Instigator / Con

1533

rating

debates

36.11%

won

Topic

#4028

There are zero unnecessary or harmful government regulations

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 21 points ahead, the winner is...

RafaelHSLemes

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 01.01.2023 01:15AM
Last updated date: 02.15.2023 10:13PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 3,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

RafaelHSLemes

1500

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

Democrats always seem to bitch that any and all deregulation is bad. I would like to give them the burden of proof and defend their belief that there is zero unnecessary/harmful government regulations on private industry in any capacity whatsoever.

Round 1

PREZ-HILTON

01.12.2023 02:02AM

Con

Forfeited

RafaelHSLemes

01.13.2023 10:19PM

Pro

The gorvenment regulations are draw up in 3 steps:

Step 1: Public comment period. People who are affected by the proposed rule have the right of comment during the eleboration stage and their comments help to formalize the final version of the rule.

Step 2: Notice of proposed rulemaking. This document represent what types of comment is taken into account and how they should be submitted during the public comment periods. It also explain why the rule is necessary and affects businesses, consumers and other groups affected by it.

Step 3: Drafting. A draft is draw up reflecting any comments received during the public hearings or written comments during previous review steps. The draft is later modified based on new information during the writing process.

Taking these three steps into account, it's concluded that the elaboration of government regulations is based on what a group of citizens needs.

In case of, for example, "The Employer Health Insurance Mandate" which says: The “employer mandate” slated for 2014, is a key element of the PPACA. It requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide health benefits or face a penalty of $2,000 per employee, this regulation is necessary even if at the expense of companies, after all, in this country, where hospital bills are exorbitant (The average cost of a 3-day hospital stay is around $30,000) and according to "The Individual Health Insurance Mandate": The “individual mandate” slated to take effect in 2014, is the cornerstone of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The PPACA requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service—a fine that escalates from $95 or 1 percent of taxable income in 2014 to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. Subsidies to purchase coverage will be provided to those who meet generous income-eligibility requirements.

Round 2

PREZ-HILTON

01.15.2023 10:19PM

Con

Forfeited

RafaelHSLemes

01.16.2023 10:13PM

Pro

I end this debate by citing two discussions of government regulations, "Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards" and "The Renewable Fuel Standard", which respectively say: "New fuel efficiency standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency require automakers to attain a fleet-wide average fuel economy level of 34.1 mpg by model year 2016 for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The new regulation—running some 300 pages—will dictate specific fuel efficiency standards by model type, weighted by sales volume. This will require significantly greater investment in re-engineering.

Justification for CAFE has evolved over time, from ending “dependence on foreign oil” to reducing air pollution to mitigating global warming. No matter the intent, problems with the regulation abound. To the extent that the standards increase sticker prices, consumers are more likely to continue using older, less fuel efficient vehicles. A host of research also documents that increased fuel efficiency, by lowering the cost of driving, actually increases travel—thereby negating at least some of the supposed environmental effects. CAFE standards also have undercut the domestic auto industry by forcing production of unprofitable (and less popular) small cars in order to offset the fuel efficiency ratings of larger, more profitable models. But most troublesome of all is the fact that CAFE standards have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths by constraining production of larger, more protective vehicles." "

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) constitutes national quotas[30] on the volume of “renewable fuels,” including corn, sugarcane and cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel, and biomass that must be blended into transportation fuel. The 2010 RFS has been set at 12.95 billion gallons, and is slated to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022. For the first time, quotas have been established for specific categories of renewable fuels based on projected reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Of particular note, the EPA raised the cap on ethanol, a fuel that is more costly, less efficient, and more polluting than gasoline.
The RFS represents a massive subsidy by consumers for the “renewables” industry—in the absence of which there is little demand for more costly fuel blends. Moreover, government dictates on the nation’s fuel mix are driven by political considerations more than environmental or economic outcomes. For example, the artificial demand created by the quotas, in conjunction with subsidies, creates powerful incentives to convert sensitive forest land into agriculture; less productive farmland is also being cultivated with increased use of agricultural chemicals. Shifting farmland from food crops to corn for renewables is projected to increase food costs by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a family of four, according to the EPA."

Public-Choice

01.03.2023 02:09PM

#11

-->

@Wylted

@Phenenas

It would be interesting to see a debate over whether any singular regulation is better than no regulation at all. Because liberals and libertarians generally have a fundamental disagreement on which would be better.

To a libertarian, for the overwhelming majority of regulations and government departments out there, things would be better without its existence and the regulations. But liberals believe that most regulations and government departments are better than none at all.

That is the real debate here. So to answer it, I believe a true-to-the-issue debate of whether any regulation at all, could be something everyone loves or something difficult to defend, makes society an inherently better place than no regulations.

Phenenas

01.03.2023 02:52AM

#10

-->

@Wylted

I would be up for that.

PREZ-HILTON

01.03.2023 01:32AM

-->

@Phenenas

We can debate universal healthcare maybe. Let me finish looking through your interests

PREZ-HILTON

01.03.2023 01:32AM

-->

@Phenenas

We can debate universal healthcare maybe. Let me finish looking through your interests

Phenenas

01.03.2023 01:20AM

It feels like every new debate on this site insists on making the BOP easy as pie for themselves and impossible for their opponent.

Liberals oppose so-called “deregulation” because advocates of it often want to slash away all regulations, good and bad, even to the point of defunding or disbanding entire government departments. Obviously, there are bad regulations out there which only serve as red tape and make it harder to get things done. Anyone desperate enough to accept this debate would have to jump through hoops to argue against this.

Public-Choice

01.03.2023 12:59AM

Gosh I want to take this just for fun, lol. I just may in a couple days if nobody else does. Idk. But I don't think you want to debate a polemics practicer on this one.

PREZ-HILTON

01.01.2023 05:36PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

That's what Ii am trying to do.

Intelligence_06

01.01.2023 05:26PM

-->

@Wylted

Put them in Syria or Afghanistan and see if they complain.

PREZ-HILTON

01.01.2023 02:35PM

-->

@AustinL0926

I hear liberals criticize deregulation all the time. Why would they have a problem with deregulation if there is even a single unnecessary or harmful regulation somewhere. Deregulation merely means removing that harmful or useless regulation.

Intelligence_06

01.01.2023 07:38AM

Liberals? Wrong, authoritarians.

AustinL0926

01.01.2023 06:38AM

-->

@Wylted

Good luck getting someone to accept a rigged resolution like this - "zero" is a ridiculously high burden of proof.

FLRW

01.17.2023 04:34PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeiture

K_Michael

01.17.2023 05:10AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Full forfeiture

RationalMadman

01.17.2023 05:09AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

FF by Con