The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Federal Reserve Should be Abolished

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 94355
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Pro

1. Google docs are not a violation of conduct
2. character limit is 20,000.

I am arguing that the US government should abolish the Federal Reserve System while my opponent is arguing that the Federal Reserve is beneficial and should be kept. I must show that the Fed serves no beneficial purpose to our economy ad that it is bad for the economy, or that another system would help the economy better (groiunds for replacing it with something else, constituting abolishing it)

My opponent must argue that the Federal Reserve provides some legitimate benefit for our economy that another system couldn't do equal or bettter to.

By system I mean the structure of a central bank as we know it.
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Con

Here is my Round 2 argument.

(https://docs.google.com...)

Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Con

This round I really don't need a google docs since this will be a semi-short argument.

Capitalism Kritik

In this debate we have a moral obligation to reject the resolution that has been proposed by my opponent as it has been an ethical violation of the very nature of humanity. This argument is a priori in this debate meaning that this is the only argument that shall be voted on and the only one that matters since it surrounds the very nature and violates the ethicality of forming a Bourgeois Socialist/Communist State.

Without the pressure from the people bellow in society, the rich and upper class politicians will deny and reject our rights. We will see a degradation of society as they will not only deny our human rights, but they will not ensure progressive reforms to be made nor public works that will aid all of society. These people will opt not to help eradicate starvation and homelessness [1]. If they are not pressured, then we will see more and more of the same status quo nonsense. On balance, the best generally will focus on impact calc analysis. We can see that the Capitalistic plan that my opponent is putting forth has a zero sum balance of that of the Holocaust due to the amount that it devalues human life by the amount of callousness that my opponent has put forward in this argumentive debate [2]. The advantages that my opponent brings up in this debate, via his alternatives, only further the conflicts and the issues caused by this. His plan will only encourage more and more social genocide. He is willing to sacrifice millions and millions, not just in the US, but worldwide if this plan in Affirmation occurs, thus morally it should be voted down on face value [3]. We must be realistic in this debate and can only do that by attacking the very nature of Capitalism which my opponent is in support of which is the only way we can begin to progress as a nation by striking down Capitalism to move to a better, Marxist society of equality. The very fact that he is Pro in this debate is a slap to the face of society and he needs to be voted down accordingly.

In this debate and in many upcoming rounds, my opponent may speak of the wonders Capitalism has given the world or how bad Socialism may be, but that is not the scope of this argument. This argument revolves around the issue that Capitalism is causing the world and it is being supported by the very structure, no, the very nature of my opponent's argument. He may try and fool us by talking about the wonders of it or the organicness, but it masks the pain, suffering, and war that it causes. This reason, on the grounds of this Kritik, you must vote Con on these grounds [3].

The grounds of how we can change the status quo is this debate. By voting Con, you are starting the awareness to help develop this new world, but we need to help guide it. If there is a ballot casted in affirmation, then we as the human race shall perish to the bonds of slavery that my opponent has incited and supported the establishment of such [1]. With this argument being a priori, all other arguments that have been brought up in this debate are irrelevant by nature as this Kritik is the only argument that matters. He may try and state otherwise, but the a priori stands.


With that I thank you and urge a ballot in Negation.

Sources
1. Stop the Killing Train by Albert Michael pg 27
2. DILLON IN 99 [Micheal, Prof of Politics @ U of Lancaster, “Another Justice,” Political Theory, v27, N2,April, P. 164-166]
3. ZIZEK IN 2000 [Slavoj, Qualification: Prounounced “Sluh-voy”, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, p.319-323]

Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

You are in the wrong debate amigo. try responding to my arguments in this debate.
lannan13

Con

My opponent has dropped my Kritik. Due to a priori I win the debate.

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

Droppede? I didn't drop anything, you dropped every single point I made and argued a completely irrelevant point which has no relation to this debate, therefor I win because you foreited.
lannan13

Con

My opponent has dropped my Capitalism Kritik. Due to the structure of the debate and the a priori of the argument, you should vote Con.

Thank you and vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrytruman 3 months ago
harrytruman
@thinkbig
You do know that google docs were permitted in the terms of the debate, it isn't the voters job to criticize the terms of the debate, only the actual arguments made, so you can't penalize me for what was permitted in the debate.
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
It is completely outside the scope of the debate, this was about the Fed not capitalism.
Posted by lannan13 4 months ago
lannan13
Sure it does.
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
"My opponent must argue that the Federal Reserve provides some legitimate benefit for our economy that another system couldn't do equal or bettter to. "

Your "Kritik" has nothing to do with the subject of this debate.
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
I beat him, so he made a nonsense argument and pretended as if i dropped an argument, this is very consistent with him.
Posted by lannan13 4 months ago
lannan13
You know what, I think I'll try out a K for this debate.
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
#takebackthemoneypower
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
Tomorow morning you will forfeit if you don't post.
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
Done
Posted by lannan13 4 months ago
lannan13
Define words and I want to see 10k off that limit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 3 months ago
ThinkBig
harrytrumanlannan13Tied
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: This debate went pretty far off track. The conduct is null as neither side showed particularly good conduct. The character limit on debate.org is 10,000 for a reason. There is no real reason for a debate to be over 10,000 characters in length. By using google docs, it makes the arguments difficult to analyze and attempts to bypass debate.org's limit. It is also quite lazy to use google docs. It would be much more effective to take 2 seconds and copy and paste it into the debate. With that said, I am not going to go through and read 8-12 pages of google docs on a debate that should be on debate.org. Con's use of a Kritik shows poor conduct because the issues he brought up were entirely irrelevant to the debate and so I will ignore the k. Neither side satisfies the BoP, so it's a null vote