My Political Views are better than yours.

I will indeed attempt to review and refute his proposed interpretations of the stated issues as he requests in the beginning of the debate, and 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. I. LEGISLATION: My opponent's take on legislation refers primarily to education as he states that education, affecting every aspect of our society, deserves the attention of our state. I could not agree more with what he states here, however when he states "our schools are overcrowded, our teachers are underpaid, and new technology is often unavailable due to lack of funds" as reasons for why our educational system is lacking, I must beg to differ. If my opponent truly wished to endow legislature with the respect for education that is deserved, he would first investigate the topic to ensure that it is being handled effectively before he mindlessly threw more funds at it. The educational system of America needs rejuvenated, through such forms as following the country who is number one in education, Finland, for example in incentivizing our teachers, not through increased pay checks, but through status achieved through higher standards and requirements we set for them. This is merely one, roughly outlined example, however the point is maintained, being that the educational system needs not more money to waste, but new ideas to revitalize it. II. TAXES: A. "We need to take a serious look at our current tax structure and make sure it is going to be adequate for our future needs. " This statement made by my opponent sounds hopeful, but in truth is vague and uncertain. It holds no plan for a country that is desperately in need of one. In truth, there is here hardly any statement to rebut. B. "We need to provide future incentives for small businesses. " By "we" I must assume that my opponent is referring to the federal government. The federal government should in no way attempt to interfere with the workings of entrepreneurs and small business owners. When involving itself in the movements of those it knows very little, (the government hardly every involves itself except in unnecessary and idiotic ways such as "incentivizing", regulating, etc. ) the capitalistic society this country was made to uphold is weakened through government interference. Government disrupts the flow of the social Darwinism that constitutes a capitalistic economic system—providing incentives, then taxes, then, finally, debilitating regulations. C. "[We need to] make sure West Virginia is tax friendly for new industry. " As I had assumed and continue to assume that the issues stated here by my opponent are on a national level, I fail to realize the significance of making West Virginia, a mere one out of fifty states, tax friendly for new industry. Perhaps my opponent will deign to enlighten me. III. FISCAL PRIORITIES: My opponent states that in order to fund important services, it is necessary to begin by "making state agencies more accountable and creating public-private partnerships to save much-needed funds. " A. Making state agencies more accountable is a noble aim, however my opponent remains rather vague in relation to how one might carry out this goal. An end is useless without first a means to that end. B. In reference to the use of public-private partnerships, my opponent perhaps fails to recall that in most types of PPP's, the financial load is not taken solely by the private investor, but by the federal government. The government shoulders much of the risk of failure and therefore, if this private company does meet failure, the tax payers will greatly suffer the consequences. IV. SCHOOLS: A. My opponent states that our legislature should not have let our public schools fall into their current state of disrepair. This is a wonderful statement, however I challenge my opponent to create something more than an observation, perhaps an opinion of how our schools can pull themselves from the brink of despair and back into the former glory for which my opponent so longs. B. "[If it were not] in the state of disrepair that it is in today, people wouldn't feel the need to enroll their children in private schools. I believe in public education and I attended public schools all my life. " While it may be true that parents would seek first public education were it a well-founded education, my opponent should in no way undermine and eliminate his support for private education. If we eliminated private education, public education would have no incentive to maintain an excellent education, all competition being removed. Private education is just as necessary to public education as are government funds and should be viewed as assets and opportunities, not unnecessary and trivial pursuits as my opponent seems to view them. V. BUDGET PRIORITIES: While my opponent mentions "budget priorities" (plural) he only mentions one, and so this one I will duly address. My opponent speaks of "budget priorities," and yet he demands that we furnish our educational system with more money. If truly attempting to budget and prioritize, he would perhaps assess the way in which the money already given to the system is used and make sure that it is being used wisely. At this time the problem lies not in that we lack funds, but rather, that we are not utilizing the funds we have. Considering the condition of our national debt, instead of limiting spending for these programs, and immediately redirecting these funds to other programs, that, in this case, are not crucial priorities, but in fact are wasting monetary assets, we need to put these reserves toward the balancing of the budget, for it too directly affects our students and their future role in society. VI. TOBACCO LITIGATION: My opponent speaks of the states' right to sue tobacco companies. He cites this example to justify his argument: "If the product was a defective toy that was killing or injuring children, that manufacturer would be getting sued. " The logic of this example is flawed because of one important oversight: namely, that tobacco companies are mandated by the federal government to adhere a product warning to all their products. Therefore, to correct his example, this defective toy that was injuring children would have had an attached warning that told of these effects. Thus, the company could not be held liable for the idiocy of its customers. We are told through warning labels that a stove may be hot, so when we get burned we do not sue that company. In view of this, states, instead of suing these tobacco companies, should reconfigure the systems of Medicare and Medicaid to include standards for accepting participants that disavow excessive tobacco users. VII. SPECIAL INTERESTS: Using a specific state as an example of his justification of special interests, my opponent refuses to acknowledge that whether or not a group is stationed within the domain of specific legislature, this special interest group will feed corruption within legislative practices as legislature attempts, not to benefit the common good, but to benefit themselves through favors given from these groups. Merely because these groups interact with the economy does not mean that government officials will not illegally accept bribes and enact private legislation detrimental to the economy. VIII. ABORTION: While people should retain their individual rights, they should not have the power to control whether another being lives or dies. Whether or not life begins at the moment of conception, abortion allows an individual to wield the power mandating whether a person will enter into existence. This is an abusive power that will lead to an even greater disregard for human life, even for the elderly, another vulnerable sector of society. IX. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: While my opponent champions the rights of states and individuals, he refuses to grant religions their respective rights granted them by the first amendment. While civil unions may be permissible, marriage is an institution created by certain religions, not the state, and therefore these religions should not be coerced by the federal government into disregarding their established principles.