The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/26/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 90207
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that the Federal Reserve should be abolished, as a forewarning I will use google docs so don't complain about it, otherwiuse there is a charactar limit and I cannot post pictures. My opponent can just as easily use google dopcuments as I can so I am getting no "advantages." By accepting this debate challenge you agreee to this, and we can continue, I put the criteria high enough so that I will get a good debator rather than some guy who makes zero arguments. In the meantime, I will begin work on my google document so once I post for round 2 you should work immediately, make sure you have enough time for this.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for this debate. Here I shall refute my opponent's arguments, but first I need to go over some definitions that are key to this debate before I get into refuting into my opponent's arguments.

The Federal Reserve System, established by the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C.A. § 221), is the central Bank of the United States. The Federal Reserve is charged with making and administering policy for the nation's credit and monetaryaffairs and helps to maintain the banking industry in sound condition. [1]

Should- Used to express obligation or duty [2]

be- To exist in actuality; have life or reality [3]

Abolished- To do away with; put an end to; annul [4]

My opponent has neglected to make definitions in round 1 nor his opening arguments, as such, he has forfeited the right to create the definitions and terms of this debate. I have provided the definitions for the resolution above. This debate is arguing of a policy change. Since my opponent is arguing for the change from the status quo, the Burden of Proof lays with him. If he fails to uphold the Burden of Proof by the end of the debate, regardless the arguments on the table. The debate goes to me. Without further delay, let's get to the debate.

R1: Federal Reserve Violates the Constitution

My opponent claims that the Federal Reserve is unconstiuttional, but he has faulty reasonsing as this is completely false. He sites part of the Constitution, though we can see by the definition, it's legal. It states that Congress has the power to coin money. They do, and they passed a law to create an organization that does this. This is a law created by Congress, with a small amount of federal oversite as the Federal Reserve does the job of Congress and even loans money to the federal government when they need help paying for their programs [5]. Much like how there are other executive agencies the Federal Reserve is very similiar.

My opponent's quote from Andrew Jackson is untopical as it's for the 2nd US bank and not the federal reserve. They are not the same, hence, there's no actual connection to this debate.

R2: Violates Sherman Anti-Trust Act

My opponent's entire argument here is irrelivant here as the Federal Reserve is a Government Granted "Monopoly" that does everything and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is still accountable to Congress. Like the Federal Reserve, the governmern has many other monopolies like the US Postal Service, Social Security, and more. This argument has no impact on the debate and is irrelivant.

R3: Violation of the Free Market System

My opponent has no impact here. He brings up that it violates the free market system, but doesn't say why this is bad. This argument has no uniqueness. Even if there wasn't a Federal Reserve, there are still other regulations that restrict the free market. The US doesn't currently have a free market, so this argument doesn't actually hold any weight in this debate.

My opponent brings up a quote by President Garfield and says it's talking about the federal reserve, but the Reserve was way after his Presidency. This quote is irrelivant and should be thrown out of the debate.

R4: Private and works for Big Money

Here my opponent goes on a rant about nonsensical arguments and in a way concedes his own argument. He even stated that there are a 1/3 government banks and 2/3 private, and then said it's Private with government intervention. If that's the case, it really cannot be a private entity due to the government involvement, not to mention that Congress gets to pick out of the President's 7 choices for head of the Federal Reserve [6]. No other private company would do that. This point is mute.

R5: Fed Harms Middle Class

My opponent opens with an argument that states that it's bad because of inflation's affect on social security. This argument is ludicrious as my opponent commits a False Equivlence as he does not show any corrilation between the two. We have to see that my opponent has provided no corrilation nor even attempt to justify any connection. As for inflation itself. The Federal Reserve tries to keep it bellow 5%, but this wasn't a job of the Federal Reserve until the LBJ administration. Which explains the massive devaluation of the dollar that occured in my opponent's argument as it lasted through the Nixon administration. Then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volker had to raise interest rates to nearly 20% to combat inflation and recently, the Inflation rate has been near rock bottom [7]. The only reason that the Fed allows for inflation would be to help those who borrow help pay back their debts a whole lot faster [8]. This would mean that doing my opponent's plan would hurt more people in the US than not.

R6: The Fed is dishonnest

The Federal Reserve made massive world wide payments to ensure there wouldn't be a collapse of the global financial system. This dwarfs TARP as the federal government should not, in any way, would have been able to bail out these key banks as they did. If they would have been let to go under the economy would have imploaded. The collapse of the Lehman Bros lost 6 million jobs causing a chain of investor doubt which led to the 10% unemployment rate [9]. What would have occured if the Fed would have left it to the government or just let them fall in general? The answer is not very good.

R7: Board of Governors aren't elected.

My opponent argues that they are immoral simply because they aren't publically elected, but yet again, netierh are the Committees in Congress, the military officers, or any of the Government Agency heads, this point is invalid.

R8: Fed causes Turmoil

It may be true that it causes turnmoil, but the Fed has caused less incidents than the free market. The whole point that it was enacted was this. Sure there are still these issues, but we have to look at the full picture and see that there are less banking crisis and as I have brought up in a previous argument is that the Federal Reserve has saved the economy more than hurt it. In these situations, not having the Fed would have destroyed the US economy.

1. (
2. (
3. (
4. (
5. (
6. Meltzer, Allan H. (2003). A history of the Federal Reserve: Volume 1, 1913-1951. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. (
8. (
9. (
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent and I have agreed to a premature ending of this debate. It shall be continued at another time.
Debate Round No. 3


NO!!! I never agreed, you said you wanted to flake out, I said go ahead but the voters will see that, my opponent is just having a hard time responding to my arguments, you people just come up with the same excuse can't you be a little more creative? Because every time this happens I get the same old crap.


I object to what my opponent is saying as this is a simple Ad Hom on me. We agreed, in a PM, to end this debate and that we would start again. He gave a passive agreement and it should be done as such. I am horrified that my opponent is attempting to go back on his agreement and then slander me in the process.
Debate Round No. 4


Lannan: "Hey, something came up. Can we end our debate and start again here in a few weeks?"

Me: "What do you mean something came up? Things come up all the time and I seem to write a response in time"

Lannan: "It's a personal matter that I don't want to go into."

Me: "Fine- but when you forfeit the voters will see that."

Am I misquoting me and you or no?


My opponent concedes to ending the debate. Please leave this as a tie.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
No, he isn't going to complete it, he flaked out because he was losing.
Posted by runninggreg1 5 months ago
look forward to this debate at a later date harrytruman and Iannan.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
I tried all that before, it never works!
Posted by tejretics 5 months ago

You need to: (1) save the picture, (2) copy it, (3) open "Rich Text," and (4) paste it. Opening Rich Text is important.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
I tried it, it doesn't work.
Posted by tejretics 5 months ago

Here's how you use pictures:
Posted by ColeTrain 5 months ago
Great wall of text! 17k characters is insane...

But, in all fairness, it was stipulated in R1, so I don't see it as poor conduct. Why shouldn't people be permitted to make the debates allow more characters if they both agree?
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
I think he's talking about the use of google docs.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
How is my conduct poor?
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
Horrible conduct by Pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.