CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
8
Fiscal Social
Debate Score:15
Arguments:15
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Fiscal (7)
 
 Social (8)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(12031) pic



Are social issues or fiscal issues more important

Fiscal

Side Score: 7
VS.

Social

Side Score: 8
1 point

Hello Roy Moore party guy:

I think they're equal...

excon

Side: Fiscal
0 points

I agree and disagree all at once with this notion...

To me, it's about which the nation lacks the most that determines the answer to this debate.

So, for an economically defunct nation, fiscal becomes top priority. For a nation where protection of the vulnerable is at a bare minimum, social becomes paramount.

If a nation lacks both then instead of both being 'equal' in importance, it starts to become a case of giving up all hope on either being fixed.

What I will say, however, is that if you observe which came first, it was social. With or without government and banking systems, societies in pure anarchy tribal-like societies, social issues are always important. Fiscal only becomes important when we introduce a 'central currency' that everyone can trade with (money) which means that if I don't need what you supply but you demand what I supply, you can still trade with me because everyone (theoretically) wants money at any given time. Yes, I know some hippy-like people will say they would turn down money if they didn't feel ethically healthy with the sale but overall the idea of money is to become a way for two people to trade when one wants what the other supplies but the vice versa is untrue.

Side: Social
1 point

You have to balance the books in order to continue society and move forward. If you stay perpetually imbalanced it eventually bankrupts and crashes.

But that's not an excuse to ignore social issues. Because if your society is socially horrible then you're better off just letting the whole thing burn down anyway.

Side: Fiscal
1 point

The latter paragraph proves the other side true. You have refuted your first paragraph with a powerful rebuttal in the same 'argument'.

Side: Social
Grenache(5564) Disputed
0 points

No it doesn't. What it actually reveals is how artificial it is to imply one issue is far more important than the other. They're both important. What I'm always saying as a moderate and independent is it takes a balance.

Side: Fiscal
seanB(356) Disputed
-2 points
1 point

Whilst it's arguable that both issues are intrinsically linked I feel that without the government receiving the necessary revenue most social programmes cannot be implemented never mind fulfilled.

Side: Fiscal
1 point

In all fairness, I'm only arguing on the social side because there is more argument on the fiscal side - I do absolutely believe that people are more important than money, at any rate, but in a discussion like this, we're ultimately discussing governmental policies, etc - and there has to be a balance. The government's responsibility is to the people, and as much as that screams social, it also means not burdening future generations with an untenable debt.

Ultimately, more than anything, I'm arguing for a balance.

Side: Social