The Instigator
Copicrow
Pro (for)
The Contender
Sheepz
Con (against)

What should the role for voters play in public policy?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Copicrow has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 97550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Copicrow

Pro

People may think that if they don't have the chance to vote then they may start to go with enlightenment ideas and decide that their government isn't working for them and they can decide to rebel. Now you may say that only 1/2 of the people eligible to vote vote, however the people that do vote are the ones educated on the matter and want their vote heard and accounted for. Plus now we may have elected representatives to vote for us however especially with politics today people only show their face not their real intentions.
Sheepz

Con

First off let me say I'm 100% behind the idea that the public for better or worse, rich or poor should be in ABSOLUTE control of their nations policy. With that being said, until we the people as a mass find it more important than spray tanned celebs and the next great athletic superstar we will only serve a role as the sheep we are. 9-11 and the continued ignorance despite credible movements/ credible arguments/ and credible questions is the gleaming example of exactly what I'm talking about.

War is its own Economy-

The concept of permanent war economy originated in 1944 with an article by Ed Sard (alias Frank Demby), Walter S. Oakes and T.N. Vance, a Third Camp Socialist, who predicted a post-war arms race. He argued at the time that the United States would retain the character of a war economy; even in peacetime, US military expenditure would remain large, reducing the percentage of unemployed compared to the 1930s. He extended this analysis in 1950 and 1951.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Faced with the prospect of more spending cuts, the defense industry has been arguing that they would cripple many local economies by ending well-paying jobs in the weapons-building sector. In fact, the Aerospace Industries Association went so far as to commission a study by George Mason University professor Stephen S. Fuller, whose analysis shows that up to 1 million jobs could be lost if sequestration takes place, as now scheduled, on Jan. 2.
But at what cost? There"s a new George Mason paper by Thomas K. Duncan and Christopher J. Coyne, a pair of GMU economists, that focuses on a long-overlooked side effect of military spending. GMU has a highly-regarded economics program (including two Nobel economics laureates) and " located just outside the Washington Beltway that encircles the capital city " an ideal perch from which to study federal policy.

http://nation.time.com...

thx- B
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by blamonkey 11 months ago
blamonkey
Tip: When starting debates always have a clear advocacy. I don't know what you are trying to claim about the voting system.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.