Instigator / Pro
7
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic
#1682
Andrew Yang should be elected president for 2020
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
DynamicSquid
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,500
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
Should Yang be the next president?
My goal is too prove that he is the best candidate for the job. Con's goal is to prove that there are other candidates that are better suited for the job.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Hello Nihilist and thanks for joining me. Let's get right into it...
- UBI - How does it impact the economy?
Andrew Yang's plan of a UBI is a unique idea, but a great one. Many studies have confirmed this [1], and a version of it even exists already in Alaska [2]!
It's no question that with new advancements in technology, thousands, if not millions of jobs will be displaced, and people will suffer finding new ones. They will be working pay check to pay check, and have less and less money over time.
What happens when people don't have enough money?
They will gradually reduce their expenses, such as food, clothes, or other bills. This can lead to a dry economy, where no money is being exchanged. This can lead to even more jobs being closed down.
However, that's where the UBI comes in.
With more money in the people's hands, that money can now be circulated through the economy, and in a way renew it. This is known as a trickle up economy [3].
- How does it impact the society?
Like said earlier, people now have more to spend. They can get off debt, and support their lives better. Andrew Yang has actually tested this out by personally giving his own money to selected people, and seeing what the results were.
He found out that many people were much happier due to them having more financial freedom.
There's also a misconception that a UBI would create a poor atmosphere around the people, having more and more drugs and alcohol being bought. However, numerous studies have denied this explanation, and said instead that people would spend it on important things like healthcare or their child's education [4].
Conclusion
In this round, I have talked about how a UBI is both beneficial to the economy, as well as the society.
In the next round, I will be talking about Andrew Yang's other unique ideas (TBD), and clashing with my opponent.
Good luck!
Thank you.
Con
#2
Thank you for the debate DynamicSquid
I am defending Joe Biden.
Politically effective
As I think it should be clear, Yang is not a politician. Biden is. With having Trump we realize after blunder after blunder that politicians like Obama are the way to go. Obama passed the ACA whereas Trump can’t even deliver on a main talking point of building the wall. Biden has been a politician since 1966 but Yang hasn’t even done anything in the political sphere. For Biden to be more effective than Yang he would’ve need only pass 1 policy since Yang has passed no policies. I’ll go out on a limb to say he has.
Has a higher chance of winning
If we look at Iowa polls, Biden is doing better. If we look at national polls, Biden is doing better. If we look at head to head states we see Yang isn’t even worth mentioning for how little support he has.
Doesn’t rely on one policy and recent debate
Let's be real the only reason why Yang is even mentioned on anything is because of his UBI. Biden has a really lengthy track record and was working with Obama who was a really popular candidate.
If we look at the most recent debate Yang, supports UBI not a shocker. Wants white supremacy to be labelled as domestic terrorism, I am going to say some words to Putin.
As I think it should be clear, Yang is not a politician. Biden is. With having Trump we realize after blunder after blunder that politicians like Obama are the way to go. Obama passed the ACA whereas Trump can’t even deliver on a main talking point of building the wall. Biden has been a politician since 1966 but Yang hasn’t even done anything in the political sphere. For Biden to be more effective than Yang he would’ve need only pass 1 policy since Yang has passed no policies. I’ll go out on a limb to say he has.
If we look at Iowa polls, Biden is doing better. If we look at national polls, Biden is doing better. If we look at head to head states we see Yang isn’t even worth mentioning for how little support he has.
Let's be real the only reason why Yang is even mentioned on anything is because of his UBI. Biden has a really lengthy track record and was working with Obama who was a really popular candidate.
If we look at the most debate Biden supports an improved ACA, will not override his attorney general when it comes to the justice department, make sure alliance with South Korea and America is kept, punish Saudi Arabia, decriminalize marijuana.
What Biden offered helps more people than what Yang which I will soon make clear later.
Biden supports an improved ACA that enrolled 73.8 million.
Rebuttal
but a great one. Many studies have confirmed this [1]
Looking at the link they claim $1,000 allows you to live above the poverty but looking at the poverty line, that the link linked, you would need $140 more to be level with it. Not to mention, if it wasn't clear already, this is only for one person while also realizing this cover is only for people over 18 if we go by Yang's proposal. By clicking "What is Freedom Dividend" we see it states "to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18". I don't understand the percentages given here so I am going with the lowest number.
This isn't really the worst of it. My opponent brings up this point:
and a version of it even exists already in Alaska [2]
Looking at the link we realize everyone receive 1,000 per year. Meaning it is different to Yang's proposal. Yang starts at 18 and gives $1,000 a month not $1,000 in a year. Meaning it would be unfair to compare two different UBI's. What I can compare is if with this money alone can bring people be out of poverty. If we look at the poverty guidelines for Alaska we realize it is $15,180 for just one person. Meaning just one person would need $14,180 to be in line with the poverty line.
I can safely say the people most impacted cannot simply change their welfare programs for something that wouldn't even get them over the poverty line. If Yang would be elected he wouldn't be helping the people that need the help the most. He would be giving people who are already comfortable $12,000. Given it is not enough to keep you away from poverty. It is yet another novelty not a necessity.
Conclusion
Healthcare is more important than $12,000 a year so even the one policy Yang relies on, Biden just beats him on top all the other reasons I laid. Not enough characters to talk about all of them here. :(
Round 2
Pro
#3
Hello and thanks for responding. Let's follow through...
Clash
My opponent said...
Yang is not a politician. Biden is. [..] Yang hasn’t even done anything in the political sphere
Biden hasn't done anything in the economic sphere.
The fact that Yang isn't a businessman is actually a good thing. He has a different mindset and an area of knowledge, one that politicians don't have. Having experience in the working and business field, grants him an extra sense of knowledge. He can see the real threats of the economy, and how to fix them. Politicians lack this skill however.
Trump can’t even deliver on a main talking point of building the wall
Trump gives a bad reputation to businessmen. Comparing Yang with Trump is like comparing Catholic Saint Mother Teresa to Kim Jong Un. Well, maybe not that, but you get the idea.
Has a higher chance of winning
But we're not talking about who's gonna win.
[Yang relies] on one policy [..] Yang is even mentioned on anything is because of his UBI
First, that means his UBI policy is really good.
And second, that's not true. Yang has three big policies, UBI, healthcare, and human centered capitalism. In addition to those, he has many more policies in his bucket list [1].
Biden has a really lengthy track record
But is that necessarily a good thing [2]?
Yang doesn't do those kind of things.
If we look at the most recent debate
It's not Yang's fault that he didn't get enough speaking time, so judging him based solely on that debate is an unfair use of juxtaposition.
Biden supports an improved ACA
And that is better than Yang's plan of Medicare for All in what ways? More evidence in needed.
Looking at the link they claim $1,000 allows you to live above the poverty but looking at the poverty line, that the link linked, you would need $140 more to be level with it
A site doesn't necessarily reflect all of my exact beliefs. If I got a piece of information from a site, I'll link it, regardless if the other information on that site works against me. Also, I would say attacking a link from a link that I linked is a little off-track...
Looking at the link we realize everyone [receives] 1,000 per year. Meaning it is different to Yang's proposal.
Yes.
Unfair to compare two different UBI's
I wasn't comparing them. I said that "a version of it" could be found in Alaska. That implies that the basic concept of a UBI could indeed work.
He would be giving people who are already comfortable $12,000
Could you please explain this? Yang would be giving everyone over 18 $1000/mo, regardless. There wouldn't be any discrimination, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting at here.
Cares about Humans
Yang has done countless interviews with actually people that he cared about. To prove it? He even remembered some of their names, and talked about them in recent debates.
An example of this would be the time he talked to a trucker [3].
This statement is further supported when you hear Yang talking and concerning about his family, like a normal person would. He isn't just worried about the society as a whole, he's worried about the individuals of those society.
Going back to his family, one of his children has autism, and like he said, is expensive [4]. And since one of Yang's children is autistic, he can better understand this problem, and create new and more diverse solutions towards it.
That is all from me now, and I wish you the best of luck Nihilist.
Thank you.
Con
#4
Thank you for replying DynamicSquid
What my opponent fails to address
Is UBI a good idea. If you look through this entire debate I heard him say it is a great idea and a really good one. Not once has it stated why it is the case. I assumed Alaska was the prime example used to say it is good but this statement differs
I wasn't comparing them. I said that "a version of it" could be found in Alaska. That implies that the basic concept of a UBI could indeed work.
If he wasn't comparing them what was point? My view of this would be he brought up a point that is meaningless.
This is not even mentioning you not even explaining in what way UBI works? Does it help bring poor people out of poverty? Hasn't been demonstrated or are you saying it works because it gives people more money? Work requires you to tell me in what way.
Rebutting points
Biden hasn't done anything in the economic sphere.
As the president of the United States you do not need to be well versed in the economy. If Joe really cared that he was bad with the economy, he can hire an economics adviser. It just so happens that this is no new practice because the current president has had multiple economic advisers.
He can see the real threats of the economy, and how to fix them. Politicians lack this skill however.
Under the assumption, Biden won't hire economics advisers and listen and act on what they say. This hasn't been demonstrated.
But we're not talking about who's gonna win.
As a person who likes democracy, I think we should respect the will of the people. 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.
But is that necessarily a good thing [2]?
I am sorry that he doesn't have a perfect record. It is completely unfair bar to set, if what I think you are implying, that politicians need to perfect. If not why give me 10 bad things when he has been a politician since 1966?
It's not Yang's fault that he didn't get enough speaking time,
Yang's lack or political presence is his fault. By him not starting off small and eventually being popular enough to be a popular candidate for the race is up to him. Why didn't he wait 4 years to gain some political presence instead decide to start his political career as a candidate for the presidency? This is bad because you need the democrats in order to pass legislation but who has vouched for him in the DNC?
And that is better than Yang's plan of Medicare for All in what ways?
Better? Obamacare has happened once so it is more likely to happen again. The ACA has proven to insure people but we have no evidence that medicare for all will work by ensuring.
More evidence in needed.
Your only point UBI had a link to a variation of a UBI and to something about the idea of UBI not Yang's UBI. No evidence that his proposal will help people. This is hypocritical coming from you when I have already gave arguments that ACA is good in round 1.
A site doesn't necessarily reflect all of my exact beliefs.
Please look at my link and find what disagrees with me. This is a complete failure on your part to find links that support you.
I would say attacking a link from a link that I linked is a little off-track...
I am sorry that I am the only one who bothered to check sources.
Cares about humans?
Remembering 2 people's names is the bare minimum reach the plural that is humans. Is this a point? No space
Round 3
Pro
#5
Hello Nihilist and welcome to the final round. I have to say I did quite enjoy this debate. I wish you had the same. Let's begin...
Clash
My opponent said...
If he wasn't comparing them what was point? My view of this would be he brought up a point that is meaningless.
The Alaskan divided is not the same as Andrew Yang's UBI. However, it is based on the same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.
As the president of the United States you do not need to be well versed in the economy. If Joe really cared that he was bad with the economy, he can hire an economics adviser.
Yet you have not provided any advice to why a president should be educated in the field of economics. Oh, and key word, 'advisors'. The president's advisors do not have the same amount of information or reach as the president does.
Also, what stops Yang from hiring a political advisor?
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.
But that's not what the debate is about... We're talking about who's the best candidate, not the one most likely to win.
It is completely unfair bar to set, if what I think you are implying, that politicians need to perfect.
I'm not setting any bar. My point is, give me 10 things Yang has done that is equally as bad or worse than Biden did.
Why didn't he wait 4 years to gain some political presence instead decide to start his political career as a candidate for the presidency?
Again, you are going off track. Talking about unrelated personal decisions that do not affect a person is completely off-topic. Remember, we are talking about who is the better candidate, not the one making the right voter decisions or whatever.
Obamacare has happened once so it is more likely to happen again.
Again, off-topic. That's a people problem, not a candidate problem.
No evidence that his proposal will help people
What about this one? I linked that 15,000 character in depth report on UBI in the first round.
[Links are] a complete failure on your part
If I use a piece of information on a site, I will link it. That's how I use links. Otherwise, some people might call out my 'false unlinked' information. I had past experiences with this.
Remembering 2 people's names is the bare minimum [to] reach the plural that is humans
Humour, I like it.
Not only two, dozens of people Yang has socialized with before. And by the way, find me an example of a politician that actually goes to small communities or individuals, and sits down and actually has a real talk with them, the way Yang does.
A Respeech of UBI
As my opponent pointed out,
not once has [Squid] stated why it is the case
Well, here we go!
Studies have found that 25% of jobs in America are at risk to being lost due to automation.
No job means little to no money.
And when people don't have enough money, they will limit their spending on clothing, food, and more. This causes little to no money being circulated through the economy.
However, a UBI can solve this problem by giving people money. This money will be circulated through the economy and reopen it. Yay!
These impacts can:
- Grow the economy by 12% by 2025
- Create 4.7 million jobs
- Help put an end to poverty
- And more!
Well, that's all from me this debate, and I hoped it was fun.
Thank you and good luck!
Con
#6
Rebuttals
so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.
A UBI "work"s doesn't mean Yang's UBI works. You still haven't told me how it works.
Yet you have not provided any advice to why a president should be educated in the field of economics.
What? I don't know why I would be making a point for you.
Also, what stops Yang from hiring a political advisor?
The entire idea of a president is to be political. If they are not then any decision must be made by someone politically versed and at that point why was he elected in the first place?
not the one most likely to win.
Biden should be elected because he is winning so far. This is a fair argument that you have yet to refute.
My point is, give me 10 things Yang has done that is equally as bad or worse than Biden did.
I do not have the space nor would stoop to your level of gish galloping you a link and expecting you to reply with such a limited character limit.
What about this one? I linked that 15,000 character in depth report on UBI in the first round.
You expect me to critique a 15k character report with 3.5k characters? This is unfair and I already pointed out he does not solve poverty by itself.
If I use a piece of information on a site, I will link it.
Doubling down on not agreeing with the link he gave.
Not only two, dozens of people Yang has socialized with before. And by the way, find me an example of a politician that actually goes to small communities or individuals, and sits down and actually has a real talk with them, the way Yang does.
My original point still stands. Why does this matter? It doesn't because you are going to represent the majority not the few "dozen" that you had a sit down with. I wonder why Yang is not doing so well in polls. One reason could be he is not effectively sharing his message.
Points that still stand
- Politically effective like I mentioned one more policy is more than what Yang has ever done.
- Polls are right and Biden is willing. I support democracy therefore Biden should be elected.
- UBI isn't his claim to fame nor is talking to a few dozen people, it is him being a politician since 1966.
UBI
Yang's proposal does not bring people out of poverty it gives people who already are above poverty more money. It is not helping people on welfare it is helping people who don't necessarily need money as in to survive, essentially a novelty.
- Grow the economy by 12% by 2025
- Create 4.7 million jobs
- Help put an end to poverty
- And more!
If it wasn't clear the very first link is a new source added in right this round. Meaning not only does my opponent expect me to read the entire thing to understand what it is talking about and actually fulfill the burden of proof that Yang's proposal will create 4.7 million jobs. No quote was made so he basically said here is a link go read it and quote what I am talking about. The second link is giving me anecdotes.
If it wasn't clear my opponent has not demonstrated Yang's UBI will reduce poverty instead resorts to using variations of UBI's in order to bolster his point about a very different UBI. It is like me saying constitutions work without understanding there are variations in it.
Grievances
- Links stuff without demonstrating it supports what he says
- Blames me when I actually critique a link he gives
- Character limit is too short
- Gish gallops me with a link filled with 10 points
- There is more but no space
Fin
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1682/comment_links/23328
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.
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.