Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Debate economic policy

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 10:24:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why are there no debate challenges on DDO related to the US presidential elections? It seems odd to have the debate activity dominated by game topics and pointless religious topics right before the most important election of the post-WWII era.

If you have an election topic you'd like to debate, post it here. Of course, an open challenge can be posted, but those often end up with a noob being crushed by an experienced debater.

I will affirm "Romney's economic policies are more likely to succeed than Obama's." So, would any top-50 debater like to take the Obama side? The economic policies are as stated by the candidates in the recent presidential debate. If you want to affirm the Libertarian, Green, or some other policy, please start a separate thread and not post in this one.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 10:49:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:24:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Why are there no debate challenges on DDO related to the US presidential elections?

For starters most people on here vote according to their party affiliation, not arguments presented, and others have noticed this. Hell I can name a few people who havent voted against their party affiliation in months.

It seems odd to have the debate activity dominated by game topics and pointless religious topics right before the most important election of the post-WWII era.

We are just a bunch of high schoolers with too much time on their hands :P

If you have an election topic you'd like to debate, post it here. Of course, an open challenge can be posted, but those often end up with a noob being crushed by an experienced debater.

Ahhhh, good times, gooooooood times

I will affirm "Romney's economic policies are more likely to succeed than Obama's." So, would any top-50 debater like to take the Obama side? The economic policies are as stated by the candidates in the recent presidential debate. If you want to affirm the Libertarian, Green, or some other policy, please start a separate thread and not post in this one.

WARNING: Anybody debating RoyLatham on Conservatism, Romney vs Obama, or anything related to the presidential candidates has a 99.9% chance of receiving a thorough a** whipping.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 5:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Someone debate Roy.

Of the 3 consistent and subservient democrats on this site, you should be able to get a debate out of them. 000ike, Aaronroy, etc.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 5:29:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Name a single reason why this is "the most important election of the post-WW2 era". Short of "there's an economic depression going on", there's no reason why this election is any different. Nor is the reason any good, seeing as there's more than a few dozen countries with elections going on which are victim to the economic crisis. I could use the same justification to say the French election is the most important, or the German, or the British, or the Spanish, or the Greek, or the EU elections.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 5:51:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 5:29:05 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Name a single reason why this is "the most important election of the post-WW2 era". Short of "there's an economic depression going on", there's no reason why this election is any different. Nor is the reason any good, seeing as there's more than a few dozen countries with elections going on which are victim to the economic crisis. I could use the same justification to say the French election is the most important, or the German, or the British, or the Spanish, or the Greek, or the EU elections.

I am assuming he meant most important U.S. election.
However, more than just the depression is at issue here. There is repealing/reducing the effect of Obamacare before it is fully implemented, there are the wars, there are tax issues (as I have stated before, one making $20K may have their taxes doubled), Supreme Court justice appointments (possibly three, or one-third of the bench), and I want to say there is one more big issue but I am too tired to think of it.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was referring only to US elections, and to US debaters.

The original idea was from Edmund Burke c. 1760: democracy only lasts until the population recognizes that they can vote themselves unlimited benefits. Currently, counting payroll taxes and all forms of taxation, the bottom 50% of the population pays a net to government of nothing. We have large segments of elites that benefit enormously from government: government workers, lawyers, educators, the class of politically correct investors who carry out government policies. The government has seized control of health care, energy, and most of banking. You get the idea.

It's a tipping point election. If Obama wins, a clear majority will depend vitally upon government. Most laws are now made by appointed regulators, not by Congress. Obama said that if he wins he will govern by executive order to get around Congress. The bureaucracies have the power to carry that out.

A second Obama term will consolidate the power of the new socialism. It is then inevitable that the economy will crash. It won't happen overnight, but it it is inevitable. The Europeans took decades to crash. The American situation is in some ways better and other ways worse than Europe, but the failure of a government-run society is inevitable.

I'm not sure Romney can avoid the plunge, but it's the last chance. It's more important than any election I've seen.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 11:57:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I was referring only to US elections, and to US debaters.

The original idea was from Edmund Burke c. 1760: democracy only lasts until the population recognizes that they can vote themselves unlimited benefits. Currently, counting payroll taxes and all forms of taxation, the bottom 50% of the population pays a net to government of nothing. We have large segments of elites that benefit enormously from government: government workers, lawyers, educators, the class of politically correct investors who carry out government policies. The government has seized control of health care, energy, and most of banking. You get the idea.

It's a tipping point election. If Obama wins, a clear majority will depend vitally upon government. Most laws are now made by appointed regulators, not by Congress. Obama said that if he wins he will govern by executive order to get around Congress. The bureaucracies have the power to carry that out.

A second Obama term will consolidate the power of the new socialism. It is then inevitable that the economy will crash. It won't happen overnight, but it it is inevitable. The Europeans took decades to crash. The American situation is in some ways better and other ways worse than Europe, but the failure of a government-run society is inevitable.

I'm not sure Romney can avoid the plunge, but it's the last chance. It's more important than any election I've seen.

This will have to be another thread that I book mark, so when Obama's second term is over and the US isn't in a socialist dystopia we can laugh at all the pointless fear mongering.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 12:04:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:57:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I want to debate!
I'll debate you

mmm..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 12:09:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 12:04:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:57:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I want to debate!
I'll debate you

mmm..

however, I could see Not wanting to debate it...
Not because you're a-scared of course...

Rather, I think I remember some energy debate you two had...
Lots of work

I would hate to do a debate with actual evidence :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 8:39:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:57:49 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This will have to be another thread that I book mark, so when Obama's second term is over and the US isn't in a socialist dystopia we can laugh at all the pointless fear mongering.

Wow, you are so smart!

Any chance you'd like to debate?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:02:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The original idea was from Edmund Burke c. 1760: democracy only lasts until the population recognizes that they can vote themselves unlimited benefits.

That quote is apocryphal, and usually misattributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, not Edmund Burke. The actual author and source are unknown. It can be traced back to at least 1951, however. http://www.lorencollins.net...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:02:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The original idea was from Edmund Burke c. 1760: democracy only lasts until the population recognizes that they can vote themselves unlimited benefits.

That quote is apocryphal, and usually misattributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, not Edmund Burke. The actual author and source are unknown. It can be traced back to at least 1951, however. http://www.lorencollins.net...

No, when the quote is attributed to de Tocqueville it is apocryphal. Burke expressed the same sentiment with different wording and Burke's quote is authentic. Burke (c. 1760) preceded de Toqueville (c. 1835).

If Newton is quoted as saying "2 + 2 = 4" would you challenge it on grounds of inauthenticity?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 9:57:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 9:22:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

No, when the quote is attributed to de Tocqueville it is apocryphal. Burke expressed the same sentiment with different wording and Burke's quote is authentic. Burke (c. 1760) preceded de Toqueville (c. 1835).

What is the source? Do any historians or researchers agree with you?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 7:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll debate you on the theory that socialism won't work, if we can call Scandinavia socialism. A few days to assemble my sources?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 11:32:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I was referring only to US elections, and to US debaters.

The original idea was from Edmund Burke c. 1760: democracy only lasts until the population recognizes that they can vote themselves unlimited benefits. Currently, counting payroll taxes and all forms of taxation, the bottom 50% of the population pays a net to government of nothing. We have large segments of elites that benefit enormously from government: government workers, lawyers, educators, the class of politically correct investors who carry out government policies. The government has seized control of health care, energy, and most of banking. You get the idea.

Most people in the bottom 50% aren't "moochers". They want to use the money to to help themselves as they try to improve their lives. Most people do not like or enjoy "mooching", but they just need help because of the current state they are in. Some may abuse the system, but most do not.

It's a tipping point election. If Obama wins, a clear majority will depend vitally upon government. Most laws are now made by appointed regulators, not by Congress. Obama said that if he wins he will govern by executive order to get around Congress. The bureaucracies have the power to carry that out.

A second Obama term will consolidate the power of the new socialism. It is then inevitable that the economy will crash. It won't happen overnight, but it it is inevitable. The Europeans took decades to crash. The American situation is in some ways better and other ways worse than Europe, but the failure of a government-run society is inevitable.

What about successful countries that are more Socialist than Obama such as Canada, UK, Sweden and Germany? What is your take on them? Not all of Europe crashed, just the stupid countries.

How about the 2008 crash? Bushes policies of tax cuts for the rich, and military spending helped cause this. Romney has done little to differentiate his policies from Bushes?