The Republican House of Representatives Is More Responsible For The Lack of "Doing" in Washington
Debate Rounds (4)
The debate will precede as follows, the first round will be acceptation and brief statement of views on topic. (1-3 sentences) The second round is where both sides will put up their main argument (at least 2 paragraphs) You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round. Round 3 will be the rebuttals. Round 4 will give a chance to both sides to rebut the rebuttals, and to state their closing arguments. Swearing is not allowed. Sources must be cited. Best of luck to my opponent.
I believe that the Republican House has harmed the democratic process by refusing to pass laws, and by not cooperating with their fellow lawmakers outside of their party.
Even though I am not for either party right now, I accept this debate.
I believe both parties are equal to blame on items not getting passed; not just the Republican House of Representatives.
First off, I am not claiming the Democrat senate is a well oiled law/compromise making machine, simply that the House is worse at its job.
Failure To Legislate
The 111th Congress (2008-2010) passed 303 laws in its two years. But, when the Republicans gained control of the House for the 112th Congress, the number of laws passed fell to a mere 61. This was caused, mainly, by the House refusing to pass anything supported by Obama to win small, unimportant victories. The primary job of Congress, according to the Constitution, is to make laws. In that respect, the House is failing at its job.
Wasting Time on ObamaCare
The Republican House knows it has no chance to repeal ObamaCare, as the President would veto any bill that make it to his desk. Still, they have voted to repeal ObamaCare 40 times. This is something they know will not go anywhere. Yet they still waste the time and energy of themselves and their peers. This time and energy could be used on reaching more bi-partisan agreements, passing more laws, or making internal party decisions.
The Abuse of Filibusters
The Republicans have used the filibuster to expire laws they don't like without using a vote. They give speechs until Congress can no longer vote on the bill because they aren't in session. This defeats the purpose of a legislative body that votes on laws, because the minority can delay the vote till the bill expires.
In the 112th Congress, Republicans have used the filibuster a record of 61 times. Basically, any bill Republicans don't want to get to Obama's desk, they can stop by wasting more time and energy.
First off, I would like to thank pro for this debate. I would like to show in the debate that it isn't just the Republican house failing to do its job, but that the real issue lies in both parties wanting to play politics and push their own agenda instead of wanting to do what is right for the American people.
The 111th Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Both the House and the Senate. During the 111th Congress, the House passed a total of 420 bills that just sat on the Senate shelf, and never got looked at. The Senate stated that it has a very busy schedule, but holding up 420 bills that were passed by the House. The Senate makeup of the 111th Congress was 40 Republicans, 58 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Those two independents voted with the Democrats, so the real number of Democratic votes was 60 to 40. It was a Democratic Senate failing the do their job and look at the bills already passed by the house.
Fiscal Cliff Mess
It is the leadership of Harry Reid, and the Democratic held senate that is to blame for the Fiscal Cliff and sequestration cuts that we are currently experiencing. Harry Reid wants to point his finger at the Republicans for this big mess, but the Republican House has already voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, and sent the bill over to the Senate. Harry Reid refused to even bring the bill to debate on the Senate floor. The Senate is still controlled by the Democratic party.
Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, always wishes to point his finger at the Republicans for not taking action, but he refuses to compromise and to work with the Republican house. He always wants his "name" in the bill, and push his agenda into the bill. Because of his personal political agenda, he has refused to allow certain bills to come up for a vote. Who is the real problem here?
Sources for Arguments above:
blue_charles forfeited this round.
I do not know if pro meant to forfeit round three or not, but I would like to point out that pro has missed their chance to rebuttal my main arguments made in round two. Pro may only rebut my rebuttals made to their main argument that I will make in this round. This is per pro's own debate rules stated in round one. I would also like to argue that pro should forfeit the conduct point because of their forfeit of a round, but this is clearly up to the voters to decide.
I will make my rebuttals to pro's main arguments in this round. I will put pro's argument in bold to make it more clear to see both sides.
1. "But, when the Republicans gained control of the House for the 112th Congress, the number of laws passed fell to a mere 61. This was caused, mainly, by the House refusing to pass anything supported by Obama to win small, unimportant victories."
Really, only 61 bills were passed? I fully disagree with this number. The House for the 112th Congress passed a total of 149 bills, not just the 61 pro states. This can be clearly seen by the congress summary of the 112th Congress. I took the pain of counting each bill that stated "Passed in House" or "Agreed in House".
2. "The Republican House knows it has no chance to repeal ObamaCare, as the President would veto any bill that make it to his desk. Still, they have voted to repeal ObamaCare 40 times. "
Of course the Republican's are going to fight ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). ObamaCare will force everyone to purchase healthcare, or face a huge fine by the government. It will also set how high an insurance company can charge for prices. You will end up paying just as much as someone that is high risk for healthcare. Is this really fair?
Also, ObamaCare is unconstitional. Most people are not aware of Article 1, Section 7 of our constitution. This article and section states how bills for raising revenue, which ObamaCare is such a bill, must be introduced in congress. All bills for raising revenue must start in the House. ObamaCare started in the U.S. Senate. Therefore, by Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution, ObamaCare is unconstitional, and must be repealed.
3. "The Republicans have used the filibuster to expire laws they don't like without using a vote. They give speechs until Congress can no longer vote on the bill because they aren't in session. This defeats the purpose of a legislative body that votes on laws, because the minority can delay the vote till the bill expires."
Ok, I will agree that a filibuster does slow down the process of passing a bill through congress, and getting that bill to the President's desk. However, is slowing down a bill always a bad thing? I would say no. The filibuster allows the majority party to stop and really pay attention to the objections, and concerns being made by the minority party. Without the filibuster, the majority party would be able to pass their agenda very quickly without paying attention to the concerns of the minority, and needs of the american people.
I wish pro the best of luck in the final round.
I apologize for not being able to post for the third round of this debate, and I'm afraid I will have to abandon this debate altogether. I'm out of state right now, visiting my grandmother, who is very, very sick right now. I'm think I'll be home in time to post a actual debate, and as of now I'm typing this from McDonald's. I can't create a half decent debate from here with all the noise, and this is the only place with WiFi around here. I'm sorry about this, but it came out of no where, without warning. I concede this debate to con.
I am very sorry to hear about pro's grandmother, and wish him, and the family, the very best.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: pro started out strong in the debate and easily could have won but he conceded in the end due to a timing issue
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.