The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There should be no representation without taxation

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 25836
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

47% of people in the United States are dependent upon government support: they believe that they are victims; they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them; they believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

These students, disabled war veterans, old age pensioners and other freeloaders don't pay Federal taxes, so politicians shouldn't have to worry about them - they'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives - but some politicians feel they need to pretend to care about them because, outrageously, these idle scroungers are allowed to vote.

The United States of America was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" so it therefore follows that there should be no representation without taxation - and that means those people who don't pay Federal income tax should not be allowed to influence the lives of decent, hard-working citizens by electing namby-pamby. wish-washy, bleeding-heart liberals who believe in stealing money from corporate asset-strippers, investment bankers and other wealth creating individuals and handing it out to indolent young scholars, work-shy cripples and lazy geriatric spongers.

No tax, no vote - it's as simple as that. Vote Pro.

Thank you.
DeFool

Con

I want to thank my partner for presenting this challenge, and specifically for presenting it in the manner that he has chosen.

As a resident of the United States, I am quite familiar with the rhetoric expressed by my partner here, which I should point out is entirely consistent with the style of argumentation that is common among the right wing in this country. Not only are these ideas “not unique,” as he explains in the comments section, they are surprisingly common.

I want to thank my partner for formatting the discussion as he has, it will allow both he and I to make a few simple points. The main one, perhaps surprisingly, is not obviously apparent. Therefore, I shall make it so:

My Side-Argument:

Any argument made in defence of the American Right Wing is indistinguishable from a parody of the American Right Wing.

I will address the arguments that have been presented, so that I may be blameless for having allowed these assertions to pass me by. However, I ask that the readers hold in mind that I am also making my main argument as well. That is, that the American Right Wing has become a sad parody of itself, a living caricature that has become impossible to differentiate from the worst insults that the rest of the world can devise. This should not be a source of pride for the movement conservatives, but something that gives them pause. It is not 'good' when a person cannot immediately tell if he is being agreed with – or ridiculed.

47% of people in the United States are dependent upon government support: they believe that they are victims; they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them; they believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it...

A number of false representations of fact were made here, as they commonly are.

-All Americans are “dependent on government support.” Even if we remove military and police protections, all Americans rely on our national infrastructure, provided though it may be by “government.” Important to the topic is the fact that the wealthier a person develops, the more dependent on government that person becomes. The wealthy trade away the regular use of food and housing assistance, and begin to become increasingly dependent on our nations’ ability to transport goods and services, they begin to make more and more use of our well-regulated financial markets, and they rely more and more on our government backed court system to ensure that private agreements that have been made are honored. The very poor have little use for such things, just as the wealthy have little need for school-lunch discounts.

...These students, disabled war veterans, old age pensioners and other freeloaders don't pay Federal taxes,...

This does not mean that they are not to be considered “taxpayers.” These people may not qualify for the Federal Income Tax, or Corporate Taxes – but they are still taxed. They pay sales taxes, payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), school taxes, property taxes and other state and local taxes.

...so politicians shouldn't have to worry about them - they'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives – ...

These are simple Ad Homen insults, and are impossible to discuss.

…but some politicians feel they need to pretend to care about them because, outrageously, these idle scroungers are allowed to vote…

The United States of America was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" so it therefore follows that there should be no representation without taxation - and that means those people who don't pay Federal income tax should not be allowed to influence the lives of decent, hard-working citizens by electing namby-pamby. wish-washy, bleeding-heart liberals who believe in stealing money from corporate asset-strippers, investment bankers and other wealth creating individuals and handing it out to indolent young scholars, work-shy cripples and lazy geriatric spongers.

(I will not fulfill Godwin’s Law and discuss the term “work-shy.)

This argument essentially reduces to:

Persons who do not qualify to pay Federal Income Taxes should be stripped of their ability to vote in federal elections. (This argument could also be interpreted as proposing that these taxpayers should not be allowed to vote under any circumstances.)

This argument is intended to make the case that those who do not pay enough (no specific dollar figure is given) in Federal Income Taxes should not be treated as full citizens. To say the very least, the case here is not made; much more convincing arguments must be developed before this demand is treated as anything other than the personal opinions of a minority of voters.

No tax, no vote - it's as simple as that. Vote Pro.

As I pointed out, there are no persons in the United States that “pay no taxes.” Eventually, every American who survives to become voting age has entered the ranks of taxpayerdom.

Having rebutted the arguments presented, and ensured that these assertions have not been allowed to stand – I should return, briefly, to my own argument (and, I suspect, that of my partner as well...):

It is almost impossible to determine with certainty if these arguments are being presented in jest, or if they are the actual, if incredible, statements of a “true believer.” Consider the cruel treatment of Vice Presidential Nominee (under John McCain during the previous election cycle) at the hands of the writers of the television series, “Saturday Night Live.” In one sketch, Ms. Palin was pilloried by the comedians for her stupidity… and humiliatingly, the writers used the actual words of Ms. Palin instead of the customary comedic re-writing. That is the clip that I included.

Again, I am presenting this example to demonstrate how fine the line is between the actual statements of the American Right, and those who would like to discredit it by creating a flimsy straw-man to insult. It seems that more and more often, movement conservatives are far more similar to strawmen than it is polite for an outsider to their movement to say.

Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

brian_eggleston forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

It is not surprising that my arguments were not answered; I am everywhere uncertain that my partner was putting forward an actual case that he wanted to defend. I am of the opinion that he and I are in agreement on this issue.

Nevertheless, he has yet to come out of character, and confirm these suspicions. Therefore, I will ask for any readers to please consider voting in the matter. I would be mortified should this contest be called a draw.
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I've learned this, and no need to apologize, my friend.

I've also become aware, as I'm more or less certain you already knew, that there is a forum post for such eventualities. For any readers of this that might be interested - participants are allowed to post unvoted, forfeited, and vote bombed debates in the "Debate.Org" forum thread of the same name. Readers of that thread will rush out to rescue our pride. Sometimes.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
The reason I think there were no votes is that if there is a forfeited round the debate doesn't feature on the main page...sorry about that!
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I've fought my opponent to a draw. With both hands tied behind his back. (Again, thinking that all of this is fairly amusing.)

But congratulations.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Thank you. (I'm chuckling)...

I thought your position was a very clever parody - unfortunately, too late; I'd already accepted the debate. I hope I've guessed correctly in this assumption.

But In any case, I'm glad to have seen your challenge; it's given me several ideas that I intend to use, myself.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry, I didn"t mean to forfeit this one: I thought I had one more day, but I accept I must lose on the basis of poor conduct.

I very much enjoyed reading my opponent"s response, however, and I personally agree with his sentiments so I would urge you to Vote Con in any case!
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Just to be clear, the views expressed in my opening argument are not absolutely unique:

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Posted by iEconomics 5 years ago
iEconomics
I agree with you on some points, but on the title of the debate. No.
Posted by iEconomics 5 years ago
iEconomics
Hahaaaaaaaa. Your very lucky I don't meet your age or criteria. I'd obliterate you in this debate. Your premise is trash.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
haha I'm pretty sure he's positive about this one.
Posted by kckettler 5 years ago
kckettler
I ask this honestly, Im really not sure, but are you serious? Or is this sarcastic?
No votes have been placed for this debate.