The carbon tax would be succesful
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
koolkid
| Started: | 3/18/2012 | Category: | Science |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 397 times | Debate No: | 22117 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)
|
This is first round acceptance
I accept. I await pro's argument. |
![]() |
|
I'm sure you are waiting
The carbon tax is "Seriously bad" Mulling over the mess we find ourselves in, it occurred to me that there are several other reasons (apart from those most frequently discussed) why a carbon [dioxide] tax is a very bad idea. The US economy is in strife. Unless congress can agree an increase to the borrowing ceiling, things could get very bad, very quickly, dragging the global economy down. The EU is in strife. Greece is on the verge of default, Ireland's finances have junk status, Italy has joined the queue next in line, after Spain and Portugal, waiting for a handout. If the worst happens, the European currency could be blown apart sending the economy into a tailspin, again, dragging the global economy with it. I am of the old school that believes that drastic reforms should only be undertaken when a government has a clear and unambiguous mandate to do so. Minority or shaky coalition governments should do nothing that rocks the boat - their job is little more than to keep the country on the straight and narrow. But here we have a government with a wafer thin majority thanks to a couple of independents and a Green, undertaking the biggest wholesale reform of our economy since the GST. Only when a government has a substantial majority and a clear mandate should it embark on such major reforms. And despite all of these issues, and all of the well-rehearsed ones as well, the government ploughs on regardless. That is because it has, at every turn, placed its own survival above what is in the country's best interests - the worst possible crime of a politician. ^ That is why the carbon tax is bad brah. Your turn. |
![]() |
|
no brah
it is good coz like the guy obama will make carbon cost money so big capanieaes have to pay and it will like, reduce pollution and stuff iz logical and u said some false stuff too try and work out what part so like yeah u suck and imma gonna win
Brah, looks at this ya nub The carbon tax is "Seriously bad" Mulling over the mess we find ourselves in, it occurred to me that there are several other reasons (apart from those most frequently discussed) why a carbon [dioxide] tax is a very bad idea. The US economy is in strife. Unless congress can agree an increase to the borrowing ceiling, things could get very bad, very quickly, dragging the global economy down. The EU is in strife. Greece is on the verge of default, Ireland's finances have junk status, Italy has joined the queue next in line, after Spain and Portugal, waiting for a handout. If the worst happens, the European currency could be blown apart sending the economy into a tailspin, again, dragging the global economy with it. I am of the old school that believes that drastic reforms should only be undertaken when a government has a clear and unambiguous mandate to do so. Minority or shaky coalition governments should do nothing that rocks the boat - their job is little more than to keep the country on the straight and narrow. But here we have a government with a wafer thin majority thanks to a couple of independents and a Green, undertaking the biggest wholesale reform of our economy since the GST. Only when a government has a substantial majority and a clear mandate should it embark on such major reforms. And despite all of these issues, and all of the well-rehearsed ones as well, the government ploughs on regardless. That is because it has, at every turn, placed its own survival above what is in the country's best interests - the worst possible crime of a politician. Dumb french! Go Blacks! |
![]() |
|
funkymuppet forfeited this round.
koolkid forfeited this round. |
![]() |
|
funkymuppet forfeited this round.
AHA! I win this debate! BOOM BOOM! |
![]() |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
| funkymuppet | koolkid | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Fairly convinced this is him debating himself...
Vote Placed by Zaradi 1 year ago
| funkymuppet | koolkid | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: I don't even have to read the round to know that only Con had a case (albeit a crappy one).















http://www.debate.org...