Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory.
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 5/17/2008 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 6 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 233 times | Debate No: | 4082 |
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (20)
Votes (14)
 Con 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.  Pro The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory." My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed." The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay. To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it? And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from? |
 |
|
Con The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory." My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed." The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay. I would like t go bit by bit. 1) My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default. "To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it? And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?" 2) The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed. My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.) But it doesn't say that we can't make a new social security system. 3) For example, the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60. 4) I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine. Vote for the best argument, please. Pro 1) Why did my opponent post my entire argument over again at the top of his argument? (Without quotation marks, I might add.) What was the purpose of that? 2)"My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default." I have read over ALL of my opponent's previous debates, and in every single one of them he points out to the readers what his opponent failed to do, why his opponent's arguments are "null and void", why this means he is the winner. Please, zdog234, the constant repetition of this sort of behavior in which you address the readers and actually tell them how to think, in which you attempt to make up their minds for them, becomes quite aggravating after some time. It is only common courtesy to allow a person to have their own thought process and to make their own decisions. If you refrained just a bit from your constant instruction toward the readers on how to vote, I have a feeling that your arguments would be more appreciated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now to the actual debate. "My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default." (again) In this case, this statement is faulty. I did in fact address my opponent's points. I said that I agreed, but that these points addressed the wrong issue. I did not go into detail on each point because there was no need. "The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed." Actually, the topic of this debate deals with the CURRENT social security system. The current one has not been changed. "My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.)" Umm, where does his argument say that? Yes, that's the topic of the debate, and he took the con position. However, I don't remember reading that statement at any point up to this moment. I would also like to make note of the fact that my opponent just agreed with my argument. "I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine." He has? I remember reading him agreeing with the fact that no one would pay, but I do not recall seeing a single remark about my second question: "And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?" To Recap: My opponent's arguments are this: 1. The current social security system is unfair: it is not even, discriminates against the poor, and gives very little back. 2. The social security system could/should be changed: "the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60." My argument is this: 1. The current social security system is messed up, that is true. But by making payment into the current social security system optional, no one would pay. The only outcome of that would be that the people who need financial support CURRENTLY would not be able to get it. And those people would suffer. Yes, the social security system could be changed, but the CURRENT one has not been, and that is the system we are dealing with. I hate to break it to you, but in this debate we are not talking about a brighter future. We are talking about the present. And in the present the social security system might be horrible. But by making payment not mandatory, we would only be creating more problems, not solving any. It is quite common that debaters stray from the topic of their debate, and try to distract readers by bringing in other issues. I do not deny that my opponent is a good debater. But in this argument, my opponent and I did not take two different sides of an issue, we fought two different battles. I agree with my opponent that all readers should vote for the best argument, but I also think that readers should make sure they carefully assess this before making a selection. |
 |
Loading voting charts...
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
And I would like to thank sweetbags as well. I will remember that the next time I debate.
And I posted your argument back on accident. I was quoting you, and it is easier to copy and paste the entire opponent's argument into your argument, then delete what you don't need. I am sorry I forgot to do this.
You sully your own argument with such a low level of etiquette.
zdog234, I am ashamed that you would jump to such conclusions. I did not cheat in any way whatsoever. My best friend looked over my draft for spelling errors. Big whoop. She did not find any, and did not alter anything else at all. She did not ask me to alter anything at all. She was not in any way responsible for anything in my argument. Including the "null and void" annoyance. Why should I not be allowed to be against that? I actually have read over all your other debates, so even though it did not appear in this debate, I still saw it many times elsewhere. And just because you know inkslinger4 does not mean that she can be the only one with an opinion you would normally associate with her. We are best friends. We share many views. That one happened to be my own, along with everything else in my arguments.
As to zdog's #1: Okay. I'll let it go. It still bothers me, but if you feel you have a justified reason to continue, I won't stop you.
As to zdog's #2: Why didn't you post that in the debate?
pro, there were several other avenues for affirming the topic, by taking the "my opponent is entirely untopical" argument as your only argument, you not only provide no reason for affirmation, but if one of his points is topical, you lose.
also, you didnt technically attack any of con's points, so therefore you agree by default. con's pointing this out, and that he should win by default, is not only correct, but is a fairly common practice. not only that, but in the last speech your job is to TELL the voters why they should vote for you. condming con for that is, quite frankly, stupid.
con, i suggest you use sources other then wikipedia. perhaps go to wiki's citations and use those. that adds credibility to your case.
also, when you make a point, dont just give a tagline and a link. QOUTE your source, give your logic. explain why that evidence proves your point. alot of voters dont bother to go to your cites, but give you the benefit of the doubt that it says what you say it does.
think of it like this: judges are lazy, make it as easy as possible for them to judge. if you make them work theyll be more likly to vote against you.
RFD: while pro said that con's case backed hers (nonexistant). but then said it was untopical. these two arguments cancelled each other out. so at the end con had a case, and pro didnt even bother to write one. i vote CON
"If you refrained just a bit from your constant instruction toward the readers on how to vote, I have a feeling that your arguments would be more appreciated."
1) Isn't this statement an attempt at restricting the way I argue? And I have won my other debates by using this form of argument, so it seems that they are appreciated, as I believe my style is very professional and methodical. (the whole point of debating is the elimination of an opponent's arguments, and the upholding of your own.)
2) And the baby boomers should (if the system works at all) Get money from the social security money left over. (note that the topic was should paying into the social security system be necessary, not taking money from what's left.)
3) Read the third comment down as it is the most important.
And I would like to point out that inkslinger told me that she would get all of her friends on debate.com to vote against me and that she was checking perfectionist's argument for spelling errors. (a form of cheating)
And my performance in past debates has nothing to do with this debate, and I point out that since I have only debated perfectionist this one time the line
"in every single one of them he points out to the readers what his opponent failed to do, why his opponent's arguments are "null and void" Please, zdog234, the constant repetition of this sort of behavior in which you address the readers and actually tell them how to think, in which you attempt to make up their minds for them, becomes quite aggravating after some time"
could have only come from inkslinger, as there is no reason that perfectionist should be annoyed at my constant use of the phrase "null and void"
null(from dicionary.com):
1.without value, effect, consequence, or significance.
2.being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent.
void:
1.Law. having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.
2.useless; ineffectual; vain.
3.devoid; destitute (usually fol. by of): a life void of meaning.
4.without contents; empty.
5.without an incumbent, as an office.
6.Mathematics. (of a set) empty.
7.(in cards) having no cards in a suit.
In addition, I have not used the phrase "null and void" once in my argument, meaning the complaining must have come from inkslinger.