should the US Government create a $20,000 refundable tax credit for homemakers
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
should the United Sates Government create a $20,000 tax credit for homemakers for the sake of this argument homemakers will include housewives and stay at home moms I will be arguing pro I think we can pay for it by taxing porn profits as well as liquor and tobacco products
I do like a setup, as it states where the money in the proposal would come from (seen times people try to argue it'd be a good, so it doesn't matter that it's infeasible).
R1:
Pro opens with an appeal to emotions of women and children, asserts that it would lower the crime rate (probably true, but some source for this should be used), and more appeal to emotion of claiming if not given they were be sexually harassed in the workplace (immediate irony of where he wants the money to come from).
He moves on for the truism that current politicians have mismanaged the economy, detours through some assumptions about motives, and ends nicely with an Obama quote which in itself pulls some useful statistics (a political fact check on it would have been great at cementing those data points).
Con forfeits.
R2:
Pro expands oh their rhetoric, really focused on the harm of sexual harassment (some source for frequency to support this claim would be really useful). And some definite unlabeled copy/pasting from his previous round.
Con leverages that the policy as proposed would only apply to stay at home moms, specifically excluding male and other homemakers.
Con derails a little into disliking pro's user name.
Con details flaws with the policy not, from it being progressive instead of balanced (I suspect pro will fail to catch this), it encouraging unemployment, and it utilizing a sin tax designed to bankrupt the businesses which fund it (a source showing a history of this would strengthen the point) and intuitively thus make the credit go away.
Con moves on to a coup de grâce (could have lead with this) that it's a tax credit, so the proposed unemployed beneficiaries would not be eligible!
R3:
Pro uses a source about tax credits to defend his proposal, how people can get money back on already paid taxes that year even if they don't owe any more taxes (I admit that I hope con catches what's wrong with this; but if unchallenged it will deflect the otherwise fatal blow).
Pro damages the credibility of his case by making up something con is supposed to have said "oh no women having a choice well we cant have that" (this form of strawman is a huge pet peeve of mine). Pro continues in this vine accusing con of supporting what he calls evil, and saying some really demeaning things about women... Some more edge lord stuff...
Con gives a short analysis for why pro's tax credit thing would not be beneficial to people who paid no taxes, as it would allow money back on already paid income tax, not create money if they were not taxed already. And points out that pro otherwise dropped the arguments.
R4:
Pro attempts to switch the proposal to the non-homemakers getting the tax credit, which is against the very resolution he proposed (unless the homemakers are webcam models being taxed massively by the proposal?).
---
Arguments:
Overwhelming con victory, as he reduced the proposal down to just misunderstandings and implied misogyny. Pro was not able to make the proposal make sense, and outright dropped the majority of the challenges against it, while giving needless insults rather than attempting to patch the holes in his plan.
Honestly, I'm only being this detailed due to the multiple forfeitures, which gave pro a good chance at victory which he did not take proper advantage of.
Conduct:
The multiple forfeits are a problem, but some of pro's behavior was pretty bad too. Were this categorical, I would likely penalize con due to it being multiple rounds missed; even while still giving him the argument points.
As this is choose winner, and 3>1, con wins.
Even with Cons repeated forfeiture, Pro was ill equipped to properly respond to Cons rebuttals. Con uncovered the incomplete logic in Pro's proposal by pointing out how taxing alcohol and porn would literally cause the companies who sell and distribute those things to go out of business which would leave Pro's proposed mode of funding their proposition unable to do so. Pro instead opted to double down on their assertion by claiming alcohol and pornography were immoral to begin with, so it wouldn't be bad if they disappear. That may be true, but if you hope to use those modes of business to fund your proposal, you would most certainly not want them to go out of business. This alone is sufficient enough to convince me that Pro's proposal was ill conceived from the start, and since Pro didn't properly dispute that point, Con's forfeiture was not an issue.
Pro also did nothing to address the biased manner of the proposal and all of the problems that could potentially come from that. This was nothing more than a barely comprehensive tirade from someone who is oh so concerned about women not being at home.
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
You voting doesn't fix the core problem but thank you.
Yes I would prefer that actually, if you can't see the flaw and correct the writing then I'd prefer you apply it with common sense.
For enforcing the policy as it is written, which explicitly spells out how is it to be interpreted for this debate type? Would you prefer vote moderators that just do whatever they feel like day to day, instead of looking at the policy?
In any case, you are always welcome to appeal to another moderator. They might read those lines of the policy different than I.
please quit your role as a voting moderator.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: winner to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This being a choose winner debate, the repeated forfeitures do allow a conduct only award to be the determinant without further consideration. Further consideration is of course allowed (encouraged even), but is not strictly required.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
No problem.
Thanks for the vote. :)
come on argue come on man
take a look at his username and other debates and tell me it isn't a severe assumption on his sexist agenda.
Because the trend dictates that women in comparison to men are overwhelmingly the stay-at-home parent. It's a presumption that leaves out stay-at-home fathers, but isn't a bad presumption.
Why does it only include females?