Reply
Mon 8 Dec, 2003 04:39 pm
This will be significantly different from most of the other topics on this forum. It's an experiment of sorts. The purpose of this topic is not only to accumilate our collective knowledge/wisdom to present all arguments relative to either side of the issue, but also to see if we can have a thread which doesn't veer off course and stays locked onto the initial topic being brought up. As such there are rules which I kindly request that you abide by. These rules may be expanded as I discover any possible pit falls or loop holes that haven't already been covered.
The rules are as follows...
1. EVERY post with the exception of this one must follow the strict format presented by rule two. If you have a certain suggestion you would like to make regarding this particular experiment, please PM me. If you wish to hold a similar organized debate about a different topic, please feel free to borrow this idea and start a topic of your own. Infact, I HIGHLY encourage that most future politics topics be debated in this format. If enough people express their ideas on this experiment, I might eventually start a post just to discuss the success of this experiment and ways upon which to improve upon it. Once this topic reaches 10 pages or so, we might even have a poll of flat tax vs. progressive tax to get an assessment of the general views of the forum once all the arguement have been heard by the members.
2. All future posts must begin with a quote of whichever statement is being responded to. In this statement lies the inherent declaration that all future posts must respond to something which has already been stated. Such a declaration is neccesary as it is the only way in which to ensure that the thread does not get cluttered with irrelevent posts and that the discussion remains relevent to the original question posed at all times.
3. Following the quote of the statement being responded to, you must present an arguement that either supports or is contrary to the quoted statement. If the arguement is contrary to the quoted statement, you must begin the arguement with "Negation:". If the arguement instead affirms the quoted statement, you must begin the arguement with "Affirmation:". This greatly increases the ease with which others can figure out the point of your response and helps ensure that each response indeed does have a point.
4. Following this statement of your arguement, you MAY start a new paragraph to present each piece of evidence backing up your arguement/statement if you start the paragraph with "Evidence #:". You may also opt to state contentions that back up your arguement if you start them with "Contention #:". This makes it a good bit easier to follow the evidence that you present to back up your point.
5. You may edit your previous posts at any time you wish in order to more accurately illustrate the point that you are trying to get across. Confusion will be avioded since all posters are required to quote the original statement to which they are responding. But all such edited posts must end with a paragraph that begins with "Editions:" and then proceeds to state the specific modifications made to the original post.
6. Unsubstantiated attacks on either a poster or an idea will not be tolerated. Please ensure that you can back up any claims you make either with basic principles of logic, or evidence. Any posts that don't abide by this or that don't follow the format stated above will be removed by a moderator.
7. All posts should be well stated, well organized and should follow basic rules of spelling and grammer. The sentences should be complete and the arguments intelligent. Of course, a few grammatical errors here and there are expected. Just do the best you can.
8. Moderators: When you run across or are informed of a post that violates one of the above rules, please take the time to delete it. At your discretion and depending on how successful this experiment proves to be, one may have to start a seperate thread dedicated to reporting such violations to moderators, and possibly for posting the deleted responses so that they may be referenced later.
To get the ball rolling, I will kick things off with the statement that...
Resolved: A progressive tax system is inherently unfair to it's constituents.
Quote:A progressive tax system is inherently unfair to it's constituents.
Negation: The above statement can neither be substantiated nor does it in any way suggest that the progressive tax should be abandoned.
Evidence 1: It could be just as easily be argued that a flat tax is unfair to it's constituents. Is it fair that a poor family barely able to eat on a regular basis be required to sacrifice this and dedicate just as large a portion of it's income as a multimillionaire with money to burn?
Contention 1: Fair is a relative term. What may seem fair to one person hardly qualifies as fair to everyone. Thus any statements of fairness hardly serve to strengthen an argument.
Contention 2: A government's primary purpose is to ensure the security of it's consitutents while only minimally abridging their inherent rights. It is not the government's responsibility to dictate what's fair. And it certainly can't be argued that you have an inhernet right to be taxed the same amount as your neighbor.
Editions: To the two posters below. Please edit your statements to follow the format requested or deleted them. Otherwise, your posts simply derail the thread from it's original intent. And this is exactly what this thread is attempting to avoid.
since when are there rules in a knife fight?
oops, didn't realize there was already a debate on this issue.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace