EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
3741

That the rich are taxed enough

(PRO)
1 point
(CON)
WINNER!
10 points
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Why does government exist at all?
According to Alexander Hamilton, government exists because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. During the enlightenment era, the revolutionary philosophers of the time redefined the historically accepted interpretation of government. They fought for the ideals of a just government ran by the people. More importantly, governments were encouraged to be limited. In name and in action. By limiting the power of the government, the ultimate preservation of liberty and freedom could be undertaken. 

The case for a limited government 
To quote Michigan's 5th district representative and 38th president of the United States, Gerald R. Ford,  “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” We must consider not only the role of government, but how we contain the government from acting outside its expected bounds. The people who founded the governments of the enlightenment era did not trust themselves with their own power. Why should they of? Government to them was a tool for the rich and powerful to flex their will. Is that still not the case?

Ronald Reagan and Dwight D Eisenhower were both influential men, who had all the power in the world and still did not trust themselves with it. Dwight D Eisenhower specifically, cursed himself at how much power he was actually given. Many citizens do not see how true this is. When we put to much faith and power into an institution designed to serve us and preserve our human rights, we are really paving the way for the exact opposite. Government no longer protects others from us. Most governments now create laws protecting us from ourselves. Protecting other peoples from other governments. Government is no longer clear on what exactly it should be doing. Maybe the government should be thinking less about how to protect us from ourselves, but on how to protect it from itself. 

I would like to take a quick minute to frame, in my opinion, what jobs and functions the government should have.
  • Protection from other citizens
  • Protection from other governments
  • Protection from the government itself
  • Protection from the economy created by others 

The last point, is without a doubt, what we came to discuss. I will be making a thorough argument for why countries do not need that much taxes to fulfill the duties within the governments expected responcipilities. Furthermore I will be analyzing how the misappropriation of taxes is a clear indication of why we should actually lower them for all social classes, in an attempt at forcing the government to spend our money only on what is essential.  I'll also be reintroducing the framework for the classic fiscal proposal, the Maximum Liquid Income.

 I thank the opposing position for accepting this debate, and I hope it will be productive and invigorating. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-18 11:19:16
| Speak Round
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes (CON)

Thanks to Stag and to our audience.

Framework

When we consider whether the rich are taxed enough, we must ask: what do we mean by “rich?” Rich means, according to Merriam Webster, “having abundant possessions and especially material wealth” (1). But there is no universal conception of this. A report from UBS showed that 4 out of 10 Americans with assets over $5 million or more do not think of themselves as rich (2).  The report argued that “[t]he idea that you’re rich, then, seems to have a lot to do with what kinds of things you’d like to do, rather than hitting some specific asset or income number" (2).  Another survey by the Spectrem Group also had conflicting results:  "Of the respondents, 45% said $5 million or more, 25% said $25 million or more, and 8% said $100 million” (3). Several studies seem to indicate that people view those with double their level of income to be rich (3), and a study by Skandia International found that these conceptions of what constitutes being “wealthy” also deviate significantly by country (4).

Thus, we should define “rich” with with generalized criteria. We can do this by appealing to the law of diminishing returns, or the notion that marginal returns to some factor will eventually decline (5), defining it as “someone who has reached the point of diminishing returns to income”—or, in other words, the person has reached their peak happiness in terms of income.

Also, you should read this resolution as a normative question—as it only implicitly addresses a policy question. It poses an “is” statement, rather than an “ought,” and the transition is causal at best. Therefore, we have a normative resolution and a dual burden of proof. Second, you should weigh economic arguments higher than moral arguments. Whereas moral arguments cannot be factually or functionally evaluated, empirical economic arguments can be. For instance, you should weigh the argument that “the rich will only be taxed enough when X condition is met because of Y” more heavily than “it would be unjust to tax the rich more because of Y.” 

Finally, our resolution is not country-specific, but it is imperative that both of us provide examples from specific countries in order to frame our arguments to attempt to glean an image of the rich as an aggregate. For instance, there may be counterexamples for both sides because countries are structured differently, but we should look to assess our cases based on a preponderance of evidence.

Arguments

C1:  Secular stagnation persists.

Secular stagnation is the notion that structural shifts have ushered in an era of lower trend real GDP growth as a “new normal” (6)--or, in other words, we'll be stuck with around 2 to 2.5 percent real GDP growth instead of the long-run average of 3 percent. Demographic factors have reduced the natural rate of interest--or the interest rate consistent with equating savings and investment at full employment--and led to an era of a persistent demand shortfall, barring structural reform. The optimal solution to this is not only fiscal stimulus funded by higher taxes on the affluent, but a permanent fiscal expansion. I'll first lay out and prove stagnation, and then explain this proposal.

First, we see a significant slowdown in population growth in G7 countries (6). 


We get a similar story by looking at the change in working-age populations (7). In Japan, not only has its overall population shrunk for the third consecutive year, but its fertility rate is the fourth lowest in the OECD, its birth rate is one of the lowest in the world, and its proportion of people over age 65 has reached a global record (8).



Per World Bank estimates, this trend will likely persist. The Samuelson consumption-loan model tells us why this is important (9). It postulates that the natural rate of interest is equal to population growth--so, a declining population growth means a declining natural rate of interest, and thus more investment needed to reach full employment. We could take a Krugmonian interpretation (10), and argue that a decline in population growth leads to a proportional decline in the natural rate, as Lawrence Summers has postulated that the natural rate is in fact negative. Put simply, less people working means less people consuming and thus less investment by businesses, lest they be left with a glut. Provided that sluggish population growth persists or even magnifies, this will be permanent. 

Next, let's consider the substantial downward revision in potential GDP--or the output economies could generate at benchmark levels of resource utilization deemed sustainable (11). A significant downward trend in long-run GDP growth estimates is discussed by Drechsel et al., 2012, (12). 

 

We see persistent downward trend from the 1970s on. But there's an interesting case in the US: In February 2014, the Congressional Budget Office revised downward potential GDP for the US by 7.3 percent (13). 


As Lawrence Summers argues, "it must be acknowledged that essentially all of the convergence between the economy’s level of output and its potential has been achieved not through the economy’s growth, but through downward revisions in its potential...the economy is now 10 percent below what in 2007 we thought its potential would be in 2014. Of that 10 percent gap, 5 percent has already been accommodated into a reduction in the estimate of its potential, and 5 percent remains as an estimate of its GDP gap. In other words, through this recovery, we have made no progress in restoring GDP to its potential" (14). 

Moreover, even the FOMC in their recent Summary of Economic Projections predicts that real GDP will grow only 2 to 2.3 percent over the "long run" relative to the 3 percent long-run average (15). We can even see that markets are forecasting sluggish growth moving forward, bidding down the 30 TIPS yield--or the (real) rate at which participants will lend to the government over a 30-year period (16)--to only 91 basis points.


A similar story can be seen by looking at market-based measures of inflation expectations, such as the 10-year TIPS spread, which has been falling dramatically and is now at 1.65 percent (17). 


The takeaway from this is that even market participants are expecting, over the long run, slow growth and low inflation--and these expectations are obviously self-reinforcing. Obviously if you expect low inflation, you save more, which applies downward pressure on Treasury yields.

There's more to the story, though. Martin et al., 2014, from the Board of Governors conducted an analysis of 23 advanced economies through 149 recessions, and found that recessions--particularly prolonged ones, such as the Great Recession of 2007-09--deal permanent damage to potential output (18). Even following shorter recessions, real GDP remains well below pre-recession trends. Much of this is due to hysteresis, or atrophying of worker skills over time, which leads many to be considered unemployable, subjecting them to discrimination by employers--evidence for this form of negative duration dependence is discussed by Kroft et al, 2012, (19) as well as Hornstein et al., 2011 (20). In other words, cyclical problems turn structural, so not even the entirety of the working-age population is considered employable--so that translates into lower productivity and less consumption and investment, and thus lower trend RGDP. This would in fact exacerbate the significant slowing in productivity growth we've seen in G7 countries (6). "G7 productivity growth fell from about 4 per cent to about 2.5 per cent per annum during the 1970s, and then seems to have fallen to about 1 percent in the early 2000s, before the financial crash. A slowdown in technical progress is the reason usually given for this progressive deceleration in productivity growth" (6).



And, though the labor force participation rate in the US has declined substantially, from 66 percent pre-recession to 62.8 percent now (21), much of this is structural in nature. Goldman Sachs conducted a review of the relevant literature--14 studies--and found that the median median suggests that 1.6 percentage points of the decline was structural (22). For instance, a recent paper from the Board of Governors from Aaronson et al., 2014, found that as much as three fourths of this decline is structural(23). The takeaway is that failure to act aggressively--such as, for instance, public investment in job training programs--will exacerbate this problem. 

Finally, let's discuss income inequality with a focus on the US, where income inequality is worse now than it's been since 1928 (24) (14).


This is compounded by a falling cost of capital equipment--reducing required investment and increasing corporate retained earnings--and by the significant rise in corporate profits to all-time highs (14)(25), as the following graphs show (14).


For a gauge of inequality, let's look at the Gini Coefficient, which has increased since the recession--note that a 0 is "perfect inequality" and a 1 is perfect inequality. The U.S. currently is at .476. (26).


Now, why should we care? Because, per Christopher Caroll, the marginal propensity to consume for lower-income households is far greater than for higher-income households (27). So, as the income distribution is skewed in the favor of higher-income individuals who are more likely to save than to spend, the result is a persistent shortfall in demand. 

Because these factors are going to persist, and will persist largely due to the the continued malaise resulting from the Great Recession, it is urgent that we address this with a permanent solution rather than a band-aid. Monetary expansion cannot last forever; not only is current monetary policy insufficient to achieve full employment, meaning that it would need to be even more expansionary--costing central-bank credibility and anchored expectations, and leading to market volatility--but it has the potential to spur financial imbalances, as underpriced risk leads investors to "reach for yield," which could effectively bring on yet another Great Recession. Moreover, even a doubling of the monetary base in Japan and nearly tripling it in the US hasn't done much to raise inflation and return employment to desirable levels (28). The solution is for the federal government to raise taxes on the truly affluent and fund job training programs to ameliorate hysteresis amongst the long-term unemployed; single-payer to account for the persistently rising costs of healthcare, which would in fact save money over the longer run because Medicare has significantly lower operating costs than private insurance (29); education and research to ameliorate sluggish productivity growth and the high cost of college, as well as the possibility of a skills mismatch shown by a persistent shift the Beveridge Curve which has yet to fully revert back to pre-recession levels, as shown by Hobijn and Sahin, 2012 (30); infrastructure, which is crumbling (31); and more. Only then can we generate the necessary demand at a relatively higher natural rate of interest consistent with financial stability. 

With the remaining space I have, I'll offer a few more contentions. 

C2: Ameliorates income inequality

Stiglitz makes a comeplling case against income inequality which extends far beyond the MPC argument raised earlier. He argues that it hinders tax revenue, preempts middle-class consumption consistent with a self-sustaining recovery, stifles innovation by promoting asymmetries of educational attainment, and spurring speculative activity which leads to boom-and-bust cycles (32).

C3: Would NOT be harmful, on net, to the US economy 

A myriad of work suggests that tax hikes of the kind I propose would not hinder economic growth. 

Hungerford, 2012: "The results of the analysis in this report suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top statutory tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution" (33).

Krueger and Kindermann, 2014: "[W]e have numerically characterized the optimal marginal earnings tax rate (τh) faced by the top 1% of the cross-sectional earnings distribution. We found it to be very high, in the order of 90%, fairly independently of whether the top 1% is included or excluded in the social welfare function, and independently of whether transitional or long run welfare is considered (34).

Fieldhouse, 2013: "Analysis of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth"private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity"nor on overall economic growth rates...Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent...This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate" (35).

Diamond and Saez, 2011: "[T]he optimal top tax rate using the current taxable income base..would be `4;* = 1/(1 1.5. " 0.57). = 54 percent, while the optimal tax rate using a broader income base with no deductions would be `4; * = 1/(1 1.5. " 0.17). = 80 percent. Taking as fixed state and payroll tax rates, such rates correspond to top federal income tax rates equal to 48 percent and 76 percent, respectively" (36).

Finally, as Yellen (37) and Bernstein (38) argue, globalization has eased supply constraints to a great deal, shifting the aggregate supply curve out. Ultimately, this means firms are more capable to bear the costs of a tax hike.


References

(1) http://tinyurl.com/2c7vdkd

(2) http://tinyurl.com/mu8bg87

(3) http://tinyurl.com/l6oxjyv

(4) http://tinyurl.com/mdeqecy

(5) http://tinyurl.com/ydcw25r

(6) http://tinyurl.com/qjx4a92

(7) http://tinyurl.com/pnelkjw

(8) http://tinyurl.com/knl2ycn 

(9) http://tinyurl.com/qycx2uv

(10) http://tinyurl.com/kcf44kp

(11) http://tinyurl.com/klb4c2w

(12) http://tinyurl.com/kc2exe8

(13) http://tinyurl.com/p4v3kro

(14) http://tinyurl.com/pyzw9e3 
(15) http://tinyurl.com/njm7fuz
(16) http://tinyurl.com/npx7a4y 
(17) http://tinyurl.com/kulurv7
(18) http://tinyurl.com/p68y4l5
(19) http://tinyurl.com/otsme3e
(20) http://tinyurl.com/qbrqv76
(21) http://tinyurl.com/m4ua3v2
(22) http://tinyurl.com/lsawknw
(23) http://tinyurl.com/ldgacux 
(24) http://tinyurl.com/kb7ly4k 
(25) http://tinyurl.com/p9ay993
...

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-20 10:04:33
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
JohnMaynardKeynes: For some reason, despite the fact that I came in under the character limit, 13 of my sources were not shown. Here they are.
Stag : Not the place
Stag : For what reasons do we need to control economic equality?
JohnMaynardKeynes: I asked you for the place where I could put them. Anyway, there are several reasons I address in my case, and I'll go over them again.
Stag : You are obviously uneducated on cross examination etiquette. Can you tell me briefly why we need to control economic inequality
JohnMaynardKeynes: Stag, first, this is my first cross ex. Second, please cool it with the personal attacks. As you know, there is very limited space for me to type my answers. I was typing it right when you rudely interrupted me.
Stag : Please answer the question
JohnMaynardKeynes: I was doing that--and am doing it--but you keep interrupted me. Keep your side comments to yourself, and let me answer. And you dare berate me for MY etiquette.
JohnMaynardKeynes: First, it leads to sluggish levels of consumption because of differing relevant MPC's, which leads to a prolonged period of sluggish growth.
Stag : Can economic inequality be controlled in other ways besides taxes?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Second, I would direct you to Stiglitz's argument expressed in my case--it spurs speculative activity, leads to underinvestment in capacity, etc.
Stag : Can economic inequality be controlled in other ways besides taxes?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Sure, of course it can--reducing the minimum wage is a good example. But the BEST way, and the only way to address the long-term unemployed, is public investment in jobs training programs, which, because it must match the longevity of the problem, should be funded through higher taxes because we can't run deficits forever.
JohnMaynardKeynes: I saw your question--give me more than 10 seconds to respond.
JohnMaynardKeynes: *raising the minimum wage
Stag : What things do you think the government should fund through taxes?
Stag : Please name all of them too
JohnMaynardKeynes: Name "all" of the things government should fund? That's completely and utterly ludicrous. You're asking me to go through the entire federal budget and say "I want to fund X, Y, and Z but not B." I discussed in my case where I want the new stimulus dollars to go: education, research, jobs training programs, healthcare, infrastructure.
JohnMaynardKeynes: There are obviously more things the government can and will fund--military, etc.--but these are my focus for the purposes of this debate.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Now, let me pose that back to you: what do you think the government should fund?
Stag : Public safety, government expenses, and public sector alleviation. Such as infrastructure and basic social services.
Stag : Do you agree that a large government can be dangerous?
JohnMaynardKeynes: It depends on what you define as "large." We can both agree that at *some* point a government is too overbearing, but we are nowhere near that point nor will we ever be, so arguing against stimulus on those grounds is nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum.
Stag : Who is we?
JohnMaynardKeynes: To that point, how do you define a "large" government, and at what point would you say it would be "dangerous?" And dangerous to what?
Stag : For the sake of flow, please answer my question first.
JohnMaynardKeynes: In which sentence? The first "we" was "we can agree." The second "we" was in reference to the citizens living under a government--in my case, the US, and Im not sure where you're from.
Stag : Are you aware that this debate is not centered in the United States?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Yes, that's expressed in my framework, which is why I gave examples from other countries--and why "we" is plural. On balance, governments are NOT tyrannical, nor is my proposal for stimulus tyrannical.
Stag : Do you agree that there are some governments in the world which abuse their power?
Stag : Yes or no?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Yes, of course--but, again, as I said in my framework, our resolution is general enough that it requires us to seek a prepondarance of evidence for these types of claims, so a few isolated examples will NOT a plausible contention make.
Stag : How are these governments that abuse their power funded?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Governments are obviously funded through tax dollars.
Stag : Would you agree that by giving large sums of taxes to the government, there is a more likely chance of the government abusing its power?
JohnMaynardKeynes: No, that's a nonsensical premise. It postulates that the taxes themselves are the vehicle of corruption rather than the politicians or the influence of lobbyists which breeds these forms of corruption. Saying that governments can be corrupt, so therefore taxes cause corruption, is a non-sequitur.
Stag : I asked if it increases the chance? So you do not agree that giving more taxes to the government, gives the government a larger scope to abuse its power?
JohnMaynardKeynes: If the government was already abusive, then having more money with which to spend on abusive activities may, sure. But that's not a result of taxes, but of institutional corruption. And, as we know, corruption can and will find other ways of carrying out their intentions, anyway.
Stag : But taxes increase the scope? Please give short answers when required, as is proper.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Again, there's no connection in what you're asking to this resolution or my proposal. Unless you can find latent corruption in funding universal healthcare et al., your questions are nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum.
Stag : Please do not make comments that are not questions or answers. It isn't proper in a debate.
JohnMaynardKeynes: I'm not going to give you short answers when you're oversimplifying a very complex question. No, that's ONLY the case when the government is already corrupt, and they probably would find other sources of funding anyway.
JohnMaynardKeynes: That WAS part of my answer, but you just made a comment, thus doing you thought you were rebuking me for. Why is that? (See, a question!)
Stag : Do taxes increase the power of a government? Whether that power is to be used for good or evil?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Not necessarily. Governments are obviously bounded by laws and regulations--e.g., the US Constitution. If anything, it increases discretion to achieve policy goals.
Stag : Would you agree that in some sense of the word, the government is made more powerful?
Stag : Yes or no is all that is required.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Stag, you don't have the right to oversimplify my answer to a mere "yes" or "no." Please stop engaging in this abusive conduct and let me address the disingenuous assumptions you're making.
JohnMaynardKeynes: As I said, it increases discretion, but DOES NOT increase the scope of power. For instance, raising taxes doesn't let the government trample on freedom of speech, but having more discretion to fund X, Y, and Z instead of just X and Y is, depending on the semantical game you play, "more power." But that DOES NOT, ipso facto, translate to corruption.
Stag : But I am requesting a yes or no answer. If it helps, in the majority of cases, in some sense of the word, does increasing taxes make a government more powerful? Whether that power is to be used for good or evil? This question can be answered with a yes or a no
JohnMaynardKeynes: Yes, but I have the right to address your question as I see fit, and in this case that is pointing out the assumptions inherent in it. I just answered your question, also.
Stag : So taxes do not make the government more powerful?
JohnMaynardKeynes: You're asking the same question ad nauseum, Stag. It depends on how you define power--power is NOT corruption. More discretion could be construed as more power, sure.
Stag : Is a powerful government more attractive to people who have the potential of being corrupt in office?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Sure--though I tend to think someone who had the intention of entering office in order to engage in corrupt activity would run for office, anyway. There's no link between "increased power through taxes," as you want to postulate, and increased corruption in the masses. That would be another non sequitur.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Can I ask my questions now?
Stag : Sure
JohnMaynardKeynes: Ok. So, first, reiterate for me what you think the proper role for government is.
Stag : I have already answered that question. You can review cross examination later for that answer. I gave three general functions a government should have.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Note that I ask for you to "reiterate," which means "to repeat," but okay. When do you think a government has become "too large?"
Stag : When the government begins overstepping the functions I laid out. Let me ask you a question
Stag : Do the majority of governments make laws protecting people from themselves?
Stag : Yes, no, or do not know?
JohnMaynardKeynes: I'll answer that, but then I want to follow-up, because you asked me a lot of questions.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Protecting people from themselves? Surely there are some--e.g., seat belt laws.
Stag : I asked in the majority of countries. Yes, no, or I do not know?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Now, I cannot see in this box what your answer was to the "role of government" question. But let's say the government decides to fund universal education. I believe that would be "overstepping its bound." But what's the line between "large" and "dangerous?"
JohnMaynardKeynes: The majority of countries? I don't know. I can't see how that's relevant to this resolution.
Stag : Large is dangerous. That's your bounds.
Stag : What if you had to make an educated guess?
JohnMaynardKeynes: I would say, yes, probably--but that's entirely up to you to bring up in your case.
JohnMaynardKeynes: But, please, let me return to my questions. So you say there is no line between "large" and "dangerous." Okay. Tell me: how are my proposals for fiscal expansion dangerous? To whom?
Stag : They are dangerous, because they create a risk. Expanding government is the creation of risk, IE, danger. Danger to liberties, human rights, and the general public.
JohnMaynardKeynes: How do you define risk in this context--and what kind of risk? How are they dangerous to liberties, human rights, and the general public?
Stag : Let me ask you something. Would a poor country, with a small millitary, bankrupt treasury, and lots of social unrest; intentionally create an unpopular law?
JohnMaynardKeynes: That's a nonsensical hypothetical, Stag, and I have no idea--if the government were already corrupt, I suppose so, though I don't know why they would want to.
JohnMaynardKeynes: But, again, this is my turn--so please answer my questions.
Stag : I would define risk as the possibility of danger. I would define danger as the exposure of risk.
JohnMaynardKeynes: You still have no answered the question of what KIND of risk, or how specifically these are dangerous to rights, liberty, and the general public, as you postulate.
Stag : This question is very important. If you were the sole ruler of a small nation, with little money, and larger social unrest than your millitary can handle, do you think it would be wise to pass a law that will without a doubt be unpopular.
Stag : *?
Stag : Yes I have. The risk of endangering liberties, human rights, and the general public.
JohnMaynardKeynes: No, I don't.
JohnMaynardKeynes: You didn't tell me how. What liberties?
Stag : Popular liberties that the majority of people want to have.
JohnMaynardKeynes: And, answer this: if you are a poor person working two minimum wage jobs and struggling to support a family of five, and the government offers you healthcare--when you didn't qualify for, say, Medicaid because you were working--are you more or less free?
Stag : Let me redefine my question. Popular liberties that the majority of people want to have, or a liberty in which harms no others. Such as the right to be lazy. The liberty of eating as much as you want. Etcetera
Stag : Freedom cannot be taken or granted, so I would say I am just as free as before.
Stag : Now let me get to my other very important question
JohnMaynardKeynes: No, I'm still asking questions. Wait.
Stag : Usually you take turns in cross examination. It is ettiquette. So I'll ask my question.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Yes, we do--and you had your turn.
JohnMaynardKeynes: But you didn't answer my question.
Stag : Yes I did
JohnMaynardKeynes: Let me ask a follow-up, and then you can get to yours.
JohnMaynardKeynes: No, you didn't.
Stag : Sure
JohnMaynardKeynes: You said earlier that the government expanding beyond your three things is "dangerous" to liberty. How is this consistent with your recent remark that you are "just as free" if the government pays for your healthcare?
Stag : Because freedom and liberty are different things.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Ok, how would you differentiate them?
Stag : Freedom is the ability to have a choice. Liberty is the allowance to make a choice.
JohnMaynardKeynes: And, let me reframe the earlier question: do you have more or less liberty if the government pays for your healthcare?
Stag : The same. You have the liberty of healthcare, but no longer have the liberty to not have healthcare. There are also factors that go into producing that healthcare that can take away liberty. Such as the liberty to not pay taxes in creating that healthcare.
Stag : Do you mind if I ask my question now?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Yes, after one more: in that example, is the liberty you speak of the liberty to get sick and die? Should that person--that father in that case--have the right to make that decision for his entire family of five? How about his children? Does he have any responsibility in that regard?
Stag : Yes, but he lacks the liberty to not get sick and die. He has the freedom to try to not get sick and die though. This is the basework for the enlightenment philosophy I was sharing in my case.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Okay, I have more to add, but I'll do it later--ask your question.
Stag : Now I am going to ask my question. Let's give the same scenario as earlier, but this time your dictatorship has a large economy, and a large millitary. Social order is still low. There is a law that you really like and believe will help the country, but it will cause social unrest. Are you more likely to pass the law than the previous scenario? Yes or no.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Okay, so the moving part in this case is a larger economy and larger military. Obviously the dictatorship is unrealistic and ipso facto corrupt, which makes my answer tainted. But, no, I would not be more likely to "pass the law"--or decree, in this case--than in the last scenario.
Stag : and why would that be?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Because I can't think of a single reason that I would be more likely to do so.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Do you have any further questions? I'm planning to go out for the night, and want to address them now, if I can. Otherwise, I'll answer them tomorrow morning. I have a few more questions for you, as well, that I intend to ask tomorrow.
JohnMaynardKeynes: Well, I haven't heard from you, but I'll ask a few more questions at this time. First, can you clarify what you mean in your case when you refer to the government protecting "it from itself?"
JohnMaynardKeynes: Second, what to you is the basis for rights?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Third, would you deny that the type of tax cuts you advocate for would shrink government revenue? Would there be a problematic transitional period to the government only fulfilling the three things you have outlined here?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Fourth, you mention the "expected responsibilities of government." Whose expectations? In other words, what is the basis for the things you think government ought to do? Is there a democratic escape valve--i.e., you want X , Y, and Z, but the public wants B. Is B an expected responsibility?
JohnMaynardKeynes: Well, considering that you haven't been on in hours, and this will be over in 5 minutes, I suppose this cross ex is over.

Return To Top | Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
The opposing position said a lot last round. I would like to summarize the key ideas in his speech. 
  • Stagnated GDP at 2.0-2.5 growth 
  • Income Inequality 

The opposition spent 7 paragraphs giving us different sources showing how the GDP of most economies had went stagnant. In these 7 paragraphs, the opposition only mentioned the word tax once. The opposing position based these entire 7 paragraphs on the following statement of belief, "The optimal solution to this is not only fiscal stimulus funded by higher taxes on the affluent, but a permanent fiscal expansion."  

I must of missed something, because in these 7 paragraphs, I failed to catch one allusion towards either of the things the opposing position is proposing. Did the opposition come to debate taxes or not? I personally prefer to stay on topic, and get back to the central idea. The morality of a large government. The affirmation strongly disagrees with the opposing position's belief that economic arguments should hold more weight than moral arguments. Morality is what defines humanity, and we should always resolve the morality of our actions foremost. Therefore, I must ask the judges to give more weight to the moral arguments, given they have a larger impact on society itself.

In my opening speech, I analyzed the main duties a government should have. I also analyzed what duties the government should not have. The morally unlawful governments of today's world, have polluted the population with the idea that government must exist, to protect us, from ourselves. We criminalize recreational drugs, because they supposedly "disillusion" youth. We ban certain magazines, because they spread supposedly "harmful ideas." Governments are entering a new era. One where kings and dictators are thrown out the door, and all our sacrilegious neofascist policies are instituted under the veil of a democracy. Little did we know the real democracy was all just a charade.

Not even the strictest constitutions have been able to prevent government abuse against the people it is supposed to protect. Why would a government abuse its power against its subjects? Obviously because government is lead by humans, and humans are dictated by the rules of nature. Therefore we should not put too much expectation, or hatred, into a government that constantly disappoints us. Well, because the government is human, and humans make a lot of mistakes.

How do we minimize these mistakes? Certainly not by giving the government more power? Giving the government less power, IE, less of our money, is a step in the right direction. When a government is granted power, it might just choose to use it. We can expand our government, but we must expand society with it. We must never put the government in a place where it can be stronger than the people. We must let the people grow stronger than the government first.

Why money is better kept in public circulation
The opposing position talks of inequality. Did my opponent realize giving the government more taxes is increasing inequality? Governments are constantly misappropriating our collective wealth. Sure the elitists are paying a bit extra, but their fortune 500 company is being reimbursed with the common man's money as well as their own. Earlier I talked of an economic hierarchy between the government and the people. I would like to put this as a model with an additional tier. 
  1. The Elite have the most power
  2. The government has more power than the people
  3. The people have little power
Why do the elite have more power than the common people? Because the 1% now hold 99% of the wealth. We cannot convince ourselves into believing we stand a chance against the fat cats. The rich will always have their hands on the government. Democracy can only be in action when their wallets are satisfied. Sure we can have a tax hike on the rich, but that money is all going back to the same place, and if it wasn't made abundantly clear yet, your money is going with them.

Then why bother paying taxes at all? We generally accept government must exist, and that it must be funded in some ways, but why must we surrender our pride in the process? We can make a strong example for future generations. Let the elite keep their money for the time being, because we are still taking home a victory. It is better this way, then to let them take our government and turn it into a puppet! What patriot would stand for that?

What we actually need taxes for 
I will outline what I think the roles of government should be. Currently, there has been no disagreement.
  • Public Sector Alleviation (healthcare, ect.)
  • General Defense 
  • Maintaining the government 
  • Maintaining the nation

Was anyone aware every single government on earth, allocates at least some of its budget towards other things? This is a clear indication that our taxes are being misappropriated. Therefore, I would argue we do not need a tax hike, but a tax evaluation. Redefine our needs, check our budgets, and start spending money smarter. Throwing more debt at the problem wont fix the world economies. Let's fix the mess we created, with the resources we have. It is a deep hole that we have gotten out of. We are growing at an average of 2.0-2.5% GDP a year the opposition claims, a sharp difference from the 4% fall during the recession. Well that's a good thing, and the last thing we need is to be meddling into the economy trying to fix something that isn't broken. 

I wish Mr. John Maynard Keynes luck with the rest of the debate.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-23 21:08:23
| Speak Round
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes (CON)

Thanks, Stag.

HOUSEKEEPING

Some of my sources from last round cut out. They can be found here and in cross-ex.

FRAMEWORK

Here, PRO only challenges that we should weigh economic arguments higher than moral arguments. Here's why you should prefer my framework. First, he fails to show how morality has more of an impact on humanity. Economic impacts are clearer, and can be functionally and factually evaluated, whereas moral impacts cannot. We can clearly see the impediments to liberty if economic growth stagnates--e.g., flat real wages result in fewer choices and less innovation, and reduce welfare--whereas PRO can only provide vague platitudes as to how my plan would be deleterious. Second, he fails to establish an optimal moral framework, or to account for objective morality, at least insofar as we can evaluate it. Third, he claims that morality defines humanity, but disregards that there is no way more fundamental by which morality manifests itself than in the economic system we devise. In reality, humans define morality insofar as we can conceive of it. My system controls for morality and more.

REBUTTALS

First, citing historical figures via appeals to authority will not a convincing argument make. We should consider not that X person said Y, but rather evaluate Y. I am going to address the lines rendered by PRO as though he himself were making these arguments—either by addressing the argument itself, or by balancing it with further context.

PRO renders a line from Hamilton, conceding to the necessity of government—that people cannot be expected to act perfectly rationally without constraint, thus forming not only a rationale for government, but a framework by which the government can enforce laws. Much of Hamilton’s paper addresses the insufficiency of the government established by the Articles of Confederation (39). He wrote: “It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation” (39).

Next, Hamilton supported an expansive view of the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution (40) where the power for the government to raise money was "plenary and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and ‘general welfare’” (41). George Washington supported this interpretation, signing legislation that provided housing, food, healthcare, and education to the poorest citizens that was continued by Adams and Jefferson (42). They realized that the government has the responsibility to aid people in need, and that positive freedom--"the capacity of a person to determine the best course of action and the existence of opportunities for them to realize their full potential" (43)--matters. If, for instance, you haven't the capacity for survival because you lack adequate nourishment, freedom from constraint matters not to you. PRO, during cross-ex, defined liberty as "the allowance to make a choice." However, if you cannot afford healthcare, you don't have the ability to make said choice--if the government pays for it, you have the right to refuse it or to die, but without government intervention, the option was never available to you. If you're hungry, and someone offers you a sandwich, you have the option to deny it, but that in no way deprive you of your "right to be hungry."

PRO next emphasizes the principle of government "by the people." But this supports my case. During cross-ex, Pro remarked that my proposal would impact "popular liberties that the majority of people want to have,” endorsing democracy and majority rule as the basis not only for doling out certain liberties, but deciding which people ought to have. This leaves room for the government to establish and enforce positive liberties, such as the kind I'm advocating for--education, medical care, etc. Polling the American public, we find that these liberties are widely supported: 71% support investment in disease prevention (44); about 66% of Americans support single-payer healthcare (45); the vast majority of Americans oppose cuts to SS and Medicare (46); and about 60% support raising taxes on the rich (47).

Further, a study by Gilens and Benjamin, 2014, concluded the following: "In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose..even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it" (48). Note that their data set is from 1981 to 2002, in the wake of a massive reduction in top tax rates, a massive rise in income inequality, and stagnating wages in spite of productivity doubling. It is clear that we are far from what the founders sought, but not from PRO’s reasons.

Moreover, he argued in cross-ex that, if the government were to deviate from his three (or four, if you look at his rounds) things, it would be too large and thus dangerous. But he hasn’t explained this when, as I've noted earlier, this actually increases freedom by giving people choices they would not have had otherwise. He conceded on the existence of government, and thus on the social contract, whereby we sacrifice some freedom for the sake of a greater end. The question is not whether people have absolute freedom to retain the entirety of their earnings or to live without constraint, as some constraint is necessary. The question is of degree--and it remains true that people are significantly less free without the capacity to make these choices. When people die from lack of health insurance or lack of nourishment or when poorer children are unable to attend college to contribute to society, we are all worse off. Not to mention, PRO fails to show that the elements of government I wish to fund would not qualify even under his system of government under public-sector alleviation.

Further, it is morally imperative--and the utilitarian solution--that government act to ameliorate suffering and maximize utility when it can, especially when, as I've demonstrated in the last round, there would be little if any negative ramifications on the economy. Moreover, in the example I gave during cross-ex, PRO concedes that both freedom and liberty are unaffected by the government funding healthcare for a poor man with a family to feed. In fact, his freedom and liberty are enhanced, and his moral responsibility to care for his family fulfilled, both of which are impossible under PRO's oligarchical system. His quote from Gerald R. Ford does not in any way support his case because it's nothing more than a reducto ad absurdum: I have never argued for a government that will give us "everything." Almost the entirety of PRO's case is predicated on this fallacy, and he fails to make a case for how my proposal would in any way be deleterious to freedom. He cites Reagan and Eisenhower, but fails to acknowledge that their presidencies featured government acting far beyond the scope he would desire, be it 91% top tax rates under Eisenhower and public investments in education and infrastructure, or Ronald Reagan's eleven tax hikes, 18 debt limit increases, or massive increase in the amount of federal workers (49), so his reference so these figures fall flat.

PRO claims that governments don't create laws to protect us from others but from ourselves. He fails to provide any evidence. Moreover, he fails to explain how a law protecting us from ourselves is necessarily undesirable. For instance, the Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in the 1930s, prevented banks from becoming so large that they took on too much leverage and crashed the economy for about 50 years (50). When we lifted those regulations under Clinton, the economy crashed, significantly reducing societal welfare and, thus, liberty. We could even consider that companies which operate legally, in their own self interest, trick consumers with complex financial instruments and fine print. The CFPB, established under the Dodd-Frank Act, has saved consumers about $4.6 billion (51). Again, this enhances freedom.

Finally, PRO claims that governments can function without much revenue and thus we should cut taxes across the board. He fails to account for the negative impacts from the spending cuts and this transitional period, the lives that would be destroyed, the loss of political capital, and the hit to positive freedom. He disregards not only the lack of pragmatism, but also that many governments--e.g., US and Japan--are already running large deficits.

DEFENDING MY CASE

PRO essentially drops my case. Moreover, he strawmans it, and falsely insinuates that I didn't address taxes more than once, which is simply wrong. My argument involves fiscal expansion because it's the reason TO raise taxes--in other words, what I would do with the money. My case addresses not only how and why I would fund this expansion--because we face, by virtue of structural shifts, a prolonged period of sluggish growth, which negatively impacts everyone through reduced wages, innovation, opportunity, jobs, as well as the deleterious impacts of income inequality--and why this would not negatively impact the economy. He claims that we're trying to "fix something that isn't broken," but I've explained why it's broken--because the policy response to the recession was far too inadequate, and as a result, we have a substantial amount of people who are long-term unemployed or involuntarily part-time employed, and that harms us all--and will continue unless we act. Further, he insinuates that I can take a stand on raising taxes without focusing on impacts, which is ludicrous. If anything, his insinuation that this is a debate over the "morality of a large government" is off the mark, because his definition of what constitutes "large" and thus "dangerous" is vague and loosely defined, and the programs I want to fund would even fit into PRO's conception of what government ought to do. Note that PRO fails to touch any of these contentions or provide anything at all to balance against them, so I extend my case.

He goes on to address what he deems injustices such as banning drugs or certain magazines, but these are completely non-topical, ironically. These have nothing to do with whether or not we ought to raise taxes, nor must I endorse these in order to win. As I noted during cross-ex, taxes are not the vehicle of corruption, nor do they increase the power of government--rather, the will to do wrong must have already existed, and that would find other funding sources independent of tax rates. In fact, a truly corrupt government would likely be funded by offshore terrorist organizations, rather than through a system of taxation which fund social services and other things people desire and depend on, such as SS and Medicare. I'll also cross-apply my evidence earlier on Glass-Steagall and the CFPR to address his remarks on "protecting us from ourselves," and on the obfuscation of democracy, which I solve for but PRO fails to. The public, as noted, largely supports my proposals--but not PRO's oligarchical regime.

PRO goes on to address government abuses which result from the fact that man is imperfect. But these remarks are non-topical and irrelevant and, again, solved by my contentions on democracy--whereby, if a leader is corrupt, he or she will be removed from office. Again, PRO is attempting to make a categorical argument against government, but himself concedes the necessity of it, whilst blurring the line between his own proposals and mine. If, truly, he believed government were corrupt, why should it fund X, Y, and Z without B? Shouldn't he be able to explain why B, but not the others, are corrupt? He could not do this during cross-ex, nor has he thus far. His argument lends itself to tearing down government in lieu of fixing it, which is not only inconsistent with his opening markets, but completely unrealistic and inducing far more problems than it solves for. The only argument he offers is "pride," and that by raising taxes, in some way we're reducing the government to a mere puppet. He fails to explain how.

PRO claims that taxes increase inequality increases inequality. This is ludicrous and unsubstantiated: raising taxes and funding social services, as my proposal does, is redistributing income from the top to the lower rungs of the economic latter, or the precise opposite. He claims that companies are "reimbursed" by people's dollars. How? Through subsidies and preferences from the government? They're gone under my regime, but exacerbated under PRO's, unless he would like to concede that we ought to lift them, and thus raise taxes.

He contends that raising taxes would not solve for inequality because it would simply circulate back to them via the government--e.g., subsidies. What he fails to realize, again, is that my plan, but not his, controls for this, and ensures that just this cannot happen. His remark is so ludicrous that he's effectively suggesting "the rich will always influence government, so let us concede, and give them what they want anyway." He concedes to the problem of inequality, as he does with slow growth and asymmetric influence of the affluent, but contends that there is effectively no solution--though I have offered one. He insinuates that I want to "throw more debt at the problem" but this simply is not the case. I want to spend the money productively, at a time when the affluent in countries such as the US, Japan, and South Korea on sitting on inordinate amounts of cash that they aren't investing or putting to good use (52), in order to boost growth. More growth means more tax revenue and lower deficits, and thus more leverage to invest wisely in things people need and want.

REFERENCES

26. http://tinyurl.com/mojbjrc

27. http://tinyurl.com/ovvl67c

28. http://tinyurl.com/kkw7nbl

29. http://tinyurl.com/o8g662

30. http://tinyurl.com/nv2eb6f

31. http://tinyurl.com/nwdlc3o

32. http://tinyurl.com/k5otbkp

33. http://tinyurl.com/p6d6jsh

34. http://tinyurl.com/qy52ync

35. http://tinyurl.com/knnnqt2

36. http://tinyurl.com/mwrf6yv

37. http://tinyurl.com/m55qaw2

38. http://tinyurl.com/mzo6g3d

39. http://tinyurl.com/b6xxtnm

40. http://tinyurl.com/mps55wh

41. http://tinyurl.com/mlgcj48

42.http://tinyurl.com/q6h2883

43. http://tinyurl.com/oyx5q4a

44. http://tinyurl.com/n64xe8

45. http://tinyurl.com/6vxlbx9

46. http://tinyurl.com/kwvtk6s

47. http://tinyurl.com/cad6sg8

48. http://tinyurl.com/khjqxkx

49. http://tinyurl.com/44tpzn7

50. http://tinyurl.com/mvu5lap

51. http://tinyurl.com/mnldvae

52. http://tinyurl.com/owfo232


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-26 11:51:58
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)

Mind over money

The opposing position challenged the impact morality has on society. A tall challenge, for such an evident truism. Morality is what defines each and every society. Societies being the composition of humanity. When our grandchildren, look back on to our generation, and see what we had to offer society, they would be much more passionate about how we influenced humanity, over the economy. Then why does the opposing position continue to ask us to value our wallets, over our sense of humanity? Money is material. A human creation, an imperfect one made by an imperfect race. 

Enlightened philosophers will tell you how much you have to gain, by putting little value on the coin, and more on our humanity. I will not judge people like Mr. John Maynard Keynes for holding a different, and incorrect view on the subject of money over mind. I ask the judges to look deep into their hearts, and see how much more weight morality has.


Challenging impediments to liberty: Economic Stagnation

The opposing position claims that liberty is challenged in times of low growth. My system, as laid out, is one ruled by the people. We can make our own liberty and choices independently, and free of the government. The government must learn to fear its subjects. I would rather have a stagnated economy, and a fearful government, over a growing economy, and an abusive government. Has the opposing position even proven filling the treasury with more taxes will fix the stagnated economy? The opposing position criticizes moral arguments for being hard to reasonably analyze. We should look into his own proposal with the same skepticism.


 Historical Analysis

 The opposing position claims that my position was appealing to authority. I look at it differently. We are taking a look back at the greats; some of the most powerful and influential people who have graced humanity. I would look at their sayings with the greatest intellectual respect. Going further, my side put great care into proving what they said was true. The truth is what we came to debate, and the truth is what they delivered.  


Putting too much faith into the government 

No one is denying the government can enforce positive liberties. My side is trying to force the government to do just that, by limiting the taxes we give the government. The government constantly misappropriates our collective wealth. By instituting a tax hike, more of that wealth will enter the wrong hands.  Besides, the government  has clear and essential areas it would be wise to spend our hard earned wealth on.  I am perfectly confident all governments can manage those essential areas without a tax hike.

Let us get back to what liberty ideally is.  Plato  Stanford  defines liberty as an allowance given by the government. What the affirmation has stressed, is that more taxes equate to a more powerful government. People and governments put in a position of power, are more likely to abuse said  power. Even when people in power have good intentions, we must remember they are humans, and humans are imperfect.  

Society is progressing, and  we can continue to progress without the guiding hand of a few select people in power.  We must learn to put our faith into more reliable things. It isn't  like the government let us down before, right?  Let us start thinking of the future.  In our future,  the government will grow in accordance with the people. Not the other way around.


Notice: On my mobile phone

Hello, this message is not apart of the debate. My router broke down AGAIN, and I was forced to type this by phone. Forgive any spelling mistakes, and the fact that I could not give my full case by phone. I tried to include the most essential bits, but please do not be to hard on me for failing to live up to my own standards for this debate. 
          

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-29 09:53:05
| Speak Round
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes (CON)

Thank you to Stag for an excellent debate.

FRAMEWORK

PRO drops most of my framework, so these points extend forward: that we will *not* be defining "rich" quantitatively; that our resolution is normative, and thus the burden of proof is shared; and you will determine the strengths of our cases based upon a preponderance of evidence based upon evidence from different countries, of which PRO has provided none.

You should also prefer my framework with respect to relative weighing. Last round I noted that moral impacts are far clearer than economic impacts; that economic arguments can be functionally and factually evaluated, whereas moral arguments cannot; that PRO has not established an optimal moral framework or a way in which to account for objective morality; and that morality, even if it exists and is objective, eludes our grasp--so that, insofar as we can conceive it, is based upon our own perceptions and thus is man-made--and the economic system we devise is the clearest and most fundamental way in which morality manifests itself, meaning that, even by weighing economic arguments more, you are controlling for morality. All of these considerations have been dropped by PRO.

Also, PRO falsely insinuates that I have challenged the impact of morality on society, which is untrue: I have not denied the existence of moral impacts, but have argued that, for the purposes of this debate, they are far less clear than economic impacts, especially because PRO has failed to tell us what the basis for human rights is (he dodged this question during cross-ex) or how we should weigh competing moral claims--i.e., should deontology be the dominating moral system, or should utilitarianism? Does morality stem from religion, or from rationality in the form of the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance?" He is left without a way to evidence, even theoretically, moral impacts--he claims that X policy action would deprive us liberty and is, consequently, undesirable, but as I noted in my last round, my proposal would be the utilitarian solution; he provides us with no determination of what the optimal moral system is, so even if you buy his arguments on weighing, you should vote CON because I've made the unchallenged contention during the last round that my proposal is morally optimal on utilitarian grounds.

In his opening, PRO repeats his claims from Round 2 which I have already rebutted--he claims that morality defines society, or humanity, and I've argued that the opposite is true because morality is up to human interpretation. This is not to say that morality is entirely subjective, but that we lack the knowledge, wisdom, and evidence to establish the criteria for objective morality--so morality, insofar as we can conceive it, is man-made and subjective. This does not mean that the morality of every action is subject to human interpretation necessarily, but rather that competing moral claims are subject to ambiguous conclusions. Abortion is a fine example: whose rights do we weigh higher--the mother's or the developing fetus? Rational people will disagree, and we lack the ability to know for sure; in a case where a mother does opt for abortion, or a society opts to legalize abortion, there will be moral impacts--either good or bad--but we do not have the capacity to access these impacts in their totality.

PRO then insinuates that I am asking our audience to value our wallets over our sense of humanity, but this is not the case. I'm suggesting that morality is evident in economic decision-making--i.e., raising taxes on the affluent can be evaluated both positively and normatively: positively on the basis of whether it would positively impact society, and normatively based on the values of the citizenry. Economics provides us with the clearest segway into assessing moral impacts--be it the impact of tax hikes, or policy decisions regarding climate change, etc. While PRO insists that morality exists independent of humanity, he provides no basis for this--he provides no reason that we should think morality is the cause of human action, not the result. His contention on weighing money over mind is simply false--because I'm valuing the human mind, or the mechanism through which decisions culminate in a system of morality insofar as we can conceive it, rather than PRO’s arbitrary standards. Moreover, PRO contradicts himself: he says that money is a human creation, and morality is not, but then tries to extol the virtues of the human mind. If morality exists independent of humanity, why laud humanity? I urge you to prefer my framework and to vote CON on this basis.

CHALLENGING IMPEDIMENTS TO LIBERTY: ECONOMIC STAGNATION

PRO lays out a false dichotomy with no warrant: that we have either slow growth and a government "run by the people," or an abusive government with much faster growth. He ahs failed to establish why a government which operates beyond X, Y, and Z and also opts to do B is in some way "large" or "dangerous": not only does he have no evidence of appeal to impacts, but no logical connection. Furthermore, PRO has professed support for a government "run by the people," or majority rule, and even noted the importance of "popular liberties the majority of people want to have." I provided evidence showing the vast majority of the public support my proposals--so per PRO's own criteria, these are permissible.

Next, PRO refutes his own argument: he professes support for a "slow growth economy" and during his last round noted that "2 to 2.5 percent growth beats the contraction during the recession." But without extremely activist fiscal and monetary policy post-recession in countries like the U.S., U.K., Europe, and Japan, we wouldn’t even have this mediocre growth.He claims that we cannot access my impacts--but merely looking at the progress the U.S. and U.K., whose policies were much more expansionary than those of Japan and Europe, have made refutes this.PRO has dropped the clear evidence I have provided on the CFPB returning about $4.6 billion to people who otherwise would have fallen victim to overly complex financial instruments, or the impacts of the Glass-Steaggall Act, which prevented financial crisis for about 50 years. These three points--CFPB, Glass-Steaggall, and recovering economies which have pursued activist stabilization policies in the form of fiscal expansion--demonstrate impacts which far and away trump any that PRO has established. And, as I noted, these INCREASE liberty, which PRO drops.

When we consider the virtues of expansionary policies in the form of the Great Society or the New Deal, establishing amongst other things, Medicare and Social Security, respectively, and the way in which the economy boomed in the post-WWII era in spite of tax rates above 91 percent because of an activist government, or the impediments of income inequality which are exacerbated under PRO's proposal (note the empirical backing I provided in Round 1 that the type of tax cuts he advocates for are completely uncorrelated with economic growth, but in fact EXACERBATE income inequality), the case becomes even more evident. My impacts are clear and can be quantified--we know, for instance, the loss in potential GDP from deep economic recessions, as I noted in my first round, and the fact that had the government NOT intervened, we would be worse off. Based on this evidence alone, you should vote CON.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

PRO effectively drops all my points on this. He only appeals to authority by suggesting that because X person said Y, we should support Y not for its merits, but because X person said it--but this is ludicrous. At one point, we allowed slavery in the U.S., and even Jefferson owned slaves--this does not make slavery permissible. Next, PRO fails to acknowledge is the context I provide. The line from Hamilton was justification for government, and further remarks within that paper, as well as his stance on the "general welfare" clause shared by Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, illuminate positive freedom which PRO ignores in its entirety. This is especially true because I pointed out last round that Ford's comment is nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum, and even Reagan's and Eisenhower's conception of what constitutes an "overbearing" government differ heavily from PRO's: his conception of what constitutes this is completely arbitrary without a logical basis.

The only criterion we have from a moral standpoint is, and even PRO concedes this, the "will of the people." Because the vast majority of people via poll results support my proposals, you cannot grant PRO’s argument any weight, and this even turns his argument on the government "growing in accordance with the people," because under my proposal, but not his, it will. My proposal is not, as PRO contends, "filling the Treasury with more taxes." I want to raise taxes on people on whom it will have virtually no impact on their economic activity or on happiness--note that, in my framework, which PRO dropped, I defined rich as "people who have reached diminishing returns to income," meaning that there is no impact on happiness by taking more of their money via taxes--and put that money to productive use. Rich people, have a significantly lower marginal propensity to consume than people of lower incomes--and I've provided evidence for this in my opening round from Christopher Carroll. Whereas they are likely to sit on cash, lower-income people will spend to stimulate the economy--and this is especially true when short-term nominal interest rates have hit the zero lower bound, as they have now in a number of countries. At this point, the tax cuts PRO advocates for are actually CONTRACTIONARY via the imfamous paradox of toil: PRO's policies make people want to work more, which increases labor supply and applies downward pressure on nominal wages and inflation--but a decline in inflation at zero interest rates mean higher real rates of interest, which result in declining investment and consumption. For a myriad of reasons, including especially exacerbating income inequality, PRO's proposals would make us significantly worse off--both from an economic AND moral standpoint.

PUTTING TOO MUCH FAITH IN GOVERNMENT

PRO concedes that the government can enforce positive liberties--as this point, you should vote CON. He claims that the government will be better able to do this with less tax dollars, but the opposite is true: massive tax cuts when many countries, like the US and Japan, are already running large deficits will force through massive spending cuts, which will not only destroy many people's lives, be they public workers or impoverished recipients of food stamps or some other form of public assistance, but pose a significant drag on economic growth--again, threatening disinflationary of even deflationary pressures, raising real interest rates, and reducing investment and consumption.

He claims the government misappropriates our collective wealth--but what is the basis for this? He claims that by raising taxes, the government will simply be able to do this more. There are several problems with this: fist, he has not established why a government which funds, per our earlier example, B is necessarily doing wrong--or, even, why my proposals would result in a dangerous government, especially when he has now conceded on the necessity of government, the importance of positive freedom, that public-sector alleviation is necessary, and on the social contract. Misappropriate means to "take dishonestly for one's own use." In what way is this the case with taxation, especially when PRO has conceded to the necessity of government? If there were government fraud, it should be condemned, but there's no warrant for the claim, nor am I obligated to support fraud for my case to hold.

Next, I have explained already where I want these funds to go--research, education, infrastructure, jobs training, and healthcare--and not only has PRO not challenged these contentions, nor the reasons I have laid out for wanting funds to be allocated to these places. Moreover, what PRO fails to realize is that even if the government wastes money, this in no way counters my position: one, I have already stated where I want the funds to be allocated, and should he find waste, that money can simply be spent elsewhere and, two, even if the government wastes money, every dollar the government spends has a multiplier effects and works to stimulate aggregate demand. We can reallocate where that money goes and increase demand, on net, but PRO's proposal requires deleterious cuts He claims that he is "confident" that governments can fund essential areas without a tax hike--but provides no evidence to this point, especially when his cuts would send the economy into a period of malaise, exacerbated by secular stagnation to which he concedes, and would reduce government revenues, making it even harder for the government to function even at current levels. He speaks, again, about these "essential areas," but as I noted last round and as PRO has failed to challenge, my proposals fit into even his arbitrary standard through the category of "public sector alleviation."

PRO then claims that raising taxes will increase the power of the government and lead to more corruption. I have already explained how this is NOT the case. Raising taxes on the affluent does not increase the scope of government power: if we raise taxes tomorrow, the government won't suddenly be able to override freedom of speech. Instead, we're simply reallocating resources from people who won't use them productivity to people who will for the benefit of us all--again, we're increasing discretion, not power, and PRO has provided us with no reason to think this is wrongheaded or tyrannical. All of his critiques of government boil down to nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum. Humans are imperfect, which is why, instead of leaving them to their own devices via a market system, where inherently some will lose out--be it due to lack of inherent abilities, or influence, or power, most of which is beyond their own control and thus should not be held against them--society should set up certain rules to govern our actions. Indeed, we might make mistakes, but the benefits of trying far outweigh the ramifications of refusing to do so. PRO's proposal is nothing more than a concession. I think, however, that we can and should do more--because we've done it in the past. Activist government policies are not tyrannical, nor are they overbearing: they allow society to function, and ensure that everyone--not just the affluent--have a far shot and a fair share. People who start from nothing, who can't afford an education, will not be able to compete in a market system with an affluent heiress: my proposal ensures equality of opportunity for all, and to me, this is the rule of government.

I highly urge a CON ballot. Thank you.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-29 14:29:13
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
adminadmin
OK, so let me clarify some of that.

By rambling, I meant that a lot of links were sort of thrown around without a lot of signposting between them. It sort of made the case difficult to read at times. "This happens, then this happens, then this happens, then this graph shows that, then this happens, then that happens, so in conclusion, this".

Con's counter plan was basically taxing like mad. It had a few specifics but they weren't put together in any sort of structured way - I got the feeling too that con just dropped them as they became convenient.
Posted 2015-01-19 06:55:21
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Also, thank you admin for your comprehensive vote. I really appreciate it.
Posted 2015-01-19 05:36:53
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
I didn't think I was rambling, lol. But sure, I'll lay out the counterplan a bit later in more detail.
Posted 2015-01-19 05:29:08
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm proud that I put up a strong fight, and this debate was only decided by a 2 point difference. My debating powers continue to grow. First edeb8, then the world!
Posted 2015-01-19 03:48:35
BlackflagBlackflag
I really liked this judgement, and it was pretty much a solid analysis of the debate. I pretty much agreed with all my fault lines and my oppositions fault lines. While your judgement reads like Pro was winning on round one, round two, and round three, it bothers me that the debate was decided on one narrative. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I was also pretty confident round one and two had costed the opposition the debate, do to your criticism on rambling. It seemed out of place for a debate. To that extent, I'm still not clear on cons counter plan. Maybe someone can finally elaborate on it for me?

Anyways, this is almost the best judgement you have written imo. Good job!
Posted 2015-01-19 03:44:40
adminadmin
Comment judgment! I read this a while ago, just never got around to writing it up in judgement form.

Stag opened ok with his single argument for a specific model of what government does. This is the right kind of argument to run in this kind of debate. I felt like it probably should have been related to some more pragmatic points though, particularly regarding what that argument means in terms of policy implications. Rather than foreshadowing great points, I should know right from the outset why you believe that the rich are taxed enough, and to be honest I was TRYING to find that and couldn't. It should be really obvious. For example, some kind of causal link like "more taxes = more money to government = more government power" (with appropriate substantiation) would have been very helpful to draw.

Con made an attempt at a principled line, but it was vastly inferior to pro's. Con's line was more pragmatic. At times it came off as rambling and hard to follow. The analysis had great depth that pro's case lacked, but it needed to be explained in such a way that a non-economics scholar can understand it readily (and as an economics scholar, I was having real trouble relating it to the debate). There are various techniques that would have helped with that: notably, narrative, and a little less important, structure. Your argument would be well-presented if it were, say, a lecture, but doesn't work so well as a debate. Some attempts at early rebuttal would have been nice, and I hope you've learned by now how to inline links so they don't take up tons of characters at the end. The confusion I felt was clearly echoed by pro in the next round too, and I felt this was reasonable.

I've got to admit I'm not sure it was terribly wise of con to run as precise a counter-model as he did. It probably would have been better to keep it vague and focus on rebuttal.

The CX was painful to read, for reasons which ought to be obvious. I feel JMK came out marginally on top, not because he answered anything particularly well (neither side did) but because he asked significantly fewer bad questions (not that JMK was totally faultless in that respect either). I still feel unqualified on this matter, so I would refer both debaters to the resources I recently published on the relevant section of the debate training/resources page, and support everything the other judges said.

Pro's second round was solid, if only bit lacking in substantive. There was a lot of scope for "even if" type arguments here, but it was good to see some attempts at rebuttal creeping into the debate, and I really liked the structure (particularly the signposting - this is an area I really think you have improved on). Some of the stuff you said you would talk about earlier I couldn't find but it was ok. At last I began to understand why you support your position anyway, but I wanted to read much more detail on the rebuttal.

Con once again proved slightly weaker on the principal and much stronger on the practical impacts. Con's idea of telling me to weight practical impacts as stronger was smart strategy. Unfortunately a lot of his case was missing causal impacts that only became clear in this second round. While pro did also reserve much of his case to the second round, it's better to have few points properly substantiated than many points that are broad. I liked the rebuttals that were offered though, even if a small number of them seemed to be jumping to conclusions (abridged to make room for character space?) they were a bombardment of logic that seemed strategically the right thing to do.

Finally about replies. I don't weight new arguments made in them, and most judges would be with me on that. This also extends to significant new rebuttal material. Both sides were guilty of this. I still think the "biased adjudication" approach is the best for reply speeches, but of course that's me.

Overall, a debate that I'm sure was a learning experience for both sides.

The decision proved to be both close and clear. Neg's rebuttals on the principle the aff introduced came a little too late even if they were strong, but neg cam out on top by spinning the narrative of having the practical side of things wrapped up in the debate. By presenting some air of authority they proved somewhat more convincing, and what really won them the debate was in convincing me on what the most important issues were in the debate, something that Stag somewhat surprisingly didn't do (one can put it down to him being on his phone perhaps). So, close neg win in the end - and I kinda mean it with the close too, with Australs-style grading I put on my sheet 182 points for neg and 180 points for pro (though I considered giving both sides a zero for the CX lol).
Posted 2015-01-18 03:58:37
adminadmin
dammit. Oh well, I'll give a comment judgment when I get a chance.
Posted 2015-01-06 11:06:57
BlackflagBlackflag
Admin, you forgot to judge man
Posted 2015-01-06 06:56:08
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Thanks for the RFD, whiteflame! I really appreciate your feedback.
Posted 2015-01-03 18:07:47
whiteflamewhiteflame
So, I've been asked not to vote on this debate by Stag. As a result, I will not post an actual vote on this debate. Still, I produced an RFD before I was aware of his request, and, rather than allowing it to go to waste, I am going to post it here in the comments for both debaters to peruse at their leisure.

RFD:

Lots to cover here, though thankfully each section is relatively clear by the end of this debate.

1) Burdens

I think it's always really useful to go over what the burdens are, and neither side really did this. Con mentioned that some arguments coming out of Pro were not within the scope of the debate, but from what I can see, it goes much deeper than that. When I read the resolution, “That the rich are taxed enough”, I don't see room for Pro to argue that the rich should be taxed less. If anything, that's ground Con could have taken. When I see “taxed enough,” that tells me that they're taxed just the right amount currently. That's what Pro had to defend. But most of his case appears to hinge on wanting those taxation levels lowered. Admittedly, as Con takes up the argument that more taxation is better, Pro can bring forward arguments about how increasing taxation is bad, but that does not then allow him to take the next step and argue how decreasing taxation is good. The idea that Pro is somehow able to argue that we should be “free of the government” is preposterous – it's tangential to the debate, and therefore not an argument I can consider. This means I have to toss out the majority of Pro's case.

Really, all that I'm left to evaluate is the effects of increasing resources, and as a result, power for the government. That's all I can evaluate, as it's the only topical analysis Pro provides.

2) Morality vs. Economics

There are most certainly reasons why I might have preferred either in this debate. However, I only see solid analysis of why I should prefer one for economics. Pro tells me that morality is the underpinning of society as a whole and that it has a far larger impact, but that's really besides the point, as Con tells me I can't reasonably evaluate what is moral. Even if it has the larger impact, I can't make any conclusions based off of the morality of this particular case as they're subjective and complex. Meanwhile, Con gives me strong reasoning as to how I can evaluate economics, and while I agree with Pro that it's lower impact, at the very least I can work with it. So that's how I evaluate the arguments going forward. Nonetheless, I'll focus on all of the arguments that played a role in the debate.

3) Big Government

This is the big point coming from Pro. He's basically arguing that any instance in which the government is gaining power is an instance where they can abuse it, and an abusive government is bad. I understand that point, but it seems flawed, in that he's already agreeing that any government that obtains any power over its people is, to some extent, abusive. Con is right to argue that there's at least uncertainty here as to when you cross the line into too large and dangerous territory. All Pro gives me is a linear harm – more power, more abuse – but that lacks any distinct brink analysis, and makes it difficult to weigh this argument. How is this specific increase in abuse going to make things so much worse for the people? How should I weigh that abuse against the abuse of poverty on those same people? In both cases, liberties may be restricted, but only in the latter case am I getting a scenario where liberties will ALWAYS be restricted, regardless of the nation. In the abuse case, I'm forced to say that many countries won't take it that far, while some might. And I'm not even sure what that means – why should I be concerned about these countries having more tax money? Pro tells me that that means more abuse, but again, that's a linear problem without any meaningful brink analysis.

So I'm forced to, at best for Pro, tie these arguments and, at worst, give them solidly to Con, which leaves me solely with the economics debate.

4) Economics

I don't have a lot of work to do here. Pro drops the vast majority of Con's analysis, leaving almost all of it on the table. So I have to buy it – that there's a genuine benefit to the population as a whole, that growth is spurred, and that many outcomes for the poor are improved. I really can't say much else here. And since this is the impact that matters, it's the one I have to prefer. But even if I was buying that the moral impact was most important, and that it was the best case scenario for Pro, I would still use this economics position as the major thing that tips the scale in Con's favor, giving the debate over to him.
Posted 2015-01-03 17:52:21
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Fair enough. I'll respond to your PM right now.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:50:14
BlackflagBlackflag
That wasn't very funny :P
Posted 2015-01-01 18:48:35
BlackflagBlackflag
That wasn't very funny :P
Posted 2015-01-01 18:48:25
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Fair enough. I'll respond to your PM right now.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:48:11
BlackflagBlackflag
Watch your heads, here comes the comic relief
Posted 2015-01-01 18:47:49
adminadmin
JMK, far as I can understand that it's a public issue, I'd still really like it if you would talk with me directly about it because as you say, drama like this reflects on the whole of edeb8. Nobody will be held to account for anything if you don't talk to me.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:46:53
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
@Admin: I just noticed your comment. I will discuss this with him privately, though I, as expected, don't appreciate slanderous remarks to the kind that Stag has made behind my back--so I would appreciate, to some degree, some sort of public clarification. We can discuss that later, I suppose.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:45:40
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
I love how you claim to be against drama, though you where the one inciting it, and who has persistently done so. You don't have any credibility on that point, I'm afraid--nor is your insinuation that I'm the one creating drama hold any water, when I'm merely defending myself against your accusation. Also, I wanted to discuss this earlier via PM--and you refused to respond upon being pushed on specifics for your charges. In fact, you wouldn't even be upfront with me about this insinuation that I am in some way had solicited votebombs. This isn't about me "learning to deal with slander." I assure that I won't be having any problems sleeping tonight. My point is, your behavior is wildly uncalled for, and it's imperative that you be held accountable for your actions.

As for discussing this privately: honestly, this has been made a public issue. I would have accepted holding a private discussion about an hour ago, or perhaps even a half hour ago, but it has already gone too far. I expect you to disavow your bogus accusations, which you have already implicitly conceded bore no weight, and apologize publicly.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:44:01
BlackflagBlackflag
Well John, many people will slander your character and integrity. We learn to deal with it.
Look, shoot me a personal message and we can talk about it there. Edeb8 is supposedly drama free, so let's learn to keep it that way.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:41:03
adminadmin
JMK, I've sent you a message, please sort anything out with me when there's a possible conduct breach, not with the person directly.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:40:28
BlackflagBlackflag
Well John, many people will slander your character and integrity. We learn to deal with it.
Look, shoot me a personal message and we can talk about it there. Edeb8 is supposedly drama free, so let's learn to keep it that way.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:40:13
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
where*
Posted 2015-01-01 18:37:56
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
That's we're you're wrong, though, because it does concern me--you made a charge against me, slandering my character and integrity, and have yet to be upfront about that.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:37:43
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Oops, double post.

Stag: You haven't addressed the false allegations you've made against me. Also, you should be willing--if the two of you have worked this out--to allow him to vote. Passive-aggressive attacks to the effect of "don't vote if you've been asked by one of the debaters" are wildly out of line, no matter whom they're directed toward.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:36:52
BlackflagBlackflag
John, this did not concern you in the slightest. It had to do with me and whiteflame. We put it behind us, why haven't you?
Posted 2015-01-01 18:36:33
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Oops, double post.

Stag: You haven't addressed the false allegations you've made against me. Also, you should be willing--if the two of you have worked this out--to allow him to vote. Passive-aggressive attacks to the effect of "don't vote if you've been asked by one of the debaters" are wildly out of line, no matter whom they're directed toward.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:33:36
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Oops, double post.

Stag: You haven't addressed the false allegations you've made against me. Also, you should be willing--if the two of you have worked this out--to allow him to vote. Passive-aggressive attacks to the effect of "don't vote if you've been asked by one of the debaters" are wildly out of line, no matter whom they're directed toward.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:32:33
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Personally, Stag, I'm disgusted with your behavior, and wouldn't have expected that from anyone, even from you: the lies, the aspersions, the nonsensical allegations. You have quite a lot of explaining to do. Every moment you allow this beast to fester, you're leading up to the inevitable exodus of people like myself--and merely showing DDO'ers, whom you often mock as "not real debaters," just why they ought to prefer their own website. Personally, I enjoyed this debate and I like Lars and the hard work and time he puts into making Edeb8 as it is, but I haven't the slightest desire for this conflicts--which you seem to feed on--which are completely and wholly contrived. If that's your game, I want no part in any of it.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:21:47
BlackflagBlackflag
I had a lengthy discussion with Whiteflame. He comprehends my position, and worked it out with me respectfully like a gentleman. The disagreement arose from something unrelated to Whiteflame's character. I blocked him until I could clear up my problems with him, and we could move forward.

Note, that Whiteflame was not the only one subject in this controversy, so I do not want anyone to think I had singled Whiteflame out in any way.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:21:02
adminadmin
I kinda side with JMK here. Stag has a habit of being non-constructive and as one of the more frequent posters that's a bit problematic. I don't think there should be any disincentive to judge a debate providing that the judge is fair. Until they've judged the debate you can't assume otherwise.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:21:00
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Personally, Stag, I'm disgusted with your behavior, and wouldn't have expected that from anyone, even from you: the lies, the aspersions, the nonsensical allegations. You have quite a lot of explaining to do. Every moment you allow this beast to fester, you're leading up to the inevitable exodus of people like myself--and merely showing DDO'ers, whom you often mock as "not real debaters," just why they ought to prefer their own website. Personally, I enjoyed this debate and I like Lars and the hard work and time he puts into making Edeb8 as it is, but I haven't the slightest desire for this conflicts--which you seem to feed on--which are completely and wholly contrived. If that's your game, I want no part in any of it.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:16:11
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Personally, Stag, I'm disgusted with your behavior, and wouldn't have expected that from anyone, even from you: the lies, the aspersions, the nonsensical allegations. You have quite a lot of explaining to do. Every moment you allow this beast to fester, you're leading up to the inevitable exodus of people like myself--and merely showing DDO'ers, whom you often mock as "not real debaters," just why they ought to prefer their own website. Personally, I enjoyed this debate and I like Lars and the hard work and time he puts into making Edeb8 as it is, but I haven't the slightest desire for this conflicts--which you seem to feed on--which are completely and wholly contrived. If that's your game, I want no part in any of it.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:15:22
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Oh, yes, Stag, let's discourage exceptional members from posting their detailed, well-thought-out RFD's simply because one of the debaters happened to ask said person to vote--especially when the debate has few judgments (at the time in question, zero) and the voting period is dwindling.

Can you not see what is wrong with these incendiary remarks? You're making baseless allegations, and attacking both my integrity and other's. Your mendacious insinuation that I in some way asked "four people to vote on this debate," and provided a case as to why they should have casted a ballot in my favor would be laughable if it weren't so utterly absurd. In just a few days, you've managed to attack both my integrity and character as well as whiteflame's, and have tarnished your own credibility. You haven't a single leg to stand on with this witch hunt you're presently leading, and I think the sooner you fess up to this, unblock whiteflame, and concede that, simply put, you have a problem with being told "no," the sooner we can all get on with our lives--and your unwillingness to respond upon being pressed on specifics, even privately, says it all.
Posted 2015-01-01 18:10:25
BlackflagBlackflag
Hey guys, if you are asked privately or specifically to judge a debate, please ignore that person and the debate. Thank you!
Posted 2015-01-01 17:37:55
whiteflamewhiteflame
...Really? Stag, you mentioned all of yesterday that you wanted me to be more involved in edeb8, and yet you've blocked me once again for no reason, making it impossible for me to vote on this debate? Where the sole RFD that's been produced so far you deem to be biased?
Posted 2015-01-01 07:49:00
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
What's a bunny?
Posted 2014-12-27 13:04:38
PinkiePinkie
Lol Bunny... xD
Posted 2014-12-27 13:01:32
PinkiePinkie
Opps, I refreshed the page.
Posted 2014-12-27 13:00:55
PinkiePinkie
Oh, I apologize.
Posted 2014-12-27 13:00:01
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
(And by that, I mean Pinkie Pie the pony.)
Posted 2014-12-27 12:57:54
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Like, not as bad as Pinkie Pie's narcotic-induced rampage (spoiler alert, my apologies), but still bad.
Posted 2014-12-27 12:57:35
PinkiePinkie
Oh, I apologize.
Posted 2014-12-27 12:57:16
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
No need to apologize, Bekah. It was pretty bloody bad :P
Posted 2014-12-27 12:56:51
PinkiePinkie
Oh, I apologize.
Posted 2014-12-27 12:54:08
adminadmin
I was trying to avoid saying that
Posted 2014-12-26 18:34:00
PinkiePinkie
*This is literally one of the worst cross-examinations I have ever witnessed.
Posted 2014-12-26 17:33:51
PinkiePinkie
This was literally the worst cross examination I have ever witnessed. There is a quote that floats around in homeschool debate that says, "You can barely ever win a round in cross-ex but you sure can lose one." I think this round proves my point.
Posted 2014-12-26 17:26:28
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Indeed!
Posted 2014-12-22 02:24:34
adminadmin
"interesting" is one way to put it...
Posted 2014-12-22 01:47:28
Forti AnimoForti Animo
Your cross-ex is... interesting...
Posted 2014-12-22 01:41:59
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:42
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:39
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:34
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:27
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:18
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:11
BlackflagBlackflag
Cross examination begins once you post your round. This is a debate website. There is no such asking as a cross examination only debate, since you're really only asking questions.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:11:04
JohnMaynardKeynesJohnMaynardKeynes
Oh, I thought we were doing cross ex. Alright--I'll aim to finish my case by tomorrow night.
Posted 2014-12-18 12:06:16
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-12-31 12:58:46
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: JohnMaynardKeynes
Reasoning:
Con completely wins based on frame work. We can see throughout the debate Pro only tried to talk through Con as many of Con's argumentation was dropped. There was seemingly no clash what-so-ever from STAG Con did refute all points that Pro brought up thus the resolution was negated and I have no choice, but to give this debate to Con.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
5 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-01-02 11:56:04
Forti AnimoJudge: Forti Animo
Win awarded to: JohnMaynardKeynes
Reasoning:
Firstly, due to the normative resolution, the BoP is shared. The atrocious back-and-forth in the cross-ex was unnecessary and disreputable for a debate with two renowned members, especially the instigator- who has done debates before with cross-ex. JMK was able to provide proper contentions, that were valid and reliable, along with many visual references to back up his claims, (with 38 sources). While Stag tried to rebut him, his last round where he wasn't able to post enough and almost ran out of time might have cost him, as JMK verily shot down his contentions. Thus, Con wins.
3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
3 users rated this judgement as good
1 comment on this judgement
Forti AnimoForti Animo
EDIT- 52 sources
Posted 2015-01-02 12:02:16
2015-01-02 12:20:19
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: JohnMaynardKeynes
Reasoning:
The first thing I’m going to be looking at as a judge is the framework analysis and burden of proof. For a majority of this I can only look at Con, because Pro provided next to nothing—because of that I judged this debate with a shared BOP based on evidence from a lot different countries. Con provided a largely more developed and thought out case for why I ought to weigh economic arguments over moral arguments, and in the same way Pro failed to respond to a ton of Con’s case, so I had to weigh economic arguments higher. Based on this criteria, I vote Con already, because Pro failed to provide any evidence or to respond to a lot of the arguments. He wanted us to weigh moral arguments higher than economic arguments, but did not respond to Pro’s case that economics captures morality and that, in the absence of a moral framework, we cannot possibly access Pro’s impacts because we cannot weigh competing moral claims. On the flip side, Con’s analysis of economic stagnation, the role of government in enforcing positive freedom (Pro even conceded this point), the impacts of income inequality and on opportunity, which themselves are harmful to liberty, outweigh Pro’s hypothetical about a tyrannical government being harmful to liberty. Con’s response to this was good: why is a government which funds X, Y, and Z not dangerous, but when it funds, additionally, B, it is suddenly destructive and eroding freedom? This argument was not responded to, and itself was enough to win the debate. Therefore, I vote Con.

Feedback:
There are a bunch of little things in this debate that bothered me and I'll be just going over my specific feedback in the first three speeches and the first cross examination but my major feedback I will give last.

One thought I have for both sides is that It makes a debate more fun for a judge to read and more captivating if you have a clever intro or outro. You might want to start adding some as they are more thoughtful and makes you seem more charismatic to the audience.

1st Round Stag: The first two points you brought up weren't really framework. To keep the debate professional seeming start with framework in the first round if you are not including it in the rules.

1st Round JMK: You have a nicely thought out framework. One idea I have for you is to add a voting criteria. A voting criteria is going to be outlining what you would like your judges to weigh in before they make their final decision. Some voting criteria are asking the judges to vote for better facts, reasoning, or analysis.

Under your contention one I noted that I think this was a very well developed and thought out argument on your part. I appreciated how much sourcing and charts you had because it gave you a feeling of credibility and knowlage behind your arguments. I personally think it might be a good idea to explain some of your charts a little more in depth.

In your second contention I think this argument was just surfaced in your round. I recommend bringing up other advocacy and adding your own rhetoric to develop this argument further.

In your third contention the feedback is the same as your second. Add more rhetoric.

A few cross examination thoughts:

Stag: When JMK posted the rest of his sources in the CX box you should have handled the situation more graciously. Saying "Not the place" makes it seem unthoughtful and careless to the judges and makes JMK seem more of an enemy than an opponent.

Stag: Don't say, "You are obviously uneducated..." about anything in a debate. It is completely rude and lost you this cross examination

JMK: When you were becoming apprehensive about how Stag was treating you in cross examination you said, "Stag, first, this is my first cross ex." You should never admit it is your first time doing certain things in your debate, I'm sure you weren't trying to do this but it makes you look uneducated, noobish, or like you're trying to have someone take pity on you.

JMK: Also you don't need to respond to Stag's personal attacks on you in CX. Everyone knows he is being rude and dropping it will make you look more polite and will put your judges more on your side.

JMK: When you said, "Name "all" of the things government should fund? That's completely and utterly ludicrous. You're asking me to go through the entire federal budget and say "I want to fund X, Y, and Z but not B." I discussed in my case where I want the new stimulus dollars to go: education, research, jobs training programs, healthcare, infrastructure." You should rephrase this to not belittle your opponent's question. When I am in cross examination and someone asks an awkward question like that I will actually spend thirty or forty seconds responding to it to build up my credibility until they cut me off. Another thing I will say is, "this is an extremely broad question, could you cut it down?" or, "This question will take at least a minute to respond to, do you have that time?" and then boss through the cross examination. Never call your opponent's questions ludicrous, stupid, etc. Because it makes your judges less engaged with your side.

Over all both sides had nice content/questions in cross examination but I also think you both could brush up on their cx etiquette to not make this so painful. If you need further advice always feel free to facebook me or PM about this.

Big things:

Stag, in cross ex you brought up what the government should fund. I was disappointed that you didn't explain why governments should only do these few things, and how if they do anything beyond them, they're dangerous.

You also didn't really respond to any of the technical economic arguments thrown out by JMK.

I think you did well in your "Putting to much faith into the government argument" even though JMK properly refuted that.

I believe I have touched up most of the major things in this debate. If you have and questions please comment below and I'll get back to both of you.

Cheers.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
5 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2015-01-03 15:57:01
MikeMightyJudge: MikeMighty
Win awarded to: Blackflag

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 15000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 1 day
This debate is NOT country specific. Nor will any debate on this site be, unless it is specified in the resolution or rules.