The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DarthVitiosus
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

To support the labor or conservative parties in the uk is foolish

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
DarthVitiosus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 588 times Debate No: 66458
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Both parties have to many ties with corporations and will not offer substantiating changes that will benefit mankind as a whole any time soon. If you support them and are in favour of a better world for everybody, you are deeply delusional about the political systems that govern your life.
DarthVitiosus

Con

I as Con will be arguing that people in the United Kingdom should support the Labor and Conservative Parties respectively. My opponent says: "Both parties have to many ties with corporations." I reply good because corporations have done far more to advance the human race than any state in human history. I will examine the case thoroughly in my arguments.

DEFINITIONS & ASSOCIATIONS:

Corporation:"A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law[1]."

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:

My opponent seems to think corporations are bad. I will argue the contrary argument in this case. The Labor Party, Liberal Democrat Party, and the Conservative Party should have ties with corporations in order to improve the economy further. How strong of ties they should have with corporations ia different matter altogether.


ARGUMENTS:

#1 Corporations are more productive than any other organized body

Corporations are organizations that operate based on consent. Consumers give them more power by choosing whom they wish to buy from. Consumers receive the products they like. The corporations, unions, employees, and other businesses reap the profits when consumers purchases from them[2]. It is a consensual agreement among the consumers and the producers. By allowing corporations to function, the Labor Party and the Coservative Party allow the economy to grow and consumers to chose the products they wish.

[2]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

#2 Anti-corporate stances means more coercion

To take an anti-corporate stance as my opponent wishes means that he wants more coercion. Rather than give people what they want, people should be forced. I would argue this is anachronistic. People buy the products they wish to purchase from by their own choice. My opponent wants us to revert by to a time when choice was limited by the mob and elites.Corporations are powerful by the choices of the general populace. This is consensual.

NOTE: Observe my opponent's insincerity when he states "If you support them and are in favour of a better world for everybody, you are deeply delusional about the political systems that govern your life." How can my opponent want to engage in discourse at the same time while insulting his opponents? My opponent is not even remotely interested in discourse but bully tactics to pressue his opponents to capitulate. He is stating, if you don't agree with him, you are "delusional." This behavior and insincereity should be considered be considered an infantile bully tactic. This is one of the hundred thousand ways to say you are a heretic if you disagree with someone. It shouldn't be acceptable in a literate society.Arguments should stand on their merits rather than superfluous adjectives used to ridicule.

Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

My opponent says: "My opponent seems to think corporations are bad. I will argue the contrary argument in this case. The Labor Party, Liberal Democrat Party, and the Conservative Party should have ties with corporations in order to improve the economy further. How strong of ties they should have with corporations ia different matter altogether."

Firstly, I don't think that corporations are necessarily bad, it more complicated than that. And secondly I agree that the government should have ties with organisations, though only to better the society. The 'ties' I speak of are ones that let the owners of corporations exploit us. The fact that they avoid tax and have had a blind eye turned to loopholes, effects us. Tax is your money, government don't have any money, they only decide what you should pay for. Letting companies get away with tax evasion is favouring them over us. We go to jail for it. Bankers where actually paid bonuses when the rest of us where taking cuts. Not money to help them 'get back on their feet' to stabilise the economy, but to just boost their wealth. Does that sound like a government who's number 1 priority is the people?

I'm saying that corporations do need ties with the government, but its not that that's the problem. It's the type of ties, the actual relationship they currently have, that I'm talking about. My opponent is using definitions to make his case, the definition of a corporation doesn't depict the reality of it in today's society. Nor does just saying that ties are needed, dispute the fact that corporations in the UK/USA are being adhered to over the common folk.

My opponents first argument is that corporations have been more productive than any other organised body.

Probably true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Corporations being productive doesnt account for our politicians neglecting their democratic agreement to adhere to them, over the betterment of the population. Not even for the greater good, for the bonuses don't help us in the future, or at all.

My opponent then goes on to offer us a textbook definition of capitalism: "Corporations are organizations that operate based on consent. Consumers give them more power by choosing whom they wish to buy from. Consumers receive the products they like. The corporations, unions, employees, and other businesses reap the profits when consumers purchases from them[2]. It is a consensual agreement among the consumers and the producers. By allowing corporations to function, the Labor Party and the Coservative Party allow the economy to grow and consumers to chose the products they wish.

Yes we all know how it works on paper, socialism works on paper too. But in reality, greed has gone to far and caused the system to generally neglect the population in favour of the corporations. We all know this to be true. Lighbulbs aren't designed to break for your benifit. Did you know the top 0.01% of Americans are allowed to have as much wealth as about 45% of the rest us? So that's 360,000 people owning the same as 162 million people. It's hard to even grasp how unequal our society is and the only people to blame are the government. (Don't hate the player, hate the game). The gov't make the game.

Capitalism works on paper, but in reality the profit margin has gone to far, and now capitalism doesn't work so much for the benifit of the consumer, but rather for profit of huge businesses. And, at the expense of the consumer, the employee and the environment. For its the massive corporations that are the problem. For they get so big they can engulf all competition and have a monopoly on the market. How does planned obselecence fit into your theory? It has been left out because this sort of thing is the hard reality of capitalism that is left out of the textbooks. For the textbooks where made by that capitalist society!

Your second argument is not relevant for you misunderstand me. I want diversity and enterprise, I just think that the giant profit organisations are adhered to by our government far too much and thusly the will of the people comes second place which it should obviously not in a democracy. So therefore I argue it's false to support them if you want a better world for everyone.

Thank you

I agree with your note, I apologise for any offence, I mearly wished to provoke a response. Though I agree with what I have said, I'm not a bully, I just wanted a quick argument and response. My apologies once more.
DarthVitiosus

Con

I would have to apologize to my opponent but I don't think I will have the time post an argument for this round because I have been caught up in my exams. I don't want to post half an argument. I will, however, reply the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Okay, I will wait for the next round.
DarthVitiosus

Con

ARGUMENTS:
"Firstly, I don't think that corporations are necessarily bad, it more complicated than that. And secondly I agree that the government should have ties with organisations, though only to better the society."

I understand now.

"The fact that they avoid tax and have had a blind eye turned to loopholes, effects us. Tax is your money, government don't have any money, they only decide what you should pay for. Letting companies get away with tax evasion is favouring them over us. We go to jail for it."

How is the government turning a blind eye to loopholes? Everyone taxed can have tax deductions. What evidence do you have that they are letting companies get away with tax evasions? This is libelous to say the very least. You are accusing the government of doing something illegal without any proof of it.

"Bankers where actually paid bonuses when the rest of us where taking cuts. Not money to help them 'get back on their feet' to stabilise the economy, but to just boost their wealth. Does that sound like a government who's number 1 priority is the people?"

I would seem you are referring to the bank bailout bank in 2008. The government just bailed out the banks. The banks hose to give money to their executives. I would agree with you if you are stating what the money should of been spent on should of been regulated. However, the banks could do what they wanted with the money within the current regulations. The government's priority when bailing out the banks was to save the economy from a hard crash. if the government didn't bailout the banks the economy would take longer to recover.

[1]http://www.theguardian.com...

"It's the type of ties, the actual relationship they currently have, that I'm talking about. My opponent is using definitions to make his case, the definition of a corporation doesn't depict the reality of it in today's society. Nor does just saying that ties are needed, dispute the fact that corporations in the UK/USA are being adhered to over the common folk."

This may be a contradiction on the part of my opponent. He is stating the governments in the USA and UK adhere to corporations rather than common folk. This is false. Who are the largest employers in the UK and the USA? Is it not a corporation? Who provides the most economic stability in both countries? The answer to all of those questions is simply corporations. By helping corporations in dotay's time, you are inherently helping the common folk.

"Probably true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Corporations being productive doesnt account for our politicians neglecting their democratic agreement to adhere to them, over the betterment of the population. Not even for the greater good, for the bonuses don't help us in the future, or at all."

And who determines what is the "betterment of the population?" Politicians must adhere to corporations in order to strengthen the economy. Unions benefit, employees benefit, and most importantly the consumers benefit from corporations. To not adhere to them would be economic suicide.


"Yes we all know how it works on paper, socialism works on paper too. But in reality, greed has gone to far and caused the system to generally neglect the population in favour of the corporations. We all know this to be true. Lighbulbs aren't designed to break for your benifit. Did you know the top 0.01% of Americans are allowed to have as much wealth as about 45% of the rest us? So that's 360,000 people owning the same as 162 million people. It's hard to even grasp how unequal our society is and the only people to blame are the government. (Don't hate the player, hate the game). The gov't make the game."

And, how is this relavent? Do that 45% of people work in the same workplace as the 0.01% of Americans you mention? Does that 45% own stock in the same place as that 0.01%? Do that 45% have the same type of job as the 0.01%? What evidence do you have that the 45% should be making the same amount as the 0.01%? The economy grows as certain companies grow. If people start purchasing Microsoft computers in mass while I work in my neighbor's ice cream truck, should I have the same amount of money as a Microsoft executive, employee, or stockholder? Probably not because the ice cream truck has a limited economies of scale which has not grown due to the lack of purchases. The 0.01% of Americans wealth and income is based on the consumer behavior of the other 99%.

"Capitalism works on paper, but in reality the profit margin has gone to far, and now capitalism doesn't work so much for the benifit of the consumer, but rather for profit of huge businesses. And, at the expense of the consumer, the employee and the environment. For its the massive corporations that are the problem. For they get so big they can engulf all competition and have a monopoly on the market. How does planned obselecence fit into your theory? It has been left out because this sort of thing is the hard reality of capitalism that is left out of the textbooks. For the textbooks where made by that capitalist society!"

Capitalism speaks for itself. Are most of the Fortune 500 companies, Scandinavian or American[2]? Socialism has failed and will continue to fail. That is why a person would struggle name a single product that was exported globally from the Soviet Union or currently from any of the Scandinavian coutries. Yet most people easily know that McDonald's, Walmart, and Ford are all American companies. Why? Capitalism works efficiently and the evidence is clear to any person living in any large city on the globe. After all, Ford has been extremely successful in China[3].

[2]http://fortune.com...
[3]http://seekingalpha.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
DarthVitiosus

Con

Extend all arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
Only after I finish my 7 other ongoing debates lol
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Haha I guess we both forfeited a round, I was hoping to win on that lol. Never mind, I was far too busy to even think about it. Good debate but real shame I forfeited, would take this debate up again with you if your willing in a short while.

Thank you
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I'm the fool haha
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I mean labour haha
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
Tommy.leadbetterDarthVitiosusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit