Instigator / Pro
7
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
won
Topic
#5813
It is more likely that Harris would have been a better president than Trump will be
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
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Moozer325
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
2
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description
I’m going to define “better” as having resulted in making a better quality of life for all people, not just Americans.
I did this same debate with someone else, and it was just confined to Americans, which made it harder since you couldn’t argue on the basis of foreign policy, so I’m going with this one. Tag me in the comment if you want to have a different one, I’m open to better definitions.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Introduction
Thank you in advance to anyone reading this debate, thanks for your time. Also thanks for accepting this debate Mall, I look forward to another round with you. I'm going to structure my arguments into a bunch of different categories, seeing as politics is a very broad subject. Basically, this is going to be a couple debates in one, all centered around different issues that the candidates take particular stances on. I think the character limit should support that format.
It's the economy stupid
I figured I'd go ahead and start with the issue that most voters say is at the top of their minds.
There are many facets of the economy that I believe Harris would have done better in than Trump will (and has), but I'll keep it simple and focus on mainly these two topics: Global Trade, and Corporate Regulation
To start off, my personal economic pet peeve, Tariffs. Trump implemented lots of barriers to global free trade during his first term (notably the section 301 Tariffs on China), and he has promised to enact many more in his coming term. Among these are a 60% tax on all imports from china, and 10% globally. [1] In his first term, Trump enacted many of these policies, notably in the section 301 Tariffs imposed on China.
However, these Tariffs had disastrous consequences for American citizens. For one, they raised prices on goods. Obviously, foreign products went up in price, but so did domestic goods. This is because most Tariffs fail at their intended purpose. We need to recognize that we are a global economy, and we rely on each other for survival. Putting up barriers to trade just increases the price of raw materials, which are used to make domestic goods. One study done by the Chamber of Commerce even estimates that Trump's Tariffs cost the average american household $1,200 in 2020 alone. [2] There are also countless other studies done by experts such as the NBER, Erasmus University, that demonstrate my point. [3][4] But beyond that even, American Farmers were hit incredibly hard by retaliatory Tariffs imposed by China later on. [5] Clearly, Trump's tariffs failed in his last term, yet now he advocates for even more to add on, with no other plans on how these ones will succeed. Harris did advocate for some Tariffs, yet not as much as this.
Moving on to corporate regulation, I'll start with his climate regulation policy. I didn't want to make climate change it's own section, so I figured I'd tack it on here. Trump has withdrawn America from the Paris accords, and reduced EPA regulation such as canceling offshore wind projects. With climate change more real than ever today, these policies will result In a much worse quality of life for people all around the world in just decades to come. [14] Trump has also promised more deregulation of worker protection laws, and OSHA requirements. Obviously, this results in bad consequences for American workers injured on the job. He also wants to deregulate financial institutions such as banks. Though these would result in a slight bump in business, they are short sighted policies, and could result in another 2008 crash again. As the Columbia law review states "The United States remains vulnerable to financial crises and the terrible economic damage they cause. The first and most critical step to ameliorating this problem is to grasp that it is banks’ economic function rather than legal form that demands a special regulatory response. "
Immigration
Trump has promised the "biggest mass deportation in American history", all at the expense of the taxpayer. The American Immigration Council estimates that this could cost upwards of 315 million dollars, and that's not even to mention the human cost of the deportation on immigrants. Harris on the other hand, supported the BIpartisan border bill that was requested by border agents. This legislation would have greatly helped stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the border, and yet Trump killed it by telling Republican members of Congress to vote against it.
Instead, Trump wants to continue with his deportation plan, which as already mentioned would cost an insane amount of money, and cause lots of human suffering in the process, definitely not resulting in a better quality of life for those deported. Yet Trump's lies about immigrants have clouded the fact that deporting these migrants actually will result in a worse quality of life for american citizens too. Currently we are in a labor shortage, and the data shows that it's not going to help us get out of it if we spend huge amounts of money on deporting one of america's biggest sources of labor.
One of the biggest lies about immigrants that Trump has been repeating has been that immigrants are taking the jobs of American citizens. That is just plain not true. In fact, countless studies over the years have shown that immigration usually helps to create more jobs, and that is only more true in a labor crisis, which is what we are experiencing. One such study from George Washington University shows how immigrants actually increase job market prospects for natives. To quote from it, "Immigration’s positive effects far outweigh any negative impact. Migrants choose locations with available jobs and fill labor shortages. Whether high- or low-skilled, migrants rarely substitute directly for native workers. Instead, migrants often complement native workers or accept jobs that natives don’t want or can’t do." [8] Almost all the research on this topic corroborates this. [9][10]
So to recap, Trump's plan is to take taxpayer money and pay for a mass deportation of immigrants, which will have disastrous effects for the economy, and horrible human consequences too. All of this is based on the lie that immigrants take the jobs of native born people, while in fact the truth is the opposite. They fill the workforce with jobs others don't want to do, and they create almost as many jobs as they take too. Harris on the other hand supported the bipartisan border bill which everyone agreed was the right solution, however Trump killed it because he didn't want the other party to have a success.
Foreign Policy
I'm excited to do some debating on this subject, seeing as I didn't get to the last time I had this debate with someone. I have two big points on this front, and they are going to be about the two major wars happening in the world currently, in Ukraine and Gaza.
Starting with Ukraine, I'm going to assume that my opponent agrees with the statement that it would be in the best interest for the war in Ukraine to end sooner rather than later, and with as much of Ukraine's territory returned as possible. If not, we can debate that too, but I'm going to skip over that logical jump just for the sake of my opening argument. I believe Harris has a much better chance at ending this war than Trump. For one, Trump has repeatedly told Putin that he can "do whatever he wants", and he has tried to block funding for Ukraine many times. A man who is friends with Putin, and advocates for his freedom does not stand a good chance of ending the war in Ukraine with a favorable solution for the Ukrainians.
Moving on to the war in Gaza, Trump unconditionally supports Israel's right to control over the middle east, not even considering a two state solution. He has turned a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis taking place in Gaza, and has told Israel to speed up its operation. Harris on the other hand does support Israel's right to defend itself, but has also raised concerned about the Palestinian civilians being killed. She prefers a diplomatic and peaceful end to the conflict. [11]
Trump's policy will result in more deaths in the war, while Harris supports a peaceful solution. Thus by the definition of "better" I provided, Harris is better on the foreign policy front than Trump.
Healthcare
This section should be pretty short. Trump has made numerous threats to repeal the ACA, a piece of legislation that has done so much good for Americans facing poverty [6]. Many sources show how this act has shrunken racial divides in access to affordable healthcare, and how countless poor Americans have benefited greatly from it. Specifically, the uninsured rate among Hispanics dropped from 40 to 30 percent from 2008 to 2017. Similar trends happened with black and white people too.[7] Clearly, repealing this act would result in horrible consequences for the lower classes in America, thus by the resolution making Harris the better candidate seeing as she wants to keep Obamacare in place.
State of American Democracy
This is going to be another short one, everyone reading this knows what I'm getting at with this section. On January 6th 2021 Donald Trump incited a mob to protest the results of an election that was one of the most fair in history. The mob ransacked the capitol and Trump did nothing when his advisors told him what was happening, telling the proud boys to "stand back and stand by", and "fight like hell". [12] He said he will turn the military on the "enemy within", and has said he'll weaponize the DOJ to go after his political enemies, saying "I am your retribution". He said that people will only have to vote one more time, and that he will be "a dictator on day one." [13]
I'm not saying he's guaranteed to upend American Democracy, yet he is clearly a dangerous person, and the fact that he poses any threat to the countries stability auto magically makes it so that if he were to put his plans into action, the quality of life for people in America would go down drastically.
Sources Cited
- www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/tariffs-donald-trump-strategy/index.html
- https://www.uschamber.com/international/tariff-relief-a-tonic-for-the-us-economy
- Trump's Trade Tariffs.
- https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29315/w29315.pdf
- crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45903#:~:text=The%20total%20value%20of%20exports,affected%20trade%20in%20both%20years.
- www.tebra.com/theintake/healthcare-news/medical-news/harris-vs-trump-an-overview-of-proposed-healthcare-plans
- https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01394
- https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/10/pdfs/do-migrants-take-the-jobs-of-native-workers.pdf
- https://www.hamiltonproject.org/event/the-economic-benefits-of-immigration/
- https://www.hamiltonproject.org/event/the-economic-benefits-of-immigration/
- https://www.mei.edu/publications/harris-vs-trump-war-and-crisis-mid
- https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/making-the-case-for-trumps-january-6th-speech-as-incitement/
- https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/dec/07/donald-trump-was-asked-if-he-will-be-a-dictator-if/
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trump-administrations-major-environmental-deregulations/
- columbialawreview.org/content/lesson-unlearned-regulatory-reform-and-financial-stability-in-the-trump-administration/
Con
#2
Thank you.
Taken from the description:
"I’m going to define “better” as having resulted in making a better quality of life for all people, not just Americans."
So we know that folks who they call americans that did not vote for the democratic party did so out of quality of life, at least in part.
I can agree that the voters felt that they cannot vote for a party that champions at least one policy to eliminate life in the womb of the woman.
Secondly, there's transgenderism and transgender education but I don't have to heavily focus on that as much as the other issue is more obvious and clear on the surface.
Not only do you eliminate the quality of life in the womb but you also affect those feelings of those that would of had to live under unwanted policies. So you also have their quality of life , the qualities of their lives affected downtrodden, experiencing misery living under a democratic administration.
Just as those that voted for the democratic party will have to support the republican party now, it would of been vice versa if the election had the opposing results .
So you could say the democratic voters lives are affected in quality. But they can take solace under administration that pushes or encourages states to decide further about preserving quality of life. By doing this, more individuals can come into the world perhaps also becoming part of the democratic party supporting the same anti life , anti-human, anti quality life policies which is antithetical in their world.
Regardless of the other policies that the republican party will enlist, at least the party will promote free thinking,not programmed, not brainwashed thinking but the thinking that will at least aid in the probability of promotion and fruition of the American people.
Now the description says "for all people" so the Americans would set the example for the rest of the people in all the world.
All people. Once it's established a person exists, for example, possibly where a heartbeat exists, that goes for all people.
I'll touch on some things the opposing side has presented.
The economy, immigration, foreign policy and healthcare is like tomato tomotto. This is why people are independent, non partisan or inactive voters as they see and prognosticate no difference regardless in quality of life.
Some questions to pose.
In regards to the economy, didn't the unemployment rate drop under President Trump's term?
In reference to the wars, did any wars start under his term?
Much to argue for the quality of life based on these subjects.
"I'm not saying he's guaranteed to upend American Democracy, yet he is clearly a dangerous person, and the fact that he poses any threat to the countries stability auto magically makes it so that if he were to put his plans into action, the quality of life for people in America would go down drastically."
He's clearly dangerous I read. Is that why they tried to kill him?
A dangerous man was able to avoid prison terms, is that right?
Did people's quality of life go down during his term?
Where do you draw line for making adults responsible for their own lives , accountable for their own quality and another man actually being the cause of it?
That's it for now . You can answer the questions first or respond to the initial points first. Whichever order, let's go at it, duke it out.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I can agree that the voters felt that they cannot vote for a party that champions at least one policy to eliminate life in the womb of the woman.
Well think about it this way, does the quality of life go up for the the mother who is forced to carry a pregnancy to term? What about the quality of life of a teen who is refuse care in the office of a doctor, or who has to drive out of state to get an abortion. Trump appointed 3 Supreme Court justices that struck down Roe v Wade. He does not support abortion, and thus does not support better quality of life for Americans. A fetus cannot feel pain, and throughout most of the pregnancy, they are a jumble of cells. You don’t give more rights to a germ, or maybe mouse than a human. A fetus is not a human.
Not only do you eliminate the quality of life in the womb but you also affect those feelings of those that would of had to live under unwanted policies. So you also have their quality of life , the qualities of their lives affected downtrodden, experiencing misery living under a democratic administration.
Okay, you do have to consider the quality of life of members of a party when they lose, but that goes both ways. Whatever outcomes happens, half the country will feel bad, so the only metric you can actually focus on when determining quality of life is how the actually policies affect people, not about how they make people feel in theory. No matter what happens, one party is sad about the outcome, so you just have to go on the policies actually put in place by that party. I might be sad about the outcome of the election, but I would still be happy if Trump made the economy amazing. By that metric, he was a “good president”, if he does that.
Regardless of the other policies that the republican party will enlist, at least the party will promote free thinking,not programmed, not brainwashed thinking but the thinking that will at least aid in the probability of promotion and fruition of the American people.
This is an unsubstantiated claim. If you can find something in Kamala Harris’ rhetoric or policy that says she doesn’t support freedom of the press, you can use that but this is just saying that democrats are a hive-mind, not proving it.
The economy, immigration, foreign policy and healthcare is like tomato tomotto. This is why people are independent, non partisan or inactive voters as they see and prognosticate no difference regardless in quality of life.
Well unless you actually go into detail about these parts of my argument, then they are allowed to stand, and only help my argument.
In regards to the economy, didn't the unemployment rate drop under President Trump's term?
Yes, but that’s a complete misrepresentation of the data. This is the source I’ll be using BTW. The unemployment rate had been going down since 2008, so you could argue that was because of Obama. I’m not going to be arguing that, I argue that the president has far less actual control over the economy than we all assume. Unemployment had a major spike in March of 2020. This did not coincide with any big policy changes by the Biden administration, but it did happen right as the lockdowns started as a result of COVID 19. Clearly, so many people couldn't go to work, or work remotely, so they couldn't work anymore. It's a fallacy to correlate a spike in inflation and the Biden administration so quickly. Additionally, after this spike the unemployment rate dropped about 3/4 of the way back to normal by the end of the year, and all the way back down by early 2022. The unemployment spike was due to uncontrollable circumstances, yet Biden got it under control and back to normal as soon as possible.
In reference to the wars, did any wars start under his term?
Well to name a few, the Ethiopian Civil war and the Nagorno-Karabakh War, but I get what you're saying. Two major global conflicts broke out under Biden's term, and the global conflicts that started or were in progress during Trump's term were on a smaller scale. Once again, this is a fallacy based on the confusion of correlation and causation. Did Biden cause the conflict in Ukraine or Gaza? Not necessarily. You can use specific diplomatic policies to argue that Biden's decisions were at least part of why two wars started, but you can't say they were Biden's fault just because they happened during his term. There are so many things that these governments consider when making the decision to go to war, and it's not right to put that all on Biden. In Gaza for example, Netanyahu invaded the Gaza strip due to an attack by Hamas. If the time was right, do you really think that Hamas would have waited four years under the Trump term to attack just because they thought it would be better under a different U.S. president?
He's clearly dangerous I read. Is that why they tried to kill him?
Maybe, but whether or not he's dangerous has nothing to do with his assassination attempts. Two people attempted to take democracy into their own hands, but that doesn't reflect on the candidate at all. It doesn't make him better or worse, focus on policy.
A dangerous man was able to avoid prison terms, is that right?
I don't understand. I believe his is possibly more dangerous now that he is immune from criminal prosecution, but mostly he's dangerous because of his numerous threats to disrupt American Democracy and his attempt to undermine the centuries long tradition of peaceful transfers of power.
Did people's quality of life go down during his term?
I would say some people's quality of life did, but that's not the title of the debate. It's about whether Harris would have been better than Trump will be . It's good to use his last term as a measurement for the next one, but I prefer to look at his proposed policies, not his past ones.
Where do you draw line for making adults responsible for their own lives , accountable for their own quality and another man actually being the cause of it?
That's not the point. We're not arguing about which candidate would have been better for the American people, not if the American people should rely on it or not.
Thanks for participating, I'm having fun so far. I yield the floor.
Con
#4
How's life now compared to it under the Trump administration?
That is a question to you, all people that can compare and contrast and discern disparity.
"Well think about it this way, does the quality of life go up for the the mother who is forced to carry a pregnancy to term?"
Good question for the mother. Now think of in terms of humanity as a whole. Ask the unborn who was spared life. Ask does this apply to the fruition of mankind at large?
If you answer truthfully yes, it further promotes the life of humanity as a whole. People being upset that they cannot kill the unborn but yet argue they're promoting the quality of life at the same time is not only in conflict but also doesn't count. Ask me , is my life quality life? It wasn't aborted but spared.
"What about the quality of life of a teen who is refuse care in the office of a doctor, or who has to drive out of state to get an abortion."
This person is not seeking quality of life and would support the democratic party for so called quality of life which be a lie and instead you get a quality lie. What about people that truly support life and have an anti life presidency that would make these people upset? Wouldn't their quality of life go down?
I guess we can't win either way. Unless you deny your individual whim for the sake of life of humanity as a whole.
True parents do it countlessly because that's what it's all about. It's beyond yourself. It's humanity as a whole. So when you say "better quality of life for all people", that's what we have to process our thoughts by, in all of humanity .
Humanity is just as much the unborn as well as the born. It's not just to one side .
"He does not support abortion, and thus does not support better quality of life for Americans. A fetus cannot feel pain, and throughout most of the pregnancy, they are a jumble of cells. You don’t give more rights to a germ, or maybe mouse than a human. A fetus is not a human."
So I have value you now because I'm no longer merely a germ. This doesn't follow because I was a germ before this stage so that stage was crucial to get me to this stage. You don't provide quality of life by dividing it up into mini boxes of distinct values. You're actually being inconsistent as well as diminishing the value and quality of all life, all people.
"Okay, you do have to consider the quality of life of members of a party when they lose, but that goes both ways. Whatever outcomes happens, half the country will feel bad, so the only metric you can actually focus on when determining quality of life is how the actually policies affect people, not about how they make people feel in theory. "
Well one side is temporary while the other is permanent. Once the people that realize their anti life policies were actually diminishing life, they cannot continue with the process to eliminate life being for life as a whole. But once you decide to and have eliminated life and have policies to back that up, it's permanent and cannot be undone.
"No matter what happens, one party is sad about the outcome, so you just have to go on the policies actually put in place by that party. I might be sad about the outcome of the election, but I would still be happy if Trump made the economy amazing. By that metric, he was a “good president”, if he does that."
One party may be sad , then glad as they finally woken up to the truth and begun to see the light. That light is life itself.
"This is an unsubstantiated claim. If you can find something in Kamala Harris’ rhetoric or policy that says she doesn’t support freedom of the press, you can use that but this is just saying that democrats are a hive-mind, not proving it."
Ok let me ask. Is leaving a decision up to someone to think about to make, free to the will of that person to think autonomously?
"Well unless you actually go into detail about these parts of my argument, then they are allowed to stand, and only help my argument."
So because the issue of abortion is present, everything else, other policies, whatever else, collapses in quality with it. So these other parts can't provide and further quality due to the basis of life being tampered with, destroyed daily in the womb.
"Yes, but that’s a complete misrepresentation of the data."
So you say yes to the question of the unemployment rate going down and not increasing under President Trump's watch. So that's a case for a quality of life with the Republican administration you can't argue and be correct about that portion being better as there is no way to verify. Unless Harris runs again and is in office. Until then , that case is thrown out.
"Well to name a few, the Ethiopian Civil war and the Nagorno-Karabakh War, but I get what you're saying. "
No wars started with the states under President Trump's term, right. So that's another case for a quality of life.
"Maybe, but whether or not he's dangerous has nothing to do with his assassination attempts. "
What do you mean whether or not?
You said he is. Is he or is he not dangerous and where was the evidence for this in court to send him to prison and what was the counter that negated the purported evidence ?
"I don't understand. I believe his is possibly more dangerous now that he is immune from criminal prosecution, but mostly he's dangerous because of his numerous threats to disrupt American Democracy and his attempt to undermine the centuries long tradition of peaceful transfers of power."
You have no proof or provided none to prove he is more dangerous because you said you believe . Threats don't prove danger either so that's what you believe instead of actually knowing. Hence he did not get any prison terms just off of being a danger to society such as a serial killer.
"I would say some people's quality of life did, but that's not the title of the debate. It's about whether Harris would have been better than Trump will be . It's good to use his last term as a measurement for the next one, but I prefer to look at his proposed policies, not his past ones."
Oh now well is he not going to continue what he started? If so , of course we're starting with where he left off. Now you say some people, so why not all people? What did the successful folks get right that the others couldn't?
If you're going to argue the quality of life would be better for all, that can't be true because there are already people that have it because they had with President Trump's last turn. So this is completely and perfectly relevant to the debate and topic. You just may not be seeing it . Hopefully now you're catching on to the point.
I understand that you feel that life is better with liberalism, liberals, etc ., but ........."fake news".
"That's not the point. We're not arguing about which candidate would have been better for the American people, not if the American people should rely on it or not."
That is exactly the point. The topic says : It is more likely that Harris would have been a better president than Trump will be
You've define better to mean : "I’m going to define “better” as having resulted in making a better quality of life for all people, not just Americans."
Realize you're saying that ALL people's lives having a better quality of life based on a specific person being president.
Now you're back pedaling resisting to discuss with all people relying on another. But you're talking about the quality of lives in connection to presidency.
If you going to be against one relying on another then my quality of life is not better based on who's in office. It's better or worse regardless. But you're the one that tied these two elements together.
You started off with one premise regarding this quality of life, but then when I reason to you about self accountability, you dodge from discussing. This is why I mentioned about non partisan and non active voters. People already have the quality of life decided in their hands. It's just that one presidency versus another can add or help those that are struggling with raising good quality while the other will not. Which is the one you're arguing for which I guess unfortunately for you but perhaps fortunately in hindsight will not take place over the next four years.
I yield .
Round 3
Pro
#5
How's life now compared to it under the Trump administration?That is a question to you, all people that can compare and contrast and discern disparity
Well first of all, that's not really the question that should be asked, or the title of the debate. As I've been saying, a president doesn't have complete control over everything that happens during their term, so you can't attribute an entire 4 years to them. That would be like saying Lincoln was one of our worst presidents because throughout his whole term we were at war. You need to focus on specifically what that president did during their term, or in the case of Harris, what they plan to do. As for my argument to that, see round 1.
Humanity is just as much the unborn as well as the born. It's not just to one side .
Okay, but the born are conscious, and feel pain. The unborn do not. The born are human beings, fetuses are more akin to germs in the early stages, and still don't have consciousness in the later part of the pregnancy. Both are living, but one has free will, and the other is living only in the sense of a house plant. Are we really to give more rights to a house plant than a human being?
So I have value you now because I'm no longer merely a germ. This doesn't follow because I was a germ before this stage so that stage was crucial to get me to this stage. You don't provide quality of life by dividing it up into mini boxes of distinct values. You're actually being inconsistent as well as diminishing the value and quality of all life, all people.
Okay, in my opinion this is the best argument for life, but It still falls completely short. Imagine it this way, instead of keeping a pregnancy think of donating a kidney. For both, you have to undergo a lot of physical pain and trauma. Obviously, donating a Kidney is an amazing act of good, but not many people are willing to do that. Thus while it is good, the government doesn't mandate that everyone must donate their kidneys to sick patients, even though without you, a person will die. So it is with keeping an unwanted pregnancy. Though I do believe it would be a good thing to keep a child you didn't want, not many people would do that, and the physical toll it takes on your body as a women is immense. You can't possibly ask every person with a spare kidney to give it away, and you can't possibly ask every woman who didn't want to get pregnant to endure a pregnancy and to give their body to the good of the baby. While both are morally "good", both are an overreach of government power if mandated. Does that make sense?
One party may be sad , then glad as they finally woken up to the truth and begun to see the light. That light is life itself.
That's not how that works. People don't just change their minds like that. You can't argue that your candidate would be better simply because everyone else will realize that he's great when he wins. Whatever happens, 49% of the population will be unhappy with the outcome, it's better to judge simply on policy, and not whatever this is.
"This is an unsubstantiated claim. If you can find something in Kamala Harris’ rhetoric or policy that says she doesn’t support freedom of the press, you can use that but this is just saying that democrats are a hive-mind, not proving it."Ok let me ask. Is leaving a decision up to someone to think about to make, free to the will of that person to think autonomously?
Yeah? I really don't understand what you are saying, or how this even remotely applies to my question about freedom of the press. Once again, does Harris support freedom of the press? I'll answer that for you, yes. So why do you make the argument that she doesn't support that?
"Well unless you actually go into detail about these parts of my argument, then they are allowed to stand, and only help my argument."So because the issue of abortion is present, everything else, other policies, whatever else, collapses in quality with it. So these other parts can't provide and further quality due to the basis of life being tampered with, destroyed daily in the womb.
No, not at all. You were the one who didn't respond to any of my arguments and only brought up abortion, so like I said before, if you don't respond to those then they stand.
So you say yes to the question of the unemployment rate going down and not increasing under President Trump's watch. So that's a case for a quality of life with the Republican administration you can't argue and be correct about that portion being better as there is no way to verify. Unless Harris runs again and is in office. Until then , that case is thrown out.
Okay, same thing as before. The President has little control over the unemployment rate. The spike was also exactly correlated with COVID, so it really was because of the pandemic. That's like saying that my grandpa died over when Trump was in office, so that's his fault. CORRElATION ≠ CAUSATION.
No wars started with the states under President Trump's term, right. So that's another case for a quality of life.
See above. I'm not saying that it wasn't Biden's fault, but I'm also not saying it was. Harris does not have "let's start some wars!" in her platform, so you can't 100% hold it against her, especially since it was Biden.
You have no proof or provided none to prove he is more dangerous because you said you believe . Threats don't prove danger either so that's what you believe instead of actually knowing. Hence he did not get any prison terms just off of being a danger to society such as a serial killer.
If I threaten to murder someone, does that make me more dangerous? Of course. Now, it doesn't prove that, but I would certainly run away from someone threatening to murder me. I never said that Trump was definitely going to undermine democracy, I just said that makes it more likely that he will, much less likely than Harris.
Oh now well is he not going to continue what he started? If so , of course we're starting with where he left off. Now you say some people, so why not all people? What did the successful folks get right that the others couldn't?If you're going to argue the quality of life would be better for all, that can't be true because there are already people that have it because they had with President Trump's last turn. So this is completely and perfectly relevant to the debate and topic. You just may not be seeing it . Hopefully now you're catching on to the point.I understand that you feel that life is better with liberalism, liberals, etc ., but ........."fake news".
Okay, it's fine if you make that point, but you still have to defend it with evidence and reasoning. I have yet to see any that isn't about abortion. You can't just repeat that Trump is better, you have to demonstrate it.
That is exactly the point. The topic says : It is more likely that Harris would have been a better president than Trump will beYou've define better to mean : "I’m going to define “better” as having resulted in making a better quality of life for all people, not just Americans."Realize you're saying that ALL people's lives having a better quality of life based on a specific person being president.Now you're back pedaling resisting to discuss with all people relying on another. But you're talking about the quality of lives in connection to presidency.If you going to be against one relying on another then my quality of life is not better based on who's in office. It's better or worse regardless. But you're the one that tied these two elements together.You started off with one premise regarding this quality of life, but then when I reason to you about self accountability, you dodge from discussing. This is why I mentioned about non partisan and non active voters. People already have the quality of life decided in their hands. It's just that one presidency versus another can add or help those that are struggling with raising good quality while the other will not. Which is the one you're arguing for which I guess unfortunately for you but perhaps fortunately in hindsight will not take place over the next four years.
Okay, I think I get the confusion. It is obviously impossible for a president to make quality of life better for everybody, and that's not what I meant. Whoever improved life for the most people is the better person. I included "all people" because I meant not just Americans. Sorry about that.
Con
#6
We're nearing to the end and you're conceding more and more . Let's display the following.
"Well first of all, that's not really the question that should be asked, or the title of the debate. As I've been saying, a president doesn't have complete control over everything that happens during their term, so you can't attribute an entire 4 years to them. That would be like saying Lincoln was one of our worst presidents because throughout his whole term we were at war. You need to focus on specifically what that president did during their term, or in the case of Harris, what they plan to do. As for my argument to that, see round 1. "
A president doesn't have complete control. So being that you didn't answer the question, this leaves the non answer of talking how people's lives were. We're talking about the quality of life. But you did not elaborate or argue the quality of life during his actual term. Not a hypothetical one. You're trying to argue hypothetically what somebody will be in office of an effect on others and we have real time, real history of evidence to go off of at least and you haven't faced that.
You can run from it. It won't help your case facing it but it's telling when you evade it as well .
"Okay, but the born are conscious, and feel pain. The unborn do not. The born are human beings, fetuses are more akin to germs in the early stages, and still don't have consciousness in the later part of the pregnancy. Both are living, but one has free will, and the other is living only in the sense of a house plant. Are we really to give more rights to a house plant than a human being?"
It makes no difference in value. It's not more rights, it's the same rights. Got to get outside this box of what you been taught. I see why people believe what they believe. They've been conditioned to think the value of a person is one thing without anything else preceding. What the person came from carries the same value. One came from the other and without one there's not the other .
What I came from, sprung from is not less than. Society is programming you with that dishonest rhetoric. The roots of that tree are just as essential even though we don't consume them but just the apples in which they came .
"Okay, in my opinion this is the best argument for life, but It still falls completely short. Imagine it this way, instead of keeping a pregnancy think of donating a kidney. For both, you have to undergo a lot of physical pain and trauma. Obviously, donating a Kidney is an amazing act of good, but not many people are willing to do that. Thus while it is good, the government doesn't mandate that everyone must donate their kidneys to sick patients, even though without you, a person will die. So it is with keeping an unwanted pregnancy. Though I do believe it would be a good thing to keep a child you didn't want, not many people would do that, and the physical toll it takes on your body as a women is immense. You can't possibly ask every person with a spare kidney to give it away, and you can't possibly ask every woman who didn't want to get pregnant to endure a pregnancy and to give their body to the good of the baby. While both are morally "good", both are an overreach of government power if mandated. Does that make sense?"
I can't say your illustration makes sense, let alone the point you attempted to make. I'll respond this way ok. Anything to promote life overall is the best quality of life, let alone what flourishes man's existence with perhaps the little time left on this planet according to science and religion.
Also I'll say this flat. When you consent to sexual intercourse, you do consent to pregnancy automatically and we can debate that as well. Let me know. That'll be a fun topic .
"That's not how that works. People don't just change their minds like that. You can't argue that your candidate would be better simply because everyone else will realize that he's great when he wins. Whatever happens, 49% of the population will be unhappy with the outcome, it's better to judge simply on policy, and not whatever this is."
What I'm saying is one party at least promotes you to think for yourself and leaves it up to the state to ban or permit abortion. To require all states to allow it is not leaving it up to the states but is deciding for them. When you have promotion for a decided decision from the government or higher up, it creates less pause for critical individual thinking about this subject. When the higher ups have decided for you, the popular decision is in, laws and governments are behind it, it is easier to push someone in that direction.
But with smaller government, now you're left to think about it, because the decision hasn't been made for you, in the midst of your pondering, causes delay, hesitation, stalling you to go into a clinic, that is time of leeway to perhaps not do something before it's too late. So the ones that have this luxury may be sad because they didn't get the vote but can be happy in hindsight given the time to think on their own, reconsider and say I'm much happier I didn't kill my son or daughter. Look, my son is president. He's fighting for more of humanity rights. I'm really happy about that. As opposed to rushing or more expediently killing my son, what he could of been, can't undo it now. Permanent sadness to live with versus temporary sadness of my vote not winning instead.
"Yeah? I really don't understand what you are saying, or how this even remotely applies to my question about freedom of the press. Once again, does Harris support freedom of the press? I'll answer that for you, yes. So why do you make the argument that she doesn't support that?"
I thought you be sure of knowing that being left to think freely is to autonomously think as an individual. Leaving it up to the states to decide is just that. That's not democratic policy. You think legalizing abortion everywhere is that. No , somebody has already decided for you that it should be allowed.
All that democratic stuff, socialism, communism, runs hand and hand. It is not what you think it is. It is not free thinking. Liberalism really traps people into this type of government. You give a bait and switch, appease, dangle the carrot, have whatever you want, do whatever you want long as you don't "hurt anybody else"(lies, the unborn and yourself is anybody else), you pacify, placate, accommodate and so forth.
Just gotta say this as the scripture says, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
"No, not at all. You were the one who didn't respond to any of my arguments and only brought up abortion, so like I said before, if you don't respond to those then they stand. "
You can stick your fingers in your ears. My response is still that if you got the quality of life going down at the basis or foundation, there is nothing else that is supposedly there to improve life's existence.
It's like you can argue how nice the car is and all the pluses there. If I can't get any quality gas in it for it to have actual life, those so called pluses mean nothing. I can have the nicest looking gun. That's what you're trying to argue. What about all these other nice things about this gun? I'm saying without the basis of bullets, so what?
This is where you should counter and argue that these other things outshine or can replace the loss of life with abortion and abortion is an improvement of life. Since you're arguing for it claiming that the party that's for it would make our lives better, that's a pretty big claim. You should of made a big case by now of how abortion is good for us and our survival. You know what I'm saying.
Instead you have no rebuttal and just conveyed "no can't accept that".
You actually have to make a rebuttal and counterargument to my response.
"Okay, same thing as before. The President has little control over the unemployment rate. The spike was also exactly correlated with COVID, so it really was because of the pandemic. That's like saying that my grandpa died over when Trump was in office, so that's his fault. CORRElATION ≠ CAUSATION."
See, you can't even give any quality of life credit to Mr. Trump. But if it was a democratic party in there, you'd jump with the same pros.
"See above. I'm not saying that it wasn't Biden's fault, but I'm also not saying it was. Harris does not have "let's start some wars!" in her platform, so you can't 100% hold it against her, especially since it was Biden."
Give it up baby give it up. Give him the credit, give it up.
"If I threaten to murder someone, does that make me more dangerous? Of course. Now, it doesn't prove that, but I would certainly run away from someone threatening to murder me. I never said that Trump was definitely going to undermine democracy, I just said that makes it more likely that he will, much less likely than Harris."
Me doing a bunch of talking and never doing anything is not dangerous. They don't bust people, give them prison terms for a bunch of colorful talking. You have to prove in court the dangerous actions that took place to declare the person dangerous in a court of law. You're nitpicking Mr. Trump because you don't support him but will have to now if you're a law abiding u.s. citizen.
Also that what is likely, probable and likelihood isn't proof either.
"Okay, it's fine if you make that point, but you still have to defend it with evidence and reasoning. I have yet to see any that isn't about abortion. You can't just repeat that Trump is better, you have to demonstrate it."
I demonstrated that your party that you claim is better for a quality of life is erroneous because a party supporting and upholding the eliminating of life in the womb can't have quality with no life. Your party eliminates the foundation of where we all start and you really tried to argue that there's no quality there.
Which doesn't compute with having quality now as I am being able to vote but not prior because my quality came from somewhere, started from somewhere. Your party's policy is to ban free thinking to individual states to make a decision by just declaring that the states can't decide for themselves, it will be decided for them. It is decided for them in terms of "abortion must be legal in your state". This strengthens the order and control of the people that basically depend on the law to be right so it cuts critical thinking out which will lead them to do less of it to none at all and to just take the direction of legal guidance. Particularly after all the legal medical arguments have been presented. These arguments can be so well crafted, an average person can't retort or dispute in any sense that could be used as pushback. This is especially so for the unlearned. The direction of the thought process is "legal administration authority must have official data in medical procedures, medical evaluations, data from medical professionals, from physicians, so called medical/biological experts that spew the categorical boxes that you have stated : fetus, germ, non-person, etc."
So the "legal " declaration of non person in the womb, no rights to the unborn is practical to digest.
Is the expounding on this point more plain?
Are you following all this elaboration well ?
You still have to prove that a President administration that requires all states to permit abortion is building up life for better quality. You have to prove that killing the unborn that becomes the born is building up life and not tearing it down.
See, you're not looking at that aspect. You're looking at the republican side, calling somebody dangerous for using what you see as colorful language and whatever else said that is supposedly what tears down, lowers the quality of life more or actually does than abortion would ever do.
Also it's demonstrated to you which you conceded I believe during the Republican term, unemployment rate was down which adds to quality of life as well as wars not being started with the states moreover.
This is actual proof. You're trying to argue what could be.
I thinking people have warned you about not arguing hypotheticals.
"Okay, I think I get the confusion. It is obviously impossible for a president to make quality of life better for everybody, and that's not what I meant. Whoever improved life for the most people is the better person. I included "all people" because I meant not just Americans. Sorry about that."
Ok so now it's this "didn't mean the way I said it " stuff. Unfortunately for you that appears as ad hoc and moving the goalpost. Your exact words are your position. You have to say exactly what you mean. Not mean exactly what you intended.
Behind this loophole, people can change things up with the "well that's not exactly what I meant by those words even though those words are exactly how I put them".
It's not confusion. It's bad wording you used to represent your position. I'll trust that you're honest and didn't realize the wording. You said for all people. That is different from most people.
Two different positions on paper. Even with "most people", why would it be impossible for all but possible for most?
It's still the same scenario in that most people rely on another to be responsible for their quality of life.
I have demonstrated via your omission.
I rest my case.
Round 4
Pro
#7
A president doesn't have complete control. So being that you didn't answer the question, this leaves the non answer of talking how people's lives were. We're talking about the quality of life. But you did not elaborate or argue the quality of life during his actual term. Not a hypothetical one. You're trying to argue hypothetically what somebody will be in office of an effect on others and we have real time, real history of evidence to go off of at least and you haven't faced that.
Okay, I think you misunderstood the resolution. The title of this debate deals completely in hypotheticals, so it's not a fault of my argument that Harris hasn't been in office, it's the whole point. You have a little advantage in that your candidate has shown what he can do as president once before, but both arguments should be mainly based around the campaign promises and platforms both parties provided.
It makes no difference in value. It's not more rights, it's the same rights. Got to get outside this box of what you been taught. I see why people believe what they believe. They've been conditioned to think the value of a person is one thing without anything else preceding. What the person came from carries the same value. One came from the other and without one there's not the other. What I came from, sprung from is not less than. Society is programming you with that dishonest rhetoric. The roots of that tree are just as essential even though we don't consume them but just the apples in which they came .
You're still missing my point. Yes, a fetus still has the same amount of rights as the mother, but the key there is that the mother has rights also. I believe that abortion is murder only in the same way that choosing not to save someone from a burning building is murder. In both cases, though your actions could have saved a life it's completely unreasonable to expect everyone to put their life on the line and run into a burning building, just as it is unreasonable to expect someone to put their body, health and wellbeing on the line to save a life. Just as the baby has a right to life, the mother has a right to choose to not always do what superman would do.
I'll close out the abortion section right now. Using the resolution I provided, I still think that the candidate with the pro abortion status supports quality of life for people more. Just as a law mandating all people must become doctors and dedicate their lives to curing cancer would bring down quality of life, so does a law banning abortion. I didn't really want to bring abortion into this debate, but it has been a little interesting since you brought it up, so thanks for that.
I thought you be sure of knowing that being left to think freely is to autonomously think as an individual. Leaving it up to the states to decide is just that. That's not democratic policy. You think legalizing abortion everywhere is that. No , somebody has already decided for you that it should be allowed.All that democratic stuff, socialism, communism, runs hand and hand. It is not what you think it is. It is not free thinking. Liberalism really traps people into this type of government. You give a bait and switch, appease, dangle the carrot, have whatever you want, do whatever you want long as you don't "hurt anybody else"(lies, the unborn and yourself is anybody else), you pacify, placate, accommodate and so forth.
This really has nothing to do with the resolution. Neither of us should be arguing for the merit of specific political ideologies or parties but for the merits of the proposed platforms of both candidates. Besides even if this was relevant, you never actually back up your claims with anything, you're just speaking opinions about liberals and not saying why you believe that ideology to be incorrect.
You can stick your fingers in your ears. My response is still that if you got the quality of life going down at the basis or foundation, there is nothing else that is supposedly there to improve life's existence. It's like you can argue how nice the car is and all the pluses there. If I can't get any quality gas in it for it to have actual life, those so called pluses mean nothing. I can have the nicest looking gun. That's what you're trying to argue. What about all these other nice things about this gun? I'm saying without the basis of bullets, so what? This is where you should counter and argue that these other things outshine or can replace the loss of life with abortion and abortion is an improvement of life. Since you're arguing for it claiming that the party that's for it would make our lives better, that's a pretty big claim. You should of made a big case by now of how abortion is good for us and our survival. You know what I'm saying.
Okay well I don't think you actually looked at my argument, because I pretty clearly stated why I don't think abortion is murder. I never accepted that legalized abortion brings down quality of life so unless you're willing to rebut those arguments, you can't argue on the basis that democrats bring quality of life down because of abortion. You can't just say that Harris' platform is bad for quality of life, you have to demonstrate it and you have yet to do almost any of that so far.
See, you can't even give any quality of life credit to Mr. Trump. But if it was a democratic party in there, you'd jump with the same pros.
Once again, irrelevant to the argument. To recap this line of thought: 1. You brought up the fact that the unemployment rate went down during Trump's term and up during Biden's term. 2. I countered by pointing out that these spikes and slopes were caused mostly by factors other than presidential intervention. 3. You didn't respond to my point, and used an ad-hominem attack to say that I wouldn't be saying the same if it were a Democrat in power during Trump's term. I'd also like to point out that this debate is about Harris and not Biden, so your attacks should be about Harris' platform, not her predecessor's term.
Give it up baby give it up. Give him the credit, give it up.
No, because he doesn't deserve it. If you can find data that backs up your assumption that it was because of Trump, then I'll believe you, but I have yet to see it.
Me doing a bunch of talking and never doing anything is not dangerous. They don't bust people, give them prison terms for a bunch of colorful talking. You have to prove in court the dangerous actions that took place to declare the person dangerous in a court of law. You're nitpicking Mr. Trump because you don't support him but will have to now if you're a law abiding u.s. citizen.Also that what is likely, probable and likelihood isn't proof either.
I never said it was proof. I only maintained that it makes him more likely to be dangerous, not actually dangerous. Also, you've just ignored the fact that he's acted on these threats before. January 6th was not a day of love.
"Okay, it's fine if you make that point, but you still have to defend it with evidence and reasoning. I have yet to see any that isn't about abortion. You can't just repeat that Trump is better, you have to demonstrate it."I demonstrated that your party that you claim is better for a quality of life is erroneous because a party supporting and upholding the eliminating of life in the womb can't have quality with no life. Your party eliminates the foundation of where we all start and you really tried to argue that there's no quality there.
My point was that you haven't provided any reasoning against my other point, you just brought up the issue of abortion. I have made counter arguments to your original argument, you have yet to do the same.
Conclusion
Thanks for participating in this debate with me, it's been fun. I'll close out quickly now by going through my appeal to the voters. I brought up many different issues from the campaign in my opening statement. My opponent has not responded to any of them, and thus they are allowed to stand. I believe I rebutted the points brought up by Con to the best of my ability, and so I believe I should win the arguments point. I also provided many very credible sources while Con has yet to cite one. This debate is one that relies heavily on sources, and so I think that point should also be awarded to me. Con's conduct has been good, and so has their legibility so I don't believe those points should go to anyone.
Con
#8
"Okay, I think you misunderstood the resolution. The title of this debate deals completely in hypotheticals, so it's not a fault of my argument that Harris hasn't been in office, it's the whole point. You have a little advantage in that your candidate has shown what he can do as president once before, but both arguments should be mainly based around the campaign promises and platforms both parties provided."
My case is stronger because you can't prove anything with what could be. I can prove the quality of life that has existed without the democratic party you're hypothetically broaching would or could be by deductive probability. Deductive probability is not proving but just suggesting.
You should of had a topic between two individuals that never been in office.
"Just as the baby has a right to life, the mother has a right to choose to not always do what superman would do.
I'll close out the abortion section right now. Using the resolution I provided, I still think that the candidate with the pro abortion status supports quality of life for people more. Just as a law mandating all people must become doctors and dedicate their lives to curing cancer would bring down quality of life, so does a law banning abortion. I didn't really want to bring abortion into this debate, but it has been a little interesting since you brought it up, so thanks for that."
Making all states mandate abortion legalization is not increasing the quality of life. When you abort life, you ridding the quality out along with it. It's a no brainer so of course abortion would be raised in this topic. Encouraging abortion rights just promotes anti-life. Go figure. That's why it's called a pro life position for those anti abortion.
"This really has nothing to do with the resolution. Neither of us should be arguing for the merit of specific political ideologies or parties but for the merits of the proposed platforms of both candidates. Besides even if this was relevant, you never actually back up your claims with anything, you're just speaking opinions about liberals and not saying why you believe that ideology to be incorrect"
No rebuttal from you on the point so I accept the conceding from you on it .
"Okay well I don't think you actually looked at my argument, because I pretty clearly stated why I don't think abortion is murder. I never accepted that legalized abortion brings down quality of life so unless you're willing to rebut those arguments, you can't argue on the basis that democrats bring quality of life down because of abortion. You can't just say that Harris' platform is bad for quality of life, you have to demonstrate it and you have yet to do almost any of that so far."
Abortion is not an improvement of quality of life. It is an elimination of life itself. I understand you understand that about eliminating life so it is already demonstrated to you without this debate. I think you weren't expecting the debate to shoot down your position with that fundamental and true principle. Not to mention with not improving the lives of people that are against abortion.
"Once again, irrelevant to the argument. To recap this line of thought: 1. You brought up the fact that the unemployment rate went down during Trump's term and up during Biden's term. 2. I countered by pointing out that these spikes and slopes were caused mostly by factors other than presidential intervention. 3. You didn't respond to my point, and used an ad-hominem attack to say that I wouldn't be saying the same if it were a Democrat in power during Trump's term. I'd also like to point out that this debate is about Harris and not Biden, so your attacks should be about Harris' platform, not her predecessor's term."
I won't even do the "once again " myself. I won't perpetuate going in circles.
"No, because he doesn't deserve it. If you can find data that backs up your assumption that it was because of Trump, then I'll believe you, but I have yet to see it."
It's not about deserving. We just went over this. You acknowledge the point about the wars , unemployment, etc.
That's why he's president again.
Come on. If the voters you won't acknowledge, I can't do anything for you.
"I never said it was proof. I only maintained that it makes him more likely to be dangerous, not actually dangerous. Also, you've just ignored the fact that he's acted on these threats before. January 6th was not a day of love."
Ok no proof like you say, we could drop this. We could of been dropped it. Drop everything that is not proof from you, and hypotheticals while you're at it.
"My point was that you haven't provided any reasoning against my other point, you just brought up the issue of abortion. I have made counter arguments to your original argument, you have yet to do the same."
Abortion was enough. You can not get any stronger than that.
"Thanks for participating in this debate with me, it's been fun. I'll close out quickly now by going through my appeal to the voters. I brought up many different issues from the campaign in my opening statement. My opponent has not responded to any of them, and thus they are allowed to stand. I believe I rebutted the points brought up by Con to the best of my ability, and so I believe I should win the arguments point. I also provided many very credible sources while Con has yet to cite one. This debate is one that relies heavily on sources, and so I think that point should also be awarded to me. Con's conduct has been good, and so has their legibility so I don't believe those points should go to anyone. "
Bottom line. You can't prove the result of a hypothetical. Particularly one that may or will not actually become reality to verify.The opposing side is venting an opinion brainwashed by democratic liberalism.
Case closed.
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:
Pro's argument is a lot more focused here, and they start out citing a lot of sources to support their claims, while Con cites none. I also found a lot of Con's argumentation confusing, as he would make references to things like the unemployment rate without defending how Trump's policies affected it. Pro instantly comes to the table with a source and argumentation to dispute this argument.
By the end, Con leaves basically everything on the table except abortion, beyond a few rhetorical questions that don't compare to all the sources Pro is providing. The description states "a better quality of life for all people," so this depends on whether or not the fetus is a person. Both sides are kind of vague here and agree the fetus is a life but not a human. Then Pro calls it a baby, which seems useful to Con's case. There was more room to go into detail here, especially on the latter claim, but that's what I'm left with. Pro compares abortion to not saving someone from a burning building, but the description only talks about better quality of life. So as long as forcing people to save others from burning buildings raises the average quality of life for persons, then I should presumably favor Con on the abortion topic. But Con doesn't argue along these lines beyond stating that abortion destroys life and thus reduces aggregate quality of life. Neither side really weighs all these costs against each other beyond Pro's comparison to "a law mandating all people must become doctors and dedicate their lives to curing cancer."
In the end, I vote Pro. Personhood was the deciding factor for the abortion topic, and Pro makes enough analogies to house plants and non-persons that Con doesn't really dispute. Con's case for the immorality of abortion seems more to hinge on the fetus being a potential person, and regardless of whether we should normally care about potential persons, I can't weigh their interests in this debate. While Pro's analogies could be a lot more in-depth, Con leaves almost every other topic on the table without showing abortion to be more important than those other topics. By the end Pro decisively wins on everything except abortion, and Con doesn't decisively win on abortion (I think Pro even comes out ahead there by a bit.)
The liberals have spoken. The funny thing is , the opposing side hasn't proven anything. It was 100 percent hypothetical but as Jesse Lee would say, children of the lie.
Not really. I did this same debate before the election when both were hypotheticals, and nothing’s really changed. They are both still speculation.
its true but both are hypothetical right now in a way
Trying to argue that Harris would be better when she didn't win the election and Trump hasn't even entered office yet isn't going to work. Maybe wait until Trump has been in office long enough for us to draw conclusions.
the thing is that inflation would have kept raising because of government deficit for financing wars and inmigrant plans and all this unnecessesary stuff for americans and also harmful for the world politically and economically as i said so inflation and global tension
so what are we thinking??
my point is rich people will be fine wether they get richer or not if inflation goes nuts if there is a civil war if poberty grows up to 99% they will suffer too obviously, but they will be fine anyways, believe it or not having free big corporations is better for the people than it is for the rich
Yeah, it's in her economic plan. She at least wouldn't have cut the billionaire tax rate, and Trump said he would do that.
best case scenario you are sweden and you do actually do something with those taxes, great then all cool, free economy, growth no problem, a lot of public stuff, but still kamala isnt that she was the vice president the last four years and honestly didnt do a difference at least not for good
sure it might be true im not saying i disagree, but it is still a fact that growth will most definitely see itself down, and besides kamala what really would have done with all those taxes really?? would have been the cost of that growth been worth idk financing illegal inmigrants or even paying a transition surgery to an inmate??
That's the problem I have with your argument. I don't believe we are yet at the point where more corporate taxes will stifle business. There is a line there, and we shouldn't cross it so much that we overturn the principles of free trade. However, some of the biggest monopolies in America today are doing just fine, and could certainly stand to pay more without suffering through horrible consequences. Same goes for wealthy americans.
ok we might disagree but it is a fact that higher taxes on companys that are big not just because they are big they are big because people use them, if these suffer regulations higher taxes then growth plummets, by having to raise prices to match the costs required of sustaining an enterprise, wich leads to less consumption and less growth, basically these companys dont enhance themselves as they should and could and also dont create more employment, we could disagree on wether rich people deserve to pay more or less but it is a fact that this heavily affects NORMAL americans more than rich people, rich people will be rich wether they grow or not but NORMAL people will see themselves having to struggle with buying food, clothes, and finding a job because sure they will have more money because they have less taxes but inflation will still increase for all ive mentioned before on government deficit and the obvious response of big corporations to higher taxes, capitalism is a game of adaptation they raise prices people buy less, there is less growth enterprises leave no one to serve and if there is they arent as efficient, it happened in latin america.
besides these big enterprises invest in smaller businesses and other projects with foreign companys wich also enhances entrepeneuring and overall aconomy
I disagree. You obviously have a point about government regulation being stifling sometimes, but I belive that we are too far the other way. There's a good middle ground where everyone pays what they ought to owe, and it doesn't hurt the economy. I think we could stand to have more upper-class taxation until in order to reach that goldilocks zone.
see the prices system works its own way and the government only changes corrupts it by taxes or price controls this leads to a domino effect that just takes societys down on a growth indicator
well as you know the true producers and creators of wealth in the world are that one percent they push mankind forward by finding new ways to please people in a cheaper way both for them and their workers, creating more employment and overall enhancing the economy by increasing consumption and keeping reasonable prices if you put high taxes on big corporations that are big because people use them then they will see themselves forced to raise prices wich overall leads to less growth less employment and major discontent of the people like right now.
The proposed tax hike is only on the top 1%, and she actually wanted to give tax breaks to poorer Americans. Instead of Trump's corporate and billionaire tax cuts for his rich friends, she actually wants to make these people pay their fair share.
yeah sure but still higher taxes and using those to fund wars is clearly not good for both the us and the world not economically nor politically
You make a good point. I don't deny that price controls are bad for an economy more often than not, but like I said before, Harris never endorsed them at all, people just tie that too her based on her father, and Trump's rhetoric.
also i agree the country had a great reliance on oil wich made it unstable but still expropiation played a huge role in the crisis, either way one of the biggest reason why kamala would have been way worse is the raise of taxes the insane money printing and bad funding of the government in general the US as it is already has a huge deficit and recently there has been a lot of stuff that the government made to fund different projects that make no sense like studys of butterflys in australia or smth look it up, besides wars would have continued everywhere because they were mostly funded by the united states just look at how much money the un gives to ukrain compared to the us or what just happened a few days ago with the missils and the 245 million dollars on military resources or the fact that many analysts suggested that if the taiwan china conflict started and us was still funding these current wars they say that in least than a week they would have depleted their military resources wich is scary because if the united states doesnt have competence over other countrys then freedom is at stake
first thanks for the welcoming very kind of you, secondly venezuela is just one of many more examples a great one is argentina or brazil and how price controls affected incentive for real producers or the private sector, basically making food much more expensive beyond the price control because of the lack of it, so basically there wasnt anymore because price controls didnt make them conveniant to make or sell or even consider to entrepeneur on
BTW welcome to the site! It's always nice to have new people, hope you like it here!
First of all, she never even proposed these measures in the first place, people just believe whatever Trump says about her. Second, communism wasn't the only reason that Venezuela failed. Mostly it was incompetent leadership and shortsightedness. They hitched their entire economy to oil, and when the oil dried up, the whole thing came crashing down. I'm not defending full on communism, but it's important to actually look at the real cause of things and to not just blame them on the end all scapegoat, communism.
no way, she wanted to exert the same methods that were applied in latin american economys, such as price controls, and really high taxes, plus their terrible use.