The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
15 Points

The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,471 times Debate No: 19505
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that have been benifiical to the united states of America. It will be up to my opponent to list and show bills that they've voted for that will improve america.
There will be a few rules
1) My opponent cannot list new bills that they didst list before in the last round.
2) Bills that maintain the status quo do not count.


The Republican party has had control of the House of Representatives many times in the past ranging from

From these many time periods many congresses experienced time under Republican control of the House of Representatives, they include

(1857 to 1875)
the 36th Congress,
37th Congress,
38th Congress,
39th Congress,
40th Congress,
41st Congress,
42nd Congress,
43rd Congress,

47th Congress,

51st Congress,

54th Congress,
55th Congress,
56th Congress,
57th Congress,
58th Congress,
59th Congress,
60th Congress,
61st Congress,

66th Congress,
67th Congress,
68th Congress,
69th Congress,
70th Congress,
71st Congress,

80th Congress,

104th Congress,
105th Congress,
106th Congress,
107th Congress,
108th Congress,
109th Congress,

112th Congress

So of the 31 times the Republican party has controlled the House of Representatives, here are some of the laws they passed that have done the United States much good both then and now.

1) Morrill Tariff - A tariff passed in 1861 that gave the northern US trade protection from overseas markets during the outbreak of the Civil War. The tariff helped fund the north in eliminating slavery from the south because the tariff generated much revenue.
2) The Homestead Act - This act quickly got people to move into the Midwest in vast numbers at the conclusion on the Civil War, this act allowed the US access to resources in the Midwest under lands the US had already owned and became a great integration into the American economy once it became a great source for farming.
3) Freedmen's Bureau - Gave relief to former slaves in the south
4) Civil Rights Act 1866 - Gave former slaves the same rights other Americans had
5) National Park Act - created Yellowstone National park and created a movement to protect wonders of nature from being exploited by anyone for their resources.
6) Sherman Anti-trust Act - prevented against the creation of monopolies of large US markets by a single employer or company.
7) Rivers and Harbors Act - prevented against dumping of trash or sewage into rivers or harbors without a government issued permit
8) Pure food and drug act - forced companies to manufacture acceptable qualities of drugs or foods that are sold in US and international markets
9) Meat inspection Act - created the FDA to monitor the qualities of all foods to make sure none of them posed a health risk to consumers
10) Russian famine relief act - provided relief to Russia in the 1920's suffering from famine
11) Mt Rushmore Act - allocated federal funding for the construction of Mt Rushmore
12) Bolder Canyon Project Act - authorized the federal funding of the creation of the Hoover Dam
13) Balanced Budget Act - created a budget that would fiscally benefit the US under Clinton's administration
14) American Inventors Protection Act - granted increased protection to patents owned by Americans from unfair corporate exploitation.
15) African Growth and Opportunity Act - granted funds to help relief countries of sub-Saharan Africa
16) Childrens Health Act - allocated government funding for research into diseases that affected children, such as autism
17) Iran nonproliferation act - act that severely punished corporations giving material to the Iranian government to use to create a nuclear bomb
18) No child left behind act - act to help underprivileged children receive a better education in the public school systems
19) Homeland Security Act - act to create the department of Homeland Security to keep America safe after the 9/11 attacks and mailing of Anthrax to senators
20) Sudan Peace Act - act that condemned the genocide in Sudan while also bringing peace to the country going through their second civil war
21) Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act - self explanatory
22) Prison Rape Elimination Act - designed to protect prisoners from being raped by other prison members
23) North Korea Human Rights Act - US provides aid to North Korean refugees while also providing humanitarian relief to those still in North Korea
24) Belarus Democracy Act - provides US funding to independent media sources in the dictator-run state of Belarus
25) Deficit reduction act of 2006 - also self explanatory
26) Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act - prevents protests from being held within 300 feet of veteran grave yards

*These are just the acts that Republican houses supported that DID get passed, there are cases where acts were not passed by the Senate or the President that the Republican house supported but was not signed into law*

If the Pro is only referring to the CURRENT house of representatives under Republican power, here are some laws that was voted on,

1) Budget Control Act of 2011 - Act that prevented the US from defaulting on its foreign credit while also limiting the growing deficit of US government spending by about $900 Billion

2) Cut, Cap, and Balance Act - PROPOSED LAW that was supported by the Republican House meant to cap federal spending according to percentage of the GDP

3) No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - PROPOSED LAW that passed the House and is meant so that taxpayer money could not be used for funding state abortions

4) Respect for Marriage Act - PROPOSED LAW that is supported by the Republican party that is designed to repeal an older law prohibiting the government from denying giving aid to military families because they are gay. There has been no vote on it by anyone but the Republican party has voiced their support of the bill

So whether or not the Con is claiming that
1) The House of Representatives have not supported a good law for the US either in the past,
or 2) The current one we have right now has not supported a beneficial law for the US, I believe is false
Debate Round No. 1


I was only referring to the current republican house. I thought that the word "will" was enough to suggest that it was the current one, clearly I was wrong in that respect. I will only be debating for the republican house starting this decade.

1)The only reason there was fear that the US government would default was because many republicans came out and said they would refuse to increase the debt limit despite it being raised numerous times over decades and decades.
The Budget Control act of 2011 calls for across the board cuts meaning budget cuts for programs that save the government money, save the economy money, and vital social services. This means that some of the budget cuts in this bill will result in lower GDP growth, and other ill effects.
Some programs that save the government/economy money that would be cut include Head start, energy efficiency programs, agriculture/energy/science research, transportation aimed at reducing congestion, AmeriCorps, IRS funding to crack down on tax cheats, and workers safety.
This bill would also reduce regulators budget especially banking regulators who've now been tasked to ensure that another crisis doesn't occur by re-regulating the banks. Making it harder to prevent another Great recession 2 isn't a good thing.
This bill would also cut vital services that many people depend on in order to survive, such as food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Some economist estimate that the Budget control act along with a failure to extend certain tax cuts would result in 1.8million less jobs in 2012.
2)The Cut cap and balance act would eventually result in massive reductions in Medicare and SS funding resulting in seniors unable to retire with health care and unable to retire with enough benefits to stay out of poverty. This bill makes it almost impossible for the government to adjust to government shocks, it also restricts the governments ability to change spending levels to better reflect current trends. This bill would also make combating recession harder forcing the government to reduce spending during a recession resulting in even more job losses and lower growth. How that is a good thing is beyond me. If you want to see and example of countries who've made it impossible/hard for their governments to change spending just look at Spain and Italy.
3)Considering the fact that there were already two laws that made it so government money couldn't go to abortions the Abortion bill doesn't count because it maintains the status quo.
4)First off a bill that hasn't been voted on cannot be considered a bill that has passed. Second given that the GOP leadership wants to force the government to defend DOMA in court even though it will cost the government millions of dollars is a hint that this will not be passed by the GOP house.


1) The US government has always come close to defaulting on its debt, that is why for years the government has simply raised the debt ceiling to avoid any default on its loans.

The recently formed Tea Party movement brought increased attention to the rapidly mushrooming US debt and that is what triggered public awareness that the national debt was approaching dire levels. It was the Republican party that acted on these fears and they were the ones who wanted to propose that if the debt ceiling were to be raised yet again then some cuts to spending should be made in accordance. They were not refusing to increase the ceiling limit without a reason they did it because they were acting on public wishes to curb spending.

2) Budget cuts cannot be directly linked to a possible fall in GDP growth like you claim. Budget cuts to areas like Defense would not necessarily have a drastic affect on GDP since billions could be saved but the only people suffering are the weapons contractors developing the weapons themselves. Cuts in foreign aid would also not have a large negative impact on the GDP, these cuts and some others would have no impact on the GDP but would reduce spending greatly.

Certain programs would be prevented from being cut while other programs that do not provide such direct benefit would be cut and that money could be used elsewhere. Such cuts to programs could trigger reforms to be made to them so that they can be more effective in providing more relief with less funding theoretically.

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act specifically outlines cuts that would be made in programs NOT related to Veterans, Medicare, or Social Security contrary to your claim.

This bill is designed to try to fight the growing US debt, this site may enlighten you on just how much we owe.

3) Which two? I couldnt find any prior laws since this act is a response to language in the Hyde Amendment extended into law by Obama in March of 2010. Unless you can produce these alleged already existing laws then my argument stands

4) The Bill has not been voted on yet but the Republicans have shown they would vote for it, also the Republican party cant force the government to enforce DOMA, and in fact the government has said it would not defend DOMA in court if it were challenged.

The 1st law mentioned brought an end to the heated debate over spending in Congress,
the 2nd law mentioned tries to limit rampant government spending in the future
the 3rd law mentioned prevents tax dollars from funding abortions
the 4th law mentioned would give benefits to military veterans regardless of sexual orientation
Debate Round No. 2


1)A) It was the Republican Party that crafted false fears of a mushrooming debt. All they had to do was maintain the status quo and increase the debt ceiling like has been done without event for decades. But they spent months saying that they wouldn't increase the debt ceiling causing everyone to panic. You can't logically give republicans credit for fixing a problem by not doing what they said they would do. I it would be like crediting Obama for saving the world because he didn't nuke Russia if he said he would.
B) I repeat again the budget control act of 2011 cuts all spending regardless. This will result in spending being cut that saves the government and the overall economy money. A bill that causes money to essentially be wasted isn't a good thing. These cuts will result in cuts to preventative health care and health care for children resulting in people dying. Not to mention the only analysis of the effects of the spending cuts shows it will result in significant job losses, which isn't a good thing either. Another bad effect of the budget act is that it will hinder banking regulations aimed at preventing another crisis and Great recession, how you can think that is a good thing is beyond me.

2)A) The bill prevents the government form spending in recessions which would result in more massive job losses and suffering due to unemployment.
C) If you want an example of governments who have been restricted on how much they can spend you can see it in Greece, Italy, and Spain.
D) The result of the bill means that basic function of government would have to be completely eliminated because SS, Medicare and all the things exempted would surpass the GDP limit. This means say good by to roads, border security, student loans, environmental protections, food safety laws, banking regulations, energy efficiency projects, nutrition for kids, preventative health care, the FBI, the CIA, airport security and pretty much anything you can think of.
E) My opponent was incorrect in saying that Socials security wouldn't be cut; the law makes it so you can ever raise taxes meaning the only way to make SS solvent is to slash its benefits.
F) Also the amount of cuts in this bill would of resulted in 700,000 less jobs for 2012 alone.
3)You already named them both, both the PACCA and the Hyde Amendments already assured that federal dollars didn't go to abortions. And even if federal dollars could go to abortions making it so they couldn't wouldn't provide any benefit to America.
4)Again you can't say, "republicans will passes this law in the future" and then have the law be an example; this debate isn't about what congress will do in the future its about what congress has already done.


1) False fears of the mushrooming debt? anyone who has seen our national debt recently would be fearful of the fact that our debt is accelerating at a larger rate than ever before... Had they suck to the status quo they would have raised the debt ceiling and our debt would continue to grow unchecked but they brought attention to the mushrooming debt which brought about a compromise and committed a committee to look for future budget cuts in the future to also fight against the enlarging debt.

2) a) If there were already a recession then job losses would already be occurring, thats kind of what happens in a recession. Government spending would still be possible, but on a far more limited scale, and that would force Congress to think carefully about where they would spend money. The inability for Congress to spend enormous amounts of money during a recession would not trigger job losses like you suggest.

b) wheres b?

c) Those countries are limited on how much they spend because of their involvement in the EU. Their overspending is doing quite a bit of damage to the Euro so countries within the EU are pressuring these nations to stop spending for the sake of the CONTINENT.

d) both your sources only show how medicare spending is projected to grow, but they also show why reducing and fighting the deficit is important,

-Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment--which in turn would lower income growth in the United States.
-Growing debt would also reduce lawmakers' ability to respond to economic downturns and other challenges.
-Over time, higher debt would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money.

e) I gave 3 sources proving that Social Security would not be cut.....

f) This assumption is based on one website that actually doesnt give any facts that support such a claim. It just says that and does not provide any hard evidence or even any numbers to show how this would occur.

3) The Hyde amendment does this but must be enforced by an executive order meaning the president can choose to enforce it or not. This law makes it permanent so that in the future it would be impossible for tax dollars to fund abortions. As for the benefit, many Americans are opposed to abortion so a law that bans the government from using their taxes to fund abortions would be beneficial to those taxpayers who are against abortion.

4) Ill drop this one but here are other bills that have passed the Republican house,

"Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011" - Act to continue funding research for a cure to Autism
"Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act" - pretty self-explanatory
"Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011" - extend the funding of transportation systems in the US
"HR 2715" - grants greater authority to the Consumer Product Safety Commission
"Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011" - provides government aid to the maintenance of highways

Those were just 5 passed laws of many, many other laws the Republican controlled House of Representatives has passed....
Debate Round No. 3


1)Interest rates on government debt are negative. Meaning government essentially gains money from borrowing (once adjusted for inflation/other factors) Meaning reducing the deficit now only decreases GDP and employment. The budget control act in 2012 will result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost. That is not a good thing.

2)A) So you even admit that the cut cap and balance would result in more unemployment.
C) Yep those countries as you say are limited in their spending resulting in them being in a crisis with massive unemployment and a poor economic outlook. Italy has a primary surplus, Spain has debt below 65% and a deficit below 7%. The reason these countries are in a crises is because they're spending is restricted.
The cut cap and balance act does the same thing for America, meaning it will increase unemployment and cause future crisis's.
D) Yep and the sources show that the cut cap and balance act will result in massive cuts to SS and Medicare and all government services. Meaning it could cause an end to health care for seniors and end to retirement for seniors and end to roads, and end to food safety, and end to clean air and water etc.
-People like you have been saying high deficits would lead to panic and high interest rates for 3 years; yet the opposite has happened. People have been saying the same thing about Japan for 20 years yet it hasn't happened yet. How long do you have to be wrong before you finally realize you are wrong?
-So according to you we should lower our debt because we might have to lower it in the future. We are currently in an economic downturn meaning you are saying we shouldn't respond to this downturn because we might have to respond to one in the future.
-Japan has had high debt for 20 years yet what you say will happen has yet to happen; so I repeat how long do you have to be wrong for you to realize you are wrong? Hint: 20 years is a long time.
e) Yep and all 3 of your sources were empty of actually data and analysis. You're 3 sources are trumped by mine because mine actually does an analysis.
F) No it's based on economic research and statistical analysis of the effects of cut cap and balance.

3)A) The executive order was done because republicans went crazy about abortions and refused to realized that there was already a law outlawing government financed abortions. The Hyde amendment is already on the books same with a similar version in the health reform act. Currently no federal money goers to abortions meaning a bill passed to prevent federal money going to abortions doesn't change a thing.
B) Also no bad effects occur even fi federal money went to abortions.
4)K so you admit you were wrong on this bill.
5)"Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011" - Act to continue funding research for a cure to Autism." Notice how right in your explanation it says to continue funding research. This means this bill only maintains the status quo therefor it does not count.
6) Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act This bill only maintains current funding for certain programs meaning it is again only maintaining the status quo therefore it does not count.
7) "Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011" - extend the funding of transportation systems in the US Again this bill only keeps current funding for the future, meaning it maintains the status quo and therefore does not count.
8)This bill makes it legal for certain child's products to have lead in it (note I got this from the source you linked). Explain how poisoning kids is a good thing please.
9)This is the same bill in number 7; meaning you double posted it.

So far my opponent has yet to provide 1 bill that the GOP house has passed that was a good for the country, he needs to provide 3 in order to win the debate.


1) You completely have disregarded my proof showing that the act would not cost jobs and that the increasing debt would only worsen the credibility rating of US currency.

2) A) Way to completely miss what I just said genius, i'm saying that job losses would occur due to the recession not because of this bill becoming law.... Maybe you dont know what a recession is, here is the definition:

If we are already in a recession where jobs are being lost and then the bill is passed then any job losses would be because of the recession, not because of this one resolution...

C) " The reason these countries are in a crises is because they're spending is restricted."
The reason these nations are in a financial crisis is because they are no longer competitive in foreign markets, spending is off the charts, unemployment is reaching terrifying levels, and they are not making enough money to finance their expenses or trade deficits....

D) Both of our sources show that the rising deficit poses a large threat to the US economy, that medicare and social security are growing, but that neither will be cut if this were to become law,

E) Says you, they provide actual facts unlike your one source

F) It doesnt provide any analysis of how this law will destroy 700,000 jobs, see for yourself

3) A) Your analysis of what happened is absurd.
Executive Order - The president decides if the law should be extended or not
Law - An Act that no president can disregard or nullify
This law seals that in the future public money will not fund abortions, the existing law does not do that.

B) This law is beneficial to taxpayers against abortion, not the economy. The resolution is that the bill must be beneficial to the USA, not the economy. Taxpayers are part of the USA

4) No stupid Im just offering other examples, thats what im allowed to do because you said I could....

5) Continue in this context is meant to continue the funding of this program because it was previously cancelled. The law was implemented in 2006, discontinued, this law would re-instate it. Therefore it does not maintain the status quo because the status quo would be that this program would be discontinued, so this is admissible for my argument.

6) The Bill continues funding but makes some important modifications to the already existing law,

"H.R. 2883 would make numerous modifications to various federal child welfare programs. The bill would modify two programs (the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and the Safe and Stable Families program) and reauthorize the programs for five years"
(halfway down)

Again maintaining the status quo would only to extend funding, but this makes some changes to the law for the better, so it is admissible.

7) Ok you got me there

8) "Amends the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to apply the limit on lead content in children's products"

Are you blind????? It says this act gives the agency the authority to enforce the limit on how much lead can be in childrens products.....

9) .......... I dont know how i missed that...

Con says I need to show 3 bills that would be beneficial to America, Ive shown 6,

-Budget Control Act
-Cut Cap and Balance Act
-No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act
-Combating Autism Re-authorization Act
-Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act
-"HR 2715"
Debate Round No. 4


1)So far I am the only one who has posted research showing that the budget control act would destroy jobs. You saying it won't destroy jobs does not make it so. Also the reasons you stated that it would not destroy jobs were thoroughly debunked by the fact that the things you said would occur have not occurred in the past and have not occurred despite people saying they will for years and years.
2)The Cut cap and balance would make it harder to reduce the impact of recessions meaning it would cause future recession to be deeper with more job loses.
C) And the reason all those problems are occurring in the Eurozone is because they are restricted. The cut cap and balance bill would restrict the US moving us closer to haveing the problems that are occurring in the Eurozone.
D) Incorrect the fact still remains that the cut cap and balance act that forces the government to only spend at a certain level would result in massive cuts to SS and Medicare, or would result in no more environmental protections, food safety, Pell grants, roads, or infrastructure spending. This is because capping spending at a certain GDP makes it impossible to finance all current programs because SS and Medicare spending set to increase due to increases in senior citizens.
E) My source links to a report by Zandi who is a conservative economist who did the math and he concluded that it would kill 700,000 jobs. Your sources are just random people saying the same thing you're saying.
F) See above (section e)

3)A) There is no example of a single government dollar currently going to abortion. Meaning banning federal dollars going to abortion doesn't change a single thing. The executive order wasn't Obama deciding to extend the law it was him recognizing the Hyde amendment and other laws banning federal money from going to abortions.
B) So basically you think banning government abortion is good because makes it so only half of America gets what it wants while the other half doesn't.

4)Here is what you wrote, "Ill drop this one" The reason you dropped it was because you were using a bill that had not passed the house.
5)The Autism bill continued current funding; that is keeping the status quo . Even the bills language says it.
6)According to the summary of the Child family services act there isn't any significant changes The modifications are just semantic changes. Such as referring to drugs as abusive chemicals.

7)Yep you double posted it.
8)HR2715 extends the authority to mandate that child products do not have lead; however it creates a loophole that allows some products to contain lead

-Budget control act isn't good because it increases unemployment.
-Cut cap and balance isn't good because it restricts Americas ability to fight recessions and it also results in the government either slashing SS and Medicare spending or eliminating environmental laws, food safety, infrastructure spending etc.
-No taxpayer funding for abortion act doesn't change a thing given that no federal money goes to abortions currently.
-Combating autism act just maintains current measures already implemented meaning it doesn't count.
-Child and family services act just maintains the states quo again.
-HR 2715 allows some child's products to have lead in them; I repeat poisoning kids is not a good idea.

Being at the end of this post me and my opponent will have the same amount of posts with arguments the debate ends here.
Also I believe that I should win the conduct point given that I did not curse and insult my opponent and my opponent did just that to me.


Fair enough, I offered instances of laws that Republicans passed that I argued were beneficial to the US

Vote Con

I would like to point out that the Pro is calling for the conduct vote even though he has a history of vote-bombing debates....

Thanks for reading :D
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Willoweed 7 years ago
Anyone find it illogical for my opponent to link to other debates to counter act his cursing insulting in this debate? I mean when you vote vote this debate not others
Posted by vmpire321 7 years ago
lol.... This is an interesting topic....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 6 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter teafood votebomb
Vote Placed by Teafood 6 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn’t provide 3 examples of a beneficial thing the GOP house has done; even though I could think of at least 3
Vote Placed by logicrules 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to define beneficial. Pro draws conclusion not supported by facts.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a difficult BOP on this as Con merely has to show a few bills the republicans have voted in favor for and present a way in which they are beneficial. 'Beneficial' being entirely subjective in many cases favors Con in this debate. The arguments regarding the effects of these bills were interesting but largely come down to what one believes politically and economically. Therefore I am giving arguments to con. Conduct goes to Pro in this debate, even tho he apparently IS a vote bomber.