Simulated Presidential Debate

My opponent tries to change the definition of what anarchism is, but he failed to do so last round. He then agrees to the previous definition of anarchy—he already dropped the argument—so, in debate, it is impossible for him to backtrack. My opponent even admits that anarchy is unattainable, meaning his whole position is illogical and a knee-jerk reaction to the turmoil we see today. He then claims we need a government with no power. This doesn’t even make sense. A government with no power is a government which cannot enforce contracts. Economist Milton Friedman, who opposes the government, states “[g]overnment has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property.” If all of the power is stripped from the government… then the government has no power to enforce any of these functions which are universally accepted as good. Without defense another country without crazy laws will take us over. Without power contracts cannot be enforced—which is key in capitalism—and without power property rights will not be protected. This also leads to a paradox: Why run for president? If we take away all the power, you have ZERO power to do ANYTHING you have been wanting to do. This means you will do NOTHING for this country. This country does not need a president who will prevent our government from doing anything. He also contradicts his position. With the government unable to enforce contracts, they are unable to defend the bill of rights which he defends. Thus, he will lead to a society which ignores all of the tenants we hold dear—gun rights, freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to not house troops, etc. His whole stance on anarchy doesn’t even make sense and paralyzes his entire position. It is pretty crazy that a presidential candidate has gotten enough traction to be on national television yet contradicts himself the more he speaks and weakens his own position—and the position of the country itself. My opponent doesn’t even make sense for justice. He will be outlawed? By who? He is assuming citizens will somehow outlaw him themselves and then enslave him—something which is totally immoral—but again, with the government unable to enforce contracts, why outlaw him? What if the outlaw has outlaw friends? It is very possible that the tables could turn and chaos will ensue. His whole position on how ‘justice’ will be enforced is just silly. And he then supports bringing back slavery and dares call it constitutional. It may be constitutional under due process, but it is unconstitutional under the 8th amendment. The Supreme court has ruled that a punishment must be evaluated “in light of the basic prohibition against inhuman treatment”, that the amendment was created in order to protect the “basic concept . . . [of] the dignity of man” and it does this by ensuring that *all* punishments are “exercised within the limits of civilized standards.” [1] Enslaving someone, whether or not it is allowed under due process, is outside the limits of civilized standards, does not protect the dignity of man, and fails the test to pass the accepted jurisprudence stating all punishments must be evaluated under the concept that inhumane treatment must be banned. It is inhumane on all levels, and should never be allowed. The fact he wants to be a barbarian and break the constitution—something he claims to support—is sickening. It is impossible to say that this is constitutional—meaning it should not be supported—and, again, how would it be enforced with no government? His opinion as to how government should works refutes *every* argument he has put forward, and *any* reasoning person can see his concept of justice is just barbaric and unacceptable. My opponent says gay people can be gay—but not in this country. That means he actually wishes to prohibit being gay at all, not just gay marriage! He again is supporting something inhumane and against the constitution. If he swears the presidential oath to not break the constitution, he would be a liar. Everything he is standing for is unconstitutional. Consensual sexual conduct—regardless of whether or not it is gay or not—is a liberty and “protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.” [2] This was ruled in Lawrence v Texas 2003. Thus, the entire position my opponent has breaks his platform statement to uphold the bill of rights. This is total hypocrisy. My opponent wishes to be anarchist despite the *obvious* contradictions in his stance. He can label himself anything he wants—but everything he is standing for is either against his core beliefs (or, so he says his beliefs are) or just won’t work under his governmental structure. It is pretty obvious that you are a poor anarchist and will be insidious to the rule of law of this country. My opponent makes pretty crazy statements no good economist would actually support. There were many causes to the great depression, and the ones which stem from the Federal Reserve stem from the fact we were on the gold standard [3]. We are no longer on the gold standard, which means the example is not applicable. Second, I offered *actual* empirical evidence that my plan would work. My opponent relies upon emotional appeals. Emotion does not matter when you are president. You need to be able to act fast devoid of emotional ties. What you do will affect millions, and trivial emotional arguments are not how you conduct sound policy. I also proved the 1949 levels of regulation spur growth and actually *prevent* recessions, meaning my position has actual backing behind it. He is just spewing anarchist propaganda and has not read any literature on the subject. My opponent keeps saying how he will donate his salary—ok, great. While you ruin the country they will need $200,000 from you. Instead I will be teaching self-reliance, have growth rates of 10%, reduce poverty to zero, and make everyone three times richer—I offered evidence that this would happen. So, take your pick: someone who ruins a country and gives some of his money to the people, or someone who makes everyone better off in the long term. If I were you, I would choose the guy who is going to help everyone. Again, this donation thing is just an emotional ploy. Giving your salary to the poor wont solve their problem. I do not think you are capable of making everyone better off. I offer actual solutions, you offer, well, nothing. My opponent says we are hurt by the Fed—he fails to refute the *actual* evidence that it has helped people. He makes a statement with no backing whatsoever. Actual economists state that the most recent bust was because of optimistic forecasts—by everyone, not just the Fed—and ineffective regulation. We need basic levels of regulation—many of the 1949 regulations have been repealed (the rest ate excess and must be removed)—and that is what prevents busts, not abolishing the Fed [4]. I have proven that the Fed reduced unemployment by 1.5%, making them good, and have proven they are not the sole cause of the boom and bust cycle—if anything, they reduce the impact of it. Monetary stimulus is free, effective, and easy to reverse. Removing the Federal Reserve puts the entire economy at risk. My views on the government, monetary policy, and justice all make sense. My opponent is self-contradictory and supports policies which would hurt anyone—and donating his salary is not enough to make up for the harm he will inflict. 16kadams/ResponsibleIrresponsible 2016 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.nber.org... 4. http://www.frbsf.org...