Good point. Maybe I’ll run this debate again once we’ve seen the long term effects too. That was kinda my original plan, but I got bored so I moved this one up.
Sounds interesting, I might accept. The description would benefit from some definitions though, specifically what you mean by "justified". Also, it's a little unclear which side you are on.
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.
It's a hard life to live
I get the feeling. Too often I end up debating for the most depression resolutions.
Will defnietly be watching to see how this one plays out. Cool resolution.
Yup. I was backpacking the last few days so the argument might be a little late. I will definitely have it by the time limit though.
Sounds okay to me. As long as you stay within the character limit I’m fine with it.
Not complaining about your current vote, but in the future, forfeiting a round is an automatic loss of conduct point. Just FYI.
I might accept with some definitions provided.
Good point. Maybe I’ll run this debate again once we’ve seen the long term effects too. That was kinda my original plan, but I got bored so I moved this one up.
Well it’s an impossible burden of proof to uphold. I can’t 100% prove that tariffs will be bad long term.
And I've kinda already done that one a few times.
It's too speculative for me.
Fine, I'll do the same debate in few months
Oh, Good point
Sounds interesting, I might accept. The description would benefit from some definitions though, specifically what you mean by "justified". Also, it's a little unclear which side you are on.
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.