Politics, Bans
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/17/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,085 times | Debate No: | 59102 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)
 Pro  Con Well I don't know what is being debated here but apparently pro thinks liberals should be deported. Well BoP is on him to first, establish that is morally justifiable and beneficial to society. I look forward to hearing arguments for the claim but first i'd like to establish a few legal problems with it. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. ^ Top
^ Top
^ Top
Article 21.
http://www.un.org...
^ Top
|
 |
|
Pro Con Well your view of the un is un-important because of the last article. Article 30. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein" If your in a UN nation, you have to follow the UN. Well can you explain how liberals are hurting America? Moral Arguments For Helping The Poor: Consequential Argument: 1) That which is moral, promotes overall well being. 2) Helping the poor promotes overall well being' 3) Helping the poor is moral Deontological: categorical Imperative: Act only as if your actions would be favorable as universal laws 1) If the performing an act results in a more favorable universe, then the act is moral 2) Helping the poor results in a favorable universe 3) Helping the poor is moral The preamble: "Promote the general welfare" http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... |
 |
|
Pro Let's paint a picture. John has lost his job, but he goes on welfare and is able to support himself on this program at the same rates he was making before. His welfare can be renewed for a long time. He therefore has no incentive to work and will continue to collect checks from tax paying people who work hard to live. Liberals want to keep these periods of unemployment long, when the best answer is people settling for a lower paying job. At least it's a job, which will support them for the time being. Another one. Liberals want socialized healthcare, so my premiums for the care for which I pay good money have gone up 4x. Thanks. Really smart, letting the Federal Government run healthcare when they can't secure the border, balance a budget, protect their own diplomats abroad, keep known terrorists in custody without trading them for a deserter, stop spying on their own citizens, giving weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood, or even produce a functioning website. ... Detroit, Chicago, the State of California, Connecticut ... Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and Eric Holder. Therefore it's in the best interest of the continuation of a functioning nation to deport liberals to Antarctica with all of their pot. Con Now the idea is not conservatism vs liberalism, it's liberals should be SENT TO ANTARCTICA. I really don't even have to debate this round, you have failed in your BoP, but is Obama that bad? Obama cares about the people of America. He is for equal rights. He's for providing eveyone with healthcare He's for womens rights He has lowered taxes on the middle class. He is pro environment He is pro peace The stock market is doing well. The defecit has been reduced. Due to the extremem nature of this debate, I'd say you have not fulfilled your BoP. However if you would like to debate if Obama has been a good president I will be happy to do so. Also immigration is good for the economy. Positive Economic Benefits Of Immigration: S.744- Bill offering a detailed strategy to legalize approximately eleven million undocumented laborers. According to the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) Enacting the bill will reduce the federal defecit.(The provisions of the bill are considered in its entirety, which is an important distinction.) Like amnesty, the bill also provides an incentive for immigrants to enter legally. Amnesty provides a reason for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in and enter legally. Thus S.744 and amnesty both promote legal immigration. So the question is does immigration hurt the economy, because the amnesty law promotes legal immigration. Point Of Consensus: It is agreed upon by all studies, on both sides of the debate, that increases in legal immigration will have a positive economic impact and raise tax revenue. Given this fact alone I should win the debate. P1) Increased legal immigration positively effects the economy. P2) A provision or law that enables and promotes legal immigration, positvely effects the economy. P3)The amnesty law enables and promotes legal immigration. C1) The amnesty law positively effects the economy. P2 neccesarily follows from P1. If P1->`33;P2 P2->`33;P3 {P1,P2,P3} ->`33; C1 Only p1 needs defending. On P1: It is said that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, this is untrue but I guess it is fair to say they don't pay equal tax. I'm not sure what a "Fair share" is, I would argue the top 1% don't pay enough, but that's a different point. Obviously legalized immigrants will pay more taxes if legalized. The taxes from immigrants being legalized will result in a GDP growth of 0.3%-0.8%(80-150 billion dollars). Each legalized immigrant would contribute $10,000-$17,000. Contribution= (X-Y) X=Addition to economy Y=Expenses (Parameters obtained from three studies). CAP-$10,000 CBO-$12,000 IPC-$17,000 Wages: Wages would increases for newly legalized and natives. IPC:X=Natives Y=Newly legalized Wage: X$74-$162^ Y:$4000-$6000^ CAP: X: NA(but given Y, it's safe to assume some kind of increase) Y:15%^ CBO: {X,Y}: 10 years: 0.1% decrease: 20 years: 0.5%^ Job Creation: IPC: 83,500 jobs created. CAP: 121,000 jobs created CBO: (2014-2023): 600,000 jobs created per year! Specific Demographic Analysis: IPC: Positive wage increase overall(especially in lower demographic) CAP: Increase in aggregate wage bill. CBO: At the highest percent of wages there will be a 0.3% drop and in the middle sector there will be a 0.5% increase. http://www.usamnesty.org...... http://www.nber.org...... http://www.jstor.org...... http://www.cbo.gov...... Vote Con <3 |
 |
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Troll. Hopefully. BOP fail.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed in their BoP for the resolution (and for every other argument made). Pro cited no sources and asserted personal opinions rather than provide evidence or logical arguments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: pro gave mostly beliefs that were unsupported throughout the debate
Vote Placed by Paradigm 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the arguments points by default because Pro never argued for the actual resolution - "Liberals should be deported to Antarctica." When the debate became severely derailed, Con was at least trying to stay on topic, earning him the conduct point. Con was also the only one to present sources at all.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con backed all his arguments with sources while Pro never really put up an argument.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: I'm fairly sure Pro was attempting to troll, but didn't get a bite from Con. Pro failed to even come close to proving any of his assertions logically, leaving the legal element of it aside. The BoP was not fulfilled and the debate was obviously won by Khalif.
Vote Placed by Domr 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: I don't quite understand this debate, as Pro gave no proof as to the terms of their deportation to Antarctica. I can only assume he means putting them to death, as no humans LIVE on that continent. And the death penalty/exile does not apply to a political party. Very poor debate by Pro.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 7 years ago
| PrimalConcrete50 | KhalifV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was not able to meet his BoP. He didn't use any source for his claims and didn't explain why Antarctica. No, seriously, why Antarctica?
I'd also love to know how you came to the idea that 97% of people have had health care costs go down. Love to know. I also DO understand the idea of socialized medicine, I DO. It's really not a bad idea to have tax payer funded healthcare for all, but the problem is IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. Until you stop the hospitals and their $20 aspirins, $60,000 colon scans and $500,000 hospital stays, it won't work.
Saved lives? Ha! Two words. Veterans Affairs. I guess illegal aliens are more important to our President...and what of the Marine in Mexico, anyway?
True, Bergdahl hasn't been convicted of anything ... yet, and he probably won't be, since it'd make the Obama administration look bad.
With pot, I actually don't care, legalizing it would probably be just fine, I just felt like poking fun and when all of the dirty hippies (I live in Austin TX I can say that) vote democrat, it's easy to poke fun.
Again, this wasn't meant to be a serious debate, but KhalifV did a great job despite my best shenanigans.
All respect to you all and your opinions, but please stop advocating the restriction of my guns. They never have, and never will hurt anyone.
Where do you get your information and do you wear a tin hat?