Here's our new debate, the previous one can be found on this link: https://www.qallout.com/debate/3626-trumps-executive-order-on-health-care-is-the-right-move-for-americans-dollar1000-november-qualifier-round-1-live-on-tue-nov-7-at-930-pm-eastern
@ben @troysimons31 Great debate guys!Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. Community + 2 Judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @sarahmiller
@ben Congrats for advancing to the next round! Please expect further details on your next debate this weekend@troysimons31 Hard luck on this one! We will open registrations for Dec' $5,000 Championship next week; in the meantime you can have some fun with our social debates and accept one of the Open Challenges from our Resident Debaters:https://www.qallout.com/debate-challenges
So I agree with your (@troysimons31) view of the applied uses of the EO being anti-Constitutional BUT there is a YUGE difference between an EO that does something unconstitutional, such as Obama/W/Clinton/..., and an EO that reversed said anti-Constitutional EO. Such EOs should be viewed as Good as should any EO that enhances freedom.
@nellyj_misesian I don't think I agree you here. That argument would be like say we can breach universal human rights as long as it enhances said rights. It does it only furthers justifications to continue to make such breaches.
@troysimons31 no, not the argument at all. the argument is that if a scumbag politician of some ilk (The Obamanation or even Dubbya say) writes an EO that does violate Basic Natural Rights (which the Left doesn’t even believe in anyways) then an EO to reverse this is perfectly good and well. Anything that enhance freedom by reversing anti-Freedom, political EOs is good.
@nellyj_misesian I don't agree, especially with the use of hyperbole, allowing these kind of things make room for justifications to continue down the path of using EO in such a way as deemed necessary.
Enjoyed my first debate with you @troysimons31 - good luck in the voting!
This one comes down to Pro having an unanswered explanation for why the executive order was justified. Con, I’m arguing against this resolution tomorrow night at 9.
I didn't see a strong response to the PRO speaker's justification of the constitutionality of the executive order. So PRO takes the day since that was the only real argument advanced against the resolution.
(Not judging this round)Con made the mistake of surrendering a lot of ground right out of the gate, reducing his position to a single argument on constitutionality, and later arguments about President Trump preempting Congress and HSAs being bad. These were more than addressed by Pro. He was able to show that the executive order did what executive orders are supposed to do - instruct executive branch enforcement agencies on how to enforce the law. He was also able to show President Trump and Congress have been working together on this “three bucket” approach all along. Finally, he was able to fully articulate what HSAs were, and how criticism of them is premature.Pro wins this round handily.
Didn't watch the whole debate, but it looks like it's going to be a debate over procedure, not policy. Normally I would agree with CON, but I think the ACA was unconstitutional in a number of ways and so if you do an unconstitutional act to get rid of an unconstitutional act then the net result is more constitutional. It sounds nice to say that two wrongs don't make a right, but when only one side is playing by the rules and the other side isn't, things get skewed real quick, but I'm not saying to do unconstitutional things because the other side is. I only give unconstitutional acts a pass when they correct the record and undo other unconstitutional acts.
@cotter But the executive order was intended to remove an unconstitutional act. I did not attempt to repeal the action, as point it, it added policies to the already unconstitutional act.