Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Farseer]

I've been asked to play devil's advocate to a debating team. I have to argue in favour of far right-wing economics (to laymen: this is basically laissez-faire, hands off, no support for the poor, every man for himself kinda thing). I can pick any of it's strengths that I like and can use anything possible to beat them.

But... I can't work find any real strengths that I could use in a debate. :| Just looking over everything I've got written down and it basically boils down to this:-
- Allows the top dogs to reach the top. (Amazingly easily debated against.)
- Capitalistic model has driven world technological progress.
- That's... About it.
- I have a final one that I will never say in this debate because it's basically instalose: "Rich people can make themselves richer."

I cannot find a single real strength for the model. :| They're arguing far left, and I think that - if I don't rely on ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies that are sadly the best ways to win debates - I'm going to get verbally raped.

Any help, guys?

[Shade-o]

All that wealth will trickle down from the rich people.

[Farseer]

All that wealth will trickle down from the rich people.

Their reply would simply be, "No, it won't."

[nenjin]

Say that the kind of life they enjoy right now, abundant food, cheap products, vast variety of choice and massive corporations that can provide resources far and above small businesses....is due to right-wing economics.

Just pray the people on the other side don't bring up sustainable economic theory, or compassionate corporatism.

[Max White]

All that wealth will trickle down from the rich people.

Their reply would simply be, "No, it won't."

I think the idea of playing against yours own ideals is that you might as well stab at what you can, and hope they can't parry it off. I mean we all know it is bullshit, but some good quotes, and some statistics, and you might be able to find enough fingers to plug a leeking boat.

Wow, two metaphors in one post... And it was a notible short post.

[Shade-o]

Economic freedom is closely linked to political freedom. Unless it's pure capitalism, which is essentially corporate feudalism and has employees as serfs. Don't mention that part.

Laissez-faire also induces excellent self-organisation on all levels, so the economy runs itself at a good efficiency, except for when it is manipulated for profit or causes recessions.

[Shade-o]

Just play your hand carefully, and checkmate! Their argument will fall like a house of dominoes!

[Leafsnail]

Argue from some 19th century social Darwinist perspective.  Should make it easier.

[Shade-o]

You know who were against capitalism? Communists.

[Virex]

All that wealth will trickle down from the rich people.

Their reply would simply be, "No, it won't."

No it won't isn't a good defense in debating. At the very least they'll have to provide some reasoning as to why it does not happen, or they'll look blunt.


Anyway, When debating, it's often best to identify a problem and work from that problem to show your solution is optimal. The problem at hand that would be most beneficial to your position is that the west is falling behind. You can then take this several directions.
-You can claim that government involvement in many businesses is creating skewed relations and preventing alternative methods from becoming mainstream (good example: Swimming pools still use chlorine as a cleaning agent while ozone or UV based cleaning would be better. Nobody is working on alternative cleaning agents though, because chlorine is mandatory).
-Tangential to that would be the claim that the current system, in which minimal pay is ensured and people have a state-sponsored backup plan does not promote a fighter mentality and is making the west sleepy. There is no longer any drive to rise up from newspaper delivery boy to chef of the newspaper because the government is keeping people down trough meaningless rules and oppressive economic policy. Lifting these restrictions would make it significantly easier for people to once again pursue the American dream, which is exactly what is needed to compete with the east.
-On a completely different note, you could claim that a night-watch state puts power into the hands of the people. Instead of pinning them to one system of social services and drowning out all other systems, people would become engaged again, setting up their own systems to help each other. A very early example can be seen in Egypt, where people organize themselves in absence of state support to ensure security and provide basic services like food and blankets to the protesters. Bottom-up systems like these would be significantly more efficient and friendlier to those that have to rely on it then monolithic nation-wide systems.

[G-Flex]

Anyway, When debating, it's often best to identify a problem and work from that problem to show your solution is optimal.

One reason this works so well: People really, really love to hear people complain about the things they hate and offer solutions and explanations, even if they don't make a hell of a lot of sense.


My advice: Bring up the idea that when people are left to their own devices instead of being cared for by others/the government, they have more incentive to try. You know, people having more incentive to find work if they can't go on welfare, more incentive to be informed consumers if trade regulations are lax, and so forth. You could take the angle that stricter government control causes people to be lazy because it removes incentive for them to take proper care or themselves, or learn how to do so.

[Bouchart]

You might want to take a look at Austrian economics.

[G-Flex]

I don't know if I'd do that. Austrian economics isn't exactly in vogue, and seems to have spent quite a while being pretty harshly criticized and even considered discredited by most modern/mainstream schools of economics. If you bring something up that's that far outside the norm and with such a bad reputation, and the opponent is well-informed, you open the door to getting your ass kicked.

[Leafsnail]

Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this "numerical" treatment as passive non-adaptive subjects. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action. Von Mises called this discipline "praxeology" – a term he adapted from Alfred Espinas (but which had been in use by others).

So uh... the Austrian School is great if you ignore reality?

[Max White]

Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this "numerical" treatment as passive non-adaptive subjects. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action. Von Mises called this discipline "praxeology" – a term he adapted from Alfred Espinas (but which had been in use by others).

So uh... the Austrian School is great if you ignore reality?

Debating follows a similar rule.