Hi, my name is Arielle and I’m a resident judge here on Qallout. Thank you both for participating in this debate surrounding public housing.To summarize what I’ve perceived as each of your main points, the PRO side believes that we can reallocate tax collections snd repurpose monies towards government provided housing as a basic right of citizenship. He says that a lack of housing creates an intergenerational state of poverty, but he also says that we must look toward other means to alleviate poverty and homelessness in America, whether that’s investment in education or medicine, etc. The CON side utilized examples of South Africa and China to demonstrate how enabling a right to housing isn’t sustainable or enforceable. When supply deviates from demand and the housing market is overseen by federal bureaucrats instead of driven by the free market, housing shortages and qualitative disadvantages emerge, creating a burden for governments. He cites dependency syndrome as hindering to economic growth potential, leading to fewer incentives to work or innovate. And he distinguished between natural rights (which promote independence) and entitlements (which arguably create dependence). Additionally, he rebuts claims by his opponent who stated that homelessness is what causes poverty- he argues that concentrating low income persons in the same close quarters of housing projects stimulates a rise in crime, propagating a debt vicious debt cycle which is the opposite of what one could hope subsidized housing would achieve.I was convinced by the CON side, because while I can sympathize with the sentiments expressed by the PRO side, his arguments were less coherent and consistently stated. PRO veered off theme into a topical mention of a many subjects, including John Locke as a slave owner, BDS, the US historically having broken international treaties and hurt native americans, college debts, citizens united, the EPA, and the 2007 banking crisis. While I would have been receptive to these mentions had he related them back to his main argument, the connection was elusive. And while PRO could have provided factual examples to bolster his support of a right to housing, the remarks following his introduction seemed speculative rather than supplementary.
@josh808 Congrats for advancing to the next round!@thriller_4_jiller Hard luck on this one, hope to see you at the next tournament starting next week - registration is now open:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
we can hear you though... your time's running @thriller_4_jiller
Try click end debate and maybe we can restart @thriller_4_jiller
@thriller_4_jiller This was a good debate, I felt we only scratched the surface, because it's the differences between the underlying ideologies behind both of our positions that need to be addressed first. I enjoyed the dialogue, it was enjoyable.
Good comments by @josh808. Strong points.Following the actions of @the_peoples_champ ....I am going to share this debate with a few of my Conservative Brethren. @nellyj_misesian, and @theantifeminist.[Besides...the PRO looks like the same same guy in "John Kasich is better than Ted Cruz" debate....[ ;^) ]
Pro seems to like a socialist government that promises free schooling (through college), free health care, free housing, etc.No problem affording it...use unicorn farts to power everything...and we can get rid of that nasty private sector he disparages. Maybe he would be happier living in Venezuela which elected a socialist government more than 10 years ago and has been lauded by many many Democrats and Socialists (Bernie Sanders) ...and actors. I am sure Venezuela would like to have @thriller_4_jiller immigrate there too!
@mvineyard dude. Chill with the ad hominems. You can disagree, but don't be a jerk about it.
@debateme13 Dude...people who propose unicorn solutions should see reality. He really said he was for all those programs. Only he didn't say how it would be paid for. AND - my snarky remarks about Venezuela are TRUE. Ad hominem is attacking the character instead of the point (substance)....I challenged the ability to achieve his socialist dream...so I was attacking his desires for all that free stuff... and Venezuela is such a great example of socialist promises....gone bad.
@mvineyard I respectfully disagree- it’s not just what you say but how you convey that message. The point of debate IMO is not to divide but to reconcile, to persuade. If you tank your ethos, your credibility, there’s no way someone who holds a belief opposite to yours will ever think of switching their viewpoint.
@josh808 I understand what you are trying to say. HOWEVER - when people push for radical ideas, they should be confronted with the potential results of what happens should those radical ideas be implemented.Case in point - plenty of leftists/socialist in the US were very laudatory when Hugo Chavez embarked on his socialist plans for Venezuela. He was going to 'fix' a lot of things...bring fairness and equality, and ensure people had what they needed. Well...look at the results NOW. Food, goods, even toilet paper - hard to find. Shelves empty. People starving. People trying to flee to Columbia. Venezuela is a country with huge oil reserves and lots of natural resources....so how did they end up as a 3rd world hell-hole? Government policies of the type that leftists keep pushing for....free this and free that, 'guaranteed housing', free college, etc. Everyone who pushes for these programs is dangerous. If there was a 'rational debate' about the merits of playing Russian Roulette - would you approach it calmly to persuade...or would you withdraw in horror and point out that the person is out of their frickin' mind?AND - ultimately, I don't think leftists are capable of changing their minds - even if they confront the horrors of the type society that can occur if they were able to implement their plans. Plenty of people who were supportive of Chavez are now silent. They don't praise what Venezuela has become - but they still push for the same plans that helped Venezuela become what it is today. It is others that might reflect on the situation and realize that socialism KILLS. It saps the ethos of people who decide it is nice to live off the work of others...and more and more people demand more and more provided by the government. Then -it kills the economy....and eventually - like in Venezuela, people die of starvation, or people assembling and protesting the government are killed by the thugs that Maduro has given guns to (and years ago, all the guns were confiscated...so no one can really resist the tyranny.)