The Instigator
krazzybrandon
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

federal goverment bailouts are just

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 5 votes the winner is...
krazzybrandon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,419 times Debate No: 7614
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

krazzybrandon

Pro

I must affirm the resolution, Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

I would like to offer the following definition for the clarification of this debate round:

Just –violating no right or obligation (1)

My value will be that of justice, defined as the quality of being just (2). The criterion that I will be upholding my value with is that of government fulfilling its obligations.

Observation 1: Government obligations are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote the general welfare. (3)

Contention 1: Bailing out large corporations promotes the common welfare by keeping people in their jobs.
A: Without government intervention in the American auto industry, nearly 3 million people would be out of a job. (4, 5)
B: Therefore, not bailing out large corporations would lead to substantial job losses and would violate government's obligation to promote general welfare and so would not be just.

Contention 2: Bailouts of large corporations are just.
A: Just is defined as not violating any right or obligation.
B: The obligations of the government are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote general welfare.
C: Affirming does not violate any of these obligations and therefore is just.
D: Therefore by not violating any rights or obligations, and so bailouts are just.

Citations:

1 - Editorial Staff of the National Reporter System. JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES Second Series, Vol II: Deposition-Lamp. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1914.

2 - "justice." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 28 February 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com......;.

3 - Lay, Vicheka. "The Four Basic Obligations of the Government." EzineArticles Submission - Submit Your Best Quality Original Articles For Massive Exposure, Ezine Publishers Get 25 Free Article Reprints. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://ezinearticles.com...
rougeagent21

Con

First off I will address his value. The very definition he provides you is flawed. Basically, he is saying that if something does not violate any rights, then it is just. OK, so smoking marijuana in your basement doesn't violate anyone else's rights, correct? So it is just? I would argue against this. We must look to justice as being the construction of something good, not the absence of wrong. For the sake of the debate I will also value Justice. I define Justice as being fair, equitable, and moral right. To decide the winner, we must look to which case batter upholds justice.

His criterion is the government filling its obligations. I see this as valid, with one main problem: affirming does not fulfill the criterion. I will show you why as I attack his case.

==Contention 1==
My opponent proposes that bailouts keep people in their jobs. He gives no sources, and no warrant. For all I know this is a made-up statistic. Please keep this in mind, that thus far there is no proof. He then says that we cannot allow people to lose their jobs. I would agree. However, my opponent does not show why this can only be achieved through the affirmative side.

==Contention 2==
He says here that bailouts are just. OK, so he says that bailouts are just because they are justified. Circular reasoning? I would say so. He says they are just because they violate no one's rights. How about this: The AIG bonuses. Billions of taxpayer dollars went to throwing a grand party for some CEOs. Whoops, there went right to property! Did the money get used to build roads? To employ people to build them? To clean public areas? To employ people to clean? What you must realize is that bailouts actually violate rights. Therefore, even if you want to go by my opponent's definition of justice, he contradicts himself. Either way you look at it, you must see the need to negate.

"federal goverment bailouts are just"
Negated.
Debate Round No. 1
krazzybrandon

Pro

krazzybrandon forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Con

Unfortunately, I cannot further any attacks on my opponent's case. If he is up for it, I will gladly debate this again. Please vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah, I just saw this, and... wow. That's pretty terrible.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Bombed.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I really don't see how I lost this when he forfeited. Guys, post RFDs PLEASE.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Anyone there?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Please?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Hey you guys, can you post RFD please?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Awesome, thanks man.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Crud, can we do this again? It literally just told me I ran out of time. I was trying to cut down my argument due to your character limit. Can we try this again? (Preferably with 8,000 character limit as opposed to the current 2,000. Thanks)
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
"theft is just"

I fixed your proposition for ya.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
@McBain;

You WERE asking for it when you set your age to 99...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Riley09 7 years ago
Riley09
krazzybrandonrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
krazzybrandonrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
krazzybrandonrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by krazzybrandon 7 years ago
krazzybrandon
krazzybrandonrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
krazzybrandonrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07