The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

How to fix the economy?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,216 times Debate No: 48721
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




Both debaters will give their views on how to fix the U.S. economy and then will debate their differences.

If no differences exist, voters should either choose who they think articulated their positions better, or simply vote for a tie.

Round 1 is for acceptance.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


My plan is as follows:

(1) Eliminate all tax credits.
(2) Abolish all welfare and unemployment insurance
(3) Abolish all income taxes
(4) Abolish all departments except for the Department of Defense
(5) Raise tariffs
(6) Part-time Congress
(7) Eliminate all federal regulations
(8) Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
(9) Repeal ObamaCare
(10) Abolish the minimum wage
(11) Abolish the Federal Reserve
(12) Abolish paper money
(13) Restore the gold standard
(14) Eliminate all barriers to free trade except for the aforementioned tariffs


We fix the economy by building a space elevator.
Point 1 is energy.
The moon contains vast quantities of Helium-3 . This isotope is crucial to use in nuclear fusion reactors. Whoever is able to obtain this element first will control the energy market. China has already stated they have plans to mine He3 on the moon. Obtaining He3 will assert US space dominance and be able to fix our economic crisis.
Next is SBSP
SBSP stands for space based solar power. It has the potential to replace all forms of non renewable energy currently on earth.
Point 2 is Space tourism.
Commercial space travel key to economic growth.

Collins and Autino 08 (Patrick, econ professor-Azabu University (Japan) and a Collaborating Researcher with the Institute for Space & Astronautical Science, and Adriano, President of the Space Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace, "

The continuation of human civilisation requires a growing world economy, with access to increasing resources. This is because competing groups in society can all improve their situation and reasonable fairness can be achieved, enabling social ethics to survive, only if the overall "economic pie" is growing. Unfortunately, societies are much less robust if the "pie" is shrinking, when ethical growth becomes nearly impossible, as competing groups try to improve their own situation at the expense of other groups. Continued growth of civilisation requires continual ethical evolution, but this will probably be possible only if resources are sufficient to assure health, comfort, education and fair employment for all members of society. The world economy is under great stress recently for a number of reasons, a fundamental one being the lack of opportunities for profitable investment"as exemplified by Japan's unprecedented decade of zero interest-rates. This lack of productive investment opportunities has led a large amount of funds in the rich countries to "churn" around in the world economy in such forms as risky "hedge funds", causing ever greater financial instability, thereby further weakening economic growth, and widening the gap between rich and poor. Increasing the opportunities for profitable, stable investment requires continual creation of new industries [16]. Governments today typically express expectations for employment growth in such fields as information technology, energy, robotics, medical services, tourism and leisure. However, there are also sceptical voices pointing out that many of these activities too are already being outsourced to low-cost countries which are catching up technologically in many fields [20]. Most of the new jobs created in the USA during the 21st century so far have been low-paid service work, while the number of US manufacturing jobs has shrunk rapidly [21]. It is thus highly relevant that aerospace engineering is a field in which the most technically advanced countries still have a substantial competitive advantage over later developing countries. Hence, if a commercial space travel industry had already been booming in the 1980s, the shrinkage in aerospace employment after the end of the "cold war" would have been far less. Consequently it seems fair to conclude that the decades long delay in developing space travel has contributed to the lack of new industries in the richer countries, which is constraining economic growth and causing the highest levels of unemployment for decades. The rapid economic development of China and India offers great promise but creates a serious challenge for the already rich countries, which need to accelerate the growth of new industries if they are to benefit from these countries' lower costs without creating an impoverished under-class in their own societies. The long-term cost of such a socially divisive policy would greatly outweigh the short-term benefits of low-cost imports. The development of India and China also creates dangers because the demands of 6 billion people are now approaching the limits of the resources of planet Earth. As these limits are approached, governments become increasingly repressive, thereby adding major social costs to the direct costs of environmental damage [22]. Consequently, as discussed further below, it seems that the decades-long delay in starting to use the resources of the solar system has already caused heavy, self in@258;icted damage to humans' economic development, and must be urgently overcome, for which a range of policies have been proposed in.
Space tourism has been expected to eliminate all poverty.
In conclusion, vote for space elevators as they will drastically decrease foreign oil consumption and increase US energy markets thus solving our economic crisis, and space tourism will generate large amounts of revenue.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not intending to read all of that, but.....

I don't want the government to spend money in order to get money. I want the government to move OUT OF THE WAY so that the private sector can create jobs. No bloody space elevator will bring us out of this recession. We need jobs, growth, investment, and free enterprise.


Order is my opponent then my arguments.
[1] Taxes are already too much people cannot afford them as it is if we ban tax credits people will most certainly leave the country which won't help at all.
(2) Some people need welfare to survive, a better idea is to make sure people don't abuse it, but since he didn't say that we'll go with what he said. A government has an obligation to keep its citizens alive, people would die if we abolished welfare completely.
(3) I don't see how this would get the government any money so ignore this.
(4) Everybody knows this is not feasible, be realistic ever department serves a purpose and is needed, the government would collapse if there was just the DoD.
(5) This isn't going to have much of an effect, just make our foreign allies angry.
(6) This is once again not feasible, you may not like it but we need people to make laws and keep order.
(7)I'm not sure what you mean by federal regulations, it's very broad.
(8) Cross apply my argument from section 2.
(9) Obamacare was recently passed, we still had an economic cris long before, it hasn't done much to contribute to it.
(10) You are essentially advocating for slavery, paying people less does not end well, we all know this.
(11,12,13) Once again not feasible, accept for maybe 13 but it won't do much.
(14) You already covered this.
Now on to mine, seeing as my opponent didn't even read my argument and just asserts, without any evidence that space elevators don't work. Wee actually take the time to read it. It's a legitimate argument. It's become quite feasible recently actually lately. Compare our impacts. My impacts of renewable energy far outweigh any of his. Vote con on grounds that I have more impacts and he doesn't bother to read my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BobTurner 7 years ago
"Conduct to Con because Pro accused him of plagiarism."

lollol what a buffoon. I suppose it's not PC to point out facts.
Posted by DGCarbon 7 years ago
pla"gia"rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Show IPA
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.
I don't think you understand what plagiarism means.
Posted by BobTurner 7 years ago
you copy and pasted straight from it. You can't do that.
Posted by DGCarbon 7 years ago
It's funny because that hyperlinked website is in the speech.
Posted by DGCarbon 7 years ago
You must have missed the cite directly above that.
Posted by BobTurner 7 years ago
My opponent plagiarized:
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
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 was incredibly rude, for not even reading con's arguments. Con did more then just state his policies he showed how they would help the economy.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized round 2 as pointed out by Pro. This is also evident from the random references with no sources cited. Pro, I have to admit I cant give more points as you did not bother to read Cons argument and then called foul. I think if you read it you could have called foul earlier and got a clean sweep on points. Disappointing debate from both, but Con for plagiarism you deserve zero points.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con since Pro accused him of plagiarizing in the comments. Spelling is even. Pro argument is more reasonable, but Con has a more detailed argument so tie. Sources to Con for using a source.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.