AOC is a nut job and is not fit to serve in the US government
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 7 votes and with 43 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC is not fit to serve in the US government as she has been known to make up facts and statistics and she has demonstrated time and time again that she does not understand even the simple concepts of the US government.
Pro: AOC is Competent
Con: AOC is Incompetent
I'll post my actual argument when I get back from my camping trip on Sunday
I'd like to start off by expressing my disappointment.
This is a new topic I thought I could have a great debate about since there seems to be a lot of misunderstood notions about AOC which I'd like to clear up.
Also, the fact that since the BOP rests 90 % on Pro as agreed upon in the comments, there's little for me to state so if it feels as if I am being lazy, I wasn't expecting this to happen and I apologize. I really don't enjoy debates, especially on good topics going to waste like this.
Anyways the show must go on so here goes nothing.
AOC isn't a perfect politician.
However, in a world where ignorant, racist, and greedy politicians such as Trump exist, AOC is a saint.
To put it simply, she isn't perfect however several of her policies I feel would help the country greatly.
Especially since my personal beliefs line up with her progressive socialist ideals.
So let's review some of her main beliefs and more importantly proposals.
But before we do so, let me clear something up.
There's no evidence of her being diagnosed with any psychological disorder whether it be cognitive, behavioral, or mood.
I've done research and there has been nothing to confirm or deny it, however considering how quick Republicans are to criticize her for being a bartender which really isn't anything to be shameful of and isn't funny. I mean seriously is that all you got? Anyways rambling done sorry, however, my point being is that if she did publicize her mental illness it's likely the alt-right would throw insult and insult at her for it since that's all they know how to do.
Now that we've clarified my stance and that she doesn't have a confirmed mental illness, let's begin our dissection into her proposals mainly the two biggest ones being the green new deal and her 70 % marginal tax rate.
70 % MARGINAL TAX RATE
Source one has a really great video detailing the tax plan and how marginal tax rates work, pretty great video actually and very simple and straight forward.
Great video by vox...
Anyways just to clarify the tax rate would be a marginal tax rate and tax any money above 10 Million 70 %.
So for example, if I make 15 million a year, the first 10 million would be taxed normally while the 15 million would be taxed by 70 %.
This tax plan is what is mostly referred to as a progressive tax which according to by source 2 is defined as,
" Progressive tax is the concept that a taxpayer should pay higher taxes if he earns more income and lower taxes if he earns less. In the U.S., people are taxed based on what tax brackets they fall into, with higher income ranges correlating to a higher percentage. Progressive taxes are the main tool used by governments to reduce income inequality."
This a great plan for many reasons however the hugest and most crucial one is,
The amount of wealth inequality in the country
Income equality has been on the rise in the past 30 years according to inequality.org.
Now the top 10 % make more than the bottom 90 % which is utterly ridiculous and is repulsive to even imagine.
Many Republicans will brush over this by stating that only poverty matters and not equality.
Equality matters as well if the top 1 % is making more than the bottom 90 % the top 1 % will be controlling the political system due to them having access to better schools, opportunities, and healthcare.
And not to mention that with the growth of wealth inequality comes the shrinking of the middle class and without a middle class, there will be less movability within the economic system.
Plain and simply without movability, the lower class will form an uprising.
This is similar to the Russian revolution and why the soviet union formed.
While poverty was key, another prime factor was that while the peasants were staving, losing limbs, and dying of disease, the wealthy capitalists who were exploiting them were eating well and were healthy.
If there was more movability where the poor had a better chance at increasing their economic conditions, it's very likely the Russian revolution would've never occurred. Or at least it would've eased the tension.
With a 70 % marginal tax rate, schools will be better funded, healthcare would improve, and infrastructure would improve.
This plan actually benefits the rich also, happy workers lead to a more successful economy and drives up immigration.
For example, the healthier the population is the less sick days they'll take and the more productive they'll be as a result of them from not being sick. Better educated workers will lead to more qualified and smarter workers which will once again increase productivity. The same concept with better infrastructure, the better the infrastructure is appealing and happier the citizens would be.
In short, happy workers leads to more productive workers, and more productive workers lead to a better economy.
To summarize, AOC's marginal tax rate would decrease the ever growing amount of wealth inequality in the country and improve the overall well being of citizens.
Nextly let's examine another one of AOC's plans.
THE GREEN NEW DEAL
The green new deal as proposed by AOC would essentially cut down drastically on carbon emissions and even downright eliminate them thereby easing global warming through a vast amount of government spending.
The green new deal while not perfect is a fantastic idea that would actually help the world and the economy more than hurt.
The plan would cost a vast amount of government spending which is correct, however, this argument is a very big misrepresentation.
This proposal would cost a lot of money however the benefits outweigh the cost. Let's run through the biggest reason.
This would ease the tension of global warming
Firstly if my opponent is going to argue that global warming doesn't exist but is over exaggerated, we can get into that if they choose to go down that dark and destructive path.
However just to save some time I'll assume you believe global warming exists and is caused by humans.
According to the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Global warming would lead to more forest fires due to the,
Higher levels of CO2 [which] makes plants more drought resistant, which increases the amount of burnable material.
And would also lead to flooding through the polar icecaps melting as evidenced by this article by Ocean Conservancy.
Global warming is an issue, which if not treated will lead to the destruction of human civilization as we know it.
I don't know about you, but I really don't want to see the end of the world.
AOC's plan would seek out to replace various fossil fuels with more natural means of achieving energy whether it be through solar power or windmills.
These methods of achieving energy while less efficient would save the world.
Economy running less efficient < The World
By the US seeking out to eliminate the need for fossil fuels, 15 % of carbon emissions from fuel combustion would be eliminated according to UOCS.
AOC's two major proposals would actually help the country, and she has no signs of being mentally ill.
Therefore I certainly wouldn't call her a " nut job " or " not fit to serve in the government "
I hope at least my opponent will respond to this round.
Mod note: Full forfeited debates are not moderated. No action is necessary.
AOC has some really bad policies, and I wouldn't vote for her. But she is not mentally ill and is perfectly fit to serve in the US government.
Thanks for the help. This is actually the first debate I've had that wasn't face to face.
Good luck on this debate. A few words of advice...
1. You've picked a two clause resolution. While proving she's nuts (X), goes a long way toward proving she's unfit to govern (Y), both need to be supported.
2. I suggest defining some criteria for fitness to govern, to include in your opening round.
3. I advise the following as an aid to make whatever your case is easy to follow: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Now that would be a hell of a coincidence.
Never mind, I thought it'd be funny if you were going on the same camping trip as I was.
No I'm from north Minnesota.
Since you're making an accusation against her, the BOP is mostly on you if that's okay.
Also dang that is a coincidence, you don't happen to live in northern California do you?
First, that's a hell of a coincidence because I'm camping too this weekend also, I'll do my best to keep this moving along as quick as I can. To answer your other question, by nut job I mean that some of her policies (such as the "Green New Deal") are just plain dumb. As for incompetent, she has been known to demonstrate an acute lack of knowledge when it comes to US government and policies to do with taxes and economics.
The people voted her in, although I would prefer it if they didn't.
Also what is your definition of a " nut job " and incompetent?
I'd like to agree upon definitions before we start.
Just so you are aware, I'll be gone camping this weekend so we may have to extend a round.
I hope we can get this debate done in the span of a week in a half as by then I'll be camping for a week straight.
Looks like you already got it!
OK cool. I can help you fix it if you want.
Sorry, this is my first debate on this site. I'll fix it.
Are you arguing that Aoc is competent or incompetent? The wording and description is rather confusing?
From the description: "Pro: AOC is Competent ... Con: AOC is Incompetent"
Are you against AOC or for AOC? The description says that you’re arguing that she is competent
The pro side is arguing she is incompetent and shouldn’t serve while con is defending her and saying she should serve
To anyone accepting this, read the description first: The pro side is in defense of her, the con side is affirming the negative statement.
I cannot speak for other voters, but trying to get a cheap win by arguing you're too dumb to understand, will not bode well for you.