The Instigator
frankfurter50
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ILikePie5
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

does the basic economic theory of a republican mindset make any sense?

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 3 votes the winner is...
ILikePie5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 98133
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

frankfurter50

Con

republicans believe that if millionaires stay rich, it will help the poor. go ahead, i like pie, tell me why this makes sense.
ILikePie5

Pro

Hello all judges! I hope that you enjoy reading this debate. I wish my opponent good luck, and will strictly leave Round 1 for acceptance as my opponent hasn't made a claim and supported it. I will be on the PRO side of this debate, trying to convince people that a conservative ideology on the economy can work, while my opponent will prove that it doesn't. Sources should be accounted for judges, as that is the only way claims are verifiable. Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1
frankfurter50

Con

how can you possibly support your claim? the claim you have to make is like saying that donald trump is a good person. it simply can't be done. okay, here comes another one of my trademark metaphorical riddles:

is starving a man the best way to feed him?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that's what you republicans are doing to poor people. how on earth can rich people getting tax cuts solve poverty? when uncle pennybags keeps his bags of pennies, he is keeping it away from the impoverished in the streets. and you say that you are solving poverty!

you know, i think that if robin hood lived today, he would vote democrat.

YOU CANNOT SAY THAT YOUR THEORY MAKES ANY SENSE!!!!! at least, i'm pretty sure you can't. let's see you try.
ILikePie5

Pro

Observation 1: My opponent has offered no sources or evidence to any of his claims.

Observation 2: My opponent has not laid a claim as to how exactly conservative economic policies are bad.

Observation 3: My opponent rants on about Donald Trump, so I'm assuming he's talking about Mr. Trump's economic policy, so that is what I will focus primarily on.

Judges please take these observations into account before placing your ballot.

Now I will proceed to my arguments...

Contention 1: Tax Cuts are for everyone.

As Mr. Trump stated, there are going to be tax cuts for everyone including the middle class and poor.[1] The money itself as I'm sure my opponent is talking about, is going to be more for the wealthy as more money equals more money cut percentage wise. However, Mr. Trump's plan states that there will be only a 3% for a married couple with 2 children earning 5 million compared to 30% for the same situation but only earning 75,000. For the same situation with 50,000 in earnings, it's a 35% reduction.[2] In short, this tax plan will benefit the poor and the middle class people, while only slightly affecting the wealthy. Now let's proceed to the corporate world. Trump proposes a corporate tax reduction to 15%. [1]That will greatly benefit the poor. More companies will be willing to stay in the U.S. and will also incentivize small businesses to compete. What this all does is create jobs for the poor, so they can start working again and rise above the poverty line. Because of Trump's tax plan, they will have to pay less money, benefiting them even further.

Contention 2: Trade Deals

Trump's trade deals will greatly benefit the poor because, they'll have opportunities for jobs. With the WTO deal with China and NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, the U.S. has lost thousands of jobs. But, when Trump enforces his conservative policies, all the deals will be remade to benefit the U.S. as we are being ripped off right now.[3] What is does is allows the poor to find more jobs and better support their families.

Contentions 3: Energy Independence

Trump wants to lift unnecessary regulations on energy. Currently, we are relying on the Middle East for our oil which practically hates us. There is 50 trillion dollars worth of oil, shale and natural gas, beneath us, and we are dependent upon Saudi Arabia. Not to mention there are countless amount of clean coal reserves that could supply us for 100s of years.[4]
It creates a better economy for us and for the poor. The methods to achieving these energy coals involve hydraulic fracking, and clean coal, which results in minimal pollution.

Now I will refute my opponents "claims"

Poor people rely upon food stamps and what little money they earn, so they aren't necessarily "starving."[5]
You said that you think Robin Hood would vote Democrat. How is this even related to the debate. We aren't in an age, where the wealthy don't pay any money. The wealthy do pay taxes, and they will be more likely to pay if it's at a lower rate anyways. But anyways tax cuts do benefit the poor as I proved earlier

Awaiting your rebuttals.....

Sources:
[1]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[2]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[3]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[4]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[5]http://www.fns.usda.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
frankfurter50

Con

hmm. actually, on my previous argument, i didn't say that trump's economic plan was good or bad. i just used him as part of a simile. you repubs are pretty hot-headed.

besides, we're not debating about him. stay on topic.

anyway, i saved a tasty little morsel of my argument for this round. here it is:

YOUR THEORY WAS WRITTEN OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO BY A CRAZY MAN-ON A NAPKIN!!!!!!

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

and please, don't say that wikipedia is biased. you and i both know that's not true. speaking of biased, i know i said in an earlier debate that sources and the media can't be biased, but you came pretty close with those five you put up there.

the first four are from the mouth of old mister orange hair himself. do you honestly think that he tells the truth? boy, you're crazier than i thought you were.

and then your fifth source is a bunch of boring statistics about food stamps. see, there's the problem. you repubs think that life everywhere is peaches and cream just because it is for you.

Judges please take these observations into account before placing your ballot.

it's from your own mouth, pie face. heh heh.

and there was another simile you didn't understand. by "starving" i didn't mean "actually starving." that was a METAPHOR. i actually meant, "keeping money away from the poor." look out for those metaphors. don't confuse them with reality, or you might be seriously embarrassed.

Judges please take these observations into account before placing your ballot.

it's from your own mouth, pie face. heh heh.

you couldn't see how my robin hood comment is related to this debate? you couldn't figure it out?

he would vote democrat because HE TAKES FROM THE RICH AND GIVES TO THE POOR! you just proved how you republicans can't understand humor when you see it.

okay, now for my little breakdown of our "dependence" on foreign countries:

we may "depend" on these foreign countries, but having them produce for us is better than producing stuff on our own. it's sort of like kicking out your butler and taking the responsibilities upon yourself. i hope you repubbos will understand that simile, since you all have butlers.

we'd be pumping our own oil, making our own phones, and plucking our own corn. pretty much everyone from one to ninety would be in factories making stuff. and you call THAT helping the poor? hah. but that's what you want, isn't it? you want everybody to be on their hands and knees. crippled people, autistic people, dead people. you call them all "lazy". you want us to slave away, don't you? no vacation time for us! plenty for you!

maybe you're ashamed of yourselves for being lazy, so you call us lazy. we who can't get a square meal or a shelter. we who hike miles every day. we who make under twenty thousand dollars a year. you call us lazy. that's ridiculous, while you lounge around on your golden mattresses eating caviar and reading the new york times.

and then you say that i haven't stated my claim? i have! it's even in the title! YOUR ECONOMIC THEORY MAKES NO SENSE! i want you to tell me how rich people keeping the money helps poor people, okay? go ahead. i'll be waiting.
ILikePie5

Pro

Observation 1: My opponent used Wikipedia as a legit source. Credibility in question.

Observation 2: My opponent still cannot prove why the conservative ideal is bad

Observation 3: My opponent has no ethics or respect for others.

Judges please consider the sources and conduct of this debate before your ballot.

Rebuttals:
Of course my sources are from Trump. Who else would they be from? Hillary? He supports a conservative mindset from an economic standpoint. The policies are self explanatory and you need to use common sense. More jobs=less poverty. I think a businessman is a pretty good source if you are talking about jobs. He has actually created jobs....

My 5th source was merrily to prove that poor people rely upon food stamps.

My opponent attacks me for using a metaphor in his argument. Well if you really want to debate, why not place arguments instead of pathetic metaphors and example? And in case my opponent couldn't tell, this is online, no one has any idea what is true and what is not true. Words matter....

Like I said, Robinhood took money from people that didn't pay taxes. Taxes=Foodstamps and other welfare for the poor.

Now my opponent is just being dumb. Producing products here prices jobs and increases the economy. If we rely on other countries, they have influence over us, and that obviously is not good. If you don't want to work, don't work, but you're only hindering yourself. If you want to get out of poverty, you gotta work. I never said people are lazy or are slaves. Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. The wealthy earned their money by working as well. Nothing is free.

Again, I will say, I have not called anyone lazy. If you want money, you have to earn it, just like everyone else. The government's job is to provide jobs, and I have proven how that's possible. That's the economic message of conservatives.

I'll extend all my arguments as my opponent hasn't proven them wrong.

If there are tax cuts, I'm not saying a lot, people are more willing to pay their taxes, because it will be cheaper than getting a lawyer. Even with tax cuts. The wealth can spend more on their businesses expanding them and creating more jobs for the poor. If the poor don't want to work, then that's their problem, not the problem of conservatives.
Debate Round No. 3
frankfurter50

Con

look man, if you don't want to do this debate, don't do this debate, okay? you haven't given me a single reason why your economy makes sense.

and you brought donald trump into all this to make it even MORE confusing!

also, i understand that taxes create money for the poor! that's what I'M arguing! YOU tell me why TAX CUTS help the poor!

i think that wikipedia is a fine source. no big deal.

but believing TRUMP? now there's KOO-KOOness in action!

okay, judges. heck. vote for this guy if you like him, don't if you don't. just remember, he IS a republican.

i'm outta here.

you have given me a headache like you would not believe.
ILikePie5

Pro

My opponent is criticizing me for not proving anything when I have, but he has not. Such hypocrisy!

It wasn't me who brought Trump into this, it was specifically you. All I did was use he conservative economic policy.

My job was to prove that a Republican economic policy can benefit poor people, and that's what it does. I also proved later, if you read, that tax cuts allow for more spending, which increases the economy, benefitting the poor.

Judges, my opponent thinks that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Come on folks, it looks like I'm facing a Kindergartener on sources. Just for the heck of it, I'll prove that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Anyone can post on Wikipedia, even if it's wrong. The info can also be out dated, both according to Harvard.[1]

My opponent thinks that Trump is an idiot, well how did he get 4.5 billon dollars? Give the guy some credit, 65 million people voted for him--half of America. If you think half of America is stupid, I suggest you move elsewhere.

Partisanship is what divides this nation. I don't classify myself as a Republican as my opponent claims. I supported Obama twice, but Trump was the change factor this year, and that's what got him elected.

If you don't like him, deal with it, and stop being a crybaby.

It seems my opponent has conceded every argument, so I extend all my arguments

For all these reasons, I strongly urge a PRO ballot in today's debate. Thank You!

Sources:

[1]http://isites.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 12 months ago
frankfurter50
WHEN YOU VOTED, I HADN'T LOST THE DEBATE YET!

of course you did it because of a bias. DUH!
Posted by jo154676 12 months ago
jo154676
I voted on here and I voted the way I did because you lost the debate, not because of some bias against you.
Posted by frankfurter50 12 months ago
frankfurter50
yeah, because only republicans and independents voted!
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
I win:)
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
frankfurter50
yeah, i just said the site is biased. that's why i asked you for an alternative site.

don't worry, old man, that debate is coming your way. watch out for it!
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
If you can find a Democrat on here, go ahead. Most debaters are Democrats in case you didn't know. I used Donald Trump's tax plans because he's a Republican. I did say how tax cuts help the poor. People are willing to spend more and invest more if they have more money. When they do that, it increases the economic which benefits the poor by creating more jobs.

If you want to debate about Trumo, let's do it. I already know you're arguments, he's racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, and misogynistic right? We'all see about if you challenge me to a debate.

P.S. If you think the site is biased, it might not be a good idea for you to debate on here:)
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
frankfurter50
look, pie face, i don't know why, but it seems to me like most of those voters up there are repubbos.

i don't get why all those fine democrats on here aren't coming to my aid. maybe it's because this entire SITE steers a little towards the dark side, with the majority being obama haters.

know about any other debate sites that are nothing but democrats?

it's not because i'm wrong, it's because the wrong people are voting.

i mean, COME ON, with a name like ronpaulconservative, do you REALLY think he's going to vote for me? heck no.

i guess i should have called this debate: do tax cuts for millionaires help the poor? my high vocabulary confused you a little, because you started saying that TAXING millionaires helped the poor, which was MY side. YOU were supposed to say that TAX CUTS for millionaires helped the poor.

plus, you deny this, but if you look back there, i only use donald trump as part of a simile. a joke, if you will. maybe it's that you guys have no sophisticated humor, i dunno, but i had no intention of making this another debate about the lump of orange fecal matter. you seriously confused this one.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Looks like the voters don't agree with you
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
frankfurter50
i was just asking for a simple explanation of why tax cuts help the poor. i never got one.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
frankfurter50
i was just asking for a simple explanation of why tax cuts help the poor. i never got one.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
frankfurter50ILikePie5Tied
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 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: Con used derogatory terms towards pro's sources which led to pro getting the point for conduct, pro made more convincing arguments as he laid out each part of the plan and explained how they will work, and pro used more reliable sources because he got the information off of Trump's website, while con used wikipedia which is known to have problems with accuracy of information as it is open source.
Vote Placed by Agonist 1 year ago
Agonist
frankfurter50ILikePie5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much to be said here. The Instigator did not seem able to distinguish debate form playground banter. They were lacking in reasoned arguments that clearly stated premises and conclusions. Nonetheless, the Contender must be commended for their perseverance in sticking to appropriate rhetoric and diligence in this farce.
Vote Placed by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
frankfurter50ILikePie5Tied
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 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: Pro had sources, Con didn't, so sources to pro. Arguments to Pro because he demonstrated how republican economics works, while con made no attempt to refute any of this. Conduct to pro because con forfeited Round 4.