CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
15
Anti-freedom Pro-freedom
Debate Score:32
Arguments:22
Total Votes:35
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Anti-freedom (11)
 
 Pro-freedom (10)

Debate Creator

unownmew(160) pic



Democrat "Liberals" are anti-freedom

Are Democrat Liberals anti-freedom?

 

Liberals/Democrats:

Anti-Domestic Drilling - infringes oil company's freedom to drill on domestic land.

Gun Control - infringes on private citizens' freedom to bear arms, infringes on gun store owners' freedom to sell and manufacture guns.

TSA - invasion of the freedom to privacy of private citizens.

Increased Taxes - tax policies would increase payment rates for small business owners /as well as/ coporations, infringing on the private citizens' freedom to own property.

Social Wealth Redistribution - tax policies and legal benefit programs using taxpayer money to subsidize exclusive groups of citizens, often non-taxpayers.  Infringes on the private citizen's freedom to keep owned property.

Increasing age of marital consent - infringes on the freedom to marry at certain ages that have previously enjoyed that freedom.

Obamacare - mandates requiring certain types of medical insurance coverage infringes on the Churches' and religious organizations', as well as religious business employeers', freedom of conscience.

Abortion - infringes on a fetus' freedom to life.

Smear Campaigns - slander and libel, as well as other derogatory verbage against conservatives and any other organization or group that openly disagrees with liberal policy and idiology, openly hostile to those groups' freedom of speech.

Taxes - forceful siezure of personal property, infringes on the private citizens' freedom to acquire and keep property.

Pro-Woman's Choice Abortion - infringes on the freedom of a father to defend the life of his offspring.

Fields v. Palmdale School District - a parent's rights to guide the upbringing of their child ends at the schools door.  Infringes on the parents' freedom to raise their children as they see fit.

 

Anti-freedom

Side Score: 17
VS.

Pro-freedom

Side Score: 15
2 points

Yep. And the a republicans have their own spats of anti-freedom. That's why I am a Libertarian

Side: Anti-freedom
2 points

They are totally pro-freedom. As long as its not the freedom to own a gun, drink a 12oz soda, not pay ridiculous taxes, creative freedom on TV (political correctness,) express you religious views in public, etc.

Side: Anti-freedom
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

You can do all of those things.....................................

Side: Pro-freedom
1 point

My argument is in the debate post. I believe Liberals are anti-freedom.

Side: Anti-freedom
1 point

Yup. I hate freedom. I don't even want the right to speak my opinions. Hell I don't want the rights to this ass of water I'm downing.

Side: Anti-freedom

I'm a libertarian so I'm mixed both ways but lean conservative.

Smear Campaigns - slander and libel, as well as other derogatory verbage against conservatives and any other organization or group that openly disagrees with liberal policy and idiology, openly hostile to those groups' freedom of speech.

Conservatives do the same thing

TSA - invasion of the freedom to privacy of private citizens.

Republicans also supported it in a majority compared to a minority of Democrats who supported it. (Source 1)

Increasing age of marital consent - infringes on the freedom to marry at certain ages that have previously enjoyed that freedom.

How is this a Democratic Party issue?

1. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/12/ news/la-pn-republicans-democrats-nsa-poll-20130612

Side: Anti-freedom

I consider myself a liberal democrat, and it's primarily due to freedom. I agree with many programs such as welfare in general because sometimes people need help, although I think these programs should have stricter rules on who qualifies. I support abortion, and you say it takes away the fetus's or the father's rights. This isn't the place to get into the former, but as far as the latter, banning abortion completely would infringe on not only the woman's but also the father's rights - some men don't want the baby either. Smear campaigns happens on both sides, so I don't really see why that's on the list. I think you're choosing to ignore most of the issues, and instead look at only the things that support your view. That's something everyone does, so there's no blame, but I always find it ironic that the Republicans say "small government" and then spend a lot of time dictating what I can do with my uterus. I feel many, not all, but many republican programs infringe on rights that people care about more - right to privacy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. than do democratic programs. Neither party is perfect, and I believe each is trying to support freedom in its own way, while still maintaining the safety and security of the overall populace. However, saying liberals are "anti-freedom" is, I feel, inaccurate. It might be more accurate to state that liberals infringe on the rights you care about, while working for freedoms you feel are less important. This country can't provide complete and absolute freedom or there would be anarchy, but as far as the freedoms that were sought when the country began, I believe the democratic party is more focused on supporting them. And side note: the current Democratic party beliefs used to be found under Republican presidents. Just an interesting tidbit regarding the evolution of politics and how we might all be able to come together.

Side: Pro-freedom
unownmew(160) Disputed
2 points

Welfare should be a private citizen's right to choose to engage in or not, AKA Charitable donations. By taking that right of choice away by making the payment for welfare done through coerced taxation, it infringes liberty, and enforces oppression. Indiscriminate Welfare also harms the "beneficiary" by encouraging laziness. It was Obama, a liberal democrat that (illegally, I might add), removed the work requirements of certain welfare programs.

Abortion is not solely the parent's choice. There is a living entity growing inside the mother, a human being with natural rights, particularly, the right to life. To endanger that being is an infringement on it's rights. Just as it's immoral for a mother to engage in drug abuse during a pregnancy because negatively impacts the child (meth kids anyone?), so too is it wrong to abort the child entirely. Regardless of choice, abortion should not be funded or subsidized by government.

I listed Smear campaigns because it was my intent to prove that Liberals are anti-conservative speech. Whether another side engages in oppressing free speech or not (most conservatives I know don't care what liberals say so long as it's truthful), does not negate the fact that the first side does as well. So, providing an alternate example here, does not negate the argument.

Liberals are against most Constitutional Freedoms and Inherent Rights, while supporting many "legal privileges" in their stead. In this sense, Liberals are opposed to the rule of law. The two are not comparable. A Right is not a privilege, a privilege can be taken away at any time the government chooses. A Right is an inherent power of the creature, and only consensually agreed upon between peoples to not be exercised, but forever inviolable.

Side: Anti-freedom
2 points

It's very interesting the way you spun all those points to somehow create the sense of infringement on one's rights. First of all, part of the consent of the governed is that they yield some of their rights to the state in order to maintain a livable society. If you don't like this fundamental trait of government you should seriously consider moving to uncharted territory.

All this really is, all you really are, is an example of how political and intellectual apathy can devolve one's views to the point of subordination to a greater power's agenda. If you really think your liberties are at all risked by the legalization of abortion, the blocking of domestic drilling, or by smear campaigns (of which conservative do a considerable amount more of than liberals as you have unwittingly proven), then you have a truly propagandized view.

I'm not even going to go into who makes up or what defines this elite economic class which I have been alluding to, but know that their economic and political power is far reaching and that they do far greater harm to our democratic society than the liberals do. Radically partisan conservatives (or neo-cons), are the corporate arm undermining our democracy through favoritism and lobbying. Progressive liberals are the main bulwark against this expansion of corporatism into our government. To suggest to circumstances are converse demonstrates a great degree of subordination to popularized ideals and manufactured consent, an epidemic which I'm afraid a large part of society (as well as myself to a certain point) has succumb to.

Side: Pro-freedom
unownmew(160) Disputed
1 point

On the contrary, the whole debate was established as a platform to prove the accuracy of the statements listed. I was requested to support these statements because I was using them to support the premise in another debate, so I did so here.

It's a very logical way of thinking.

If A = B and B = C then A = C

If A is true (Liberals are anti-drilling), and B is true (anti-drilling is anti-freedom), then C must also be true (Liberals are anti-freedom)

There's no way around this, no matter what operations you perform on A, it will always equal C.

The only way to get out of it is to prove that B is not part of the equation.

I am well aware of how social compacts work. You voluntarily cede some of your freedoms in return for protection of others. The problem with your argument is, the Social Compact in question, specifically states certain rights shall not be infringed by it's application, and certain powers are excluded from it's authority to infringe.

I specifically made sure each of my statements were exactly in line with infringing upon powers that the social compact of the US Constitution explicitly excluded from the authority of the Government of the United States to infringe.

Whatever privileges are infringe-able by the government do not matter, because the power to infringe upon them was given to it by the social compact.

Furthermore, simply because I am against one side, (liberals) does not mean I am in favor of the other side (republicans). I favor the rule of law, according to the letter and the spirit of it. And I oppose any that would assume to pervert, or subvert it.

Side: Anti-freedom
1 point

I am not a democrat, but I am a liberal. .

Supporting Evidence: My statement. (www.createdebate.com)
Side: Pro-freedom
unownmew(160) Disputed
2 points

Sorry, but I had to qualify the statement to define the proper "liberal" definition I was intending. Otherwise it could have been interpreted as the archaic dictionary definition of "liberal" which is "much," and is very much pro-freedom in practice, even though such is entirely opposite to what modern 'liberals" now believe.

Side: Anti-freedom
1 point

No, Republicans are anti-freedom

This begs the question – Freedom for whom?

Domestic drilling restricts the freedom for people nearby to have clean water (Durango, Colo man could light water from the tap on fire) and fracking causes earthquakes (Oklahoma, Colorado).

Lack of Gun Control takes the freedom away from people to travel where they want without fear (school districts, shopping malls, sports events). Children fear for their lives when going to school. Private enterprise should not put profit before people’s safety.

TSA - invasion of the freedom to privacy of private citizens. This is a Republican institution which has recently been relaxed under Obama (older people and children can keep their shoes on when going through airport security).

Increased Taxes - tax policies would increase payment rates for small business owners /as well as/ corporations, infringing on the private citizens' freedom to own property. This does not make sense. Increased taxes on corporations have nothing to do with a private citizen’s freedom to own property. Apples and oranges.

Social Wealth Redistribution - tax policies and legal benefit programs using taxpayer money to subsidize exclusive groups of citizens, often non-taxpayers. This would be a Republican strategy whereby wealthy individuals and corporations are given special breaks not permitted the average citizen. Corporations often pay no taxes, thus putting the burden of financing infrastructure on the less wealthy, middle class and poor. Infringes on the private citizen's freedom to keep owned property. See above. Corporate taxes have nothing to do with private ownership.

Increasing age of marital consent – I don’t believe this is an issue in the U.S.

Obamacare opposition removes the freedom of women to work where they please and still get quality health coverage. This issue has been resolved through modification of the Affordable Care Act in which religious organizations themselves are not required to provide coverage for situations contrary to their beliefs such as contraception. Allowing a religious business employer to impose his beliefs on his employees by not providing contraceptive services again removes the freedom for women to work where they want. It also restricts the employees freedom of religion. In keeping with the first amendment that government not show favoritism of one religion over another, non-Christian religious beliefs would also have to be accommodated. It would then be possible for a Jewish company to require all its male employees to be circumcised or allow a Muslim corporation to require its female employees to wear burqas.

Abortion choice – removes a woman’s freedom to decide about her own body.

Smear Campaigns – Conservative talk show hosts are more likely to engage in slander than Dems, i.e. Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut or Glenn Beck’s comparison of Obama to Satan. MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz never make such slanderous statements.

Taxes - This is the libertarian view that government should not exist. Has nothing to do with Democrats.

Pro-Woman's Choice Abortion – allows a woman the freedom to make decisions regarding her own body.

Fields v. Palmdale School District – I don’t see how this relates to Democrats. It was decided in the Ninth District court, not in a legislature.

Side: Pro-freedom
unownmew(160) Disputed
2 points

Freedom for whom? It doesn't matter who gets the freedom, what matters is that what is intended by the letter and the spirit of the law is obeyed. Freedom is the ability to exercise your inherent rights, or in other words, exercise the natural powers nature has given you.

There is no such thing as freedom "from" something. Freedom is an action. Under the Declaration of Independence, "The People" are defined as having particular inviolable rights. The US Constitution only codifies these natural powers, and is intended, in the most efficient manner as possible as understood at the time, to protect them from the infringement by the government it itself has designed, as well as the infringement by other powers given to man.

The majority of your argument is based upon the false concept of "freedom from," which is not only a misnomer, but entirely impossible to accomplish. No one has "freedom from" being impacted by their surrounding environment. Such can only exist in a void.

Side: Anti-freedom
unownmew(160) Clarified
2 points

Domestic drilling - Your first argument only proves my point, you are looking for "freedom from" but that can only exist in a void. Do I have a right to be free "from" insect bites? Or my well running dry? Or having neighbors living nearby? It's just as laughably ridiculous. No one has a "right" to clean water, because even if society did not exist, there would still be filthy water in places around the world, and without society, there would be nothing to stop people from dirtying water anyway if they so desired.

Gun control - again, another "freedom from." You don't have the right to Not be fearful, especially since such fear is a conscious choice. I'd feel 100% safe if everyone in my town owned and carried a gun openly, including myself.

TSA - it's republicans, and others, that are fighting against it, particularly in my state which is run by republicans.

Increased Taxes - I specifically stated "Business Owners" which ARE private citizens, and ARE being taxed. it doesn't matter if it's a private business or a corporate enterprise, they're both run by private citizens and all private citizens that run them are taxed.

Social Wealth Distribution - Even with these special breaks, these "rich" Private Citizens, and Corporations, and Businesses, are all still paying more taxes, both percent wise, and straight monetarily, than the "average" citizen, except in very rare cases. It was Obama who subsidized Solyndra with taxpayer money, not the Republicans. Obviously they both engage in it, but that just proves that liberals do engage in it.

Increasing age of marital Consent - it's not an "issue" in that it's hotly contested and in the forefront of everyone's mine when it comes to important issues, but it has been trending upwards for some time, and this debate was directly spurred by a liberal who was heatedly against it, so I thought I'd make a little jab at it to prove a point. Whether it's an issue or not however, you have not proven that it does Not infringe on the freedom to marry, so the point stands.

Obamacare - again, a "freedom from" argument. Having employment And having all the benefits you want, at the same time, is not a right. If it was, you'd be able to have healthcare and employment of your choice after society collapses.

The right of a business owner to NOT provide something, as opposed to forcing something on their employees are completely different matters. But, employers Already have the right to enforce their beliefs on their employees or fire them. If you don't follow the company's "nonreligious" ethics or policies, you're fired. What difference does it make if the policy is wearing a company uniform vs getting circumsized? Or the ethic is being civil to customers vs being religious in general?

Abortion - A fetus is not a part of a woman's body, it is a separate entity derived from portions of a male's and a females body. That sort of argument is like saying a leech is a part of a person while it's latched on, or a tick. They're not, and neither is a fetus.

Smear campaigns - I'm referring to liberals in general, any liberal, but mostly the majority of liberal voters, not just liberal leaders. Conservatives I've heard don't go off deliberately telling lies or trying to assassinate a person's character. They may make the rude comment, but it's minor compared to what I've heard liberals say about people who don't agree with them.

Taxes - Do you, or do yo not, deny that Taxes are forceful seizures of property? If you agree that they are, then you have no choice but to accept the fact that Taxes are an infringement of the right, and freedom, to acquire and keep property. It doesn't matter who's view it is, if the Democrats support taxes, then they support the infringement of the freedom to own property, which makes their view one of anti-freedom.

pro-woman's choice abortion - Again, it's not part of their body, it's just inside their body. Or are tapeworms also a part of a woman's body?

Fields v. Palmdale School District - it doesn't matter where it originated, it originated from a liberal judge, so my point stands. I'm not stating that Liberal Congressmen are anti-freedom, I'm stating that liberals in general are anti-freedom.

The only way to effectively counter my evidence is to prove that they are not liberal viewpoints, or at the very least, are not viewpoints held by the majority of the liberal populace. Otherwise your side is sunk.

Side: Anti-freedom
QuestionMan(604) Disputed
1 point

TSA - TSA - invasion of the freedom to privacy of private citizens. This is a Republican institution which has recently been relaxed under Obama (older people and children can keep their shoes on when going through airport security)

To start this off S. 1447 (107th): Aviation and Transportation Security Act (On Passage of the Bill) was the bill that formed the Transportation Security Administration. The truth is both parties passed S. 1447 (107th): Aviation and Transportation Security Act (On Passage of the Bill). It was actually passed with 50 Democratic party votes, 49 republicans and 1 Independent signing and passed the house 100-0. (Source 1) It also came into the House on Nov 16. 2001 and passed 410-9 and all who voted nay were Republicans. (Source 2) The truth is both parties caused it and it is misleading to say that the Republicans started it as you claimed. Here is a nice overview I found. (Source 3). All sources are at the bottom of this argument.

I agree that Republicans have done and passed bills. Before I go I disagree with them on some issues but to blame them for all our troubles makes no sense. Also I would like to put out that the same can be said about the Democratic party. The climate after 9/11 was panic and people were scared and the National Security Agency and the Transportation Security Agency and other government agencies were drawn up.

The claim that the Republican party caused it is unfounded upon evidence and therefore a misconception.

1. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s295

2. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/h448

3. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/s1447#overview

Side: Anti-freedom
1 point

Please be a troll, if nope you are stupid...............................

Side: Pro-freedom
1 point

Abortion is a right, fetuses are not people.

Republicans ban gay marriage, why do you want young kids to marry?

Cons are the leaders in slander (like your list)

Cons want to brainwashed all kids with their religion.

Side: Pro-freedom
2 points

Abortion is a right, fetuses are not people.

Well, actually, abortion is a privilege.

Cons are the leaders in slander (like your list)

It isn't slander. It is written down, it is libel. Hehe :)

Side: Pro-freedom

Democrat Liberals are Pro-Freedom and inclusive of all. They are also anti-war.

Side: Pro-freedom