homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:02 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
I didn't think that through very well. Usually I only take three POIs, but whatever.
Points of Information
Is it true that the US was faced with default this past year?No, there was no chance Congress would allow a default.
How much do you estimate that GDP will grow by with your plan? Impossible to give a specific number. Even trained economists would likely not be able to answer.
How much will the dollar inflate? See above.
Will this affect foreign direct investment in American businesses? Yes.
Is there any certainty that people will invest in Spain and Portugal, enough to keep them from default? Certainly not. However, it's undeniable that at least some of the investment would go there, given both the high interest rates and sudden availability of a large amount of capital due to our plan.
Couldn’t those countries default after the potential investments from Americans? Unlikely, as every additional investment exponentially decreases the chance of default.
Are you mandating cutting spending? Absolutely not.
Is there a possibility that they will choose to raising taxes instead of cutting spending, or a combination of the two?Yes. My claim is only based off of deficit reduction, so it's consistent with any combination that Congress comes up with.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:32 pm 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Dibbles' LOC (1400 words exactly)
Analysis 1: The burden of proof is on the Affirmative.
If I, as the opposition, give you any reason to doubt any important aspect of the government plan, then you must cast a ballot in my favor. If i fail to do so, then you must cast a ballot in favor of the government.

Analysis 2: Background: Debt scare of 2011.
Last year, the United States was faced with a debt crisis. The particular argument was whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, though default was discussed during much of this time. The government officials, including Obama, announced to the media and all of America that the American government was going to default unless action was taken.
Essentially, the Government plan has already happened - And the effects the Government team is selling to you, the judges, did not come about. We’ll look in this more in depth as we address their plan’s specific points.

Inherency 1: Trillion of dollars in debt - I won’t disagree that there is a major debt problem. The facts are the facts.

Inherency 2: Few in power acting - Here’s where I’m going to argue. I disagree that people aren’t concerned about the debt. It’s an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored. One of the major issues in the election is the economy and budget, which is directly tied to the debt and deficit, as my opponent makes clear in his case. It’s not something the American public will let slide through the cracks, they will and already are pressing for a solution.

Moving down to their Plan, as I stated in my Analysis 2, this has already happened. There was a debt scare and a clear chance of default, and the effects the affirmative plans claims did not result, at least in a significant amount.

Justification 1: Government Slippery Slope
Impact 1 - Not According to Past Precedent

There was not a significant increase in GDP over the past year since the debt scare, but a 2.2% inflation rate. What does this show us? Well, look to the Government summary of their first Justification. It says that an inflated dollar increases exports which increases GDP. We’ve seen an increase in inflation, but not in exports and GDP. The Government plan relies on a slippery slope - if one thing happens (Inflation) then all these other things will happen (Increased Exports and GDP). The issue with this slope is that if one part doesn’t work out, then none of the other advantages will come about. In this case, all you’re going to get from the Government plan is an inflated dollar, which has adverse effects that I will discuss in the Disadvantages.

Impact 2 - Eurozone Not Saved From Implosion
A - Little Investment Spain and Portugal
1. Not Profitable

If investors were to pull out their investments from the US, what incentive is there to invest in a country that’s just as close, if not closer than the US to defaulting. It’s not profitable at all if the government cannot pay back its investors. Investors are more likely to invest in a country that is able to do so than a failing one such as Spain or Portugal.
2. Corporate Income Tax - Nail in the Coffin
One way that people from outside of a country can invest in that country is through investment in the foreign corporations. However, there is also a problem with this that makes investment in Spain and Portugal seem unprofitable. Spain and Portugal have comparatively high Corporate Income Tax rates - 30% and 25%. What this does is it reduces after-tax profits from corporations, and therefore the dividends and capital gains received by investors. Investors are smart to invest in a country with a low Corporate Income Tax if they wish to make a profit. This seals Spain and Portugal’s fate as being the recipients of little, if any investment.
B - While I agree that Spain and Portugal’s defaults could bring down the Euro, I’ve already shown you how that Government plan would have no success in helping that situation.
1. Collapse Inevitable
Unless many things magically change in Europe very soon, the Euro is going to collapse. Nothing America could try to do about it would work. Because of heavy inflation, the Euro has become very weak. Add that to the tension that already exists between countries in the Eurozone, and things aren’t going to be very pretty.

Justification 2 - Stop Hitting Replay
When America was last faced with a debt crisis, the country suddenly became hyper-aware of the debt and deficit. Arguments were made in Congress, and finally they decided to simply raise the debt ceiling and cut some spending. Did that help? No. Our economy is still dying - and dying fast. All the Government plan is doing is hitting the “replay” button on Congress. It won’t have any better effect than it did the first time, no matter how many times you play it.

Justification 3 - Keep Calm and Carry On
This Justification hinges on the assumption that Americans will continuously press for fiscal responsibility. the problem with Americans, however, is that once we get what we want, we don’t keep arguing for it. This “New Democrat” White House that may come will only come for a short time. Once the situation seems to stabilize, they will just carry on with how they’ve always operated, and the debt and deficit will rise again. In short, we’ll just be stuck in a loop if we follow the government team’s plan.

Now that we’ve seen that the Government plan does not solve for the issues presented, let’s look at what it does change in the Disadvantages.

Disadvantage 1 - Inflation

One thing we see a lot of in the first Government Justification is inflation. Now inflation could potentially increase exports, but we must look out for the side effects before deciding whether or not to do this.
1. No numbers = No Confidence
Now, since there are no numbers available for how much the dollar will inflate, it’s hard to put trust in this plan. We don’t know if it will be a 2% increase or a 200% increase. We could end up like Germany after World War II, having to bring suitcases of money to the store to buy one loaf of bread. The impact of this point is that we won’t know until we pass this plan if we must end up like Germany, or still be close to the same rate we are at now.
2. Inflation Affects Average Person
Do you have a savings account? I do. So do my parents and my siblings. Inflation literally takes those savings and makes them worthless. Because there would be more money in the system, the value of our dollar goes down. Say if you saved 100,000 dollars, it could be worth the same as 50,000 after inflation from the Government plan hits, if not less. Point being, if there is inflation, your savings become worthless. If you don’t have savings, you have less prosperity. If there is any inflation from the Government plan, they defeat their own value a the level that every person in the United States will feel.

Disadvantage 2 - Confidence Once Lost Is Lost Forever

People have not been as confident in the American government ever since the debt scare. We all now know that the government has a huge debt and is close to the end of its rope. This is harmful for the following reasons:
1. Less Consumer Spending
If they know that the dollar is going to inflate, people will save as much money as possible to compensate. We already have trouble with this, and we don’t need more of it. People are hoarding cash because they know they need to save it for the vital things like food and clothing during this recession. Announcing possible default will only add to this. Impact of this is that the parts of the economy that lack consumers will become bankrupt.

2. No Love for Country
One of the causes for Occupy Wall Street riots is the lack of confidence in our government. Unless we want to see more people outraged like was shown, I suggest we oppose the Government plan and cast a ballot in favor of the Opposition.

Thank You.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Protected time........... grrr.
Points of Information (LOC)
You would, of course, agree that domestic inflation according to the consumer price index is different than international devaluation according to the foreign exchange market, right?
You agree that your arguments on inflation would necessarily mean that the Fed would not act to halt the inflation, right?
The links to both disadvantages were based on inflation, correct?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:41 am 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Sharkfin wrote:
Protected time........... grrr.
Points of Information (LOC)
You would, of course, agree that domestic inflation according to the consumer price index is different than international devaluation according to the foreign exchange market, right? I don't know much on that subject, but I would guess so.
You agree that your arguments on inflation would necessarily mean that the Fed would not act to halt the inflation, right? Since there was nothing in your plan that involved the stopping inflation, it is only right to assume that nothing would be done to stop it.
The links to both disadvantages were based on inflation, correct?The first one, yes. The second one, not entirely. Point 1 under that disadvantage talks about how that could result from inflation, but there are other ways through your plan that it could do so, I just couldn't get to them in the time allotted. The second point was seperate from inflation, just dealing with support of the country on the whole.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
I won't be able to post for a little while (day or two). Finished debate camp today and I now have a backlog of sourcebook research and homework to catch up on.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:54 am 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Understood, take your time.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Apologies for the delay.

Roadmap:
1. Analysis
2. Inherency
3. Information About Inflation
4. Justifications
5. Disadvantages
6. Kritik on criterion

MG - 1375 words

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
My response may also have a bit of delay, because I have family camp from Thursday til Sunday, but I'll work as fast as I can and get the POI's up at the very least.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Points of Information
You said that there was no chance the government would allow a default during the debt scare. Does that imply that your plan would actually result in default?
Under your points inflation being the devaluation of the dollar, when people exchange other currencies for more American dollars than usual, does that in turn cause more money to circulate in America?
Under Justification 3, the impact: You said that the link is that “politicians and those within the Democratic party will side and join the President.”. Now, is there a guarantee that people will all agree on a specific plan, or may members have differing opinions?

I'll be back on evenings from family camp, so I'll try to write as much as I can then, and get the response up as soon as possible.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Dibbles wrote:
Points of Information- MG
You said that there was no chance the government would allow a default during the debt scare. Does that imply that your plan would actually result in default?No. The plan results in a higher perception of the chance of default-- not that default would happen in the near-term. In fact, your question brings up an excellent point on how the budget crisis was fundamentally different than the aff plan. The budget crisis was based on a near-term failure to pay debt-- we had the ability to. Under the gov plan, the executive branch would be warning about the deficit itself-- and our inability to cover the deficit.
Under your points inflation being the devaluation of the dollar, when people exchange other currencies for more American dollars than usual, does that in turn cause more money to circulate in America? No. The same amount of money remains in circulation since it's based on mutual exchange.
Under Justification 3, the impact: You said that the link is that “politicians and those within the Democratic party will side and join the President.”. Now, is there a guarantee that people will all agree on a specific plan, or may members have differing opinions? Certainly not. There is, however, a guarantee that when people join the calls for fiscal responsibility, specific plans which result in deficit reduction have a higher chance of coming to pass.

I'll be back on evenings from family camp, so I'll try to write as much as I can then, and get the response up as soon as possible.

Sounds good.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Dibbles’ MOC - 1380 words
Analysis 1- Don’t call the kettle black

1. It’s just what every debate uses.

While in theory this criterion seems vague, it must be pointed out that this is actually what every single debate ballot is based upon. He presented the basic criterion of Net Benefits to contend with my criterion/observation of doubt. Now when we look at Net Benefits, what we see is that we’re looking at what will result in an overall better world. However, if arguments are presented that make you believe that the benefit to the affirmative plan will not come about, then you ought to vote Opp. You can see where the criterion of doubt lies within the criterion of Net Benefits. If you doubt that there will be a Net Benefit, then an Opposition ballot is warranted.
2. Net benefits included.
His arguments against Doubt was that it was vague. Problem is, when we look at Net Benefits, the same basic logic underlies both. Therefore, if Doubt is vague, so is Net Benefits. Doubt simply means that if reasonable and believable arguments are made that disprove the Government plan, then an Opposition ballot should be cast.
3. An application without much...application.
In response to the example about the American Revolution. Yes, there was uncertainty. However, it also looked like there would be no Net Benefit if things went wrong, so this application proves neither side.
4. One more thing.
As a further point of clarification, this point of analysis was not meant to be used as a criterion, but merely an observation. If the judges wish, they can use the criterion of Net Benefits, just keeping in mind the principle of doubt.


Analysis 2 - What’s the difference?
1. No chance of default

As admitted in the Point of Information, there is no way Congress would allow a default with the Government plan, either. While there may be a higher perception of the chance of default, the fundamentals of the two, the plan and the scare, are the same.
2. Congress is not made of complete idiots.
Congress knows the root of the problem, and they know it must be fixed eventually. That’s why they cut spending along with raising the debt ceiling. While it may have not been apparent to every single American that the deficit was causing this, it was apparent to Congress. Since average Americans do not have a direct say in budget decisions, the only ones we are “bringing attention” to are in Congress, and they already know.
3. Impact - Exactly the same
This is almost exactly the same plan as what happened in the debt scare, and nothing different will happen this time.

Inherency
Inherency 2 - Give them time

My opponent seemed to misunderstand my point here, sorry if it was confusing. I wasn’t saying that the majority of Americans are hyper-aware of the DEFICIT, I was saying that they were aware of the debt, thanks to the last scare. It’s something that people are considering in this year’s election, but as I said before, Congress knows where the problem is, and they will fix it. It simply takes a while to decide on what spending must be cut and what the best way is to go about fixing things. Give them time, and they will fix the deficit.

Inflation - Oops
Apologies, I misunderstood exactly what my opponent meant by inflation. I heard the word and jumped to the conclusion of it being domestic inflation.

Justifications
Justification 1, Impact 1
1. Umm...no.

This argument was not based on there being inflation. It was based on the fact that since the last debt scare, we have not seen any of these impacts that supposedly would come about. As I’ve shown in the Analysis point 2, the debt scare and this government plan are the SAME THING. Therefore, this impact will not come about.
2. It is a slippery slope
If we haven’t seen these effects as of the last scare, then the rest of the slope will not follow, whether or not the economists say it will.
3. Dropping this due to irrelevency.

Justification 1, Impact 2
A. Is it enough?

He admitted that very few would choose failing countries, but that some might and that would decrease likelihood of default in those countries. But will it be enough? I don’t think so.
The counties in question have got a bad system going for them, and it’s headed for collapse no matter what we do. Even if a few investors invest in the countries, it won’t be enough because they have a system that’s depleting the country. Unless major changes are made in Europe, which they aren’t in the Government plan, then they will collapse. Since there is no guarantee that even one investor would invest there, there is no way the Government can claim to solve for these countries.
B. Family squabbles
False. There is much underlying tension leftover from World Wars I & II, as well as many other contributing factors. One such factor is this: Who is to blame for why the EU is collapsing? Why is there a crisis? Every country seems to blame each other. At one point, people even tried to blame it on America. It’s not long before the tension completely tear the countries apart, if it hasn’t already.

Justification 3 - Lollipop Trees and Fluffy Bunnies
It may not hinge entirely on that, but it is something that is needed to press for change. If the politicians and democratic party were to all join up with the president, perhaps this would happen. Problem is, we don’t live in a perfect world with lollipop trees and fluffy bunnies hopping everywhere. No, our world is more realistic. People have their own ideals, and they will stick to them. They have their places they want the government to spend, and spending that they want cut. The idea of them all uniting is, simply put, ridiculous.

Disadvantages - Wait a minute!
As i said in the Point of Information, the subpoint B of the second Disdvantage had absolutely nothing to do with inflation. Therefore, that still stands and flows to the Opposition and cannot be addressed further. I do concede the other point, however.

The Kritik - Already Addressed
I addressed this under my arguments in Analysis 1. This does not skew it toward me, I did not mean to do so in any way. I do not ask that the Government plan be perfect, just that there be an amount of certainty that it will work. Is not even meant to be a criterion. It’s just what underlies every debate round - if I can prove to you that there is a very good chance that the government's case will not work, then you must vote for the opposition. The government took this to the extreme that it was never meant to escalate to.

Since this is still the constructives, and I have some time left, I’d like to present some additional Disadvantages in place of the ones that were dropped. You can tag the subpoint B of Disadvantage 2 from my last speech as Disadvantage 1.

Disadvantage 2. Rush job

One thing that this plan could accomplish is that it speeds up Congress’ decision-making. Last debt scare, they were forced to move quickly in order to calm down the public. Problem is, when you speed something up, people get sloppy and don’t do as thorough of a job as they could have done with more time. What happened last time, because they were rushed, is that they raised the debt ceiling. Given more time, they could have found ways to fix the deficit without raising the debt ceiling, or raising it less. Instead, they raised it along with cutting a bit of spending. The government plan involves rushing them again, which would have ill effects if Congress makes bad decisions.

Disadvantage 3. American prosperity harmed

Following Disadvantage 2, the government could cut programs necessary for Americans to prosper. Such things as education, defense, infrastructure, and countless other government services could be cut thoughtlessly, deeply harming American Prosperity and security, for both current and future generations. Don’t let this happen - vote for the Opposition.

Thank you.


Sorry about the delay. LOR will be up ASAP.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Points of Information MO
Justification1Impact1: You said your response was not based on inflation, yet your original response was "There was not a significant increase in GDP over the past year since the debt scare, but a 2.2% inflation rate." Were you not attempting to show that inflation does not lead to an increase in GDP?

Justification3: Are you contending that politicians don't change their position based on political winds?

Disadvantage2: In your LOC, the reasoning behind your second impact was basically inflation = loss of consumer confidence = political unrest, correct?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:19 am 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Sharkfin wrote:
Points of Information MO
Justification1Impact1: You said your response was not based on inflation, yet your original response was "There was not a significant increase in GDP over the past year since the debt scare, but a 2.2% inflation rate." Were you not attempting to show that inflation does not lead to an increase in GDP? It was part of it, but it was not my main point. My main point was that there was no past precedent that showed the connection between your plan and the effects.

Justification3: Are you contending that politicians don't change their position based on political winds?I'm not saying that they don't ever change their minds, but that Congressmen have ideals and aren't likely to compromise them, even if there is a change in the political winds.

Disadvantage2: In your LOC, the reasoning behind your second impact was basically inflation = loss of consumer confidence = political unrest, correct?No, as I said in the last POI set, there was no connection to inflation in that point. My logic there was that by admitting we are close to default, Americans will lose confidence in their government and that will lead to political unrest.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:58 am 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Dibbles’ LOR - 999 words
Alright, in this last Opposition speech of the round, I’ll be going over the flow and showing you just why you need to vote Opposition at the end of this debate, through some key voting issues

Voting issue 1 - There is no Justification.

1) Under Justification 1, the first impact, was the argument that there is no past precedent to prove their justification. As i’ve said, and have never stopped saying, the Government plan and the Debt Scare of 2011 are the same thing! Both are designed to bring attention to the money problem in the US government to the people who can act - Congressmen. The government made the contention that the government plan is not the same as the debt scare because it points Congress directly at the deficit. Well, as was said, Congress is not made of complete idiots! They at least have basic knowledge of what is going on and why there is a large debt - to anyone who has even remotely studied the relationship between debt and deficit, it is obvious. In conclusion of this Justification argument, remember that the past is the key to the future.

2) Now let’s look at the 2nd point under the first Justification. This has mostly become an argument of whether there is tension or not in the Euro, since the Government, in essence, conceded the first point already - that there is no guarantee for enough investment in the Euro.
Now I’ve brought up a couple reasons why there is tension, but I’d just like to reinforce one point under this - the blame and unrest happening within the Euro. Now, there is much more of this than most Americans would like to believe. People within the EU are so disgusted with the state of the Euro that they are pushing for the EU to disband. It has caused so much economic failure and political arguments to arise. Decisions made by the EU parliament have made many people angry because they are degrading the democratic values that once made Europe great. All in all, there are many problems facing the EU. No matter what the Government plan does, the Euro is beyond help. As sad as that fact is, nothing America does will save the Euro.
Also, I would just like to assure you that this is NOT a new argument. It’s simply putting more weight under that fact that there are many reasons for Euro tension.

3) Justification 3 has been addressed a good deal in my last speech, but just to reiterate: There is almost no chance of all the politicians, even only the democratic ones, uniting for one plan. Now in The Point of Information, my opponent asked if politicians change their minds due to political winds. Absolutely yes, they can. However, even then, it is unlikely that they will all change and agree on one plan. It goes against human nature. People don’t naturally like to compromise their values, even for such a cause as trying to fix the deficit.

Voting issue 2. Read the side effects before use.

I’ve brought up three strong disadvantages for you to consider: American confidence hurt, Congress rushing, and American prosperity being harmed. I did go pretty in depth in my last speech about the two latter disadvantages, but I would just like to connect the first disadvantage to the analysis under Justification 1, impact 2. The people in the Euro have been told that the Euro is going to default and collapse. They now are wanting the Euro to disband - and they are smart to do so. If we tell the Americans a similar fact, then we are likely to be faced with much unrest among our citizens as well. Don’t cause another, larger Occupy Movement - cast your ballot for the opposition.

Voting Issue 3. Serious Doubt about the Net Benefits of Prosperity

1) Now the criterion of Prosperity that the Government originally advocated has not been addressed all that much in today’s debate, but since it was the original criterion, I will address it first.You can flow the disadvantages against this as the people are logically not prospering if they are rebelling, or having vital government services cut. Prosparity is a very important criterion, so I suggest we you it in the forefront of your minds when deciding which side you should vote for.
2) Going down to my analysis point that has kind of turned into a criterion, but not really, at the same time - Doubt. There was much argument over this observation, but I hope now that I have cleared things up. As I said, I don’t expect this plan to be perfect, no plan truly is, but it’s at least reasonable to expect it to work, which we have seen no assurance that it will. Even if the critereon did skew it even slightly in my favor, it would be balanced out by the fact that the Government gets the first and last words in the debate - the ones that stick in the judge’s minds - which puts me at a disadvantage. Either way, it’s up to the judges to decide which way to go: Opposition, or Government?
3) Lastly, the criterion of Net Benefits. Now since the Government plan won’t work, and since there will be major disadvantages if it is passed, it is only logical to assume that there is no Net Benefit. Fact of the matter is, there isn’t support for the claims in the justifications, but there is support for the Opposition side - past precedence.
Since all three of the proposed criterions flow to the Opposition, I suggest that we keep This House from going Trick-or-Treating, because as we all know - candy rots your teeth. (Just like chance of default would rot America)

Thank you.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Eight days later....
Sharkfin's PMR - 1000 words

good round!

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:09 am
Posts: 494
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Turning invisible
I'm at debate camp right now. Decision will have to wait till I get back next week. :)

_________________
~Caleb M. Peña, PROBE, STOA

O God, grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt -- Augustine


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited