[Fat1Fared]

First of all: this was a very interesting debate to read - especially as a non-citizen of the USA. It is always interesting to see what the thought structures of other cultures are. It was also really good to see a debater who has not debated in some time and a new debater both make such interesting points - and I can only see both getting stronger from here. :)

However, some headline pointers before I get into the meaty stuff:

1 = Analyse your points = As with the last debate, too many things were just asserted as if they are true and matter just because they are said. You must explain to the judge:
- Why they are true
- Why they are relevant

This is especially so, if you are going hinge your whole debate on a point such as 'humans are greedy'. Whilst both sides ended up agreeing on this point (whether it is true or not), it was the was side which explained why it was true which was much more compelling when they then said why it was relevant to their argument as I understand what they meant by the concept 'humans are greedy'.

2 = Be careful with your concessions = it is important to concede on certain points, as it stops you being forced to defend the indefensible and means you can set the perimeters of where the debate, but be careful not to concede points which may actually be quite important in deciding who won the debate. Before you concede a point, really think to yourself, if the other side wins this point, how much of my argument becomes invalid.

3 = people are NOT homogeneous groups = the worlds best debaters can dissimulate the different groups in society down into their members and explain why the different actors within those groups are likely to act as you say they will act - and why this important/how it affects others within/out of the group, or perspections of the group. This is persuasive because it takes account of the fact people are not mathematical sums and can act in seemingly strange ways. It is very unpersuasive to just say 'all people in government are evil scumbags' or the whole of the human race is just selfish wankers who will fuck on anyone to get what they want. because it is hyperbolic and inherently untrue. Some people in Government probably can be defined as bad people; some probably cannot. Some people are selfish, others are rather giving. You need to identify the stakeholders and actors within your groups and use them to make these points. You do not need to actually prove the whole of the human race is selfish, you just need to prove that a sufficient number of people working in industry would be willing to use their industrial strength for personal gain at the expense of others, if it were not for regulations preventing them (to some extent). This is much easier to prove - and much more compelling because it is more targeted at the acted who matter in the debate and more focused on the harms they can cause.

4 = debate against your beleifs = this can be one of the hardest things to do (I know because I have to debate for using fire and brim-stone religion in schools), but debates are on points where there is no infinitely right answer. If the chair did their job correctly, there should be two sides one can argue for (at least), both roughly equal in strength. That may mean that you find yourself as a free-marketeer arguing the merits of communism; this may seem pointless, but it is actually the most important part of debating in my opinion. First, if you do not do this, then you cannot win because very rarely is the debate one you want to prop or oppose; however, the second point is more important, you can learn much from debating against what you instinctively believe is right. It is not until you are able to understand a position to the point that you can articulate why it is right that you understand it enough to know whether you really believe it is honestly wrong. It felt like both sides in this debate pulled their punches at times, when the judges really want to see you fully flesh out your respective positions.

5 = Answer the question = the debate asks a question much like a degree level coursework or essay question. Your job is to answer that question, so read the wording carefully. This debate is not 'is regulation good', but is regulation good for the economy.

OK, now the good stuff.

Muse 1:

OK, so we get a slightly strange opening assertion that all people are born selfish, and the evidence for this is 'toddlers'. As I am not told why toddlers prove this, I am left feeling slightly that 'even if toddlers are selfish, the world is not made up of toddlers', so your key premise needs really fleshing out to prove why it is true and why I care, especially when you then assert that people are willing harm others to get what they wrong. (This goes back to my point about disseminating groups.)

This becomes further problematic when you made a slightly contradictory statement that people give up their powers to protect themselves from harm (social contact). However, surely if the people with the power are inherently selfish, they would use this power for ill (As Killshot is easily able to point out later. You need to explain why they cannot/will not. This requires you to one not assert people are innately selfish as that is really Killshot's point, if anyone's, and two explain how democratic systems give government their legitimate rights and can take it away if need be, thus preventing them doing evil with it.

In the fourth paragraph, we start to see your argument come out in that we now have some explanation of the problems with the 'Free Market'. The problem is you list examples of potential problems without explaining these problems to me (in debating, anyone should be able to understand your argument; thus terms such as false market signals without explaining a little about what it is and why it is relevant to the debate means it is hard to credit it). What we really needed here is not just a list of problems with the Free Market, but why regulations 'specifically' deal with those problems and how a world with regulations is better than one without.

This debate is not an attack on the 'Free Market', but supporting 'regulation by a Federal body'.

Muse - 3 (It was interesting, just needed beefing up)

Killshot 1

Killshot cleverly takes the selfish assumption and uses it to then basically bash the Government. Whilst his speech is borderline hyperbolic, it is a fair point to make for his side that if we want a Government to manage (though, Muse rightly says she did not use term mico-manage) the economy in anywhere, we need to trust it - and people are selfish as Muse states, then why is a Government of people any better; especially if that Government seems bit shit.

Kill in para two makes some allegations that I will not comment on (^_^) haha, but may need little more evidence if wishes to state them as his case; however, it is seems to be feeding into his overall point that we cannot trust the state narrative.

Killshot then makes a wonderful plea for the little guys fighting against the big corp suits (PS they may have made 2/3 of jobs - also responsible for 3/4 of redundancies haha). In all seriousness, I could see what he was getting at here, but he left three open nets I really wanted Muse to score with:

1 - Just because small business owners moan (big shock, they always moan), does not mean there is a problem. It may be in their personal interests to have less regulation, but that does not mean it is in the interest of the whole economy.

2 - If there were no regulations, would it REALLY be easier for small businesses to compete against the big boys (and what of consumers)

3 - China and India as examples of wonderful economies - China is one of most regulated markets in mainstream world and India: what about public health issues due to unregulated / children starving due to government not preventing bad business practices.

Anyway, finally, have summary we recaps everything nicely.

Killshot: 6

Muse 2

OK, so with this concession, I could see what you were doing with conceding the status quo and thought on first reading it was clever, but rereading the motion, your NEXT concession and killshot's response, it is problematic to say we can ignore problematic regulations in the status quo of the USA, UNLESS you give a clear and logical narrative of what YOUR REGULATED USA would look like. You are indeed fighting for the principle, rather than just the status quo, but if you do not give the judges a picture of what the world looks like under your model, you leave it open for Killshot to (as he did) dedicate the terms of debate and the regulations we are reviewing.

The only picture you gave us was a 'fundamental regulations'; the key problem here is this is vague and sounds so weak that it means you are just arguing for the most basic and weak of regulation. It is then very easy for Killshot to say 'well that is so soft and flimsy, it will have no real positive impact ON THE ECONOMY weighted against all problems of regulation for the economy I have presented, especially as I show how regulation looks in the real world, which you cannot.'

However, I liked your next three paragraphs, which did some work attempting to show where regulations have been helpful for consumers and why they can be very important for a market to function properly. The problem is that they were undermined by three things:

1 - the problems highlighted in your earlier points and concessions (i.e people are selfish and your lack of definition about what a fundamental regulation is, as Killshot later hits at)

2 - The lack of definition over what a Market is. At the end of the debate, I have decided I like this market thingy, but I have no idea what it is or more importantly what a free market is compared to other markets. (The free market should regulated technically, which could if raised and explained bolster your position and undermine Killshot's love of it.)

3 - I have no link between protecting the basic rights of consumers and strengthening the economy.

Your last paragraph is again one where it has a good point undermined: I like the point that lawmakers should not mico-manage and that is not what regulation is, but the problem is that you then undermine by conceding lots of ground by saying 'law-makers' should do as little as possible. Protecting individuals from harm is different from strengthening the 'Economy. In fact, under your definition, it seems to be that the Government could harm the economy to protect people (i.e. weaken business trading powers so consumer better). You need to not concede so much ground and carefully explain how these regulations protecting consumers IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY. I cannot imply it for you.

Muse - 4

Killshot 2

Killshot, you fairly points out that it is needs to be shown how these 'good regulations' can exist and work in your first paragraph.

However, in your second paragraph, you ask muse questions and the judge questions about what the free market could do better than the regulations. I actually think it is your job to answer these questions and explain clearly why the free market is better. Why is it consumer will leave a company which uses bad practices; they may not know.

In paragraphs 3 and 4 godwin's law number 4 comes out in the form of the financial crash, but this is OK in this debate as it is about finance in part. However, I am not sure if Bailouts are really a form of regulation and Muse did rightly mention this, so I cannot credit it to any great extent. - You are lucky that it was raised that the problems of this crash were caused by a lack of regulation and that if those banks had failed, it would have been the taxpayers who lost their life savings, not the banker managers. Haha

Killshot - 3

Muse 3

Again, we get the reaffirmation that this about the Government protecting citizens, not the economy, which seems as if it should be Killshot's position more than yours. (Sorry.)

I really like this rebuttal in paragraph two explaining how consumers may not be informed enough to know problems with back room deals.

Paragraph 3 seemed a bit circular.

Paragraph 4 is where we finally get some explanation about representative democracy and how this helps ensure governments are better than business at deciding these things. The problem it should have been one of the cornerstones of your position and clearly linked back to the motion. Clearly explain why a government whose survival is based on success of society is better placed to safeguard the economy than a collection of self-interest businesses. The conclusion also helps affirm this though/

Next paragraph rightly points out bailouts are not regulations.

This was your strongest speech by far and really showed you growing into the debate. :)

Muse - 5

Kill 3

Nice little summary re-affirming your key premises of greedy and incompetent government, free-market goooooood, and problems of regulations; however, cannot give much when not much there.

The only other thing I would say is that I can understand your position re-affirming your use of bailouts and credit it to the extent it is fair and feeds into your mains points, but use your words carefully. This was not a debate winning point, but it took up almost 1 third of your debate.

Killshot 4

Final:

Killshot - 13
Muse - 12