Me (Pro) vs. You (Con) Presidential Debate

Abortion: I won’t deny that life begins at fertilization. However, I’ve already discussed reasons why abortion should be allowed. Another reason is like drugs and prostitution, a black market for abortion can begin. Euthanasia: I’ve already discussed why euthanasia should be a right. However, Con asserts that if voluntary euthanasia is allowed, then soon things such as non-voluntary euthanasia will be allowed. This is absurd. A slippery slope argument, like the one Con’s offering, can be used against almost any right. For example, I can say that the people should not have the Right to Vote, because it can and has produced incompetent leaders. Since Con has yet to provide a reason why choosing to die is not part of the unalienable right to liberty, we currently will accept it as an undisputed right, then the logic I applied to the Right to Vote is the same logic he applied to euthanasia: P1-”x” is a right. P2-But, ”x” can potentially lead to bad. C-Therefore, ”x” should not be allowed Drugs: I agree with Con that punishment for drug use should be dramatically reduced. However, keeping it illegal is violating on one’s right to liberty. I already discussed this and problems with keeping drugs illegal, such as making them more dangerous and the costs associated with the War on the Drugs. Healthcare: I’d like to clarify my stance on healthcare, to avoid any confusion. I believe healthcare should be part of the national budget and should cover every citizen, for most medical treatments (not counting non-threatening or things that cannot become threatening, such as nose jobs). Obamacare fails to do this, so I am against it. However, Con asserts that Obamacare cost 2.9 million jobs, however, that isn’t true. Most of those lost jobs were reported by the CBO. However, that isn’t what the CBO actually reported. Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director said, “The reason that we don’t use the term “lost jobs” is there’s a critical difference between people who would like to work and can’t find a job or have a job that is lost for reasons beyond their control and people who choose not to work.” (1) Elmendorf also confirmed that employees aren’t necessarily being laid off, just the equivalent labour will decline. (1) However, Con also ignores potential economic growth which could arise from universal healthcare. Like I already mentioned, people will spend less money on healthcare, and can put their money into other sectors of the economy. It also will mean businesses will pay less for employee’s health insurance, so they have more money to invest into the economy. Not to mention, the Institute of Medicine found the American economy loses $65-130 billion a year, due to diminished worker productivity due to poor health and pre-mature death. (2) It is also more humane as less people will die or be in financial trouble due to healthcare bills. Israeli Aid: The US currently has a lot of national debt and cannot afford to be sending money to other countries. Con fails to prove that recent cuts in aid to Israel have strengthened jihadists in the region. Flat Tax & Welfare: Ignore what I said last round about the tax system, stay with what I put in the 2nd round (sorry for changing it again, but Con still hasn’t addressed it yet, so it’s not too late). The benefit of my system would be that it would save a lot of money currently spent on things such as public housing, food stamps, cash welfare, and salaries of those running pension programs. Only the IRS would be needed. Another benefit of the negative income tax is that it would be easier to abolish the minimum wage, which in turn means businesses have less overhead, and can hire more workers. Finally, is it puts more money into the hands of poorer people, which in turn increases aggregate demand. With more demand, the supply can be increased, so businesses can hire more workers, and the economy is stronger. Plus, corporate and capital gains tax can be abolished, so in general businesses have less overhead. Defense of Environment & Property Act: This bill undermines the Clean Water Act. For one, the bill would prevent protection of water which flows “intermittently or ephemerally”. (3) However, the EPA estimated that 59% of streams in the continental US either just flow seasonally or due to rain. (3) These streams are important to protect, as water from streams have an effect on larger bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, and oceans. (4) Also, water from these streams supplies about a third of America's drinking water. Plus, limits federal pollution control authorities ability to examine the waters, if its on private property. (3) However, that makes it much easier for people & companies to hide how much they’re polluting and if they are committing illegal acts, in regards to the environment. Monetary Reform Act: Con says that banks can loan what they have in the bank under this act. However, that is not true. The bill is saying that banks have to keep 100% of deposits in the bank, to be payable on demand. For this reason, they cannot loan. I’ve discussed how dangerous that is, and that is a fundamental falw in the bill. Vouchers: I’ll quickly go over a few problems with this. For one, private schools are often religious and teach religion in them. Therefore, the government would be violating the Separation of Church and State, by funding teaching of religion. (5) Also, private schools are not necessarily better and can often be worse than public schools. Finally, studies have shown vouchers don’t improve academic performance. (5) Terrorist Status: I probably should have specified. I was talking about why Con believes Iran & Hamas should be added to the international terror list. UN: I’m dropping this argument, because I felt the US should become more involved in trying to maintain balance of power around the world, and I more or less agree with Con on this. 1-http://www.factcheck.org... 2-http://www.nap.edu... 3-http://switchboard.nrdc.org... 4-http://cfpub.epa.gov... 5-https://www.au.org...