The Instigator
cyman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
neveragain
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

debate on topic

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...
neveragain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,308 times Debate No: 19610
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

cyman

Pro

In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. My partner and I are on the pro side. Before continuing it is important to define some key terms pertaining to the resolution. The definition of income as defined by the free dictionary.com is "The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments". The definition of disparities as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is the markedly distinct quality or character between persons or objects. Lastly, the definition of threaten as defined by Princeton University is to "pose a threat to; present a danger to". Our points are:
1.Income inequality makes it more difficult to participate in an election equally with richer people
2.The government favors the rich
3.Money is power
My first point is that income inequality makes it more difficult to participate in an election equally with richer people. Rich people can use money to start a campaign. Where poorer people cannot run as easily. Why? Well, according to mybudget360.com, the average person in the United States earns $46,326 a year. It would be very difficult to have enough money to start a campaign with the money left over after paying for Taxes, food, and other items you would need. Say Bill Gates was running for president, he earns $2.64 billion dollars a year. He could make donations to have companies run ads about him. It would be so much easier for him to run and win then it would be for us because he has the money to do that.
My second point is that the government favors the rich. Our society as a whole tends to favor the rich over others. People with nice cars, big homes, and the finer things in life get extra perks and privileges. They get the better seats and all that goes with them. They are different (in a good way) and thus given preference.
The poor, on the other hand, are often despised and ignored. They are often seated in the back or aren't even invited to events. They don't get the nicer seats and extra perks. They are different (in a bad way) and thus shunned. This is the same way with government. According to Oregon Live.com the rich do not have to pay as much tax money as the poor. The amount the rich pay in taxes went down 9% from 1992 to 2007, whereas the middle classes and the poor went down only 0.6%. In other words, this is the Bush tax cuts. It should have expired long ago, but congress keeps voting to keep it in place. The rich people keep persuading congressmen and women to pass this and other legislation to benefit them, in the expense of the poor.
My third point is that money is power. In the United Sates, a small portion of people control a large portion of the countries money. According to Professor G. William Domhoff from the Sociology Department at the University of California at Santa Cruz, as of 2007, the top 1% of households owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. With the bottom 80% of households hold only 15% of the money. The top 10 richest people in America, according to Forbes.com, have 291 BILLION DOLLARS shared between them. Due to this fact, they will have more political and social influence due to their wealth. This is bad, because they can bribe congress to vote things their way. Without this, Congress would have stopped or not passed the Bush tax cuts and other legislation that where passed.
For these reasons I have presented to you, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
neveragain

Con

My partner and I negate the resolution that current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. Ever since money has been used, income disparities have been involved. One can not compare people that are poor and people with over 100,000 dollars made every year. Even though the people who do make 6 figure digits generally have more, that does not mean that they are better then the people who have less money. Which brings me to my three points.
My first point states that income disparities are natural. Ever since money has been used income disparities have been involved. Every civilian even the democrats have had people who make different amounts of money some substantially higher than others. In most cases richer people have had a very good education and therefore you would generally make more money if you went to Harvard as apposed to a community college so they get paid more. Education plays a big part in income people receive. So people who possess skills that other people generally get paid more because of that skill so income disparities comes naturally in the modern world and if something as simple as income disparities hurts democracy then there would be no democracy today. So the fact that income disparities threaten democratic ideals is false.

My second point states that the government tries to help the income disparities: Many people believe that the government is helping big business at the peoples expense. The government gives bailout funds to businesses that are supposedly too-big-to-fail. The bailout funds are supposed to help businesses keep old employees and possibly hire new ones if they can. However, bailout funds are used not to hire new workers, but to add bonus money for a few elite employees. Who should we blame: the government whose good intentions are to hire workers and help people across America get jobs fall flat, or the corporations who greedily spend public money to the few elite employees instead of doing what the government intended? The answer to this question depends entirely on whether the government care to do anything about the bonuses. Yale professor John Macey writes: "Politicians are frustrated because they are virtually powerless to stop the flow of bonus payments to bankers. Rep. Dennis Kucinich thinks that the U.S. should levy heavy taxes on bonuses. While such action might placate some people, it is the shareholders, not the banks, who will end up paying this tax. Worse, this sort of tax will not affect banker behavior, because it will not reduce (and probably will increase) the government's proclivity to bail out banks that have made bad bets." It is clear that politicians are against large bonuses and are working towards a solution. Current US politicians are keen to the public's interests and follow the people's will as they should in a democratic government. It is big business, and not the government, that we should blame for such large income disparities.

My third point is the government does not favor the rich. In the eyes of the government a person with a net worth of 250,000, or higher, is the same as a person with a net worth of 77,000, or lower. The rich is not worth anymore then the poor because the riches money does not give the government any edge at all. The government does not have any more use for the rich or than the poor and vise versa. If you are rich, or if you are poor, one vote counts the same as any other vote.

My forth and final point states that income does not threaten the 3 most important democratic ideals which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Money does not goes against your life and you have no less life then a rich person, money gives you no less liberty then a rich person, and money does no mean that you can not be happy many people who are not rich are happy. So money does not threaten democratic ideals when democratic ideals insure equality and the same rights as everyone in America.
In conclusion, income disparities are a natural form of any country, the government tries to separate income disparities, the government does not favor the rich, and income disparities does not influence political power. So with these points the fact that current income disparities threaten democratic ideals is false. And with that I encourage a CON ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
cyman

Pro

First i will attack my opponents case then i will go back to my own.
His second point said My second point states that the government tries to help the income disparities. He stated that "bailout funds are used not to hire new workers, but to add bonus money for a few elite employees" He has stated no evidence for this. And i ask him to. He also says that the government tries to help the poor. While they are also Having the rich pay less taxes. 9% less, actually. While only went down .6% That doesn't sound to me like the government ate trying to help them.
his third point is the government does not favor the rich. He said that "In the eyes of the government a person with a net worth of 250,000, or higher, is the same as a person with a net worth of 77,000, or lower" If i was a government official, i certainly would favor the rich if they had 59 billion dollars. (Bill Gates does, http://www.forbes.com... ) every one of these people on this lit have 1 billion dollars or more. As shown in the Bush tax cuts, the government does favor the rich. I stated all this in my 2nd point. It should have expired long ago, but congress keeps voting to keep it in place. The rich people keep persuading congressmen and women to pass this and other legislation to benefit them, in the expense of the poor.
It is hard for poor people to e successful when they are spending there money paying taxes. The government does favor the rich.
This is why i urge you to vote PRO.
neveragain

Con

First off her is my evidence ( http://www.cbsnews.com... ) He said he would favor the rich. IN what possible way would money have an effect on a political leader or any leader for that reason they have enough money as it is and Bill Gates money does not make a big difference to any leader because the money is not theirs and they have no use of it. Now I would like to ask how someone with a 6 digit salary or more is more important please clarify. Secondly you stated pooper people can not run for president as easily tell me what you mean by poor people because all political members have a substantial amount of money are you talking about average people like me and you because we can not run for president. Also money does not matter when running it depends on you ability to convince voters you are the right choice. I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
cyman

Pro

Thank you for the evidence. "Now I would like to ask how someone with a 6 digit salary or more is more important please clarify. Secondly you stated proper people can not run for president as easily tell me what you mean by poor people because all political members have a substantial amount of money are you talking about average people like me and you because we can not run for president. Also money does not matter when running it depends on you ability to convince voters you are the right choice." Money does matter when running. It costs money to buy plane tickets and book places to speak. it is much easier for the rich because whey have enough money to be able to run a campaign. The poor have much less money to. The average person earns 45,000 dollars a year. After paying the taxes, bills, food, clothes, and other essential items, they will have little money left over to run a successful campaign. As I said the rich have massive amounts of money due to the tax cuts. They could use that money to fund a successful campaign.
"IN what possible way would money have an effect on a political leader" Bribing
"Bill Gates money does not make a big difference to any leader because the money is not theirs" I wasn't just talking about bill gates. There money does make a difference to them otherwise the Bush tax cuts would have expired long ago and legislation would not have been passed. Do you think it is just a that they have passed legislation helping the rich more, in expense of the poor?
this is why I urge you to vote pro
And thanks for a good debate.
neveragain

Con

A person with a 6 digit salary is no more important then me or you if I said that I am sorry I didn't mean to. Money does play a role in your campaigning but it all depends on how you spend you money many candidates have dropped out of the running's because of poor financial decisions the money the have is substantial and they have more than enough it depends on how you spend it. As far as bribing political members do not have the time to bribe, and you have no way of knowing if that certain person voted for you it is all confidential and can not be traced so you money would be thrown away because the people bribed could take the money and run. The government is not "helping the rich" the government is looking at what is best for the people and what the people want not just a set number of individuals in the nation. I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cyman 5 years ago
cyman
Did a random topic title to prevent people from accessing my case. It is the topic for high school.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
cymanneveragainTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof. Neither side did much more than make unsupported assertions, so Pro did not make the case. Apparently neither side ran the spell checker; maybe Pro was a little worse ("i"). We had a rich guy, Ross Perot, run for President. Didn't work. Democrats had most of the money in the last election, yet they run on a "soak the rich" platform. My point is that the debate should have made more reference to what has actually happened, rather than argued so much in the abstract