The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Im a Republican looking to debate a Democrat

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
iwhit29 has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 100453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




First round
Second round
-transgender rights
Third Round
-Border wall
Fourth Round
5th round
-Comment on each others post
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 3RU7AL 3 years ago

Supply side Jesus -
Laffer Curve -
Trump's "New Deal" -
Trump's stab at economic theory -
Milton Friedman's "Free Market" -
Triangle Shirtwaist fire -
The Gilded Age was an era of rapid economic growth -
Gilded Age worker safety statistics -
Modern oil refiners are still extremely dangerous, imagine what they were like in 1900 -
How corporations prefer to handle safety "problems" -
GM argues, straight faced before the United States Congress that safety features would kill their profits -
GM still argues against product safety 2014 -
Posted by 3RU7AL 3 years ago
Fourth Round -Economy - part 2

I'm not sure if you're a conservative "Free Market" guy with a statuette of Milton Friedman on your desk, or a Trumpian "Tax imports 20%"er.

Deregulation will boost profits. Big profits will inflate "the economy". This is true. Nobody argues against it. However, let's try to not forget that regulatory agencies and their associated policies exist for one reason and one reason only. To protect citizens. Imagine for a moment that we "deregulated" everything. What the heck do we need a "heath inspector" for? Oh, yeah, to keep restaurants from spreading disease. Wouldn't they be responsible and ethical all by themselves? Apparently not. What the heck do we need an "FDA" for? Oh, yeah, to keep people from dying and/or suffering unspecified/unknown side-effects and/or being scammed by "snake oil salesmen". People everywhere seem to forget that "regulations" exist primarily to protect people. If you look back in time (when "America was great") say the 1890's to the 1920's when very little "regulation" existed, large companies acted with blatant disregard for the welfare of their employees.

The conversation is currently one-sided. "Boosting the economy" is not always and unquestionably "good". Unbridled economic growth also leads to bubbles which lead to crashes.

I don't really care which "side" of the economic policy fence you are on, I'm just saying "all of the above" or "a little of this and some of that over there" is not a realistic or coherent option.

"Conservatives" and "liberals" and "Trumpians" all seem to agree that Social Security and Medicare are sacrosanct. Well, either it is or it isn't. You have to pick one. Social Security and Medicare are "huge government handouts". You can't reasonably decry "big government" and then say "don't touch Social Security and Medicare". If you eat your cake, you have no more cake.
Posted by 3RU7AL 3 years ago
Fourth Round -Economy

I'm not sure if you're a "Supply Side" guy who has posters of the Laffer Curve on your living room wall, or a Trumpian "New Deal"ist.

Milton Friedman was a proponent of "tax cuts" but only if those cuts did not result in "deficit spending". This at least seems to be a coherent economic position. Even without deficit spending, "tax cuts" are not always a "good thing" by this theory, depending on where you currently lie on the Laffer Curve. The fact that "conservatives" endlessly tout "libertarian" solutions and yet somehow manage to support "republicans" makes no sense. You can't pretend to use Milton Friedman as justification for your policies and then cherry-pick only the parts you agree with at that particular moment.

Trumpians throw coherent economic theory out the window and instead propose seemingly random and unrelated "fixes" for economic "problems" off the cuff, making it impossible for any of the disparate parts to contribute to a common goal.
Posted by 3RU7AL 3 years ago
Third Round -Border wall

"Securing the border" is all well and good, but a wall is probably the least cost effective solution.

Blocking the flow of water and wildlife as well as the sight line of patrol agents, invading private property and natural geological formations are only a few of the points against this wall idea. The initial cost is astronomical as well as the predicted and often ignored endless cost of maintenance.

Notable conservative groups agree that this is a bad deal by any measure.

Conservative think tank the CATO Institute concludes a wall is an impractical, expensive, and ineffective border plan:

Border patrol agents say drones, blimps and tower mounted cameras would be more cost effective than a wall:

Even Fox News admits there are serious problems with pursuing a "contiguous, physical wall":
Posted by 3RU7AL 3 years ago
Second round -transgender rights

Let's focus on bathrooms since that seems to be what everyone is concerned about at the moment. (1a) If you examine the history of law going back to ancient Rome, the law does not specify any particular rule barring people from the restroom of their choice. Gay and transgender people have existed since at least ancient Roman times and this has never been a problem that required a special and specific law. (1b) Fact: There are men who look like women and women who look like men. It is not obvious to all people if "Pat" (non-transgender) should be sent to jail for going into the bathroom of their choice. Additionally, it is unreasonable to require people to drop their pants or show their birth certificate in order to use a bathroom stall. (1c) There have been laws against lewd public behavior and assault for a very very long time and these laws have proved to be sufficient to address any serious problems in public bathrooms and/or anywhere else. (1d) The hypothesis that "predators" will be "emboldened" by "transgender friendly" policies is baseless. There has never been and is currently, absolutely nothing stopping "predators" from being "emboldened" except the laws against lewd public behavior and assault that already apply to all people in all places.
Posted by 3RU7AL 3 years ago
Missed it by "that much"!

; )
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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