On balance, the U.S. should choose a Free Market Economy over a Government Regulated one
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Other countries might currently benefit from government regulation, but it would create a more functional and fairer economic system for the US specifically to decide on the Free Market.
Definitions:
Free Market- An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
Government Intervention- Regulatory action taken by government that seek to change the decisions made by individuals, groups and organizations about social and economic matters.: Taxes, subsidies, price controls, regulations, minimum wage legislation, and government bailouts.
Government Regulation- A law that controls the way that a business can operate, or all of these laws considered together.
Economy- The wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.
Capitalism- An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Socialism- A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Collectivism- The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
Individualism- A social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
Public Economy vs Private- The public sector is the part of the economy owned, managed and controlled by government or government bodies, while the private sector is owned, managed and controlled by individuals or private companies.
Monopoly- The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Government- The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
The U.S.- The United States of America, its territories and possessions, any State of the United States, and the District of Columbia.
Rules:
1. One forfeit is the loss of a point. Two forfeits are an auto-loss. (2 days' time to make a response.)
2. On balance, so BOP is shared.
Really good topic, I vote Pro, here's why:
1. I buy RM's analysis of the resolution, Pro must defend no economic regulations, Con must defend some.
2. I buy that a FM econ (Free market) creates innovation and solves diseases from vaccines and that government ownership failed education.
3. I buy that a GR econ (government regulated) economy forces executives to pay their taxes, however, it is immoral to make people pay taxes for things they don't agree with.
4. I buy that a GR econ forces toxicity labels. I also buy these labels lowers the quality of the food.
5. I buy that a FM econ would have boycotts that stop toxic foods. I also buy that the labels are expensive leading to hunger in impoverished communities.
6. I buy that a GR econ forces safety standards.
7. I buy that a GR econ gives union rights AND right to work regulations.
8. I buy that a GR econ gives minority protections.
9. I buy that a FM econ abolished child labor through the market before there was an actual regulation.
10. I buy that a GR econ gives fair pay, unpaid leave, agricultural visas, and restaurant woerker's rights.
11. I buy that this debate is only about the US and any comparison to a nation in the Global South is not a useful comparison because of different morals and cultural values and wealth.
12. I buy that Slavery wouldn't come back if we had a FM econ.
13. In regards to cartels, I buy that consumer sovereignty solves any price issues.
14. I buy that autobiles proves government innovation makes it unaffordably expensive and causes more old vehicles
15. I buy that healthcare becomes more inaccessible from the exorbitant costs.
In conclusion, I buy that a free market economy stops hunger in the poor and stops a lot of car accidents by making new cars more affordable. These are the only terminalized impacts. Con lists a bunch of laws like pay, child labor, abolishing slavery, etc., but they don't impact this out, and Pro is leveraging arguments like morality prevents these, customer boycotts prevent these, and that customer sovereignty controls prices. These are never contended with, giving them a lot of defense to weak arguments to begin with. For example, RationalMadman talks about restaurant worker's rights, but that's the entire conversation that happened on that point. I buy that boycotts can probably solve AND a free market economy can solve for hunger in the poor.
Notes for Pro:
1. You start answering Con's individual points late in the round. You should answer it the round after they say it, not wait a round.
2. You had a good out on the definition debate. You define "government intervention" with a list of what that entails at the end. You should say that Con has to defend those and that anything else is "social regulation", like child labor.
3. You seem well understood on the anarcho-capitalist argument of consumer boycotts and things of similar nature. The only thing I would add is looking out how government regulations stop worker representation, for example, Biden just stopping the railroad strikers. That, and union strikes happened pre-National Labor Relations Act. This means arguments about "pay" and "worker's rights" are solved under anarcho-capitalism.
4. Finally, not a note, but a funny idea, post the same argument but read leftist accelerationism in the first round. Unregulated economy collapses capitalism leading to socialism which is good.
Notes for Con
1. Don't just post walls of text and lists of laws. A source should supplement your argument, not be your argument. That, and a list of laws doesn't mean anything if you don't defend each law as having a reason we need it.
2. You have to answer claims of customer boycotts and customer sovereignty for price controls. These are easily disproved, but you need to do that work. That, and answer the "US is better than other nations and would never turn into those savages". I phrase it like that to show how goofy it is and how easy the answer is.
3. A formal "I don't have to win all four of these regulations, just one, to prove Con" would go a long way. I don't know if it mattered in this round as I think you fail to deal with the big pieces of defense Pro has.
Counter vote bomb
the bop is to prove/disprove that the us should have a free market vs a government regulated market.
i would have loved to see if there were examples of free markets just as a comparison.
ll= lancelot rm=rationalmadman
in round 2 rm tries to trick up ll and claims to speak directly to voters. This is certainly bad conduct on rm's part, it shows disregard and attempt at confusion. conduct given to ll.
in rounds 3-4 rm gives good links with an abundance of information... about government regulation (or lack thereof) in OTHER countries. i have to weigh this source against ll's sources in rounds 3 and 4 and unfortunately remove the point because of its relevance to topic and meeting bop of US economy. It was a hard call...
Finally, who has met bop and convinced me that us market should be free or regulated? rm. he has listed out in round 2 the staggering influence of government intervention and regulation in an otherwise would be dystopian US market.
that being said, this is about the market, not slavery, civil or criminal law. none of that should be weighed against the bop because i believe there is a distinct difference and seperation between them.
both parties did fine on grammar.
That’s fixable. I challenged you to a 1 round debate.
Accept and they’re back, I promise.
Apparently I lost my privileges to vote.
How am I affecting ratings unnecessarily?
please dont counter vote bomb. my vote was already reported. you are affecting ratings unnecessarly.
Dang, bro.
Savage reply.
What good points? Genuinely, I like to be better. Please explain to me.
The sad part is that's true, the average voter here is garbage.
AleutianTexan is literally one of the most objective voters.
This is just you being a bad sport.
I guess the update did help me, this is simply bullshit lol, you ignored all my good points.
Not interested in you entertaining his last round blitzkrieg either or not realising that the laws brought later perfectly complimented my Round 1.
Thank you!
I finally voted on this! I forgot to mention this, but if yall have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask.
Fair enough.
if this was still rated as it was pre-update, it would mean I lose rating and Lancelot gains it whereas a no-vote tie wouldn't.
The thing is because your vote is effectively for 0 points, it amounts to no more than a comment giving feedback.
alrighty. thanks.
and thank you wylted.
and thank you whiteflame and barney.
and thank you rm for trying my reasoning, you have made me greater and more right by opposing it.
Wylted is the Site President.
I asked him to reject RM’s report/appeal and he did so, out of generosity. He thinks it’s scummy to report your vote for silly reasons.
So he overruled any attempts at having your vote deleted.
i dont mind doing a jury trial if rm or ll want it.
thank you all for validating my vote and source allotment. i hate that it caused contention, but i brought it up so that i know if its right or not.
I am the highest authority. The decision is final unless a jury trial is requested.
After reviewing the decision, I find it to be in line with the voting standards of the site. The decision is upheld.
I am also evaluating the vote to see if a veto of their decisions is in order. I will be back with you soon
After reviewing the decision, I find it to be in line with the voting standards of the site. The decision is upheld.
Does spamming tie votes on my debates make you feel better, RM?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4151-capital-surveillance-inhibits-the-progress-of-society
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4111-the-dangers-of-global-warming-are-overestimated
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4174-the-u-s-should-intervene-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict
This was not a troll debate, the tied vote needs to be fully justified in its sources allocation.
Whiteflame or supadudz please moderate it. I appeal this decision
I was right!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: tied
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
i know, but any attempt to destroy logic is intresting to me. so i dont deny the request.
But also there is literally no reason to report votes that declare debates a tie.
Doing so benefits neither debater and would only restrict your voting privileges in the future, which I have zero intention of doing.
alrighty then
I don’t want to be the better man, so no.
if you want to be a better man. report my vote for rm.
if it falls through or doesnt. yall are still tied either way.
It also cannot be physically reported by me, these fools removed my ability to report.
Could be wrong, but I doubt your vote will be deleted since it doesn’t seem to break any of the voting rules.
i report that vote for sources
ill leave this here from voting policy on sources.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
np. the hardest thing for me to weigh was the sources. rm's convinced me, but the majority were off topic.
someone could report my vote, arguing better sources means they convinced me, not that it was better for the debate.
ah well.
Thanks for the vote.
edit: round 1* not 2 is where confusion is.
Very interesting. Capitalist in-fighting is fascinating to me, so I will definitely take a look. I've been busy as of late, but this is my second priority after I vote on a debate I've already started reading through.
If this one is interesting enough to you, then you’re welcome to vote on it.
Were you still planning to vote on this one?
Subscribed to vote on it
Bump
You got it
Make it week-long Rounds and I will accept.