The Instigator
GWindeknecht1
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
E.BurnumIII
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The Wall Street Protests Are Justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
E.BurnumIII
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,457 times Debate No: 19042
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

GWindeknecht1

Con

Round 1 will only be for acceptance. Round 2 will start the actual debate. Since it is a current event, it should be very interesting to examine it. Thank you!
E.BurnumIII

Pro

I accept. Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
GWindeknecht1

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate today. I will argue the 1st negative.
Resolved: The Wall Street Protests Are Justified.
I negate said resolution and offer 2 contentions finding the Wall Street Protests unjustifiable.
Firstly, the Wall Street Protests are protesting the very concept that has given them their fortune today. Secondly, the goals of the Wall Street Protests are not economically sound.

Returning to my first point, the Wall Street Protests are protesting the very concept that has given them their fortune today: Capitalism. Unfortunately, the near-purity of Capitalism has been tarnished in recent years. The distinction that must be made is whether or not Capitalism is really to blame. Steve Forbes, chairman of Forbes Media and internationally recognized authority on finance and economics, contends in his book, How Capitalism Will Save Us, that capitalism is under attack today, because the line has not been drawn clearly. The protesters protest corporate greed, a flaw they believe is fundamental to capitalism's success. However, the protesters have failed to make the distinction between corporate greed and destructive government regulation. Capitalism in a purer form, Forbes contends, is not based upon greed, but rather mutual benefit.
The entire reasoning behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement, to protest corporate greed, is based upon flawed logic. Corporate greed is not to blame for the financial crisis of 2008 and the sluggish economic growth of 2011; it is the massive distortions in the free market created by government-based groups (Such as Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and others) that have ultimately been the deciding factor of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.
Furthermore, the movement is ironically uncommitted. The protesters are supporting the very concept they are protesting against. To be complete true to the Occupy Wall Street, anti-Capitalist cause, one would have to give up everything produced as a result of Capitalism in order to be truly committed. The ironic fact of the matter is however, that absolutely everything America has today is a product of the free market and Capitalistic principles.
The Occupiers protest without grasping the full picture or understanding the chain of economics.

Secondly, the goals of the Wall Street Protests are not economically sound.
According to Citizen.org, a rallying point for the protest, these are the goals of the movement in the United States:
-Immediate Withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan
-Fix Chinese Currency Manipulation
-Immigration Policy Reform, including Amnesty

The Wall Street Protesters have unfortunately failed to take into the repercussions from these actions.
To the Iraq/Afghanistan Goal:
According to James Carafano, Deputy Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies: It would probably be best to both defend America's interest and take care of veterans, rather than suggesting Congress chose between its Congressional responsibility of providing for the common defense and taking care of our men and women in uniform, their families and our veterans.

To the Chinese Currency Argument:
According to Derek Scissors, Research Fellow at the Asian Studies Center:
From 2005 to 2008, China's currency rose 20% against the dollar, as many in Congress wanted, and the bilateral trade deficit rose more than 30%. In 2009, the yuan did not budget against the dollar and the bilateral trade deficit fell more than 15%. China's currency policy has little to do with the trade deficit.
What does? First, the strength of American demand. A growing economy 2005-2008 drove the bilateral trade deficit higher; a shrinking economy in 2009 brought it lower. There are also a series of Chinese actions that are more important and more harmful than their currency policy. The OWS protesters are falling for a political con game.

To the Immigration Reform Argument:
According to James Carafano, Deputy Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies:
Encouraging people to break US immigration laws by offering them rewards is not the best way to foster respect for the rule of law and fixing our broken borders.

In conclusion, because the Wall Street Movement is protesting the very principle of what has given them success, and because the goals of the Protest are not sound, I must negate Resolved: The Wall Street Protests are Justified. Thank you.
E.BurnumIII

Pro

"Wall Street Protests are protesting the very concept that has given them their fortune today: Capitalism."

A statement written on the Occupy Wall Street Website reads, "
Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."[1] Their statement and Cons statement seem to contradict given that con claims Occupy Wall Street is protesting capitalism and Occupy Wall Street claims that the one thing everyone in the movement agrees on is ending the corruption of the 1%. I think it is highly irrational to believe that a group protesting would lie about what they are protesting because it would defeat the purpose of protesting in the first place.

"Secondly, the goals of the Wall Street Protests are not economically sound.
According to Citizen.org, a rallying point for the protest, these are the goals of the movement in the United States:
-Immediate Withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan
-Fix Chinese Currency Manipulation
-Immigration Policy Reform, including Amnesty"

Citizen.org, as con points out, is a rallying point, not Occupy Wall Street. If you visit occupywallst.org you will not find any of these goals. Some Wall Street protesters my have these goals but they are not the official goals of the movement. Once again you are either very misinformed or are flat out lying about the Occupy Wall Street movement.

There is no doubt that the Wall Street Protests are justified in protesting the corruption of the 1%. The Federal Reserve is a private institution and is the worst of the 1% because the Federal Reserve is the enabler of the rest of the 1%. The Federal Reserve has the ability to create money out of nowhere and loan it out. This manipulation of money is pure fraud. Every new dollar created out of thin air devalues the overall worth of our money. This is, in essence, stealing from every person using the dollar as currency. [2] If this is not corruption I don't know what is. Another side effect of the Federal Reserve printing money is, it artificially lowers interest rates. Ron Paul explained the effects of artificially low interest rates best when he wrote, "Lower interest rates affect the allocation of resources, causing capital to be malinvested throughout the economy. So certain projects and ventures that appear profitable when funded at artificially low interest rates are not in fact the best use of those resources. Eventually, the economic boom created by the Fed's actions is found to be unsustainable, and the bust ensues as this malinvested capital manifests itself in a surplus of capital goods, inventory overhangs, etc. Until these misdirected resources are put to a more productive use—the uses the free market actually desires—the economy stagnates."[3]

Not only is the Federal Reserve (part of the 1% being protested by OWS) stealing from every person who uses the dollar but it is also the root of our economic problems. Occupy Wall Street couldn’t be more justified.

1]http://occupywallst.org...
[2]http://mises.org...
[3]://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637290931614006.html?KEYWORDS=Blame+the+Fed+for+the+Financial+Crisis

Debate Round No. 2
GWindeknecht1

Con

I will first more closely examine my opponent's case, then I will go back over my own.

Looking now to my opponents case, my opponent's first point is regarding how the Federal Reserve printing of money is in essence "stealing from every person using the dollar as currency".
What he has so conveniently forgotten however, is two imperative items:

1) The printing of such high amounts of money is imperative to the survival of the United States. The goal of printing this money is to lessen the actual value of U.S. debt's held by China and Japan. Look further into the issue, if the United States prints little money, the value of the dollar goes up, and the U.S. debt goes up higher. If they print more, the United States debt becomes less valuable. The printing of this money is absolutely imperative in order to keep our 15 trillion dollar deficit under control. The Federal Reserve Board is not acting to simply enable the "wealthy" but rather to save the nation's financial system and currency.

2) The supposed "stealing from the people" is utterly false. Despite the printing of large quantities of money to offset United States debt, inflation has risen at a healthy pace.
According to the Economist, in an article printed on February 15th, 2011, the United States should shoot for "the target rate from 2% to around 3% or 4%, the debt effect should be a salutary one".("http://www.economist.com...)
Stealing from the people would imply weakening the power of the dollar, however, the inflation that has given way due in part to U.S. printing is at a healthy and normal rate, defeating his argument further.

Looking toward his argument regarding lowering interest rates:
The lowering of interest rates was not an artificial act.It was a direct act.
According to Steve Grubbs, CEO of Victory Enterprises, a viable venue in which to spur economic growth is to lower interest rates. A long time venue of economic growth, home ownership, is controlled by the interest rates. It's simple logic: you lower interest rates, more people buy, you heighten interest rates, the more people don't buy.
The lowering of interest rates is a successful tool (in most cases) to combat sluggish economic growth and revitalize the economy.

Looking back over my own points:

1) My opponent has argued that the end goal of the Wall Street Protests was not to destroy Capitalism, however it ultimately is. According to Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, and Republican Presidential candidate, the Wall Street Protest is "staged and driven by "anti-capitalism.
("http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
In addition according to The Guardian, an international recognized media authority, based primarily out of the UK, "The anti-capitalist protesters who have set up camp in lower Manhattan are becoming a fixture of the area" keyword: anti-capitalist. (http://www.guardian.co.uk...)

The goal of the Wall Street Protests, according to my opponent, are to end the greed or corruption of the 1%. We have to make the distinction. Are they protesting the greed or corruption? Or are they protesting the wealth? Looking deeper, they are protesting the wealth.
Why? Because greed and corruption do not play a part a purely capitalistic society. Of course, there are exceptions such as Bernice Madoff, however the vast majority of corporate executives are not greedy nor wealthy. Greed cannot be possible in most cases, as all businesses transaction are done in the faith of mutual benefit. A greedy corporation would be unable to operate, due to the competitiveness of the markets today.
So, barring the greed and corruption argument, the Wall Street Protests are protesting the wealth of the 1%. They aim for a more even income distribution, and that, by an account, is not capitalism at all but rather a step toward socialism.
The real goal, whether frankly stated by the Wall Street Protesters or not, is to protest the wealth of the few, an integral aspect of capitalism, and therefore they protest Capitalism.

2) My opponent contended that my 3 presented areas are not the goals of the Wall Street Protests.
However, according to the Heritage Foundation, an internationally recognized think tank, these are the goals of the movement:
1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform – eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
(http://blog.heritage.org...'s+Guide+to+the+'Occupy+Wall+Street'+Protests)

As you can see, I don't have the time nor the patience to debate all these, I simply choose 3.

My opponent only debated the origin, not the argument, therefore the argument now stands unrebutted.

I urge a negative ballot today. Thank you.
E.BurnumIII

Pro

The goal of printing this money is to lessen the actual value of U.S. debt's held by China and Japan

This sounds reasonable but con left out the fact that the notes printed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) are not just given to the government, they are loaned with interest. [1] Any person who would advise more borrowing to fix a debt problem is delusional. That just shifts the debt to another holder and creates an endless cycle. The number 1 step to eliminating debt is to stop borrowing! [2]

The printing of this money is absolutely imperative in order to keep our 15 trillion dollar deficit under control

The Fed was created in 1913[3] and at the time the U.S. had a national debt of 2.9 billion. [4] Today our debt is 14.9 trillion. I think those numbers clearly show that the Fed has not kept the debt under control and there is no reason to believe that now will be any different.

The Fed Board is not acting to simply enable the "wealthy" but rather to save the nation's financial system and currency

Since the Fed has come into existence the U.S. has added over 14 trillion dollars in debt. The U.S. could not have accumulated this much debt without the Fed printing money and to say that the Fed is acting to save the currency is as much of a contradiction as catching yourself on fire to get rid of your burns. 1 dollar in 1913 is equivalent to $22.92 in 2011. [5]

The supposed "stealing from the people" is utterly false. Despite the printing of large quantities of money to offset United States debt, inflation has risen at a healthy pace.

Con points out that, inflation has steadily increased. This is the devaluation of money. If a person put 1,000 dollars in a box in 1913 and finally decided to use it in 2011, their spending power would be equivalent to $43.63 in 1913. That is 96% devaluation in the dollar since the creation of the Fed. [5] This is obvious theft.

According to the Economist, the United States should shoot for "the target rate from 2% to around 3% or 4%, the debt effect should be a salutary one".("http://www.economist.com......)
This target rate is the percentage of increased inflation each year; it does not represent the true percentage of inflation which is about 96% [5]

The lowering of interest rates was not an artificial act.It was a direct act.

A direct act by the Federal Reserve and not the market; therefore, it was artificial.

You lower interest rates, more people buy, you heighten interest rates, the more people don't buy.The lowering of interest rates is a successful tool (in most cases) to combat sluggish economic growth and revitalize the economy.

In pure market conditions, low interest rates do help to boost the economy but when interest rates are artificially lowered by the Fed it sends a false signal and there is massive malinvestment. An example of this is the housing crises. The Fed printed money and loaned it out to banks. Then, due to the lowered interest rates and pressure on the banks to loan by the U.S. government, a lot of people borrowed to pay for housing. Eventually many of these people could no longer afford to pay off their loans and lost their homes. Then banks began to close do to the inability of many borrowers to pay off their loans. When the banks and the financials began to fail, the government and the Fed jumped in to bail out Wall Street and the big banks with tax payer money.

They are protesting the wealth.Why? Because greed and corruption do not play a part a purely capitalistic society.

We don’t have a purely capitalistic society, as con has stated, "Unfortunately, the near-purity of Capitalism has been tarnished in recent years."

A greedy corporation would be unable to operate, due to the competitiveness of the markets today.

There is almost no competitiveness in the markets today. If you are a big corporation and you fail, you get bailed out by the government.

My opponent contended that my 3 presented areas are not the goals of the Wall Street Protests.
However, according to the Heritage Foundation, an internationally recognized think tank, these are the goals of the movement:

Whether the Heritage Foundation is an internationally recognized think tank or not, they are not Occupy Wall Street and therefore cannot speak for Occupy Wall Street.

My opponent only debated the origin, not the argument, therefore the argument now stands unrebutted.

Cons argument is against goals he falsely claimed to be of Occupy Wall Street; therefore they deserve no rebuttal.

[1]http://www.chrismartenson.com...
[2]
http://www.financeandfat.com...
[3]
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org...
[4]
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
[5]http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...
Debate Round No. 3
GWindeknecht1

Con

"notes printed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) are not just given to the government"

He is correct, some notes are loaned, while others, as I said, are given to pay off United States debt.

"Any person who would advise more borrowing to fix a debt problem is delusional. That just shifts the debt to another holder and creates an endless cycle. The number 1 step to eliminating debt is to stop borrowing! [2]"

We're talking about Capital Hill here, their solutions are not always logical.

"The Fed was created in 1913[3] and at the time the U.S. had a national debt of 2.9 billion. [4] Today our debt is 14.9 trillion. I think those numbers clearly show that the Fed has not kept the debt under control and there is no reason to believe that now will be any different. "

Had the Federal Reserve and the United States Mint not printed the money, the debt situation would be far worse.

"The U.S. could not have accumulated this much debt without the Fed printing money"

The debt problems were caused be frivolous federal spending over decades, not because of the United States Mint or the Federal Reserve Board. Make the distinction, the Federal Reserve Board is not the omnipotent beast in Washington, the President and Congress have that ability.

"Con points out that, inflation has steadily increased. This is the devaluation of money. If a person put 1,000 dollars in a box in 1913 and finally decided to use it in 2011, their spending power would be equivalent to $43.63 in 1913. That is 96% devaluation in the dollar since the creation of the Fed. [5] This is obvious theft. "

As I pointed out, a rate of 3-4% inflation is a healthy rate. Your entire rebuttal rests on the fact that income levels have remained the same. If inflation goes up without a increase in income, then yes it would be stealing from the people. But the simple fact of the matter is the amount of income for nearly all Americans has increased over the past decades along with inflation. I checked out his source, and in fact it says right on the side of the page "Annual Inflation: 3.9%", that is perfectly within the target range according to my economist evidence.

"The lowering of interest rates was not an artificial act.It was a direct act."

"A direct act by the Federal Reserve and not the market; therefore, it was artificial."

Actually, it was a direct act, by the Federal Reserve Board.
I never said the lowering of interest rates was a result of the market.

"...there is massive malinvestment. An example of this is the housing crises. "

The housing crisis of 2008 was not caused by the lowering of the interest rate, rather, it was caused by massive distortions created in the market caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as Bernie Madoff defrauding mortgages. Read the book "How Capitalism Will Save Us", it will explain in far more detail than I have time to provide.

"We don’t have a purely capitalistic society, as con has stated, "Unfortunately, the near-purity of Capitalism has been tarnished in recent years."

We don't have a purely capitalistic economy, obviously. What we do have is a mostly free economy, in a pure capitalistic economy such greed and corruption as the likes of Bernie Madoff never would have happened. Government distortions allowed corruption and greed to occur.

"There is almost no competitiveness in the markets today. If you are a big corporation and you fail, you get bailed out by the government."

There is absolutely competitiveness in the markets today. Look at Iphone vs. Android, Burger King vs. McDonald's, Walmart vs. Kmart, Toyota vs. Ford, I could on for hours. Corporate failures are not guaranteed to be bailed out, we have rarely bailed out corporations if you look at the history of our nation. You point to 2008 as the bailouts, however those were the first bailouts in years.

"Whether the Heritage Foundation is an internationally recognized think tank or not, they are not Occupy Wall Street and therefore cannot speak for Occupy Wall Street."
The Heritage Foundation is an internationally respected authority, they recieved the goals of the OWS campaign via leaders of it. They have every right to publish findings.

"Cons argument is against goals he falsely claimed to be of Occupy Wall Street; therefore they deserve no rebuttal. "

My opponent has once again failed to realize the goals of Wall Street as published by the Heritage Foundation.

Extend my 2nd arguments throughout the round today.

So let's take a step back and take a look at the entire picture.

Observation One:
The protesters on Wall Street are in an indirect way protesting Capitalism, the very foundation of our nation and its economy. They protested the supposed (and I argued non-existent) greed and corruption of the 1%, and aimed for a more "democratic spread of wealth", a spread of wealth is not in sync with Capitalism's values.
It's clear that the Occupiers are unjustified because they protest something that they do not fully understand.

Observation Two:
The Heritage Foundation, an internationally respected authority on politics, recieved the goals of the OWS Campaign and published their responses. My opponent today has only argued my source, not the argument itself. The arguments stood throughout the round and therefore can be carried through.
It's clear that the Occupiers are unjustified in light that their goals are anti-Capitalist and anti-business.

I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for the enlightening debate over the past few days. I'm extraordinarily happy that there are people like him that are willing to closely examine the pertinent issues of the day. For that, I thank him.
I urge a negative ballot today, thank you all.
E.BurnumIII

Pro

We're talking about Capital Hill here, their solutions are not always logical.

Does this not justify protest?

The debt problems were caused be frivolous federal spending over decades, not because of the United States Mint or the Federal Reserve Board.

I agree that the debt problems were caused by frivolous spending but that spending could not take place without the Fed giving the government an endless supply of money.

As I pointed out, a rate of 3-4% inflation is a healthy rate. Your entire rebuttal rests on the fact that income levels have remained the same. If inflation goes up without a increase in income, then yes it would be stealing from the people. But the simple fact of the matter is the amount of income for nearly all Americans has increased over the past decades along with inflation. I checked out his source, and in fact it says right on the side of the page "Annual Inflation: 3.9%", that is perfectly within the target range according to my economist evidence.

My rebuttal, in fact, does not rest on income levels remaining the same. Con is correct that income has risen with inflation but what is directly stolen is savings and money being held. The longer you hold your money, the less it is worth when you spend it. Let’s say your grandmother saved 1,000 dollars in 1913, and finally spent it in 2011. What she would get in return for the thousand dollars in 2011 would be the equivalent of $43.63 in 1913.

Actually, it was a direct act, by the Federal Reserve Board. I never said the lowering of interest rates was a result of the market.

I apologize for the confusion. In my statement, “A direct act by the Federal Reserve and not the market; therefore, it was artificial,” I was not claiming that you claimed it was the market. I agreed with you that the Fed lowered the rates but since it was the Fed, and not the market that decided interest rates, interest rates were artificially lowered.

We don't have a purely capitalistic economy, obviously. What we do have is a mostly free economy, in a pure capitalistic economy such greed and corruption as the likes of Bernie Madoff never would have happened. Government distortions allowed corruption and greed to occur.

Con admits that there is corruption in our system here but in his first observation he states, “They protested the supposed (and I argued non-existent) greed and corruption of the 1%.


The resolution in our debate is "The Wall Street Protests Are Justified." Justify is defined as,
to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable by Merriam-Webster.

I will make three points in conclusion:

1. Con's only argument is that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are protesting capitalism and he has provided no evidence for this other than outside sources. Who is more reliable when laying out the goals of OWS, an outside source or OWS? It is illogical to believe that OWS is lying when they claim, on their website, the one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. They have no other official, stated goals.

2. There is no doubt that corruption exists in our system. The Fed prints money to allow the government to continue its deficit spending and we are left with a declining dollar and massive shared debt. When the Fed enabled the banks to over lend many people received loans they could not afford and lost their homes. The Fed lowered interest rates, creating a false signal to borrow; the people who borrowed are actually victims of a corrupt system. To make matters worse, big banks and Wall Street were bailed out by tax payer dollars while the lower and middle classes lost their homes. There will always be corruption as long as we have central planning of our money. Top, down economics is inherently corrupt because the top few, the 1%, have all the control.

3. Is it not "just, right, or reasonable" to protest the corruption in our system? Clearly, the Occupy Wall Street protests are justified.
I would like to thank my opponent for a fun and interesting debate. I'd also like to thank everyone who took the time to read this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I would change my vote looking in hidsight to pro
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
isnt anything justified because of the 1st ammenment, I dissagree with the protesters and think they can protest all they want. Only their violence in not justified.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Um, isn't that what I just said
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Sadolite
The right to protest is justified, that's undeniable. However whether or not the protests themselves are justified or not aren't based on the legitimacy of a person's right to protest.
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
Everyone votes their opinion, regardless of the debate.
Posted by Uiae 5 years ago
Uiae
A protest whose causes and goals are justified will, in most cases, be justified as well. These are non-violent protests working towards the end of corruption, Pro made an excellent case in that matter, and as such should be supported by the one's they are trying to help. In other words approximately ninety-nine percent of the population, however this is not the case due to numerous skews the media has placed upon the protests.
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
The institution of the Wall Street Protests are justified, not the causes and goals. That's the debate.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Well of course they are justified to protest. You don't even need a reason to protest. It is when you violate laws while doing so such as rioting looting sleeping in the streets and public areas you have no justification to do any of those things. The police warn of infractions, if you don't acknowledge those infractions and don't cease and desist, you should be hauled of to jail be any amount of force necessary including shooting to death in the case of looting. Without the rule of law your protests mean nothing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
GWindeknecht1E.BurnumIIITied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: The scources for con where better. But I belive the first ammendment so even thoug I think the prostesters are dump commies I think that the arguments where about equal.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
GWindeknecht1E.BurnumIIITied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro is right in that the wall street protests are over corruption not over capitalism. From there the arguments deteriorated into an argument over the entire financial system but at the end Pro made the point that the protests are justified and that argument stood strong. Good debate though