Andrew Yang should be elected president for 2020

Before reading this debate, I did not have a clue who Yang was. I assume you'll be proven correct. I strongly doubt he'll rise to become a front runner this election.

My money is on Biden as the choice of the democratic party, as much as I'll keep my fingers crossed for Warren.

And I'm leaning 50/50 on Trump being reelected.

If it doesn't warrant violence. I don't agree with your analogy as it being realistic but hypothetically sure. This doesn't mean you can just bring in real world examples because I seriously don't want to have this conversation.

So your against political violence in healthcare. Coulda just said that from the start

Yang is a meme and everybody knows that

>>No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.

Then no.

Thank you for making a good faith effort in addressing my position. Thank you for being what I expected from the moderation team.

Thank you for confirming that your grievance with the vote is not one of quality, but simply that it does not favor your arguments. You're supposed to challenge votes based on the former; to harass voters based on the later would create an unfair atmosphere tantamount to other forms of vote rigging.

Plus your claims are at the point of being indiscernible from a temper tantrum. Key example, the contradictory "Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate." [sic]

No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.

"Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint."

If I directly die if I don't get healthcare, would you consider that ground for political violence?

Would you be for political violence against people who disagree with you on healthcare?

When the vote is on my side, it is on Squid to decide whether or not it is worthy to report it. I personally think you do not know what you are talking but given you know how the RFD works given how many debates you have voted on I will still not get what I want out of this.

You even call me out for making arguments that were not in the debate. Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate. Whichever it maybe it really doesn't matter.

At this point you're making extra arguments by repeated assertion in the comment section, to try to win after the fact.

Do you think voters don't see how you behave in the comment section? You just informed them that if they vote on this debate, you'll complain if they do not individually list every little footnote the either sides main points (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would launch the exact same type of complaints were the vote in your favor).

Evidence was not given that Yang's UBI would work. He didn't even explain what way the UBI would work and I asked him and he refused to answer. He didn't even acknowledge I even talked about it.

I asked for clarification about your vote then I asked where did DynamicSquid sufficiently argued for UBI. This isn't contradictory.

Important details you missed out:

I made a policy argument in Round 1 which DynamicSquid didn't even bother to critique. He said there was no evidence when I specifically gave a link that stated ACA enrolled 73.8 million people in which Biden supports a better version of it.

Didn't define work so forgive me if I don't know specifically which way the UBI works in order to argue against it.

My "pre-fiat Kritik" was perfectly valid. Being on a winning side is a reason in supporting a side.

You've already complained my RTD was too complex for you with the level of detail it has, and now you're also complaining that I did not copy/paste every single line of the debate and incorporate all the evidence from the sources for you? That's not the job of judges. We summarize and weigh important details which stand out to us. That a system seems to work at around $100, countered by the claim that at $1000 it would suddenly not be enough and would in no way help those with the least, is intuitively senseless to me. Plus you based your claims against UBI on "no evidence" when multiple lines of evidence were provided (as pro reminded us), and you then proceeded to complain that the evidence you claim doesn't exist was "unfair."

>>that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”

1,000 a year is vastly different from 1,000 a month yet you don't mention that anywhere. Even if DyanmicSquid directed the debate to UBI working it doesn't mean my point that him using the Alaskan UBI as an argument is any less valid given the difference in what we are talking about.

Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.

1. universal basic income: Pro
When introducing an acronym, it should be spelled out the first time.
Generally, it seems to be a good idea, with it well supported by sources.
Con counters that it’s not enough money, and only starts at 18. Which apparently would in no way help people below the poverty level, but strictly help the middle class and higher...
Pro counters that it would not fail to be given to people below the poverty level (as con implied), implying it would help them (which should have been spelled out).
Con ends up asking the rhetorical question “If he wasn't comparing them what was point?” As con answers, “same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”

Sources: Tied
Both people put the research effort in, so I am leaving this tied.
The World Economic Forum was a good one, which offered an easy visual aid for how the system is intended to work (pulling this one again to counter the no evidence claim, tipped the debate). As was Wikipedia to explain how Trickle Up economics work, from a non-biased source. Con similarly used Wikipedia to hammer in his point that presidents have advisors for any areas they lack expertise.

>>Sure, I would be. What's your point?

I am for political violence in that specific circumstance just like you.

Can you quote me where you deemed he sufficiently argued for Yang's UBI?

While I normally encourage people to ask any questions, I am not seeing much that was not already clearly answered within the vote itself.

>>You basically said here that UBI goes to neither side.

No, I said my outside opinion doesn't override the the performance offered by the debaters.

>>I am arguing for Biden so I am guessing this is a point for me. 0-1

More like x1-y1, to which the resulting weight of the x and y were already explained: "Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that."

>> I am unsure if you give this to Pro or this goes to neither side.

As explained, "it’s a pre-fiat Kritik to which I do not buy the relevancy."

>> you haven't made it clear who has the better background in politics.

I repeatedly did, such as "2. Politically effective: Con" Of course boasting about the same thing twice under different headings, doesn't double its value.

>> From this I gather that this goes to neither side.

Correct, as noted when I said "it really doesn’t do much on this comparison."

>>your unclear direction of who won by each point

Let me make it clear for you, the pro at the end of "1. universal basic income: Pro" implies I gave that area to pro. And the con at the end of "2. Politically effective: Con" means it goes to con. Those were the main points of impact. The other three, did not do much to affect the weighing.

Sure, I would be. What's your point?

Sure

Sure

Would you be for political violence if that hypothetical law was true?

"You do know under that definition a principle can be you can kill me and the law won't punish you for it. What do you say to that?"

Ok?

You keep avoiding the topic at hand. Can you answer a simple question? Are you for political violence or not?

I'll come back when you can engage with my hypothetical.

Can you stop avoiding the question? Are you for political violence or not?

>>NOTE: This isn’t weighing into my vote.

You basically said here that UBI goes to neither side.

>>This point does favor Biden, as it mitigates the effectiveness of Yang’s attempts at passing policies.

I am arguing for Biden so I am guessing this is a point for me. 0-1

>>Don’t pull this BS, the same logic says Trump should be president for life (which would be its own debate), because he’s a more popular president than any contenders. Pro of course repeats the relevancy problem.

From this I gather Pro didn't make a compelling enough argument against Con instead this is what you are saying that isn't implied in anything Con said. I am unsure if you give this to Pro or this goes to neither side. 1-1 or 0-1

>>Pro counters that Yang wants to be a president for more policies, and that a single debate is an unfair measure to judge him (this would have been an ideal time to link more things by which to judge him).

I don't know who has this point and you haven't made it clear who has the better background in politics. I don't know how I didn't win this and you haven't made it clear who won this part.

>>Note: Biden has not been shown to be an unfeeling robot, so this point doesn’t carry much weight given that Biden probably likewise cares about humans.

From this I gather that this goes to neither side.

So if it wasn't clear it would either be a draw or a point for my side unless I read your unclear direction of who won by each point.

I gave the hypothetical and you give me a hypothetical back?

I am sorry you can't engage with hypotheticals instead engage with I guess assuming my intentions.

---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
There were other ways this could have played out, but it seems to boil down to Yang vs. Biden as president.

Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.

1. universal basic income: Pro
When introducing an acronym, it should be spelled out the first time.
Generally, it seems to be a good idea, with it well supported by sources.
Con counters that it’s not enough money, and only starts at 18. Which apparently would in no way help people below the poverty level, but strictly help the middle class and higher...
Pro counters that it would not fail to be given to people below the poverty level (as con implied), implying it would help them (which should have been spelled out).
Con ends up asking the rhetorical question “If he wasn't comparing them what was point?” As con answers, “same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”

NOTE: This isn’t weighing into my vote... I highly doubt the UBI would work out so well (it might, but I have doubts). I’m quite surprised I did not see talk of inflation to further mitigate it.

2. Politically effective: Con
Biden has passed more policies than Yang, plus comparing Yang’s mannerisms to that of the current president.
Pro counters with a mitigation tactic of pointing out another valid comparison, that Yang’s shortage in one area is made up for in another, to which Biden lacks experience (running a company I think?).
Con points out advisors may be hired to meet any shortcoming... Pro argues likewise.

This point does favor Biden, as it mitigates the effectiveness of Yang’s attempts at passing policies.

3. higher chance of winning
As tempting as this area is, it’s a pre-fiat Kritik to which I do not buy the relevancy.
Pro: Please maintain headings for contentions. Had your reply to this mattered, it could have been lost in the jumble.
“Given my opponent didn't deny Biden has a higher chance of winning means he doesn't disagree with Biden should be elected because he has a higher chance of winning as seen by the polls.” Don’t pull this BS, the same logic says Trump should be president for life (which would be its own debate), because he’s a more popular president than any contenders. Pro of course repeats the relevancy problem.

4. One debate
The heading for this was pretty bad. What con likely meant to imply is that Biden has a long history, a proven quantity... To someone like me who doesn’t know who Yang is, it left me with the impression that Yang apparently got into a single debate, and is basing a bid for presidency on that (which I suspect is untrue well ahead of reading the replies pro will no doubt give).
Pro counters that Yang wants to be a president for more policies, and that a single debate is an unfair measure to judge him (this would have been an ideal time to link more things by which to judge him).

5. Cares about humans
This probably should have been a subheading under the one debate heading (just a little advise for next time).
This was a decently done emotional appeal (don’t claim it wasn’t. That I call something what it objectively is, doesn’t mean I’m insulting it).
Pro counters that the memory skills displayed do not harm Biden (so on this, I am guessing they’re implying a better than a certain other candidate; but it really doesn’t do much on this comparison).

Note: Biden has not been shown to be an unfeeling robot, so this point doesn’t carry much weight given that Biden probably likewise cares about humans.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. There were more points to that, but health care for example they wanted to talk about as a footnote to unrelated points, rather than as something they thought impactful enough to merit a heading.

Sources: Tied
Both people put the research effort in, so I am leaving this tied.
The World Economic Forum was a good one, which offered an easy visual aid for how the system is intended to work (pulling this one again to counter the no evidence claim, tipped the debate). As was Wikipedia to explain how Trickle Up economics work, from a non-biased source. Con similarly used Wikipedia to hammer in his point that presidents have advisors for any areas they lack expertise.

"I didn't say guns"

Are you telling me you can't engage with hypothetical's?

How about you stop sugar coating what your trying to say and just say it? Are you for political violence or not?

Are you telling me you can't engage with hypotheticals?

I didn't say guns. I didn't say it happens.

The big problem with your argument is nobody is directly killing anyone. Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint.

You do know under that definition a principle can be you can kill me and the law won't punish you for it. What do you say to that?

I am sorry if nuance is too difficult for you to understand.

asians are smarter than groopy irish grandpas vote asian

Policy- "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual."

Now can you respond to my comment? Why should physical violence be used against people who have different opinions?

Blame boat for being one note and needing me to walk it through for him to understand how he is wrong.

Define policy

I swear one day I had like 2 comments and now I have 60. You guys should start a debate on this. It should be an interesting topic...

Nobody is killing people. This is a matter of policy. There is debate to be had on which one is better or which one would save more lives. It's the same with gun control. One policy may be better than another. There is discussion to be had. But I don't know why you should assault people because they have a different solution.

Government provided food stamps yes but Yang I think wants to remove the welfare system eventually as in not have welfare but just the UBI. DynamicSquid can jump in if I am wrong.

Whether or not people get a job for 12k, it is still not enough to get you out of poverty and I think from looking at Alaska it will increase the gap to reach above poverty.

Some poor people can live off of government-provided food stamps. 12k a year is just free money for people to have even more of an excuse not to work. And people don't have to have a job to get 12k.

Does killing people count as a policy?

Like I said, forget about the quote. Do you stand by physical violence against people with a different opinion on policy?

If you look at this debate Alaska has a higher income needed to not be poor. I guess the UBI has something to do with it. It is only 1,000 a year and if this is true I can't imagine the impact of a 12,000 a year UBI would have. Meaning people would still have to work. This is an assumption and UBI's are all pretty shitting if they don't you know, universally provide basic income. Alaska's UBI is not a basic income for anyone so I don't see how Yang's would help people from welfare or have people quit there job for 12k.

Dude, that's the point. Yang is giving free money out to people so they won't have to work for anything.

>>won't have to work a day in their lives

Don't you think people would work for things that entertain them as in video games?

>>Plus, I'll bet that this will soon be extended to illegal immigrants, so with the help of "sanctuary" states America will turn into a giant refugee camp. And that's just the economy

Do you know that immigration is a boon for the economy?

Well, between 12k a year, Obama's food stamps and Obamacare, poor people won't have to work a day in their lives, making us taxpayers have to pay more and more taxes. Plus, I'll bet that this will soon be extended to illegal immigrants, so with the help of "sanctuary" states America will turn into a giant refugee camp. And that's just the economy. God help America.