I am challenging KingHenrikLundqvist to my first ever presidental debate. In this debate, we will be putting forth and arguing for our various viewpoints on foreign policy, domestic policy, and economic policy. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Foreign policy and economic policy should be pretty self explanatory.
Domestic policy considers basically business, education, energy, health care, law enforcement, money and taxes, natural resources, social welfare, and personal rights and freedoms, but mentioning all of these topics is not necessary. Further, other topics may be added.
1. A forfeit is not allowed.
2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. Nothing in the comments or from an outside link.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Foreign Policy: I believe in non-interventionism and the non-aggression principle, but not isolationism. I'll cover that more in round 4 with economic policy.
Domestic Policy: I believe in the privatization of government industries such as transportation and health care; further, I agree with the breakup of government monopolies on specific industries. I believe in the discontinuation of social welfare programs and assistance. I believe in allowing oil to be extracted, but I also believe in nuclear power. Finally, I believe in extensive personal rights and freedoms - I'm pro gun rights, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, drug legalization, and homeschooling.
Economic Policy: I believe in Laissez Faire Capitalism and Austrian Economics. This means I believe in free immigration, no taxes, and the gold standard, and ending labor unions, the federal reserve, the minimum wage, and stimulus spending.
Note this isn't an all-encompassing list. I may list things in my argument not in this list.
Again, best of luck to my opponent.
I believe in non-interventionism in conflicts like pro does. But I also believe that a country the size the United States is, the U.S. can isolate ourselves and become self-reliant on our own work.
I believe in the nationalization of all industries. I believe in abolishing private property. I believe in free housing, free schooling, free transportation, and free health care. I believe that the press should be controlled and hold the opinion of the majority of the public. I am Pro-Legalization of Cannabis and LSD, I am Pro-LGBT rights, I am Pro-Abortion, I am Pro Gun-Control but I am not Anti-Gun Owning, I am Pro-Labor Unions, I am Anti-Death Penalty, I am Anti-Affirmative Action, I am and Anti-Wage Slavery.
I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist when it comes to economics. Which entails granting the means of production to the workers, ending wage slavery, and collectivizing labor. I believe that Capitalism is a system created to perpetually put the bourgeoisie in power to enslave the proletariat.
I haven't listed all that I am so I may add more to the debate when we reach that certain policy. Good luck to my opponent for this fun debate!
I would like to thank KingHenrikLundqvist for accepting this debate. In this round, I will be discussing my foreign policy. I won't be going into that much detail in this round (unlike what I'll do in the next two rounds). My platform will simply revolve around non-interventionism and the Non-Agression Principle.
I do not support the war in Afghanistan because: "For 12 years, the US has given military solutions every chance to work. It is clear these efforts have failed. For example, the Afghan NGO Safety Office, a highly respected group that tracks insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, recently noted a 47% increase in attacks by armed opposition groups from the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013. Inclusive political negotiations are extremely difficult in the best of conditions. As violence grows, any efforts are very unlikely to bear fruit without first securing a ceasefire between international and Afghan forces and the insurgency."
As a foreign military invades a country, even though the "innocents" may not be on the side that that military is trying to fight, that still view themselves to be under foreign occupation. More and more districts are coming under Talibain control in Afghanistan, despite the surge of troops a few years ago. It was a mistake to go into Afghanistain, and it's been a greater mistake to continue it. End the war in Afghanistan.
Further, I do not support bombing Syria just because they may have used chemical weapons. Between the fact that we have no grounds to bomb Syria, and the fact that Syria has powerful allies that are, conincidentally, not exactly on our good side (i.e. Russia and China). Between the economic porblems that could surface from our anatagonism and the Russia/China to Syria alliances that could lead to WWIII, it's not right to bomb Syria.
Here is why we have no grounds to bomb Syria: "The Syrian people have a sovereign right to decide their own destiny without outside interference. Their civil war is an internal struggle that will have to be decided for themselves. As much as Americans want to believe otherwise our values are not universal. It is one thing if a majority of people are clamoring for democracy and are being denied it by forces far outside of their control, it is another thing to intervene and force American values on a nation that clearly is torn over the issue. We have no right to pick sides."
Overall, I support the non-agression principle. Intervening in countries is not moral. At best, it rests on the flawed belief that we have a right and responsibility to intervene in countires experiencing violence - however, one, nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have a right or responsibility to intervene; second, as shown in Afghanistan (but also in other wars), interventionism is not a net benefit to the "innocents".
Take this example from Afghanistan: "With escalating violence, far fewer Afghan refugees returned in 2009 than any year since 2002. Meanwhile, the number of internally displaced persons fleeing war nearly doubled to 275,000... The number of Afghan civilians killed and wounded last year rose to nearly 6,000."
To conclude, I believe in non-interventionism because it is a net benefit for the US and the countries themselves. In general, I believe in the non-aggression principle.
I look forward to reading my opponent's views on the subject, although I bet it'll probably be basically just a rehash of this.
I guess vote pro. Hopefully, con will come back and we can redo this debate.
Ah, so you do know a little calculus.
Seems like a fun debate.
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to be just fooling around; Pro make some serious arguments with sources. Con forfeit left arguments unanswered.