the democratic party

I will address my opponents contentions immediately. His contention one that my argument is not valid because the parties have switched sides is in fact, not valid. The parties have not "switched sides" as my opponent states, but the democratic party has simply switched from overt racism into covert racism keeping minorities as dependent as possible on the government in order to secure their vote. Think about it, Affirmative action is creating quotas or lowering standards in order to get more minorities into positions in universities or employment. Basically, this not only fosters dependence on the government but also states that Minority groups have no hope of competing intellectually or professionally with white people without government support and lower standards. Next, Trump is not a racist for wanting to curtail illegal immigration. It is a serious problem in our country that needs to be addressed. Next, with Ben Carson, I thought you leftists believed that Black people can't be racist because racism=prejudice+power. Pick a narrative and stick with it. Also, I've never seen a Republican attempt to instate actual segregation in federal positions like many Democrat Presidents have done. For his Contention two that I should not deny that the parties have switched. I just did. the reason that most Black people voted for Obama could be explained away with two facts. Psychology, and my contention 1 subpoint A. For the psychological argument, the Mere-Exposure effect states that people tend to like things that are familiar with them. For example, if you hear about something and that something looks or is like you, you are more likely to look upon that thing favorably. (1) My opponent fails to recognize in his last argument that while the Confederate States of America didn't have real political parties, that we can just ignore the fact that it was mostly democrats that defected to the Confederacy. See my sources in my previous post for evidence I will grant my opponents request to add new arguments to the debate. 1. Democrats support raising the minimum wage. I shall now provide four reasons why we should not raise the minimum wage I'm going to use some older information in order to exemplify what raising the minimum wage to the current proposed amount would do. It Would Result In Job Loss Evidence of job losses have been found since the earliest imposition of the minimum wage The first 25-cent minimum wage in 1938 resulted in significant job losses. Minimum wage increases recently imposed in American Samoa resulted in economic effects so pronounced that President Obama signed into law a bill postponing them. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about two-thirds found negative employment effects. In 2010, Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser estimated: "nearly 1.3 million jobs will be lost if the federal minimum wage is increased to $9.50 per hour." It Would Hurt Low-Skilled Workers Evidence shows minimum wage increases disproportionally hurt the people they"re supposed to help =623; The 2006 Neumark and Wascher review found the literature "as largely solidifying the conventional view that minimum wages reduce employment among low-skilled workers." A 2012 analysis of the New York State minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 per hour found a "20.2 to 21.8 percent reduction in the employment of younger less-educated individuals." =623; A 2010 analysis by Michael J. Hicks found: "the latest round of minimum wage increases" account "for roughly 550,000 fewer part-time jobs," including "roughly 310,000 fewer teenagers working part-time." It Would Have Little Effect On Reducing Poverty Evidence suggests that minimum wage increases don"t reduce poverty =623; In the previous federal minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $7.25, only 15 percent of the workers who were expected to gain from it lived in poor households, according to a 2012 review by Mark Wilson. If the minimum were today raised to $9.50, only 11 percent of workers who would gain live in poor households.The 2012 Wilson review noted: "Since 1995, eight studies have examined the income and poverty effects of minimum wage increases, and all but one have found that past minimum wage hikes had no effect on poverty." The 2012 Wilson review noted: "One recent academic study found that both state and federal minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 had no effect on state poverty rates." It May Result In Higher Prices For Consumers The costs of minimum wage increases must be paid by someone. The 2012 Wilson review noted: A 2004 "review of more than 20 minimum wage studies looking at price effects found that a 10 percent increase in the U.S. minimum wage raises food prices by up to 4 percent." A 2007 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that restaurant prices increase in response to minimum wage increases. Four 2. The Democrats support gun control. After the horrific Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a sense of fear gripped the nation. Stores pulled guns from their shelves. Cities organized gun buyback events. Lawmakers pledged to tighten gun laws. Bulletproof backpack sales spiked, and some kids even took guns to school for protection. Through it all, the national debate turned once again to gun control: Should citizens even have guns? And what can we do to prevent future shooting tragedies? The Democrat party responded with clamor for more gun control. On Jan. 16, President Barack Obama signed three memorandums and announced 23 executive actions to help "reduce gun violence." His plan emphasizes stronger background checks, bans on "assault weapons," and more emergency resources in schools. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" that would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns. Feinstein is known for her anti-gun stance. She championed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 and only banned 18 specific firearms. Although, gun violence did drop in the 1990"s, a University of Pennsylvania study shows that the 1994 ban had too many loopholes and had no statistical effect on the number of mass shootings. Murder and violent crime rates continued to fall even after the ban expired. In addition to pressing for useless gun regulations, many Democrats also engage in political doublespeak. They talk about banning "assault weapons;" however, there is no set definition of an "assault weapon." It is whatever a given individual wants it to be. They are against "military-style weapons," but these guns bear a purely cosmetic resemblance to military weapons and would never be used by the military. They speak of the dangers of "semi-automatic weapons," which sounds scary until you realize that "semi-automatic" refers to any gun that can shoot more than once without reloading (nearly every gun that shoots is semi-automatic). They talk about "reducing gun violence" and promoting "gun safety" (can you really argue against reducing violence or promoting safety?) instead of what they"re really doing, which is attacking our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms by tightening gun control laws. But no matter what terminology they use, gun control is not going to work, and here"s why: Reason #1: There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. In theory, a more strict gun law could work. In 1996, Australia implemented a strict assault weapons ban with few loopholes. The country banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and spent $500 million buying approximately 600,000 guns from private citizens. But this isn"t Australia. There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown. Reason #2: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship. Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people"s rights being removed little by little. You can"t carry your guns around in public. Now you can"t own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can"t have any guns at all"time to amend the Constitution. That"s an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile. Reason #3: Mass shooters don"t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation"s most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course. But that didn"t stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. in the end, it's only the law abiding citizen that would be harmed by gun control. I hope this satisfied your desire for new arguments (1)https://psychcentral.com...