which anti-semitism and Facsism are a thing of the past and here you came with an absurd claim similar to how Hitler deported and sterilized Gypsies because they were inferior and 'retarded' just like your argument. Your argument is full of fallacies."

The end justify the means(See bolded) . I said your argument was full of fallacious reasoning, how does that qualify as an Ad Hominem? . Moreover, I said that your claim was absurd not you or whatever's personal for that matter. Why would I attack someone I don't even know in the first place?. And I'm not done yet, I was also merely proposing an analogy about how similar claims of mental retardation on homeless were to that of claims that gypsies and jews were retarded. I did not attack your character, nor did I attack any personal trait you may hold.

So Let me reassert again, I proposed an analogy that was clearly contesting your case, clearly rebutting your points with this case and nowhere did I mention your 'character' in this debate. It is beyond reasonable doubt. He cannot misrepresent my case and expect a win when evidence clearly points to the contrary.

Pro accepted the easy way out, the conduct accusation merit is neil.

Pro's cliffhanger case

Cliffhanger case is defined as "A cliffhanger is a type of narrative or a plot device in which the end is curiously abrupt so that the main characters are left in a difficult situation without offering any resolution of conflicts."(7.http://literarydevices.net...).The end is curiously abrupt. For example, when we are about to reach the climax of a certain movie, the climax ends rather abruptly in a feeble attempt to extend it into a sequel. Similarly my opponent makes loads of claims, yet does not expand how or what. Pro makes arguments based on assertions with only his observation as evidence to support his case. He did not provide evidence for his case.

In addition, Pro used my sources and attacks the credibility of misrepresentation, all of which does not prove that Thatcherism is a force for good. For example, Pro reference 121% poverty rates by explaining it in terms of absolute and relative poverty, yet did not expound the case for poverty. All we are left is a cliffhanger case and a blatant assertion "it is 14%" without any explanation whatsoever.

Moreover, Pro did not explain how inequality is less important than the overall increase in income. He simply asserts this with a bold general statement as most of his case ends in cliffhanger endings.

Thatcher's Poll tax

Entirely dropped.

Pro accepted and proffers little substantiative arguments, the resolution is negated.

Conclusion

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. I'm really sorry if I came off as offensive to you, but I made it clear I wasn't attacking your character. The fact that you proposed a challenge clearly suggest that you are a formidable opponent with so much things to offer. The fact that you wishes to argue facts instead of how big snooki's pacific ocean was or how the walking dead sucks clearly sets you apart from other people. Once more, sorry dude for causing the stir :(

Thank you.


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Sure there is a few tips on formatting

1. Format change, there is a way If you want to type your argument like you did in word. When you 'post your argument' there is rich text in the upper right corner, clicking it allows you to bold your statements, use italics and change fonts and sizes to your liking.
2. You may also post pictures under 'rich text' though this requires a few conditions. One of them is by having a DDO album(that is uploading a photo on debate.org). Once you uploaded it, you may copy paste the picture into your argument under rich text.

Source:(http://www.debate.org...)

There is a debate orientation about affirming resolutions, meaning to say taking the burden of proof. However, I won't get into details I'll just argue whichever direction this debate goes :)
Posted by ThatcheriteEd 2 years ago
ThatcheriteEd
Thanks for accepting my first debate! Any tips on techniques would be greatly appreciated
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
I'll post my argument in the next 24 hours, I am quite busy at this time. Sorry for the delay.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Nice Name and Picture.LOL welcome to DDO.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kinsky 2 years ago
kinsky
ThatcheriteEdThembaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I also found around more mistakes from con. I agreed with Pro despite me thinking that M thatcher is a hag
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
ThatcheriteEdThembaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I ran some grammar checks on both of the arguments: I found around more mistakes from con. I seemed that con was intending to call Pro a fascist.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
ThatcheriteEdThembaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used more reliable sources.