Interesting debate, you might want to add some specifications. For instance, saying how bad he is compared to other presidents. It would be pretty hard to argue he was the worst, but if you say he was in the bottom five, that’s a little more possible.
A word of advice, it would be best to define racism. You could be talking about the blatant belief that one race is superior to the others, or you could be talking about systemic racism ingrained in our institutions. Then again, you could mean anything in between too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The real question is when you take out all the legendaries, then who wins? I still say the Pokemon, but in that case you could make an argument for the lions.
Also, If you want to see this debate against an opponent who actually tried, I've done it once before under the same title, and before that against WyIted.
This one is interesting, and if I don’t accept it I’ll probably vote on it.
Just to clarify, you mean that Con would be arguing that something outside of our control will destroy us rather than us destroying ourselves, right? Because humanity is doomed to die out eventually, it’s Murphy’s law.
“OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.”
No, I agree with you to some degree. My total opinion about this is that like you said, it should be legal if not an incitement to violence. But then we get into the morality aspect of it and not just the legal realm. I think Black people shouldn’t get a pass because as you said, they are perfectly capable of using it as a slur. I think morally speaking, you obviously shouldn’t use it as a slur, but it’s okay to say it in a normal setting if it’s not excessive. For example, don’t say it around kids and stuff. But if you keep using it too much, I think that can give other people the idea that it’s okay to use the word whenever, which it’s not. Overall, don’t say it as a slur, and when not using it as a slur, keep in mind that it is technically a slur. It’s important to give the word respect at least, because it is a very heavy word with lots of connotations.
This one seems interesting. I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.
As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves? By that logic, anyone can say it as long as they aren’t using it as a slur.
I’d add one more thing to that. You can use it if it is not as a slur, it’s not repeated and not just to get attention. It is a slur so you should give respect to it, even if you’re not using it as such, but you can use it a few times if necessary.
Thats fine, you can still participate if you want, but otherwise I'll take the forfeit.
probably time to start soliciting votes
Interesting debate, you might want to add some specifications. For instance, saying how bad he is compared to other presidents. It would be pretty hard to argue he was the worst, but if you say he was in the bottom five, that’s a little more possible.
A word of advice, it would be best to define racism. You could be talking about the blatant belief that one race is superior to the others, or you could be talking about systemic racism ingrained in our institutions. Then again, you could mean anything in between too.
Thanks from me too!
Votes
votes plz
Not really. I did this same debate before the election when both were hypotheticals, and nothing’s really changed. They are both still speculation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
votes plz
Seeing as it’s technically Saturday, this is your friendly reminder to vote on this debate. No pressure though.
Thanks, always appreciated!
Could I get some definitions?
Do people still vote on debates anymore?
votes
Thanks for the feedback. Always nice to get critique on my debates.
The real question is when you take out all the legendaries, then who wins? I still say the Pokemon, but in that case you could make an argument for the lions.
Still waiting on that definition. Again, it’s my bad for asking this after I’ve already accepted, but I would like one if at all possible.
Sorry, but can I get a definition for slavery? Probably should have asked this before I accepted, my bad.
Also, If you want to see this debate against an opponent who actually tried, I've done it once before under the same title, and before that against WyIted.
Are you planning to vote on this? Because if not I'd like to respond to some of your comments, but If you are going to I probably shouldn't.
In that case, all your efforts are in vain, seeing as it can’t be too hard for you to do this.
Well thanks anyways. I always appreciate some commentary on my debate skills.
Sources Cited:
1. Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs - WP/19/9
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255316/
3.https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf?ref=risingupwithsonali.com#:~:text=Under%20the%20Raise%20the%20Wage,projections%20underlying%20the%202019%20report.
4. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23532/w23532.pdf
5.https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage-2019/#:~:text=A%20%2415%20minimum%20wage%20would,the%20wage%20distribution%20since%201979.
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522003779#sec6
7.https://labor4sustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cleanenergy_10212015_main.pdf
votes
Dang, that sucks.
Is anyone still on this site?
Finally, somebody else who watches him!
I’ve had this debate twice already on this site, so there are people who would do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
This one is interesting, and if I don’t accept it I’ll probably vote on it.
Just to clarify, you mean that Con would be arguing that something outside of our control will destroy us rather than us destroying ourselves, right? Because humanity is doomed to die out eventually, it’s Murphy’s law.
“OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.”
No, I agree with you to some degree. My total opinion about this is that like you said, it should be legal if not an incitement to violence. But then we get into the morality aspect of it and not just the legal realm. I think Black people shouldn’t get a pass because as you said, they are perfectly capable of using it as a slur. I think morally speaking, you obviously shouldn’t use it as a slur, but it’s okay to say it in a normal setting if it’s not excessive. For example, don’t say it around kids and stuff. But if you keep using it too much, I think that can give other people the idea that it’s okay to use the word whenever, which it’s not. Overall, don’t say it as a slur, and when not using it as a slur, keep in mind that it is technically a slur. It’s important to give the word respect at least, because it is a very heavy word with lots of connotations.
You probably already know what I’m gonna say, but you’re gonna want to define “Tyranny”.
If anyone actually does accept this, I’ll be eager to watch it.
This one seems interesting. I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.
As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves? By that logic, anyone can say it as long as they aren’t using it as a slur.
I’d add one more thing to that. You can use it if it is not as a slur, it’s not repeated and not just to get attention. It is a slur so you should give respect to it, even if you’re not using it as such, but you can use it a few times if necessary.
Votes
Cool, thanks!
Yeah, I like to learn from my mistakes. You're welcome to accept again if you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
I’d love to accept if it wasn’t for the minimum rating.
Votes
A better title might be “ America is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
You can’t argue that America is responsible for all terrorism.
I’d accept this one if I had more time on my hands. Sounds like a fun expanded trolley problem.
votes
votes