The Instigator
AdamCW12
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
drumbum565
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 1025
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (8)

 

AdamCW12

Pro

For my opening argument just to prove that this is happening now... Look to No Child Left Behind Act, If a state does not follow this than they lose all funding from the US government. Now there are 2 things wrong with this,

1. The US government controls to much of the states power that they cannot even pay for there own public schools... That's not Cool.

2. If we allow them to say if you dont do what we say than we can do whatever we want to you. At this point we must realize that not only are the states right being abuse but us as American citizen's are being abused as well we cannon allow this to happen.
drumbum565

Con

States Rights :) a fun topic that a war has been fought over I love it. Let us hope not as many people die in this debate that died in the civil war.

Firstly I will refute your example and move on to submit my own case.

While it is true that the main expenditure of the federal government is state spending and the main income of the state is federal money this does not constitute a method of control over the state. In your example of no child left behind where the United States Gov. will cease funding to states that do not meet a certain academic level. Although this is fact the only reason it would be relevant is if the Government was forcing the state to raise their education standards (which is of course a state duty) if and only if the Federal Gov. was forcing the states hand would this be relevant. I expect you to rebut this by saying that the Federal Gov. has threatened to cut off money although this is true, the state could easily increase taxes to make up for this loss in funds if it wanted to.

Can the Federal Gov. do what it wants with its money?

YES!

Is it the states constitutional right to receive money from the Federal Gov. ?

NO!
And therefore the states rights are not by any means being violated under this piece of legislation no matter how horrible an idea it is.

Moving on to my own case.

The state has checks to ensure their role in Gov. I submit the following as checks to defend a states rights.

1. The Supreme court. Nine times out of ten the supreme court has sided with the sates to insure the stability between the state and federal gov. <------------------------ THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CHECK AS IT IS A PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV. THAT WEAKENS ITSELF MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOV. TO BE TO POWERFUL AT ANY TIME.

2. The Electoral College, this ensures that states have a say in deciding who is to be president so that they have an extra level of power.

3. Congress, this is set up so that every state has representatives who speak with the residents of a state and the state gov. to determine what that state wants.

4. The Tenth amendment which gives states every power not delegated to the Federal Gov. in the Constitution.

5. Civil Disobedience in a violent or non-violent manor. The supreme weapon against Gov. the act of flat out disobeying a law laid out by the gov. An account of this would be the civil war, although this act ultimately failed it was still with in the states rights to use this as a means of protest.

Because of these 5 checks it is impossible for the Federal Gov. to have "to much power" because our society and our constitution is set up so that it can not. A good example of this would be New Hampshire's state law stating that that state must have the first primary. This is something that the Federal government can not act upon. Why because the states have more power than the Federal Gov.

In conclusion I stand firmly against the Resolution which states "The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States." For the reasons listed above, and I can therefore urge nothing less than a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
AdamCW12

Pro

Alright the main thing wrong here is first the civil war comparison while entertaining to read is an overstatement the US FED GOV is not restricting peoples right, yet.

This is what i seek to avoid and yes the GOV did help the slave cause...they made money off of it.

Now 9 times of 10 even if the supreme court does side with the states they did not side with the Utah governor when he said no to AYP and then they said no to him about funding which is not fair to those kids in that state.

Also we all know that electoral collages are bs i live in a small state vs. someone in a big state my vote does not matter so that argument does not matter.

And as for increasing taxes within your own state is really stupid in its self because there are those state that have really limited taxes like Oklahoma for example and New Mexico now the people that will directly effect will not be happy at all

Now we are letting our Government have to much control over the states and even if i get elected to go to congress are something like that it wont matter because California will always beat me. Thus I affirm the resolution that "The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States."
drumbum565

Con

For your first attack, my civil war reference, that was a fun opening remark that had no bering on my case, it was an attention getter stating that this was a big topic.

"...is an overstatement the US FED GOV is not restricting peoples right, yet.

This is what i seek to avoid and yes the GOV did help the slave cause...they made money off of it." <--- what are you talking about slavery has nothing to do with this the debate boils down to are the states rights being violated.... nothing to do with slavery.

"Now 9 times of 10 even if the supreme court does side with the states they did not side with the Utah governor when he said no to AYP and then they said no to him about funding which is not fair to those kids in that state. "

1. What is the AYP ?
2. What funding?
3. Can you please explain to me the circumstances of this event so I can refute it ?
4. When did this Happen?

I apologize if I am missing something that is blatantly obvious but quite frankly I have no idea what you are talking about

"Also we all know that electoral collages are bs i live in a small state vs. someone in a big state my vote does not matter so that argument does not matter." <-------- Well I'm sorry that this is your opinion however you have supplied me with no evidence supporting your claim of "we all know that electoral collages(misspelled) are bs" While it is true you live in a small state and they receive less of a vote the fact is even with a popular vote you would have the same problem. However this is a tool of the state to make sure the are properly represented.

"And as for increasing taxes within your own state is really stupid in its self because there are those state that have really limited taxes like Oklahoma for example and New Mexico now the people that will directly effect will not be happy at all" <-----Regardless of their limited taxes as I sated and you did not refute Federal funding is a privilege not a right. Is it the Federal Gov.'s fault that the people of that state don't have as much money? NO and any argument to the contrary would be a fallacy.

"even if i get elected to go to congress are something like that it wont matter because California will always beat me." <------This statement is untrue for to reasons.

1. If the Federal Gov. was as strong as you purpose it is (which it isn't) legislation limiting its powers would help all states and therefore California would now "always beat" you

2. The Senate (which is part of Congress) Represents all states equal and while they alone may not pass a bill they can certainly block an unfavorable one.

FURTHERMORE

You Left TWO (4 and 5) of my Checks unchecked (PUN lol) therefore they can only flow to the end of the debate as ways that prevent the Federal Gov. from becoming two powerful as well as defend the states rights.

I am afraid this debate is quite clear Is the Federal Gov. to strong and are the states rights being violated. I have disproved both of these arguments and therefore can urge nothing less than a negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
AdamCW12

Pro

Just ignore the first part it is not relevant at all just throw it out.

1. What is the AYP ?
2. What funding?
3. Can you please explain to me the circumstances of this event so I can refute it ?
4. When did this Happen?

AYP is Adequate Yearly Progress by 2009 every student in America should score in the 99th percentile on all State Assessment if this is not done then all funding is cut off to that school

Funding that the government provides each year.

What had happen in Utah is they told him about the AYP and he knew it was a bad idea so he said no to the AYP, and then they cut off funding to there schools.

When NCLB was first instated which since than has been reinstated because they needed the funding in school.

Now lets go ahead and talk about the Electoral College argument now no matter what the US Fed Gov has made it impossible for the states to go against it will only hurt them in the long run and this is what i seek to stop. Here is what i am saying even if the big and little state agree it wont matter because of the simple fact that they need the fed gov which is why we need to desovle the power of the US Fed Gov. This argument also covers you 2 and 3 as well

As for your pun (good catch by the way) those points dont matter at all.

So i have obviously shown today why we need to go ahead and vote aff today.
drumbum565

Con

Thank you for clarifying the case in Utah which goes along the same lines as the no child left behind act or even with it I'm not sure. Either way the fact that the supreme court did not side with the state of Utah in this circumstance does not change the fact that they are a Check to make sure the Federal Gov. is not to strong. As I already stated Federal funding is a privilege not a right. You have not countered this argument there for on that alone all of your arguments on no child left behind drop extending the supreme court ruling across, AND leaving you with no case to stand on.

"Now lets go ahead and talk about the Electoral College argument now no matter what the US Fed Gov has made it impossible for the states to go against it will only hurt them in the long run and this is what i seek to stop. Here is what i am saying even if the big and little state agree it wont matter because of the simple fact that they need the fed gov which is why we need to desovle the power of the US Fed Gov. This argument also covers you 2 and 3 as well."

You have said no matter what the Federal Gov. has made it impossible for the states to over come it. However you did not say why, NOR did you counter my five safe guards to make sure the Federal Gov. does not have to much power! You said my safe guards are wrong because the Gov. has to much power. But that is your argument, in essence you have said that my arguments against the resolution are wrong be cause the resolution is right... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

Therefore, your entire premise of attack is flawed and circular in its nature.

"As for your pun (good catch by the way) those points don't matter at all." <-------Thank you for your opinion but could you tell me why they don't matter. The points extend across because you can not just say that doesn't matter and that be a viable attack.

This Brings me to VOTING ISSUES

1. As I have demonstrated both of the Pro's examples Failed to show an abuse of States rights because of the Fact that Federal Funding is a privilege not a Right.

2. My opponent has Failed to sufficiently attack my Five safe guards against an over powerful Federal Gov.

For these reasons you can only see one valid and logical vote and that vote is for the Con.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Lumberjay85 2 years ago
Lumberjay85
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was slightly more compelling, however he came across as a little too hostile in the final round.
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by AdamCW12 9 years ago
AdamCW12
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by supremecourt101 9 years ago
supremecourt101
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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 
Vote Placed by drumbum565 9 years ago
drumbum565
AdamCW12drumbum565Tied
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