CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
They hate religious fundamentalists and theocratic countries, but want Christianity made the official religion of the U.S. and have the Bible taught in public school.
The debate is whether or not conservatives are hypocrites. Your argument is that religious fundamentalists that live under biblical law before United States law and wish to see the bible taught in public schools, BUT who are also conservative are hypocritical.
Notice the difference between your argument and the debate topic:
Debate:
Conservatives
Your Argument:
Theocratic Christian Fundamentalist, Conservatives
Is that an unfair characterization? Are you arguing that most "conservatives" wish to see less religion in government, and preach a more liberal interpretation of the Bible in church?
I'll grant you that not every conservative is a "Theocratic Christian Fundamentalist", but I'd argue the ones who aren't are in the minority.
According to a Pew Research Survey, 49% of Conservative Republicans think that the bible should be a more important source than the will of the people for US law. 43% of Conservative Republicans disagreed.
Your looking at the extreme conservatives and religious fanatics not main stream conservatives. Looking to extreme liberals you could people just as narrow minded and hateful.
It's like you are making stuff up. Most conservatives don't want the bible taught in public school. I personaly don't see what the problem would be as long as it is optional. Like an elective or something.
"want Christianity made the official religion of the U.S."
This country was founded on principles of christianity and most of the country is christian.(or at least say that they are) If there was an official religion it would be christianity. But there is not.
And if you seriously think "Most conservatives don't want the bible taught in public school", then I'd truly like to live in your world.
However, after 8 years of Bush, where science has consistently played a back-seat in policy making, I have trouble seeing that.
Also, we have conservative think tanks like "The Discovery Institute", which are trying to claim Creationism/ID is a science. Combine that with the fact that nearly 50% of Americans think evolution is wrong and that the Bible is literal fact, and you can see where I'm coming from.
This country was founded on principles of christianity and most of the country is christian.(or at least say that they are) If there was an official religion it would be christianity. But there is not.
Incorrect. This country was founded on the principles of democracy, which date to the pre-Christian times of the ancient Greeks. Since one of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not worship false idols", we wouldn't have the freedom of religion if the country were founded on the "principles of Christianity".
Also, nearly 20% of the population defines themselves as atheist, agnostic, or otherwise un-religious. That's far too large a percentage to declare Christianity the official religion, in the sense that an "official" religion would be enforced through required classes in school, tax breaks for church members, etc.
Incorrect. The United States was founded on the principle of a republic governed by the people for the people. Democracy was considered a one way road to anarchy and chaos which would not be desirable. Honestly I don't understand what you mean by your mentioning of the Ten Commandments unless of course its some strange roundabout way of saying that democracy is inherently a pagan principle, or that Christianity requires a monarchy. In any case both are false so it really doesn't matter since the United States has something called a Constitution which has been amended to include a Bill of Rights which specifically prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. You should keep with the times.
I was referring to "Representative Democracy", not "Direct/Pure Democracy", which can be more unstable.
But I agree, that the US was also founded on principles of a Republic, but those principles are not mutually exclusive with a Democracy. From Wikipedia, "Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system." That certainly fits the government outlined in the Constitution.
JakeJ said the country is founded on the "principles of Christianity". Since the ten commandments are obviously integral to Christian's principles, JakeJ is effectively saying the country is founded (at least in part) on the ten commandments (and I mean all of them, not just the ones that coincide with current law, like thou shall not kill, steal, etc).
Since you're clearly aware that the US has a secular Constitution and a Bill of Rights, it's clear you agree with me. I'm not sure why you're opposing me here, since we seem to be agreeing that the US is not founded on the ten commandments.
The spread of communism was viewed as the spread of the Soviet Union's power and influence which in turn was viewed as the spread of tyranny.
Dictatorships while still seen as bad weren't part of the bigger and more serious threat of the Soviet Union stripping individuals of their rights. Help the dictators purpose was to contain the Soviets. Basically the lesser of two evils at the time. Read up on Stalin he has to have been one of the evilest people to have ever walked to the earth.
I'm well aware of what a horrible person Stalin was. However, I still don't believe our support of slightly less evil people is justified. The Soviet Union collapsed because of an arms race with the U.S.. Not because we "boycotted" Cuba, supported Saddam, or lost thousands of soldiers in Vietnam.
What about all of the innocent GROWN PEOPLE that need protection!? Fuck them, right? We already have too many innocent people out there in the world, what we need is more innocent babies! yeah...
"capital punishment is killing guilty cold blooded murderers"
These guilty people were once innocent babies.
"war is killing soldiers working for evil dictators & killing terrorists."
And you're always on the side of the righteous, right? Never with the evil dictators. Quick, kill me before I figure out... arghhh.... x_x
1. I don't make sense when I make sense of your nonsense. I'm saying that instead of "protecting" a fetus, which is not the state's property (and so not the state's responsibility), we should be getting people out of homeless shelters and ghettos, drug addicted bums off of the streets, and giving them a job or otherwise making these citizens of the state useful. Most of the people I meet from these places are addicted to something illegal, and they suffer for it, but also everyone around them suffers too. Many of the people I know hustle for a living, which means they create a commune in a household, they steal things that belong to the people around them, and sell/barter with these stolen things for drugs and extra cash. Some of them have food stamps that pay for everyone under the roof.
Some of these people could be redeemed instead of incarcerated as they are already good people stuck in a tough situation. Some are mentally ill, sure, but these people are in a sense, societies debts. Whether they are on the street, stealing, or in a prison, they are costing citizens pain and hardship. Now, this is what I mean by taking care of or protecting good grown people. Rather than being conservative by forcing people to spit out more children, doesn't it make more sense to help the ones that are already here!? CONSERVATIVES CONSERVE. Take what people we have now and help them out. It would cost less over an 18 year period and would increase our state's capital if they are successfully redeemed.
2. Right, they were babies and now they're tainted and there's no way to treat them like people anymore, I get your point. That doesn't mean I agree. People usually "chose" evil because they have to given their situation.
Liberals call themselves pro-choice, then choose to have sex and get pregnant before they are ready to have a baby. Then they want to choose to destroy a life of an unborn child because they are selfish. The choice is made when they get pregnant. The choice to have a baby, or not.
As for shooting things, people and animals are not equal.
And are you seriously comparing abortion to capital punishment!?
You can't punish a baby for your mistakes. What law did the baby break?
People that are pro choice and are against the death penalty are hypocrites.
Should an innocent baby die for the benefit of the person that chose to have unprotected sex? Oh but lets not kill a murderer. That would be cruel and unusual.
People that carry out the death sentence do not enjoy it.
And If I'm in the wilderness and I want to shoot, lets say, .. a rabbit and it's not against the law, guess what? The rabbit dies. Weather I enjoy it or not, well, that is none of your business.
Human life is sacred, animal life is not. If anyone thinks that a rabbit's life is sacred they have issues.
Completely agree. Animals don't have the same types of souls people have. This goes back to Aristotle. All life has nutritive souls (grow and thrive). All animals have sensitive souls (feel and interact). And all humans have rational souls (think).
And killing an innocent baby is SO wrong! Especially when they argue that killing a guilty murderer is wrong! It just doesn't make sense. Basically, they're saying "kill the innocent and save the guilty."
But to the main point of my reply: I like how of all the animals, you chose a rabbit, which just so happens to conveniently be Cerin's picture! :D nice one. haha
Does a woman with pregnancy complications deserve to die? Does a woman who gets raped deserve to care for the rapists child for the rest of her life?
I definitely believe abortion should be avoided when possible, but it should always be an option. Ultimately it's the woman's life, not yours, that the decision effects, so it should be their choice, not yours.
I'm also glad you enjoy killing rabbits. I hear they go well with pancakes.
"Does a woman with pregnancy complications deserve to die?"
No, why do you ask?
"Does a woman who gets raped deserve to care for the rapists child for the rest of her life?"
No, that is really messed up. That is the only time I would even consider abortion, but there is still adoption. Not that it's fair.
One thing we can do is enforce the law the best we can, so that not as many people are raped.
"I definitely believe abortion should be avoided when possible, but it should always be an option. Ultimately it's the woman's life, not yours, that the decision effects, so it should be their choice, not yours."
I appreciate that but as long as it is an option people that are not in danger or raped are going to kill babies. You can not deny that.
And hey I'm not going to barge into an abortion clinic and demand people not to do it. But If it come up in an election I will vote against it.
Ultimately it's the babies life, not theirs, or mine, or yours.
I'm glad you accept my rights but I don't think I will be trying rabbit with pancakes anytime soon. ]:
"Ultimately it's the babies life, not theirs, or mine, or yours."
What do you define as a baby? A corrugated clump a cells? When is it a baby? When the DMT burst activates the higher brain functions? At what point is it not just a part of the mothers body? Catholics believe it's a person at conception. Have I murdered an entire civilization of "potential" people by masterbating? Seriously. How far back into ridiculousness do you want to take this? A zygote doesn't even become a fetus until after 2 months of gestation.
It's so funny how some on your side of the spectrum say stuff about personal liberties, but you are the group most for intrusion into peoples private lives. If your against abortion then don't have one, it's that simple. We have seen society with abortion made illegal, we know what people do when they simply cannot feed another child. Stop ignoring the realities of life by trying to focus on the parts of human nature you dislike.
These morals decisions are hard enough for people without righteously indignant strangers trying to but in.
"Anything that, if not aborted will grow up to be a human being. "
By this statement, birth control is murder.
So if a woman has a miscarriage, did god abort the baby? Is that ok?
This is why moral absolutism fails.
"What if the fetus is against abortion?"
A fetus can't be for or against anything, it doesn't have that cognitive capacity due to it lacking a fully formed brain and all. This is a silly argument usually based in the belief in a soul. Human conception is amazing, I agree, but you don't need the supernatural to realize this. As I said, we(society) have pretty much agreed that at a certain point, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, we do not allow abortion (late term). Before that point, however, we must consider the fetus as part of the woman's body and cannot make laws that infringe upon that. The state would literally be mandating a religious view if we did, as well as setting a precedent that the state owns your body since it can make laws that do what you suggest. Read Roe v. Wade.
"If you don't want a baby, don't have one."
That's what I'm advocating. You're the one putting your fingers in your ears about the needs of human sexuality. Sex has more uses to us as sentient beings than just procreation. We consider it the physical act of love regardless of if a child is made. Advocating safe sex and birth control will do more to prevent abortions than what you are doing ever will.
"Yeah, your right moral decisions are a lot easier when you are the one deciding what is right and wrong. What is right becomes what is easy for you."
What a horrifying statement that perfectly illustrates the ignorance of some when it comes to morals. OF COURSE you make your own moral decisions! Morality is a construct of society, we make it collectively. If abortion was considered completely immoral, then we wouldn't be doing it as a society.
The way much birth control works is that it tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant through hormones, but if a the egg becomes fertilized it is immediately aborted by the woman having a period.
"Thats just it! Why shouldn't they be given the chance to have all of that?"
Re-read my last statement. Your thinking about it backwards. It is the mothers choice whether or not they bring a child into this world. It's her body. People with opinions like yours never seem to take into account the way the world really is. You would legislate the rights we have over our own bodies away if it advanced your religious view it seems. That is what is dangerous. This argument is about reproductive rights, not killing babies.
"Yes we would because people are selfish and will take the easy way. Even if it means taking a life."
No, if we as a society decided, like with murder, that it is completely immoral except under a special circumstance then those who commit the act would become part of the fringe and not the main stream. People would still do it, yes, I agree. You can't stop anything completely. That's all a big if of course as I think that position will never happen again mostly because we as a country have already been there and seen the nightmare scenarios of back alley abortions it created.
"People choose selfishness over morality all the time. Did you not know that? I am really starting to question your intelligence."
Morality and selfishness are not mutually exclusive. A selfish decision can also be a moral one. Morality also has some basis in selfishness.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
This is one of our oldest moral statements. It is dated back to Babylon and even appears in ancient china and is still right today.
It is , by definition, selfish to want people to treat you a certain way, even if you want them to treat you well. Selfish is not a negative word, it is neutral.
Don't start questioning other people's intelligence until you've had more schooling, my friend. Those of us who actually do have degrees can easily spot those who make fatuous arguments.
"It is the mothers choice whether or not they bring a child into this world."
Yes, that is correct. It is the mother's choice to fertilize her egg. It is not right for her to destroy it after she chose to create it.
"No, if we as a society decided, like with murder, that it is completely immoral except under a special circumstance then those who commit the act would become part of the fringe and not the main stream."
We as a society do not decide what is moral.
"In God we trust'
Disagree with our founding fathers much?
"A selfish decision can also be a moral one."
Nope, ever heard of doing the right thing for the wrong reason? That may look good and even help people but you are not helping yourself if you do that because it is not Christ like.
Jesus Christ wasn't selfish.
"Don't start questioning other people's intelligence until you've had more schooling, my friend. Those of us who actually do have degrees can easily spot those who make fatuous arguments."
1. Don't start questioning my freedom of speech.
2. Are you saying that if you have a degree you can't be wrong about something? can't be unintelligent?
False they can sure wrap it up in a good package and make it look smart though. That way they can fool a lot of people.
In God we trust first appeared on US coins in 1864 genius boy. The founding father were mostly deists. Paine and Jefferson were open in letter about their disbelief and Franklin was and adamant deist. Again, read a book or two.
"Nope, ever heard of doing the right thing for the wrong reason? That may look good and even help people but you are not helping yourself if you do that because it is not Christ like. "
You don't even understand your own negative misconception of the word selfish. Getting out of the way of a car is a selfish motivation.
I do not care what is christ like, only what is moral. I do not find Jesus' teachings moral.
"1. Don't start questioning my freedom of speech.
2. Are you saying that if you have a degree you can't be wrong about something? can't be unintelligent?
False they can sure wrap it up in a good package and make it look smart though. That way they can fool a lot of people."
1. How you could possibly think that on a debate site eludes me. Being told you are wrong is not an infringement of freedom of speech it is freedom of speech.
2.Not at all. I am saying that your arguments appear to be coming from an uneducated source to put it bluntly. A good example would be the "In God we trust"/founding fathers comment you just wrote.
Abortion is viewed as killing a baby that just happens to still be in the womb a sort of equivalent to beating a toddler to death.
Capital punishment however is different in a very important way in that it is getting rid of people that the world is better off without. When viewing capital punishment or even life sentences you have to understand that the goal is no longer rehabilitation and teaching a criminal the error of their ways but rather to remove criminals from society permanently to protect the rest of the citizenry.
"Abortion is viewed as killing a baby that just happens to still be in the womb a sort of equivalent to beating a toddler to death."
Maybe that is how you want to view it, but that isn't the case. I'll agree that killing an 8th month old is basically killing a baby that is in the womb, but I doubt you could find many pro-choice advocates who don't want to set a time limit.
Killing a bunch of cells that are not conscious is not killing a human. An adult fly is more complex than a human fetus for awhile.
"The goal is...to remove criminals from society permanently to protect the rest of the citizenry."
But how is that not accomplished by life in prison?
Abortion is often used to protect the health of the mother, whose life might be at risk if the pregnancy was brought to term. It's also used to counter rape and incest, where birthing and caring for the child would be psychological torture for the mother. I think abortion should be a last resort, and not used for general birth control, but still legal and safe.
I'd agree with you on capital punishment if I had confidence our justice system was perfect. Unfortunately, courts make mistakes, and executing someone is quite permanent. If you're concerned about protecting society from un-reformable criminals, then life sentences are more than adequate, since the whole idea is that they're never released from jail. Pursuing death sentence convictions in court are ultimately much more expensive than a life sentence.
Yes. I have been the victim of bullying by conservatives to the point that I was ready to kill myself. I was set up and falsely accused of stalking and thrown off of this website based on bullshit politics. I am better off with liberals.
They hate our dependence on foreign oil, but make a point of driving the biggest, least fuel efficient vehicles, and actively oppose investing in alternative and renewable sources of energy.
Are you serious? You say conservatives think oil is expensive, but then say they don't care about fuel efficiency? Do you even think before you post?
You don't think they hate our dependency because foreign oil is funds governments like Saudi Arabia that give money to terrorist groups and the families of suicide bombers.
We don't have enough domestic sources of oil to even make a dent in how much oil we import.
Consumer Reviews consistently show most U.S. brands with the least quality, reliability, and fuel efficiency.
I don't like foreign oil because it's expensive and it makes it so the country the oil is from has power over us.
I drive a Honda Accord and only drive to and from my destinations. I use as little gas as possible.
We should drill in our own nation to become more independent on oil and we should invest in alternate fuels. Oil is not a renewable resource; it will run out eventually.
If you mean conservative politicians then yes. Of course the same thing could be said of liberal politicians. As a general statement though the answer is no being conservative doesn't equate to being a hypocrite just like being a liberal doesn't necessarily mean your an atheist.
The only reason I'm saying "no" is because you simply made a debate to counter the one on liberals being hypocrites without any substantial evidence like the other debate has. If you actually took the time out to come up with a few examples, I'd probably say "yes". Both sides are somewhat hypocritical, but that doesn't mean individuals are. Like me, I try not to be a hypocrite.
I had these two from the git too! The Slash boy just keeps repeating himself for points while the other gives you one rebuttal in 12 separate sentences for points. Why bother with either...it's like buttering you toast with glue...you get nowhere. Neither can even spell hypocrite!
If you want evidence, all you have to do is look at the news over the last decade. Bush's biggest supporters are Evangelical Christians who want more religion and less science in every facet of everyone's life, because they believe their philosophy makes the world a better place.
Two wars, millions dead, and a ruined economy later, you bet I'm calling conservatives hypocrites.