|
|
|
|
#32
02-17-2015
|
||||
|
||||
Im stepping down to position as judge. Zairak is now in control. Im a terrible GM for this, Im too lenient and bad at keeping to time as well.
And fared if you could yes please. I will give my scores shortly. Last edited by grimfang999; 02-17-2015 at 08:57 PM. 
|
|
#33
02-17-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is there any reason the GM can't also judge? I always thought it was to give people who didn't want to actually debate a chance to participate, but there isn't a huge crowd trying to do this now.
|
|
#34
02-17-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
The GM can judge, but I feel having more than one judge is beneficial to eliminate bias or pick up on issues not raised by the GM. I was going to judge either way GM or not, but I am terrible at this kind of unrestrained management, I am too lenient and tend to lose track of time, which is why I am reassigning Zairak as the GM.
I am, however, going to play in the tournament instead of being simply a judge now, as thinking about it it shortens down the tournament from 10 games to 4 (1 player gets a bye) Anyways, my judgement: Kudos: First argument:5 I'm uncertain about the anthropomorphising of animals in their thinking capabilities, and while it is not my position to argue the point, the problem with that is it is a logical fallacy. Otherwise, reasonable points are made and I have no real issue with what is said as much I do in what wasn’t said. They were quite general arguments and may have needed a few stronger points with sources. Second argument: 7 Her argument becomes much stronger here, with more sources and this more solid points. She directly confronts Tormenteds main points then proceeds to add arguments. My main issue with these newer arguments is that while they are strong, they are still quite basic, but for what there is she uses what she finds well nonetheless. Third argument: 4 Points out the flaws of his argument but then also misreads what he said and ends up straw-manning, though I can understand misreading, since there was only one word changing the context of his statement, where he said trying to save every animal was utopian, but working to save as many as possible wasn’t. Besides that, points were on mark but still very brief, though mainly recycled and expanded slightly on her previous remarks. Overall: 6 What weakened her overall was the simplicity and relatively few points. A couple sources were used but she may have benefited from using more. That being said, she addressed the main points fairly clearly, but may benefit from expanding more than she did. Tormented: First argument: 5 Some solid points raised but quite vague, did not dive much into the point of utility. The writing style was interesting but again lacked sourcing and generalised or at times. Second argument: 2 His arguments begin to go off track to far into the issue of animal suffering rather than of preservation, appealing more to emotion than to reason. While he does address kudos' points, he tangents too far into philosophical ideas of wealth usage and idealism for more than half of the argument. Its good he recognises that his view should not be on saving all, but nor does he address why we should invest into saving animals beyond their suffering. Third argument: 4 Couple good points, but again very general, addressed arguments that kudos didnt raise (I dont think she said the funds were untrustworthy). Points were ok, but only ok. He did call Kudos out on taking an extreme side at the end of no funding into animal preservation whatsoever though, which improves his position somewhat. Overall: 4 Tormented makes some good points at the start but they are all general arguments and completely lack sourcing and research. He would have benefited from researching into his side much more than he did, and at times he did tangent away into other issues such as animal suffering or focusing too much on monetary allocation. His writing was appealing but at times was too emotional and definitely would have benefited from even a small bit of research. Conclusion: 6/4 in favour of Kudos. One more judge needed, then onto the next round.
|
|
#36
02-20-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi
Sorry, I have to catch a flight, tomorrow at 7am, so I have not quite had chance to finish my judging. (Work was manic). I will finish whilst transporting myself across Europe, tomorrow. :)
|
|
#37
02-21-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok, so the first thing I should say is that I am not the world’s top debater (I know this because I have debated against the world’s top debater – and lost… badly); however, I am still know a few tricks which you can take on board, or not, as you so feel is appropriate. (I know there is quite a bit to read through, so skip to the end if you do not care about feedback, but who knows, some of it may be interesting and helpful if you care to read it and like debating.)
The next thing I would wish to say is that when you are debating, always have your mind what the point of debating is: it is art of using persuasive reasoning to prove why your point is right on the balance of probabilities. Two points come out of this: one debates are not just about the points you make, but also how well you analyse the reasons why they are valid (or not); and, two, debates are inherently comparative and should not be absolutist. I will give some pointers are analyse in a moment, but first, on the absolutist point: if you debating in absolutist terms, your points become innately implausible because if the person writing the debate has done their job correctly, they should not be any inherently correct position. Both sides should have valid points they can make, but those points should have weaknesses, as well. If you are aware of this, you can make your points much stronger by: One – identifying the weaknesses in your arguments and insolating them. (E.g. On side proposition, I accept that humans do cause harm to animals, and that humans should not act in a way which purposefully exacerbates that harm; however, we consider the rights of humans above (and will explain why in a moment), and so we say that at the point in which the actions human take to persuasive their own survival and lesson the high-level suffering of other humans, the animals harmed as a consequence of this are justified, even if such harm is driving them to the point of extinction.) By identifying that humans do indeed cause harm to animals, you instantaneously appear more reasonable and are then able to set the terms of how the debate around the harms animals cause to human should go. This means when you use examples such as humans killing whole species, such as the mammoth, your reason for doing so it much clearer and the rebuttal to such a point much less impactful. Two – setting the terms of the terms of the debate (i.e. saying to what extent the duty of humans to preserve animals goes (on opposition, I do not state that humans have to persuade species which are dying out naturally, but there is a duty on human to protect the species dying out due to our actions). Three – by engaging with the other side’s points, and showing why your side is more valid on the balance of probability (e.g. whilst we do accept that there are things humans cannot do to preserve some species due to their extinction being beyond our control, this does morally or practically justify us doing nothing, when the harm of doing nothing is so great because…) One of the best ways to do this is to review harms and benefits of both side’s points because clearly illustrates to the listener/reader why a world which follows your model is a better one. That being said, in the round, it was not a bad debate by any means, but each speaker was hampered by three things: - Lack of structure; - Superficial analysis; and, - Lack of prioritisation. Some points: In relation to structure: if you just set out at the start three things, it will make your points much clearer and easier to follow: 1=Set out in the first line what the key message you wish for the judge to take from your speech is. 2=Then give the judge headings for the 1 or 2 key points that you feel prove your key message. 3=Finally, tell the judge how these address the other speaker’s points, specifically (do not leave it to the judge to draw the links for you). By doing this, the judge knows straight away: what you wish to prove; how you wish to prove it; and, how you are going to win on the balance of probability. This means you have put the judge on notice – and he or she will, therefore, be looking out for these things in speech. If you do not do this, then due to the obvious time constraints of debating, the judge is having to often guess what you mean and read-in the links between/nuance of your points. This is a bit like playing Russian roulette with 5 out of the 6 chambers of your gun loaded, as the judge will often get it wrong (and not for the better). Doing this will also allow you to use signposting. I suspect you have heard of this technique before, but for the avoidance of doubt it is, basically, where you give headings at the start of a speech to show what you will talk about, and refer back to these headings throughout the speech to better enable your listeners/readers to follow your structure/meaning. In relation analysis: I do find it amazing how debaters have turned such a simple concept into the most jargon filled word since Tony Blair decided to dabble in politics. However, the broad way I view analysis is this: I see it as the ‘why’ behind your speech. Think to yourself, why did I just write that, and then just tell the judge why you said it. The judge is only reviewing the debate based on what both sides said, not on their own knowledge, beliefs or emotions. This means that if you assert something is true, then even if it probably is true, the judge will not give you much credit because the judge cannot know if you actually do understand your point, or not. (Much like a marker for a test.) This was a fundamental problem in both speeches (which were not bad speeches I hasten to add) is that you both fired 20 points at me without analysing them. This meant that I – as the judge – had to decide upon their relevance, impact and narrative for myself. I had to work out for myself how they linked to the debate and engaged with the other side, which (especially in the stronger debates) makes it much less persuasive. It is also very risky for you as a speaker because: 1 – many judges will not read that deeply into your speech; and, 2 – what do they do read in is likely to be superficial and wrong as they cannot give you credit for the deeper analysis within your point unless you say it. If you wish to know how analyse points, then there is no right or wrong way to do it, but I do feel that there are two key ‘why questions’ you must answer for each of the key points you have told the judge you wish to prove to show why your key message is the one he or she should accept as right/better on the balance of probabilities. 1=why what you say is true; and, 2=why the judge should care that it is true. To prove these, you can (but do not need to) use this structure: (I am going to use Samaritan Laws as an example because it was a debate I judged last Wednesday evening.) 1=why it is true - Point (what is the point/heading you wish to prove) o We should introduce Samaritan laws because it will reduce crime - Evidence (what evidence proves/illustrates/gives context to your point) o In German, this was introduced and reporting rates went up - Explain (say why your point is applicable to the wider context of the debate) o Reporting goes up because people know if not act, then could harmed themselves (i.e. arrested), so people ensured to act to protect themselves. This meant that the police had more information, so they get to and deal with crimes quicker. As such, bad people felt harder to do crimes because riskier, as much likely to be reported and arrested. Therefore, people did fewer crimes. 2=Once proven why it is true that, then need to tell the judge why he/she should care by reviewing: - How wide reaching the positive (or negatives of this are) in society (e.g. how people could benefit). o Whole of society benefit as even people who much less likely to be victims of crime often fear they will be victims of crime (explain why – e.g. media panic). As such, act allows us to create positive narrative that society is saver as harder for criminal acts to occur, meaning fewer crimes occur – and by consequence, you have fewer victims of crime. This makes hard for people, such as the media, to create fear and panic (i.e. less bad statistics to abuse). Then explain why people feeling safe is a good thing for society (i.e. more able to contribute to economic growth as more likely to achieve self-actualisation (p.s. do not actually use the term self-actualisation, haha)). - How deep/strong the impact can be (either positively, or negatively) in society (e.g. how much benefit can groups (or other stakeholders) within society gain). o People in poorer areas (fewer in number, but more important to judge as more likely to suffer actual harm, as opposed to just perceived harm) will particularly benefit because: 1. They will feel safer for the reasons mentioned 2. They are more likely to be victims of harm (explain: live in poorer areas where crime statistically more likely to occur); as such, if there are fewer crimes, their chances of being a victim of a crime is also reduced (obviously a good thing as not suffer harm of being a victim e.g. beaten up). o Say why good less likely to be victims 1. Aforementioned reasons of be able to more easily contribute. 2. We are heavily influenced by the culture around us (broken window theory); as such, if see crime often, more likely to see it as acceptable and do it ourselves. This creates a narrative crime not acceptable as criminals more likely to be caught and people more likely to act positively against criminal acts. This means fewer people sociologised into a criminal lifestyle (long-term benefit) 3. Furthermore, as police are able to be more effective can tackle the often prevalent narrative in these areas that police not care about them because police can now be more effective can catching criminals (for reasons mentioned). Gives overall positive that draws these people towards be able to more positively and easily contribute to society. 4. Moreover, if these people seen to be helping the police, then police’s own prejudices against them will be reduced as build relations and help one another reduce crime • This all needs explanation, but hopefully makes sense. - Finally, explain why – on the comparative – your point is more important than other sides (this ensures you engage with their points effective. o Although we accept some people may get judge calls wrong, at the point in which someone takes decision not to get involved (because fear) they will get hurt, as well, as they also suffered a harm because they will no someone got injured because they failed act (psychological harm). We also say the problem of the whole of society living in constant fear of crime causes such wide reaching harm that it outweighs the potential of people occasiously getting things wrong. This is because at the point we incentive society to take a collective approach to tackling crime and reduce crime overall, we have people put in these situations less often (meaning less likely to have to make choice and possibly suffer harm of knowing failed to act) and the potential victims of crimes that live in constant fear of crime on their side of the house are now liberated as no only less perception of crime, but also actually much less likely to be a victim of crime (giving all the benefits to whole of society and actual victims of crime that are so great, they completely outweigh the rare occasions people get it wrong.) o (Will need to explain why unlikely to get choice wrong (i.e. people are self-pervasuing, so more often than not get help before just rushing in, if danger to themselves / meched it so that not punished for not putting self in danger.) 1. Their side: have certain victims of crime and whole of society fearing crime, with people all harms outlined. 2. Our side: reduced fear of crime and fewer actual victims of crime, plus fewer people suffering from pain of making this horrific choice, with only marginal harm of people rarely getting it wrong. If you do this sort of explanation, it becomes very clear what you are saying, why it is true and why it impacts upon the debate. (On evidence, it does not need to be an example; it can be statistics, case studies, some of political/philosophical theory… etc. The key thing is that it clarifies and strengthens the weight behind what you wish to prove.) Finally, on prioritisation. This is key because as you can hopefully see from the explanation above, there is actually quite a bit you can say about just one point, if you fully analyse it. You therefore must know what the best points you can make in the debate are. It felt like everyone in the debate was just trying make all the points they could as quickly as they could. However, in the words of one of history’s great debaters, Lloyd-George, ‘do not make 21 superficial points, but instead concentrate on 2 or 3 well made-points.’ (abbreviated for clarity’s sake). Even in this debate, where time is not an issue, picking the right points are fundamental because you only give your opposition free hits if you defend the indefensible or make your points less clear by having too much information (irony of this comment not intended). My advice would be, when you are in your prep time, once you have decided which points you can realistically prove, rank those points in terms of how compelling they are – and ensure you run your strongest arguments tactically, so they are the key thing the judge concentrates and most deflect your opposition’s points. Really think to yourself, if I were the judge, what points would I care about; and if I were the opposition, which points would I run/want to take down the most. All of this being said, it was not a bad debate, but these points strengthen both speakers. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 02-21-2015 at 12:49 PM.
|
|
#38
02-21-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
As for the judging.
Kudos: In your first paragraph, you seem to hang your hat (points) on two key points: 1=National selection 2=pre-determined destiny Both of these concepts were asserted as being true, without any analysis as to why they are true. As such, I am not particularly convinced that either of them are that impactful because whilst you state they both have massive impacts (the why I should part), without any explanation of how they have these impacts, I am just not convinced they actually are the impactful. Neither of these concepts are innately understood, or inherently correct. (The reason I say this is because of these concepts have been studied for much longer than either of us have been alive, and both are still heavily debated, so to assert them as if they are just true seems flawed at best.) Per-determined destiny is particularly problematic because of its lack of tangibility. You also make several other assertions, as well (i.e. humans are at top of the human chain and have a right to drive other species to extinction). As I am not convinced you have provided any justification why your reasoning is true, I cannot provide much credit to any results you assert are a result of your justifications. 3 Tormented, you start off well by refuting the assertion that we killed off Mammoths in the past to survive, so it is OK now, but then weaken your point at the end by making two assertions of your own: 1=animals feel emotions 2=We can take a small portion of time and effort to perverse these animals. I need some sort of justification as to why it is true animals feel emotions and why I should care more about the emotional pain of animals above Kudos’ point that humans often kill animals to survive. Why do I care more about the emotional pain of animals more than the survival humans? (Luckily, your point before this did go at least some where to explaining why Kudos’ point about survival may be moot). By just asserting this would take a small portion of time and effort, without any explanation of what this time and effort required to illustrate the point, you left the door wide open for Kudos to come with her own assertion that ‘oh no it won’t’, meaning the point just did not stand by the end. In your second paragraph, you did give some analyse as to why animals have inherent value, but you did not address the key point as why this justifies us keeping them around beyond it being a bit nice. Kudos is giving me survival of the human race (all be it superficially), a nice to have does not cut the mustard. In the final paragraph, you say humans preserving some animals, but not others is a bit of a contradiction: true, but one could just as easily state that if we not willing save them all, then we can should not save any as they could say we should save all, not just a few. (There are also reasons why we may save some animals, but not others.) Overall, although there were a few attempts at analyse, the key point (why I care more about your side than Kudos) was lacking, besides slightly knocking down her weakness point (it is ok to kill Mammoths), I did not see much gain here. 3 Kudos (two) The exploration of the unknown parts of the world seemed a bit irrelevant for both sides. I like this concession here, you accept that there is a beauty in some animals and things humans can do address Tormented points (though, I would say that keeping some capacity is a form of preservation), but then explain how it the conversation of all species that is problem. Whilst I do not think that it is the strongest point to say that if only few sub-species go, it is not end of them all, I can see how this address protecting beauty and the value of animals in some way, so willing to credit it. The ‘better to use money elsewhere’ point is an interesting one because I can see why you would say that the money/resources are better spent on humans than animals: the problem is that you can say that this point about many things (it is better to spend money on our own poor rather than international development… etc), the problem is that this means two things: 1=that way the we use our money is so complicated as for it to be almost impossible to show that spending money on both is mutually exclusive. 2=if you are going to assert that this money is better spent on humans, you need to spend at least some time explaining why the benefits of preserving some humans outweighs the benefits of preserving some animals (especially when the actions taken to protect one often does benefit the other). As such, I personally stay away from ‘where the money should go’ arguments. That being said, for what it was, I could see what you were trying to get at. 4 Tormented: great rebuttal in the second half of your first paragraph, explaining the inherent weakness of the ‘better spent elsewhere point’. The problem is that second paragraph was continuing to rebut an already beaten point – and from more of an emotional pervasive stance than pervasive reasoning. I was willing to accept the efficiency point in the final paragraph, and liked that you did not try to be absolutist here, but again, you were falling prey to the standing on a soap-box public speaking, emotional persuasive speaking than reasoned persuasion. 2 Kudos It was clear the debate was running out of steam a bit here, you batted the ball back by trying strengthen the money point (it was not a woeful attempt, if bit short). However, I think what you could have said is that the humans in these people are equally victims and why we care more about them. 3 Tormented. I thought this was the strongest example of how to make a point expressed by either side at any point: you showed why the money being spent is not mutually exclusive – and how the world could look under your model. The problem is that it was a bit hyperbolic to state that Kudos was being absolutist when it was explicitly state she would be happy for some animals to be in zoos (and other actions). The problem is that whilst you probably have won the point of clash about where to spend money, you have not dealt with Kudos’ other two main points: - Humanity’s needs - Pre-determined destiny (as weak as it was, it did need some sort of response). Besides the money debate, your two key points were dealt with to some extent by Kudos – and were not well fleshed out enough to deal with this: 1=animals feel emotions (Kudos did at least attempt to show harm to humans comparison) 2=We can take a small portion of time and effort to perverse these animals (Kudos stated take quite a bit and you seemed to take accept this quite explicitly). 3 Overall Kudos = 3 Tormented = 2
|
|
#39
02-21-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
And hence the first debate finally ends.
We shall return to Fared versus clank with the same question. Zairak shall take control from here. AND MATCH BEGIN!
|
|
#40
02-21-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Best of luck.
|
|
#44
02-28-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maybe we should postpone once more and go into the third round, so Killshot and Muse.
Should I do the preparations or you zai?
|
|
#49
02-28-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The question, er, statement, is as follows. "It is, in the long run, healthier for the U.S. economy to face regulations by the federal government." Both participants, please PM me regarding which side of this issue you'd prefer to take.
|
|
#53
03-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
“It is, in the long run, healthier for the U.S. economy to face regulations by the federal government.”
People who regularly interact with toddlers know that everyone is born selfish. It is human nature to gain as much for yourself as possible, and that often includes causing harm to those around you by taking something that they want or have. This central selfishness is the root of government, particularly those of democratic/republic style. As a group, the people who found the government choose to give enforcement power to a law-making entity. They essentially say, “I give up my right to do whatever I want to those around me in order to protect myself from other people who might want to do those horrible things to me instead.” It is from this collective relinquishment of personal freedom that the government derives its authority. Therefore, the purpose of a government is to protect its people. (http://lawreview.richmond.edu/econom...nal-framework/) The United States (a democratic republic) was founded with the principle of laissez-faire in mind – that of letting the market supply and demand find equilibrium without interference from external forces like government. In essence, a free market. However, in many industries, the market does not meet the conditions necessary to find that equilibrium and truly be a competitive, healthy system. These conditions include free entry and exit from the market; no externalities, public goods, false market signals, moral hazard, nor principle agent problems; accurate exchange of information between the producer and consumer; and well-defined property rights. (http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...s_are_not.html) If any of the necessary conditions are not met, markets’ results can vary widely, and they are frequently unsuccessful in creating balanced, competitive environments of economic exchange. Therefore, regulation of some variety is necessary for adequate functioning of the economy of the United States in order to control human behavior in such a way as to more closely approach the ideal conditions of a truly balanced free market. (http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul...regulated.html)
|
|
#54
03-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
I believe the crux of this debate will hinge on the assumption that humans are selfish by nature. I also agree with this statement, but find your assertion that the government is somehow above such selfishness incongruent with reality. The government is made of human beings. Not just any ordinary human beings, mind you, but the most untrustworthy, universally derided human beings the United States has to offer. Almost no one agrees with what government does, yet you trust them to micromanage our economy? The house and senate are currently locked in battle over a plan to fund the Dept of Homeland Security and since both are controlled by the conservative party, this reeks of criminal indifference to the plight of ordinary citizens. They don't care what happens to the American people, they are only concerned with party politics and keeping their position in government. How can you trust these people to regulate anything, let alone businesses they know nothing about?
The only thing government intervention does to the economy is stamp out competition for the giant corporations. Big companies can lobby for decreased regulations and get whatever they want because they have politicians bought and paid for. The people in charge of deciding the energy policies for the United States are doing so with millions of dollars of big oil's money in their pockets. And what happens when a small business starts to take money away from giant corporations? Big business executives use their contacts in the government to stamp out any competition. Small businesses can't afford to compete with legal teams giant corporations are able to throw at them. Government regulation amounts to big business using the court system as their personal attack dog to go after their competition. But what if these regulations were not in place? Small businesses are responsible for creating over two-thirds of new jobs every year and are the backbone of the US economy. However, small businesses face challenges such as unjustified compliance fees and increasing costs of regulatory activities http://www.sensibleregulations.org/resources/facts-and-figures/. Over-regulation is cited as the top impediment for conducting business and almost 60% of small business owners say now is a bad time to start a new business. Worse yet, the economies of other countries such as China and India are more lax in their regulations and are more likely to attract entrepreneurs than the United States. The United States is over-regulated compared to other countries and these regulations are preventing more businesses from getting off the ground. In short, the regulations of government are harmful to small business owners and only serve to increase the stranglehold large corporations have on the market. The government is untrustworthy and is not up to the task of regulation. Therefore, government regulation only serves to hurt the American economy and prevent the creation of new businesses and jobs.
|
|
#55
03-06-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree that much of the current regulation of the economy in place in the United States is unnecessary, cumbersome, and harmful to small businesses. And I agree that we definitely need to remove much of the red tape that stands in the way of entrepreneurship. However, we are not debating CURRENT regulation, but the presence of any regulation at all.
Some regulations are fundamental. For example, banks and lending agencies are required by law to state their APR (rate of annual interest) and any finance charge required for loans offered. This allows borrowers to comparison shop for the best rate and terms for the loan they need without getting caught in a wave of extra costs after they agree to a loan. Another example of consumer-protecting regulation is that of advertising by the Federal Trade Commission to prevent "unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce" including advertising that is meant to deceive consumers by stating fraudulent information or by purposefully omitting detrimental information about a product. (Wilson, Lee. "The Advertising Law Guide: A Friendly Desktop Reference for Advertising Professionals." Allworth Press, NY, NY. 2000. 25.) Creating a marketplace where consumers can be properly informed about their purchases is the first step toward a functioning free market. Without these regulations, human greed and dishonesty could run rampant without consequence, and the people of the nation would suffer from it. I did not say lawmakers should micro-manage the economy. Nor do I believe that lawmakers are above the human failings we all share or that every regulation they pass is beneficial. In fact, I believe they should do as little as possible besides performing their essential duty to protect citizens. But this does not negate the importance of regulation toward that very purpose; in fact, it bolsters it.
|
|
#56
03-06-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
I disagree with your assertion that the current state of federal regulation is irreverent to the debate. This is the kind of oppressive environment that results when the United States government tries to regulate the economy. The topic at hand is the regulation of the US economy by the federal government. Our current state of affairs is the position we find ourselves in when the federal government puts these regulations into practice. Unless you can point to specific examples of how the government can pragmatically reform these regulations, the point stands that regulation of the economy under the federal government produces a toxic environment for small businesses.
Your examples of beneficial regulations are all well and good, but why do these regulations need to be enforced by the federal government? Surely the free market can decide which businesses are worth patronizing and which are a waste of money. In your bank example, how long do you think a bank that routinely slaps borrowers with absorbent fees will stay in business? If word gets out that a business is treating its consumers unfairly, don't you think people will stop using that business and go elsewhere? You can't run a business without a consumer base and driving your consumers away with unfair practices is bad for business. Since you bring up the topic of banks, why don't we talk about the unfair lending practices of banks which led to the 2008 economic collapse. Banks still routinely engaged in unethical lending practices by exploiting loopholes in government regulations. This led to the financial collapse of most of these larger banks. Free market capitalism says these banks failed the consumers and thus failed as businesses. But then what did the government do? They recouped the losses of most of these large banks by giving them hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. The government decided these huge corporations that wildly mismanaged funds deserved your money more than the American people. But without intervention by the federal government, there would have been another great depression, right? So wasn't the bailout actually a good thing? No, not really. Reports from the White House show that the economy would have recovered faster if the government had done nothing at all. And there is the problem with federal regulations. Decisions are made by people who are uninformed or irresponsible. Regulations are either so strict that new businesses cannot succeed, or so lax that big business can walk all over the average consumer. You even admitted yourself that federal regulations are cumbersome and in need of reform. So why not cut out the middle man and let the market decide? You say it is to protect the consumer, but consumers are smart enough to make their own informed decisions about what to purchase. Human greed and dishonesty already runs rampant even in the over-regulated state we find ourselves in now. All these regulations do is legally protect the rights of the richest CEOs to trample their competition. There is no need for the government to artificially interfere with the natural tide of the economy. Unless I am misunderstanding your last paragraph, you are essentially conceding my point. If lawmakers do as little as possible, how is this different than an economy run by the free market? Government time and time again demonstrates their incompetence when handling these issues, so why should we surrender control to them?
|
|
#60
03-09-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
You definitely misunderstood the conclusion of my last argument. Stating that government should do nothing besides its essential functions does not say that government should do nothing. It means that government should focus on the central duty for which it exists: protecting its citizens, of which business practice regulation is an important part.
In your argument, you state that citizens can see for themselves (and cease to support) businesses with practices harmful to consumers. Then you cite banks which had exploitive practices prior to the 2008 economic collapse. According to your argument, no one should have continued to patronize those banks. But this was not the case. They had many clients despite behind-the-scenes loophole abuses. Unethical business practices are not always at surface level. Often they are in the underpinnings of a business, and their harmful effects are not seen until years later. This flagrant disregard for the spirit of the law by finding ways to work around the letter of the law shows clearly how much humanity needs regulation. In this case, the regulation needs to be reworked so that the harmful loopholes they found no longer exist, and any future similar practices can therefore be punished. This is why regulation reform is so critical. This process depends upon the active involvement of the American people in the election process: to put in office candidates that will enact their wishes in congress. They must also communicate with their representatives about what reforms they would like to see brought to pass. When voters with practical perspectives share their opinions with voting representatives, they are more likely to ensure that these representatives understand the issues and know how best to represent their constituents. In response to your point about the government bailout doing more harm than good to the economy, I agree. But you took this government mistake and pointed to it as epitomizing the problem with federal regulations. However, bailouts are not regulations. Saying that the two are the same is ridiculous. It’s akin to saying, “A father’s decision to buy his daughter a new car to replace one she wrecked is a house rule equivalent to the one that states she must not lie to her brother.” That is faulty logic and not pertinent to our discussion. To conclude, just because government regulation is not perfect does not mean that it is unnecessary. Citizens can act in government to help change policies and regulations that are ineffective. But overall, regulation of the economic practices in the United States exists for good reason, and it would be foolish to say otherwise.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
