The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Tied
36 Points
The Contender
charles15
Pro (for)
Tied
36 Points

The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective.

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 13 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,952 times Debate No: 7265
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

wjmelements

Con

I will post my argument next round because my opponent is PRO and is accepting a burden of proof.

The current recession is referring to the recession that officially began in 2008 in the United States.

Conservatism is a set of beliefs that endorse minimal government economic control. The same is true for libertarians, but we aren't discussing social policy.
charles15

Pro

Sorry this took me so long to respond.

First of all we will not be saying president Bush did this or that, though he was a conservative all his actions may not have been conservative-like.

To begin with it was not the idea of conservatism that lead us into an economic disaster it was liberalism/socialistic points of view by major democrats. For instance president Oboma voted for, extending the time that people would have to make their mortgage payments. Well, the major businesses were not going to let this go without a ketch. So, what happened was the major businesses added on more and more interest to keep things even, and of course, the people could not pay off there debt, thus causing these large businesses to loose a lot of money. But with conservatism, the idea is, that people take responsibility for there actions and the government stays out of the way.

Also liberals love to tax, tax and tax some more, this causes businesses to cut back on workers so that they are able to keep there numbers in the green. This is exactly what is happening now, big businesses are having to cut back on workers to stay in the green numbers, some businesses have been hit so hard that they have had to close down. This then starts a chain reaction, since all these businesses are doing terrible, the stock holders begin to pull out so that they won't loose any more money (I for one don't think that is the best way to handle it, but it happens). So, this is what happens when the government gets to much control and excessively tax businesses.
This is why there are so many local businesses that have left New York, since its so liberal up in that state, the taxes are so high. A lot of those businesses that have left New York are now down south where things are more conservative and government stay out of there way.

Nothing good comes from government over involvement (socialism/liberalism), the only countries that are still strong believers in this idea are North Karea, Russia and China; but even then, everyday Russia and China are pulling more towards a conservative democratic democracy. Why? Because its the best possible way to run a government.

So many times, liberals such as Jimmy Carter, who totally based his ideas off of a liberal government, got our economy in trouble. But, who cleaned it up? It was Ronald Regan, a strong conservative, who based his ideas off of aggressive conservative ideas.

Thank you,
Charles15
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

To my opponent: You are PRO; therefore, you are trying to prove that "The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective."

My opponent has made three points endorsing my case:
-Conservatism was not what caused the recession
-Liberal policies can be blamed for the housing crisis
-Even though George W. Bush was a Republican, his policy was not conservative

This leads us to vote CON. Any argument my opponent can make in later rounds would only contradict what he's already said. For these reasons, I concede my opponent's argument, and he concedes the debate.

1. Conservatism was not what caused the recession.

Recessions are natural and beneficial if not caused by the government or attacked in a Keynesian manner. This recession would destroy a few failing companies and open the market to new companies and small businesses that will perhaps be more successful. In this manner, by opening up the markets for expansion, the markets grow and improve.

Conservative policies were not followed. Republican leadership failed to reverse key liberal policies:
-Fannie Mae (created by FDR)
-Freddie Mac (created by Carter)
-the Clean Air Act, off-shore drilling bans, etc (other)
-the loans the government forced the banks to make to 'help the poor' (Carter)

As we can see, when liberal policy is not reversed, the economy can be stinted from natural recovery.
The third element on the list created high gas prices as OPEC was free to monopolize and control gasoline prices. This lead to the fail of many American auto companies, which were at the time focusing on safety rather than economy. This international monopoly was aloud by a country destroying its own competition.

2. The other elements lead to what is now some sort of 'mortgatge crisis'. Again, liberal polices were to blame, and we can not link these outcomes to conservatism.

3. Even though Bush was Republican, he was not economically conservative. This is evident through the bailouts, the regulations, and his failure to undo the liberal policy that would corrupt our economy.

I thank my opponent for defending my case and effectively forfeiting the debate. I hope next time he will read the topic for which he is defending before defending it in future debates.

Now what to do with the remaining rounds?
charles15

Pro

I know this makes me looks stupid, I guess I was just confused by the title.
Again, Im sorry.

You may have been surprised I was debating PRO when I had a picture of Rush Limbaugh. lol.

I definitely agree with you and you made some really good points. Its good to see that there are people that think the same as me on certain situations and are strong conservatives.

But you totally debate someone else on this topic (that actually disagrees with you) I'm sure you would win.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Con

Thank you. This is my second attempt to do this. This exact same thing happened last time. It is truly a shame.

Vote CON. Or just try to make this an even tie. But If I lose this debate then I will report the voters.
charles15

Pro

Ya it is a shame.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"I will report the voters."

I said this when the "This page is being redesigned to show the voter's picture and username" first came out. I was under the impression that they would actually have the votes shown within a week.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I agree, and if this had worked out to be a real debate, I would have pointed that out.
Posted by HandsOff 7 years ago
HandsOff
How could the current economic situation reflect the ineffectiveness of conservatism if we haven't had real conservatives in congress or the white house in over 6 decades? Borrowing and spending the country into oblivion is not a conservative ideal. Had we slashed spending and kept a balanced budget, this crisis wouldn't even be a blip on the radar screen.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Hmm vote bombing much? ;)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Hey sadolite!

I've wanted to debate this for a long time. This was no trick. Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding.
THe title was very clear, but don't hate on me for my opponent's mistake.

I'm not liberal; read the debate. And someone leave an RFD.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I don't think Con was being devious, but I dislike these backwards Pro/Con debates. wjmelements could have affirmed "The current economic recession does not prove that conservatism is ineffective."

By the way, a "ketch" is a two-masted boat. "Well, the major businesses were not going to let this go without a ketch." Something to ponder there. Arguments a tie, spelling to Con.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Con sounds like a typical liberal to me, says one thing and means something completely different. It's just a play on words. Con can not think of a way to debate other than to mislead and does not want to truly debate Conservatism verses Liberalism. Furthermore it is Congress that controls all fiscal decisions, the President can make suggestions but ultimately can be overridden. So if you want to blame anybody for the mess we are in blame Congress not the President. Obama is not responsible for the current overruns in the budget, Congress is solely responsible as they have written 100% of all the current spending legislation, Obama does not have a clue as to how to write a budget, that's why he lets Congress do everything and just goes along with it. The Dems have been in control of congress for the last three years by the way and the economy started to collapse two years ago.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
shhhh...
Posted by ChristianM 7 years ago
ChristianM
This topic is moot because the US Government has not stated at any point that they were conservatist.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 7 years ago
HandsOff
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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 Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
wjmelementscharles15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
wjmelementscharles15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Colucci 7 years ago
Colucci
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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 crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RagingCow 7 years ago
RagingCow
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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 trendem 7 years ago
trendem
wjmelementscharles15Tied
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:70