100th Debate Was A Great Success
Last night's debate on "Resolved. Wal*Mart is good for America" was a great debate. The speakers did a great job of keeping the debate alive. I was disappointed by the affirmative's lack of effort to go beyond the point that Wal*Mart is good (even great) because it produces what we want. If you listened to their reasoning, the speakers would also be in the affirmative on "Resolved: Penthouse is Great for America."
In my opinion, Wal*Mart is susceptible to the charge that it has accepted corporate welfare - TIF financing, employment subsidies, etc. Wouldn't a better example for conservatives be a company that has overcome government obstacles (think of clients of the Institute for Justice found at ij.org) -- rather than one that occasionally feeds at the public trough? This more Randian view expressed in Atlas Shrugged and elsewhere would have led to a more interesting affirmative.
As it was, Mr. Grzybek and Mr. Belfour at the end of the debate caucuse, tore apart the straw man that the affirmatives created by simply reminding us, in essence (not literally), that Wal*mart would sell us bad meat if it could.
I would also add that the Missionaries of Charity are good because they don't need the government to control their excesses (prayer, self-less service to others) while Wal*mart does (for example, government regulations against selling us bad meat). After all, how can something be described as good when left without Big Brother's oversight, it would be bad?
In my opinion, Wal*Mart is susceptible to the charge that it has accepted corporate welfare - TIF financing, employment subsidies, etc. Wouldn't a better example for conservatives be a company that has overcome government obstacles (think of clients of the Institute for Justice found at ij.org) -- rather than one that occasionally feeds at the public trough? This more Randian view expressed in Atlas Shrugged and elsewhere would have led to a more interesting affirmative.
As it was, Mr. Grzybek and Mr. Belfour at the end of the debate caucuse, tore apart the straw man that the affirmatives created by simply reminding us, in essence (not literally), that Wal*mart would sell us bad meat if it could.
I would also add that the Missionaries of Charity are good because they don't need the government to control their excesses (prayer, self-less service to others) while Wal*mart does (for example, government regulations against selling us bad meat). After all, how can something be described as good when left without Big Brother's oversight, it would be bad?
posted by ssc | 12/16/2004 01:22:00 PM
Post a Comment