Instigator / Pro
14
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Topic
#1343

Left wing policies, in general, are better for the economy.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Nemiroff
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Description

It may seem counter intuitative at first with republicans being the business friendly party. However history shows truth, and being existing business friendly isnt the same as overall market friendly. Being chummy with businesses often stifles competition. A left wing equally regulated economy is far more free and fair then a right wing subsidized economy where hand picked businesses get unfair tax benefits while acting with maximum impunity.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The main contention made that Democrat run blue states have a better economic standards, and democratic presidents do better with the economy.

This argument was set up in round 1, with some basic evidence, only to be answered with a definitional Kritik, with the argument that democrats institute economically liberal policies - not left wing policies.

This is a bit of an jumbled kritik, as pro claims that we should be talking about America (by comparing the “left wing” policies of Norway), and then arguing that “left wing” and “liberalism” mean something different in Europe.

Given that no one disagrees that Democrats are broadly on the left, and republicans are broadly on the right - con has to go into substantially more detail about democrats, their generally understood policies, and providing justification as to why they would be considered “centrist.” Without this, I don’t feel con meets his burden of proof, thus arguments must go to pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

1. "stronger other economic indicators"
This felt like an assertion. A couple quotes from the article, like "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents" would have made this a fantastic point.

2. "Blue states ... generate most of the nations wealth"
Big claims need big proof, and the evidence tossed on did not match up with the conclusion (covarience does not imply a specific one caused the other). Still the assertion was not challenged adequately, so it's taken at face value.

3. "no state in the usa implements left wing economic policy"
I don't buy this moving the goalpost semantic Kritik of the terms not being defined. Worse, my rejection of it by naming it just explained it better than it did across four rounds.

Pro gets this for showing there is some connection between left wing policies (AKA democratic or liberal policies) and better wealth in their states. Had there been a sensical counter argument instead of a weird non-sequitur, con might have taken this (as always, assuming pro did not in turn strengthen his case).