The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wretched_Lime
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Federal Reserve is Obsolete

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 2 votes the winner is...
Wretched_Lime
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 87204
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

harrytruman

Pro

I hope someone accepts this challenge.
Wretched_Lime

Con

I'm glad to accept. I look forward to our debate.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

We don't need the Fed, just keep the money supply the same and we will be just fine.
Wretched_Lime

Con

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Full Definition of obsolete
1
a : no longer in use or no longer useful
b : of a kind or style no longer current : old-fashioned

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Full Definition of useful
1
: capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose
2
: of a valuable or productive kind

Obviously the fed is still in use so we must be arguing whether it is useful. It is useful if it serves some purposes. I'll enumerate a few purposes that the fed meets to show that it is still useful and thus not obsolete:
1. Allows the government to spend more than it is able to raise from taxing and selling bonds to citizens.
2. Preserves the status quo.
3. Keeps political power in the hands of the powerful.
4. Protects the special interests of bankers by allowing them to make risky gambles by allowing them to reap the rewards when they win their gambles, but bail them out when they lose.

I don't believe the fed is beneficial to the average person and agree that we'd be fine without it (although I don't think it's wise to keep the money supply the same), but we're not debating whether the fed is beneficial to the masses or necessary, we're debating whether it is obsolete. It is not obsolete because it is fulfilling several purposes and is useful in meeting the desired ends of the economically and politically elite. So long as the fed fulfills purposes it is not obsolete, those purposes don't need to be benevolent.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Actually I was arguing that of the purposes that the Federal Reserve says they do, none of them are practical and we could easily do without their "services." Also, if we keep the money supply the same, it will keep inflation at 0%, which encourages more savings, which means more investment, which means more jobs which means better economy.
Wretched_Lime

Con

You should have stated the premise another way if you meant to argue something other than "The The Federal Reserve is Obsolete" I interpreted that rationally using widely accepted definitions. In neither the title nor round 1 did you offer anything other than the clearly stated premise that you proposed that "The Federal Reserve is Obsolete". I provided 4 ways that the Fed is both useful and used, a single example should be enough to prove my case. The assertion that you made in round 2 doesn't reframe the debate, you can't move goalposts even if you didn't mean to set them where you did. Incase my previous interpretation and argument are determined wrong or insufficient, I will continue to argue against the assertions you in round two and the beginning of this round.

We can't keep the money supply the same. We have too many liabilities, we can't meet those with the current money supply. Keeping the supply the same is such a drastic change from current and previous policy that it would create massive unrest in the market and the world. The change could cause a run on banks, and the banks wouldn't have enough cash to pay out, ironically because the fed couldn't assist. Were you to design an economic system from scratch I can see reasons to consider a constant quantity of money, but we can't just make a switch to that now. There may be some strategies to dismantle the fed, but holding money supply constant and not replacing some of its other functions wouldn't work.

The fed is useful for at least one of its stated purposes. It maintains the stability of the financial system. It has every motive to fulfill this function since it is a large part of the financial system. It did this with TARP. It also guarantees loans at predictable rates.

The Fed's reports inform and guide the decisions of policymakers and investors.

Keep in mind that I don't believe any of these arguments are necessary because I made a solid case in round 2. If I made my case in round 2 none of this should be relevant. This is just an extra layer of support.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

I clarified in R2 that my argument was that we don't need the Fed.
Wretched_Lime

Con

You can't change the resolution in round two. "We don't need the Fed, just keep the money supply the same and we will be just fine" means a very different thing than "The Federal Reserve is Obsolete". I'm sorry that you stated a resolution that you didn't intend to argue for, but I accepted this debate to argue against the resolution that "The Federal Reserve is Obsolete". I didn't even realize that you were attempting to clarify the resolution in R2, I assumed that you were arguing that the Fed is obsolete because we don't need them, I counter argued that it doesn't matter if we need them so long as it's useful to someone and I listed a few ways that it is useful to some people. It wasn't apparent until R3 that you meant to argue for something other than the resolution that you originally stated, but even if it was clear in R2 it doesn't matter, it is still moving the goalposts.

Since you're the instigator and arguing the Pro side the onus is on you to prove the resolution that you originally stated when you created the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

On the contrary, standard rules state that R1 is for acceptance, R2 is where we illustrate our arguments, the title could be misinterpreted if left on its own, but I didn't, so seeing as though we both accept that we would be MUCH better off without the Fed, I don't think I have any quarrel with you, except maybe that you're an atheist but that doesn't have anything to do with economics, which has ALWAYS been my strong point, Jews are notorious for being good with money and economics.
Wretched_Lime

Con

I thought in R2 that you meant that that Fed was obsolete because we don't need it, I didn't realize until R3 that you meant to argue in favor of something other than the literal meaning of the resolution. We'll just have to leave it to the voters to determine what we should have argued.

Even if we should be arguing whether we'd be fine without it instead of whether it is obsolete, the onus would still be on you to prove it and I think you might have failed to do so. Your only argument came in R3 and I don't think it is sound because keeping the money supply the same doesn't keep inflation at 0%, it puts it negative (deflation), and because of the decreasing prices it encourages hoarding of currency which can be considered a sort of investment, but doesn't mean more jobs or a better economy. I do agree that we could be better off without the fed, but I don't think you proved it nor do I think that keeping the money supply the same would work.

I hope you got some value out of the debate despite our disagreement about what we should be debating. I appreciate the debate, maybe we can find another topic to debate sometime. Anyway it was my first debate and I still found it good practice. I will welcome any advice or criticism from you or the voters.

Thanks for taking the time to debate me.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 10 months ago
GoOrDin
if the food is present the food is present. if the work is happening the work is happening. where does money come in? Prostitutes? go fawk yaselves. All you should need is a registered Name, and a auto-log. but the corrupt will inevitably proceed.

Does anyone agree with the ideology?
this is an opinion* not a blunt faced statement.

everyman should have to build his reputation, not bargain for it. Bargaining for wealth is delusional - it has too many flaws to begin and not ream. Computers, music devices, phones, privileges should be earned through directly relative effort.

...

utopia is great.. I dare tell you dream. Truman here is on the right track. whether I am right or wrong.
Posted by GoOrDin 10 months ago
GoOrDin
it's only funny, because we'd go into chaos trying to establish something knew by removing the old like a democrat. What we do need, and I agree, is to have an overhaul of where the money has pooled, and admit, resources and man power are more valuable then economic "stability"

so I do agree.
Posted by GoOrDin 10 months ago
GoOrDin
let's mary-sue our countries economy.
Posted by GoOrDin 10 months ago
GoOrDin
hmmm. this boy knows nothing about economics. We need an international standard. Not la-la land America. AH HA HA
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dysgustophanes// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more reasonable.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain any of the point allocations, merely making a generalized statement that fails to explain the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
II.

I can vote Con just based on that, since the burden is on Pro -- I buy Con's interpretation.

But even under a shared burden, Con is winning this debate. Con argues that: (1) it gives the government greater budget, (2) it preserves the status quo, and (3) it protects interests. Pro drops Con's arguments entirely, and under Con's definition of obsolete, it negates the res. Despite the lack of sources for this claim, it's clear from definitional clarity that this is the purpose of the Fed.

Thus, I vote Con.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
I.

This vote is on behalf of the Voter Union, which is a group of voters created by donald.keller. PM him for details.

The resolution (henceforth "the res.") says, "The Federal Reserve is obsolete." As Con correctly defines in R2, "obsolete" means "not currently in use." It's unclear whether the burdens are shared or not, but I will interpret the res. with the burden being on Pro, on account of the fact that it is a fact-based resolution. The res. implies that it "is" not currently in use, not "it ought to be replaced." As such, the proof burden is on Pro.

The debate begins in R2, where Pro clarifies that he's arguing for an alternative to the Fed, as opposed to the idea that the Fed is not currently being used. He merely advocates for an alternative to "keep money supply the same." But Pro's burden, as established above, is an entirely different one. Pro has to prove that the Fed is "obsolete," not that it should be abolished and replaced with something else. An advocacy position, as Con points out, is illegitimate because Pro is shifting the goalpost by changing the res. in R2, when the same was not clarified in R1. Pro's final defense in R4 is, "I clarified in R2 that my argument was that we don't need the Fed." As Con points out, Pro is changing the res. But Pro has further defense in R5. Pro claims that the second round was for establishing whatever the advocacy position was, but that is specified nowhere. There's no reason we have to interpret it that way. Con correctly shows that Pro is merely changing the res. out of no where. I prefer Con's interpretation.

Pro doesn't fulfill their burden at all under this interpretation, because Pro doesn't even argue for such an interpretation of the res. Furthermore, Pro lacks evidence to back up any of their claims. Regardless of whatever their truth is, it is up to Pro to justify their claims. So even if I interpret the res. as Pro wants me to, I'm not voting for him.
Posted by dysgustophanes 11 months ago
dysgustophanes
Oops. Voted on the wrong debate. Have flagged it, so hopefully it is removed. My apologies
Posted by Isabella_137 11 months ago
Isabella_137
I agree with pro
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
harrytrumanWretched_LimeTied
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: See comments.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 11 months ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
harrytrumanWretched_LimeTied
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: Arguments to con. Arg 2: Here's the problem. Pro states "R2 is where we illustrate our arguments." Except, in Arg 2, much of the confusion in this debate is because left failed to illustrate any argument. Con at least structured his argument 2, with 4 reasons provided, to conclude "So long as the fed fulfills purposes it is not obsolete, those purposes don't need to be benevolent." I expected more support for the assertions, except Pro never refuted them. Arg 3: Pro again had an opportunity to create an agrument and clarify the position he failed to clarify in 1 & 2. Except here he went with an unsupported opinion: "none of them are practical and we could easily do without their services." Con makes unsupported rebuttals. Again, Pro does not refute any statements. Args 4&5: Much of the same from pro. Instead of presenting an argument, he reiterates the misunderstandings. 5 opportunities for pro to support the "obsolete" claim. None were used. Con is correct that Pro failed the Bo