My Political Views are better than yours.

My opponent begins by making an observation in which he states that because I have not presented any of my political views, I, by default, cannot win this debate. I would like to mention that I realize I am obligated to fulfill the requirements of the debate stated in round one: namely, “Please review these issues,” (“review” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “consideration for purposes of correction”) along with the resolution: “Resolved, my political views are better than yours. ” Given only the space of 8,000 characters in which to do it, in order to feasibly execute this debate, I created an observation stated within the introduction of my debate that my opponent seems to have overlooked. For the ease of my readers, I will now reiterate that observation. “In order to satisfy the resolution: “Resolved: My political views are better than yours,” we will assume that the way in which I negate my opponent’s views constitutes my own. ” When I, in my previous speech, rebutted my opponent’s views, I aired my own simply through the way in which I refuted them. ” I will now move on to address some arguments that will help to crystalize the debate and clash with a few of my opponent’s more specific criticisms. The majority of my opponent’s rebuttal lies in his assertion that I agree with his views. He extracts quotes such as “I could not agree more with what he states here” and “this statement made by my opponent sounds hopeful” along with “that it is a noble aim. ” This was said as one might say: “Although this bill has good intentions, I simply cannot afford to support it. ” Although an end carries importance, it is the means to achieve that end that afford agreement or disagreement. In acknowledging good intentions, one is by no means bound to consensus. I. LEGISLATION: I would like to assure my opponent that I do note his opening statement, however I would like to remind him that this is not all he said. He also stated that the educational system lacks funding, therefore implying that he would wish to additionally fund it. In response to this I would like to reiterate my argument that we should use the funds we have efficiently instead of continually wasting excess funding. II. TAXES: A. My opponent attacks what he believes to be a “hasty generalization” on my part, in assuming that his use of “we” meant the federal government. I believe that I mentioned when I made this assumption in my first speech, that the reason I had to make this assumption was because my opponents vagueness as to defining “we” and his excessive use thereof. B. My opponent suggests that I “have the concept of capitalism wrong. ” He states that a capitalistic society relies partly on the government. While it may be inevitable for government to somewhat involve themselves in the economy, a capitalist economy, or an “economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned” relies not one the government but the private individual. To sum up, the less government, the more pure the capitalist economy. C. My opponent states that he has the right to convey his political views on any level, federal or national. I merely caution my opponent not to use specific and extreme examples in order to justify or argue the whole. III. FISCAL PRIORITIES: My opponent failed to clash with my stance of public-private partnerships which constituted the whole of his “fiscal priorities” views. IV. SCHOOLS: This section of the debate revolved largely around public vs. private schools. My opponent, to clash with this, states that he “never undermined the well-being of private schools. ” In response to this, I can only quote him thus: “People wouldn't feel the need to enroll their children in private schools. ” V. BUDGET PRIORITES: My opponent did not clash with my arguments pertaining to his budget priorities. VI. TOBACCO LITIGATION: My opponent here simply is not following the line of logic in my argument. Let me reiterate the misinterpreted scenario for purposes of clarification. Given: tobacco companies are mandated by the federal government to adhere a product warning to all their products. Therefore, to give an applicable example, a defective toy sold with the knowledge that it was injuring children would have had an attached warning that told of these effects (just as tobacco is known to cause harm and has proper warning labels). Thus, the company could not be held liable for the idiocy of its customers. VII. SPECIAL INTERESTS: My opponent failed to clash with this section of the debate. VIII. ABORTION: My opponent states that he “never wanted live human beings to die. ” So does my opponent want human beings to die? Just not “live” human beings? So claims his argument. IX. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: While I’m sure we all thank my opponent for copying and pasting this excerpt from, no doubt, a revered source, this argument has no bearing on his case and in no way clashes with my argument. I did not state that homosexuality was a choice; I did not state that civil unions should not be made legal to all. What I did advocate was for the right of religions to practice said religion without being told by the federal government what marriage they must consider permissible. It is for all the afore-mentioned reasons that I ask for the negation of this resolution. Again, thank you to all judges, readers, and, of course, my so very dedicated opponent. I hope this debate was well worth the time and thought that was so obviously invested in it. Sources Black’s Law Dictionary