Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

Observations Federal Reserve Ob1: My opponent’s Federal Reserve argument is in an external link, which is a direct violation of Rule 4. The argument is a 11-point one against the Federal Reserve presented in a Google Document. Pro PM’d me regarding the violation, and confessed that it was because the character limitations did not allow it. Ob2: Regarding the Federal Reserve argument, it was directly plagiarized from http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com..., thus I request voters to consider Pro’s misconduct. Ob3: The Federal Reserve argument has eleven reasons for abolishing the Federal Reserve in an external link violating character limitations, thus this is a perfect example of the highly misconducted Gish Gallop debating technique [http://rationalwiki.org...]. Conclusion of Observations: Thus, I request judges to consider the Fed argument dropped. I apologize to my opponent for this, and request that he address it in the next round. Global Warming Ob4: The GW argument regards environmental protection. Pro says he shall abolish all environmental protection, so I alert the people about the dangers of climate change and the need to control CO2 emissions. Ob5: As the argument is not addressed, this argument is also dropped, thus I extend the argument that global warming is anthropogenic to this round. Conclusion of Observations: Thus, please take into consideration that Pro drops this argument and still does not dispute that he will abolish environmental protection, thus I request the College to remember that I’m supporting the much-needed environmental protection. Economic Policy (1) Stability > Deflation This argument is entirely dropped. My opponent says, “wrong definition, wrong definition …” - this is not justified. To clarify the definitions, “[I]nflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time;” [1], while “deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services” [2], also called a ‘negative inflation rate’. Deflation is a problem in modern economy because it increases the real value of debt, and may aggravate recessions and lead to a ‘deflationary spiral’ [3], i.e. “a situation where decreases in price lead to lower production, which in turn leads to lower wages and demand, which leads to further decreases in price.” [2] As mentioned, the Federal Reserve has ensured no deflation since the gold standard, and a highly stable inflation rate of around 1%, with 0.8% in 2014. If the measures my opponent cites are carried out, it would result in huge deflation combined with the abolition of the Federal Reserve. This would mean a rise in the value of debt and a deflationary spiral, which would result in economic recession that would be further aggravated by the deflationary spiral. (2) Flat Tax Pro implies this would mean a change in the Constitution by urging Congress to pass amendments. If he refuses to even urge Congress, that would mean he wants no amendments, which would mean the abolition of a legislative body in the United States government. Pro does not wish there to be the slightest change in the status quo except for reduction in spending, stopping environmental protection, tax umbrellas, building a border fence, and other such poor or useless changes (except reduction in spending and tax umbrellas, which I too shall have). I have shown why a Bradford X-tax is a good idea, and I shall urge Congress to implement it unlike my opponent who seems to seek no legislative body whatsoever, leaving us with the progressive income tax and higher taxes on the upper-wage classes. Do you, the voters, want to be penalized for saving? If not, I urge you to help me by voting for Tejretics in 2016 and helping me urge Congress to shift to a Bradford X-tax. In addition, Pro has shifted their stance on it, first saying they are Pro flat tax, and then changing it to Con income tax, which means they want a fair tax. I have shown how a flat consumption tax is regressive, thus even if they are prepared to pass amendments, mine are better. (3) Fiscal Stimulus My opponent has informed me that he didn’t know I meant ‘fiscal stimulus spending’ when I said ‘fiscal stimulus’, and assumed it meant ‘anything that stimulates the economy’, thus we both agree on this. (4) Federal Reserve See the “Federal Reserve” category under “Observations”, as this is a violation of Rule 4 and usage of Gish Gallop. Domestic Policy (1) Social Policy My opponent alleges secularism is a ‘religion.’ Abolishing secularism contradicts my opponent’s claim that he would not modify the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence clearly says, “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” [4] Pro thinks this ‘sounds’ Christian, thus he will ascribe special privileges to Christianity by making Christianity the religion of the state? This is rather non-accommodating of other religions and implies a change in the status quo that Pro must defend. (2) Border Fence “A 2009 analysis by the GAO found that the cost of pedestrian fencing ranged between$400,000 and $15 million per mile with an average of $3.9 million a mile. The price of less expensive vehicle fencing ran anywhere from $200,000 to $1.8 million a mile, for an average of $1 million a mile.” [5] Thus, my solution to secure the border is far more cost-efficient, and, in addition, more effective than a border fence in preventing illegal immigration. Furthermore, Pro’s logic here is that ‘even if something doesn’t work, if it’s cheaper, it’s better.’ So, let us say there is a choice between buying a lamp or a pencil to light up a room. The pencil is ineffective, but by Pro’s logic, as it is cheaper, we should buy it to light up the room. The thing is, here, the lamp is cheaper as well, thus the pencil is absolutely useless. (3) Environmental Protection Pro says global warming is “irrelevant in a political debate.” As mentioned in the “Global Warming” subheading of my observations, my opponent wishes to abolish environmental protection, and I’ve illustrated why it’s a bad idea. Foreign Policy Both of us have agreed on our foreign policy. Conclusion 1. My opponent wishes to have deflation in the economy, thus leading to recession aggravated by deflationary spiral, and increase in the value of U.S. debt. 2. Passing amendments is enough to guarantee an X-tax, but my opponent wishes a flat consumption tax as he agrees with me on the income tax, which is regressive. 3. My opponent wishes to abolish the Fed, and I’ve shown why that’s a bad idea. 4. My opponent contradicts himself in wanting to change the Constitution by making Christianity the official state religion, while I intend to keep the status quo by ensuring the U.S. is a truly secular nation free of discrimination to all creeds, even atheism and agnosticism. 5. Pro wishes to build a costly, ineffective border fence, rejecting the highly effective and more cost-efficient methods to prevent illegal immigration. 6. The proposition absolutely denies AGW and thus wishes to abolish all environmental protection schemes, but AGW exists, thus environmental protection and renewable energy is necessary. Ultimately, I win on all parameters. Vote Tejretics 2016 for a better future. Sources 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. J.R. Hummel (2007). “Death and Taxes, Including Inflation: the Public versus Economists.” 4. http://www.archives.gov... 5. http://tinyurl.com...