The Instigator
InfraRedEd
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
crackofdawn_Jr
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

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  
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: 4/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,509 times Debate No: 7900
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

InfraRedEd

Pro

They will just make things worse. They will take money from the working class and give it to the rich. Total bailouts so far: thirty-five thousand dollars per everyone in the country.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I confirm that I am CON against the resolution. For my opponent to win this debate he must prove that every single other option is worse than Congress adjouring.

Adjourn: to suspend the meeting of (a club, legislature, committee, etc.) to a future time, another place, or indefinitely: to adjourn the court. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

I assume that my opponent means indefinitely, if not please specify in the next round.

<>

You got that backwards. They actually tax the rich more and then give it to the poor through government handouts.

::CONTENTION 1:: CHECKS AND BALANCES

The system of checks and balances is what makes the U.S. government so successful. Without this part of our government one of the branches could easily take full control. Congress has the duty of making and passing the laws. Normally the President will suggest laws to Congress who will then make them up and vote on them. Without a Congress a President could pass laws at will as long as they weren't considered unconstitutional. This would upset the balance of powers and overpower the executive branch.

::CONTENTION 2:: THE BEST

How do you know the best option? I see no proof that adjourning is the best option. If you are against the spending, then the best option would to stop the spending. If something else, please specify.

That will be all for now. I await my opponent's rebuttal which will hopefully be in more detail than his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
InfraRedEd

Pro

Please remember that it was my opponent actually believe that the President can pass laws in the absence of Congress who demanded detail. OK but remember:

You Asked For It.

By "adjourn" I mean "commit mass suicide." These are all no good rotten scoundrels and the world will be far better off without them. They have conspired with Big Bucks to plunder the planet, ransack the economy and make enemies around the world. They have sold out the people of the planet and the planet itself for a few dollars which they are also rendering worthless with their insane ruinous economic policies both here and abroad.

But we have to consider the cost of operating Congress also.

And note that during "Spring Recess" is when all the lobbyists gather like locusts. This is where the damage is done.

Well what a fortunate time we debate in. Congress is just returning from its recess. Before I finish my argument they will surely provide amusement for us.

Keep your eye on

http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

as the debate proceeds.

On day one

sure enough we are already into major trouble. Tim Geithner is testifying, or I should say lying, before TARP to add to the $13t already given away to the rich. If this money were given to the poor they would all be millionaires now.

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com...

Health Care: More money for the rich

http://www.BigBig.info...

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://www.heritage.org...

And that was just the major damage the first day.

Day Two: Nothing happened. This is good.

Let's look at what's ahead:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Spend lots of money on Climate Control.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Local businesses cooked up this one to hamper Internet sales.
Tax Internet Sales and spend more collecting them than they bring in.
Just as long as it slows down Internet sales that's fine with them.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Health Care, Banks, Education and Energy

See my opinion at http://www.BigBig.info...

$83 billion for more insanity in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will do more damage than can ever be repaired. Rest my case. Look at the

http://www.lonestaricon.com...

suicide rate. As the pool of at-risk veterans increases, the suicide rate, now 260 per year by government=damnlie sources, will also increase so total suicides goes up exponentially.

Anti-mortgage-fraud measure

Fast track to bankruptcy

Banks and credit card companies stop raising rates

Christopher Hill To Be Ambassador To Iraq

http://newledger.com...

Kathleen Sebelius To Be Health Secretary

http://www.foxnews.com...

Restrict Bonuses if company receives bailout money. Comic relief.

FDA regulate tobacco products instead of ban them like they should have done long ago.

Streamline railroad freight operations for the benefit of large corporations.

Eliminate gun control in DC. A terrible idea but why not let the people that live there decide? Hello? How many centuries do they have to ask for it?

Give DC one vote in the House.

What??
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response.

<>

saying that they are all "no good rotten scoundrels" leaves 2 possibilities:

1) You're over exaggerating and by saying they should ALL commit suicide you are asking for good, loyal people to kill themselves. This would be wrong and in this case the "best" thing to do, even in your mind, would to kill only the "bad" people.

2) If every single one of the couple hundred people in Congress are "no good rotten scoundrels" then its likely there are more of these people. If they all die, then they have to be replaced by other politicians. It is very likely that at least some of these people would have the same values and the point of the previous Congressman committing suicide would be nullified.

I will refute the rest of your arguments with the following resolutions.

Resolution 1: Cycle

You claim that Congress is corrupted and because of this that they should all kill themselves. Congress will just be replaced by new politicians appointed by the state governors. If a corrupt politician can get ELECTED into Congress by fooling millions of people, it is very likely he get APPOINTED by fooling one governor. Because more corrupted officials will be in Congress the point of the first ones dying would be nullified.

Resolution 2: Corruption

My opponent claims that the reason the Congressional members should commit suicide is because they are corrupt as a whole. My response is that if hundreds of corrupt people can be elected then the chance of one corrupt person being elected (the President) would also be very high. My opponent seems to think that we should not have a Congress at all, this means that the President can create and pass laws at will. If that one person is corrupt, there is no majority to block his ideas and so many laws could be passed that harm the majority and only help a minority or the President himself.

Resolution 3: The Best

My opponent claims that Congress killing themselves would be the best option, or better than any other possible options. He says this is the best option because Congress is corrupt, wouldn't a better option be for the Congressional members to NOT be corrupted? If they aren't corrupted, then there's no reason for them to kill themselves and them "adjourning" wouldn't be the best option. They would be able to keep a corrupt President in place and also be able to pass laws that would actually help out the U.S. as a whole.

Summary:

The biggest hole in my opponent's argument is that he claims that the deaths of all the Congress members would be the best possible option. Since we can't ever know the best possible option, my opponent's argument is a logical fallacy. I've already shown that his idea would not work in the least and the consequences of his idea. In the next round my opponent needs to answer my resolutions.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
InfraRedEd

Pro

By "best" I mean "anything better than what they are doing now."

Speaking generally now, and not about anyone in particular, when your opponent is ignoring your arguments, saying they are irrelevant, it is your job to make them relevant.

You have to first address the irrelevance issue. Contnuing to provide data or arguments which are arguably irrelevant is arguably irrelevant.

Why are your arguments relevant and your opponent's not? You have to establish this by value. You have to prove that your approach has more value than your opponent's. The best way to spell out in detail the value of your approach is to establish criteria for approaches. If you are going to select an approach, what would give it value? What values are you upholding? What criteria would support those values and how, and how would your approach meet those criteria, and your opponent's not?

In the same way the primmary issue is debated, the relevance issue must be debated. It is not sufficient to cry "irrelevant" because then you sound exactly like your opponent and who wants that? You have to establish that your approach is superior because your values are superior.

And that's not enough, since your opponent will also have a similar argument. You have to attack his values.

Again, I am not simply proposing this as a remedy for the present situation, but rather as a matter of concern to all. If we can solve the problem of mutual irrelevance we have opened up doors that are now closed to us.

I am proposing a general approach to better communication that could be profitably adopted by all.

In the present case, for example, is

debating whether Congress killing all lobbyists, for example, before committing mass suicide would be preferable to simply committing mass suicide

more productive than

analysing proposed legislation?

That is the question before us.

My criteria for selecting an approach are that I would like it to be informative and stimulating. It should inform about pending legislation, and stimulate discussion thereabout.

These criteria support the values of better government by promoting an infomed citizenry that takes an interest in its government.

My opponent's approach does not, and in fact has negative value. In a classroom it would be called disruptive. There are people who follow debates for some reason. Anyone following this debate might reasonable expect to learn something about Congress. Now we have to spend time dealing with a disruptive student, taking away from the stimulating discussion about Congress.

My opponent could be simulated with a computer. His approach is nonproductive at best. It should be discouraged.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I thank my opponent for his thorough response.

My opponent has ignored all my resolutions and arguments from the previous rounds and so has conceded them.

<>

That's not what "best" means. If something is better than option A, than option A is not the best option. If you wanted it to mean "anything better than what they are doing now" then you should have made the resolution "A Better Thing Congress Can Do Now is Adjourn" or something of the like.

<>

Your arguments ARE irrelevant to the resolution. I understand that you and many others (including myself) believe that Congress is not doing a lot of good things right now. However, to claim that the best option is for them to committ suicide you would have to PROVE that there are no better options. I have already given a couple situations that are much better on the whole.

<>

If you believe that then you have already conceded and lost.

<>

So you want to talk about the current legislation? Well, if I'm understanding you correctly then you should go talk about it in the forums. You're trying to spread this debate into something it's not. The debate is talking about Congress killing themselves, not what Congress is trying to pass.

My opponent has completely ignored all my arguments and has gone on a rant about irrelvancy. He refused my earlier reasons for the irrelevancy of his posted arguments but still went on about it in this round. I would like to ask that my opponent actually answers my arguments in the following rounds.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
InfraRedEd

Pro

Ed's got better things to do.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

Thank you for atleast not forfeiting...

Since my opponent has not answered any of my arguments, they all still stand and he has conceded them.

Hope you have time to type your next round Ed!
Debate Round No. 4
InfraRedEd

Pro

Well here's the budget. $3.4 tril. Just do the math. That's ten thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
2005 Median Household income: $44,473 http://www.census.gov...
Say thirty thou after taxes.
So for a family of four this budget will cost them their entire income plus another $5527.

OK the war.

http://www.war-times.org...

http://www.veteransforpeace.org...

http://www.forpeace.net...

http://www.antiwar.com...

http://www.iwpr.net...

After just over six years of war

approaching a hundred thousand civilian deaths http://www.iraqbodycount.org...

4278 military dead

700 per year

Active-duty suicides now exceed combat casualties. http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com...

For every dead there are a hundred so emotionally traumatized they cannot function in society.
We have no idea how to treat this condition.
They cannot hold a job but there aren't any anyway so that's no problem.
This pool is growing at the rate of roughly 70,000 per year, say about 427,000 right now. Say 854,000 in another six years

y = 260 of them also committed suicide last year, about .06%.
So if w = number of years of war, y = 43w and total suicides = 43w(w + 1)/2
You do the math.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I would like to point out that once again you failed to answer any of my arguments. Because you have failed to answer them, you have conceded them and forfeited this debate.

Once again, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF CONGRESS IS BAD. I've already explained to you why that them killing themselves would NOT be the best option and that even if it was TEMPORARILY it would not have any effect in the long run. If you didn't see this, please refer back to my 2nd and 3rd round arguments.

Thank you for posting your argument this round. I was happy to debate this although, (in a joking tone) your dictionary is a little wierd.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
"Ed's got better things to do" hahaha I love it.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Con is being patient as Pro rants. The tax system is quite obviously highly progressive, with the top 10% of earners paying 90% of the taxes, the bottom 45% or so pay no income taxes as all. The median income case Pro cites, the family would pay little, if any, income tax. So while there are good reasons to wish Congress would lay off, Pro hasn't identified one of them.
Posted by DeadLeaves93 8 years ago
DeadLeaves93
Conduct is going straight to CON with Pro's round 4 argument. -_-
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
What dictionary are you using?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"By "adjourn" I mean 'commit mass suicide.' "
My gosh.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Plus, the rich are the ones who pay thousands, even millions, in taxes, while the poor are being paid to live.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"They will take money from the working class and give it to the rich."

In modern days, the rich are the working class. Of the top 10 percent of the people, I believe about 70% work full time, whereas in the bottom 20%, I believe it is like 15%. I don't have the statistics on me because I lent them to Crack of Dawn.

I may be way off, but I have the jist correct.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
InfraRedEdcrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
InfraRedEdcrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
InfraRedEdcrackofdawn_JrTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
InfraRedEdcrackofdawn_JrTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
InfraRedEdcrackofdawn_JrTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24