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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
I Won't Lie. I Find Conservatism Abhorrently And Offensively Stupid.
American conservatism isn't politics. It is more like religious fanaticism than politics. These clowns are more concerned with twisting words than debating facts, since the facts almost always prove them unambiguously wrong. They are just like religious fanatics in that they are always looking to circumvent facts and create excuses to preserve belief in their bizarre cult slogans and self-contradictory talking points. They are, above all, fervent deniers of science. Weak-minded little bigots who are afraid of their own shadow unless you give them an assault rifle and an unarmed intruder.
Let me be clear, I don't find any and all conservatives to be so, I just find the most extreme and vocal of them to be so. It's possible to be a moderate conservative who values typical conservative beliefs such as low taxes, small government, belief in God, and small steps with social issues instead of giant ones. I don't find moderate leaning conservatives a problem at all. But the radicals...
Hey, this is my third long-attended debate website and in every experience I've had it has been the radical conservatives who a) lie and/or propagandize the most, b) make the post personal attacks and insults, c) demonstrate hypocrisy daily, d) push oversimplification, e) advocate the more repugnant and vindictive policies, and f) behave the most like internet trolls.
That doesn't mean the extreme left don't do it sometimes, too. They do. But from what I've seen they're 1/10 of those transgressions.
And here's the irony. I know, from both my time on the academic debate circuit (which was substantial, through high school and college) as well as my time completing two college degrees, that the blowhard conservatives on these debate websites would either be scoring bad grades or would be dropping out of the majority of academic institutions. You really can't be throwing around profound accusations and misunderstandings about politics or economics or social issues and expect to get away with it if someone better studied and in a position of evaluation or authority over you is at the front of the room. Yet, in sites like this they think they're the faculty, they try to get away with every variation of outlandishness they think they can, and when the membership starts to thin they consider it a victory.
Trickle down economics is pseudo-intellectual bullshit. By the time any money from the top of the pyramid has "trickled down" to the bottom, it is no longer worth what it was worth when it was at the top. The scarcer money is the more it is worth. If there is a sudden abundance of it at the bottom then all that achieves is the relative devaluation of the currency.
As I've said, we need a return to the GOP. This pack of radicals we are experiencing now are quite different from the days before Reagan (and Gingrich and FOX). They were, at least, reasonable and would work with others that had other visions. I agree that conservatives of today are not far removed from one party fascism! They show no inclination to government OF, FOR and BY the people....just those that agree with THEM. If they get any stronger, America as we know it (or even KNEW it), will be gone. The founding fathers would turn over in their graves to see what the "Party of Lincoln" has evolved into!
To be fair, there ARE radicals on the "other" side, but, far less dangerous and more controllable, in the short term and NOT as dangerous to the people, more to the economy. We need the balance we had before the above mentioned conservative entities.
Hello. I can't completely disagree but I would say it's more about fanaticism than simply religious fanaticism. It's very much like many hardcore Liberals though, I can't say the majority dances in crazy town, it's really mostly the loud ones that get the attention and make the rest of the party look bad.
I don't agree with most things Conservatives say, some of the ones on here are pretty hypocritical but they do have some good points occasionally, it's just the loud ones that get the most attention and look the most ridiculous.
I SAID it was a dupe, but I lied.. What I SAID was, "Dem RAT WEENGRS is STOOPID and OFENCIV, amirit?", and then I deleted it because, after all, I AGREE with your sentiments.. But, your entire post CAN be boiled down to those few words.
And, I come down HARD on right wingers here who post that exact same crap.. If you substitute the word liberal with conservative, it's indistinguishable from right wing spew.. It doesn't advance the conversation. It doesn't promote debate.. It just makes you feel better..
Sure they are the rich grape growers there in Napa Valley need people to pick the grapes for the wine. Moonbeam you mean to tell me the money from the rich is not trickling down to the grape pickers ? Once again Moonbeam you try so hard to argue a point you can't defend.
The religion of liberalism tells us there are 50 genders, that socialism is good, that being white and male is a sin, thinks we need "safe spaces", and doesn't believe it's who you are but what you are that matters. Sorry, don't sign me up. I like living in the greatest nation in human history. If you want to turn America into a distopian society, there's the ocean...swim.
Of course I am biased against things which are stupid and morally wrong. You threw three red herrings out there (witty, unbiased and civil) to try to fool people into believing I wanted to achieve these things, when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth. You should try it sometime instead of having a tantrum whenever someone criticises your faith. Your apparent theory that Conservatives should be able to do anything they like to the world and the others in it without suffering "bias" is quite clearly fucking ridiculously stupid. Do you take the same position when you talk about Maoists or Stalinists you snivelling hypocrite?
Obviously, you admit to being biased: "Of course I am biased"
Then, you implied that the other criticism were also true: "to try to fool people into believing I wanted to achieve these things, when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth. "
So you are delusional as well as dishonest? That's nice. Now, how about that quote I asked for, you pitifully stupid cunt?
Obviously, you admit to being biased: "Of course I am biased"
You seem to have missed the obvious sarcasm in that remark while you were busy chopping up my sentences and rearranging them to mean the things you want them to mean.
Then, you implied that the other criticism were also true: "to try to fool people into believing I wanted to achieve these things, when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth. "
The quoted statement says absolutely nothing about whether the accusations are true. It says they aren't relevant to the topic. If I claim the theory of a flat Earth isn't relevant to my topic does that mean I "implied" the flat Earth theory is true?
Fuck off you intellectual retard. You're a liar and an idiot.
So you are delusional as well as dishonest? That's nice. Now, how about that quote I asked for, you pitifully stupid cunt?
I gave you the quotes you stupid fuck.
The quoted statement says absolutely nothing about whether the accusations are true.
So you are delusional as well as dishonest?
I claim the theory of a flat Earth isn't relevant to my topic does that mean I "implied" the flat Earth theory is true?
That isn't what happened. If you said, "you try to fool people into thinking I claimed the Earth is round, when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth. " that would definitely imply you think the Earth is flat.
Fuck off you intellectual retard. You're a liar and an idiot.
What about you? You claimed I didn't give you the quotes you asked for then you discussed the quotes I gave you that you asked for.
You gave two different quotes and neither of them supported the claim you made. You are a pathetically dishonest little retard.
So you are delusional as well as dishonest?
Either provide the support for your false claim that you were asked for or fuck off back to the playground. Just what do you gain by pretending to provide what you were asked for? That is indicative of a serious mental illness.
That isn't what happened.
I was using an analogy you persistently stupid child. The statement you quoted said the accusations were not relevant to the topic, not that they were true. Are you under the impression that people who see this exchange are not going to be able to read? Because that is the only way you are going to win it, you crooked fucking moron.
I stopped reading after you claimed you saying that you are biased is not proof that you admit that he was right about you being biased. I hope you didn't have anything important to say after that.
I stopped reading after you claimed you saying that you are biased is not proof
LOL. Sure, retard. When you say something clearly dripping in sarcasm that counts as proof that you mean it sincerely. I am Hitler. Better run to the Jewish lobby with your proof, Forrest. Lol.
I hope you didn't have anything important to say after that.
Not really. I was just pointing out what a lying retard you are. Fairly self-evident stuff people are more than capable of working out on their own.
Can I have that quote now? The one where you say I agree I'm unwitty, uncivil and biased?
You couldn't even figure out you were even given quotes
I was cunningly able to deduce that you had provided no relevant quotes because I didn't say what you claim I said. I asked for a quote proving the claim you made. I didn't ask you to take out a hatchet and cut half of a sentence dripping in sarcasm in order to take the words out of context and I didn't ask you to lie about the meaning of a second quote you arbitrarily decided to paste onto the first (even though it was written in a completely different post). You did that all on your own because you are an intellectually dishonest retard whose only weapon in life is a fat mouth. You can parrot my own insults back at me all you like, but tomorrow morning when we both wake up, you are still going to be the one of us that is the "complete fucking moron".
You are two for two tonight on failing to understand sarcasm. I bet that really helps when the girls tell you, "Sure buddy, you're not the ugliest, most stupid creature I've ever met. Let's fuck." Or nah?
"Of course I am biased against things which are stupid and morally wrong."
"Stupid and morally wrong" in your thoroughly unsubstantiated opinion.
Note: the term "bias" usually implies unfairness in the prejudice in question. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't using it in that fashion.
"You threw three red herrings out there (witty, unbiased and civil)"
I fail to see how sarcastic slights qualify as a distraction tactic, particularly when I had little else to say anyway.
"to try to fool people into believing I wanted to achieve these things,"
This based on what? How can you claim me to be implying anything with my statement other than that your original post holds none of the aforementioned virtues?
"when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth."
Are you claiming the aforementioned virtues (specifically civility) to be of secondary concern?
"You should try it sometime instead of having a tantrum whenever someone criticises your faith."
To start off, this statement not only mischaracterizes Conservatism, which is a political ideology and not, in fact, a faith-based belief set.
Further, how can you justify claiming my "having a tantrum"? Last I checked, I'm not the one hurling entirely unsubstantiated abuse at those who differ from my political views.
Finally, the term "criticism" implies the expression of disapproval based on specific actions; your first post amounted to no more than meaningless, ambiguous namecalling.
"Your apparent theory that Conservatives should be able to do anything they like to the world and the others in it without suffering "bias" is quite clearly fucking ridiculously stupid."
Agreed. Unfortunately for your straw-man argument, however, this is not a position I, or, I would imagine, any Conservatives hold.
While I hesitate to speculate on this absurd notion's origins, I suspect it to have been conjured up from the madness that is the byproduct of your social echo chamber.
"Do you take the same position when you talk about Maoists or Stalinists you snivelling hypocrite?"
If I don't take this position with a political group you're lumping me into (and I most certainly don't), why would I do so with those I disagree with?
One thing before I end off: much as you think it may be, a debate website is far from an appropriate medium to vent unwarranted anger towards those you disagree with. I understand it can be frustrating to man-children like you who throw a hissy fit when they don't get their way, but this isn't going to solve anything.
"Stupid and morally wrong" in your thoroughly unsubstantiated opinion.
I was making a point you fucking idiot. You implied (falsely) that I think Conservatism is stupid because of bias, but the reality is I am biased against Conservatism because it is stupid. You might as well accuse me of being "biased" against the geocentric model of the universe, you complete raging moron.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
I'm going to ask you to stop saying stupid things to me.
I fail to see how sarcastic slights qualify as a distraction tactic
Then you are a fucking retard, aren't you? Your "sarcastic slights" had nothing to do with the topic. They were empty personal attacks which, if anything, prove the validity of the opening post.
This based on what?
This is based on me knowing I had no intention of being witty or civil.
How can you claim me to be implying anything with my statement other than that your original post holds none of the aforementioned virtues?
Because your"statement" has nothing to do with the topic and is an unjustified personal attack. Do you need a diagram?
Are you claiming the aforementioned virtues (specifically civility) to be of secondary concern?
They are of no concern whatsoever, secondary or otherwise, because none of them have anything to do with my topic. You offered no argument, but instead attempted to seize the moral high ground and then blew raspberries at me. You are nothing more than a petulant child.
This was when you randomly pulled the word "bias" out of your asshole and tried to use it as a weapon.
The sad thing about this statement is that the one it's supposedly refuting itself serves as a perfect refutation to it.
The sad thing about your infantile circular argument is that it applies to every fact in the known universe. Bananas are yellow? You're just saying that because you're biased. Bruce Willis is bald? Well, what a thoroughly "unbiased" argument that is!! Like I mentioned once already, you are a petulant child using playground rhetoric and expecting a serious reply.
Such as?
Such as everything you have thus far said.
serving to facilitate a meaningful discussion
You decided to start a "meaningful discussion" by ignoring the topic and using sarcasm to launch a series of unprovoked personal attacks? I must say that's quite a long-winded way to go about it. Why not just post your opinion about the topic instead?
Given the rampant, baseless namecalling on display
So you expect not to be called names in response to your unprovoked personal attacks? That's awesome. Would you like a lollipop instead? I have green or blue.
"This was when you randomly pulled the word "bias" out of your asshole and tried to use it as a weapon."
I pointed out that your post was obviously biased, which you yourself acknowledge is the case.
If you pay any thought to what you write (which is highly questionable), you may have noticed that you both claimed my remark regarding your bias was the basis for a rebuttal (which is in of itself absurd) and that it's entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I feel I shouldn't have to point out the self-contradictory nature of these statements. If you're going to be rude and call others retarded, you could at least have the decency to be consistent.
"The sad thing about your infantile circular argument is that it applies to every fact in the known universe. Bananas are yellow? You're just saying that because you're biased."
What are you talking about? Let's take the two statements I was referring to, and use them in the manner I stated:
"but the reality is I am biased against Conservatism because it is stupid" (your statement)
"Stupid and morally wrong" in your thoroughly unsubstantiated opinion." (my statement)
Now, where's my claim that you're wrong because you're biased? The only mention of bias was on your part, and bore no relevance to my claim of your argument's invalidity.
"Like I mentioned once already, you are a petulant child using playground rhetoric and expecting a serious reply."
The irony is not lost on me.
"Such as everything you have thus far said."
Care to explain how, or are you going to persist in your utterly unsubstantiated attacks?
"You decided to start a "meaningful discussion" by ignoring the topic"
As above. Further, how is making a statement regarding the characteristics of your original post irrelevant to it?
"and using sarcasm to launch a series of unprovoked personal attacks?"
Holy mother of projection! A simple comparison: which is an "unprovoked personal attack", A. making a sarcastic remark regarding the characteristics of an asinine, thoroughly unsubstantiated personal attack on the subscribers to an entire political ideology, or B. said personal attack, not to mention all the baseless namecalling that follows it?
"Why not just post your opinion about the topic instead?"
I believe I did.
"So you expect not to be called names"
Given that this is a debate platform, that would be what one hopes for.
"in response to your unprovoked personal attacks? "
I love how you state that as if your original post was anything but that.
You pulled a random accusation of bias out of your asshole.
which you yourself acknowledge is the case.
I acknowledged that I am biased in the same way I am biased against the geocentric model of the universe. It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand the implications of that statement.
If you pay any thought to what you write
Your insults only show your own childishness and stupidity.
you may have noticed that you both claimed my remark regarding your bias was the basis for a rebuttal (which is in of itself absurd)
Right. So failing to agree with your completely baseless accusation which was not supported by anything remotely resembling evidence is "absurd". Gotcha. Burden of proof is on me to disprove your random bullshit. Conservatism in its absolute element.
and that it's entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand
You are deceitfully isolating the word "bias" from your initial attack, which also concerned my civility and my wit. This is dishonest and stupid. Also dishonest and stupid is pulling random accusations of bias out of your idiotic asshole and expecting other people to disprove them.
What are you talking about?
Your inability to understand English is not my problem. It is proof of the validity of the opening post.
Let's take the two statements I was referring to, and use them in the manner I stated:
Let's not because the only person who enjoys reading the idiotic, convoluted gibberish you type is you. You can't structure coherent paragraphs so I do not have a fucking clue why you are using a debating site. You are an idiot. It is fortunate for you that your own narcissism is blocking your view of this self-evident fact.
Now, where's my claim that you're wrong because you're biased?
You are a retard. Now where's my claim that you are wrong because you are a retard?
Pretending you do not know the obvious implications of your own attack, when the implications are the reason you made the attack in the first place, is childish, stupid, and has absolutely no point. It's a waste of your time as much as mine.
You really are proving that the assertions in the OP are absolutely accurate.
"You pulled a random accusation of bias out of your asshole."
Are you serious? Bias is prejudice for or against an entity (be it a person, population, or organization). Are you seriously claiming that your original post is not indicative of bias?
"It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand the implications of that statement."
Oh? We've yet to "discuss" the implications of your acknowledged bias, so why are you assuming my lack of comprehension?
"Your insults only show your own childishness and stupidity."
That was not itself an insult, but a condition of the next phrase in that sentence (I.E. "if... then"). Why you apparently feel the need to add another baseless insult here is beyond me.
"So failing to agree with your completely baseless accusation which was not supported by anything remotely resembling evidence is "absurd"."
The only "evidence" I would need to substantiate my point that your original post is biased is the definition of the term, and the post itself. Both are objectively observable and easily accessible, and I've already pointed out how they're related. Must I go into explicit detail?
"You are deceitfully isolating the word "bias" from your initial attack, which also concerned my civility and my wit."
More projection; the only reason I reference the accusation to the exclusion of the other two is because you've apparently decided to fixate on it. I'm simply rebutting your statements.
"This is dishonest and stupid."
Failing to provide all points made equal attention is "dishonest and stupid"?
"Also dishonest and stupid is pulling random accusations of bias out of your idiotic asshole and expecting other people to disprove them."
I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "random". My accusation of uncivility should be fairly obvious, since your original post consisted of quite literally nothing but baseless insults directed towards Conservatives, while my accusation of lack of wit, while somewhat subjective, was based on the supreme lack of diversity in said original post: all of those statements can be summed up in one of three sentences: "Conservatives are wrong", "Conservatives are idiots", and "Conservatives are deceptive". This singularity quite early on reaches the point of redundancy, hence lack of wit.
"Let's not because the only person who enjoys reading the idiotic, convoluted gibberish you type is you."
That you're focusing on my writing format (which, interestingly, you have yet to provide any specific accusations against, other than "it's bad") rather than my point itself speaks volumes of the legitimacy of your position.
"so I do not have a fucking clue why you are using a debating site. You are an idiot."
Given the intellectual dishonesty on display here, I wonder that myself. Actually, come to think of it, you've yet to provide any specific accusation against an argument of mine, instead dismissing everything with some variation of"it's wrong, that's self evident fact, and you're an idiot". In my experience, that's invariably indicative of faith in one's own beliefs (in this case, hatred for Conservatives), which is so unfathomably strong as to completely overpower reason and decency. As that's clearly the case, I believe I'm done here. One can only beat their head against the brick wall of madness for so long, after all.
You have very predictably left out half the dictionary definition of "bias". The specific part that reveals your intentions in making the claim of bias in the first place:-
Bias: inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, ESPECIALLY IN A WAY CONSIDERED TO BE UNFAIR.
As you have more than proven, my assessment of Conservatism is fair. You have resorted to distorting the facts by your second sentence. I will not continue to give your complete lack of honesty any merit by reading or responding to it. If you want to play, "Who can tell the most whopping lies", then go play with someone else.
Oh? We've yet to "discuss" the implications of your acknowledged bias
He didn't acknowledge bias. Stop misrepresenting what he said. He said he is biased in the same way he is biased against the theory that the Earth is the centre of the universe (which was disproved 400 years ago). He was being blatantly sarcastic. He explained that in the actual paragraph you are replying to, so I don't really see the point in trying to twist what he meant by his own words.
Yes Cartman. It makes me retarded that you don't understand the difference between literal and figurative speech. On the one hand, you militantly deny understanding what sarcasm is, and on the other, you accuse me of having Down Syndrome. You contradict yourself more often than Donald Trump.
You contradict yourself, then you tell me I contradict myself. Fuck you are retarded. What's next? Are you going to accuse me of having the username "Quantumhead"?
You continuously lie and outright ignore all proof that you are lying. When people use sarcasm they usually mean the precise opposite of what they say. For example: your posts are not at all meaningless crocks of shit which help mask a completely pointless existence.
You either just admitted that you always hear the exact opposite of the truth, or that I rarely open my big stupid mouth. Your comebacks are still garbage. It seems like you have spent 10 years researching comebacks.
Thanks for showing us all, in one paragraph, the utter intolerance and bigoted hatred Liberal fools have for those who do not agree with them.
Hillary called Conservatives deplorable and irredeemable. You did what all Leftwing bigots do by spewing pure rhetoric with not one example to prove your point.
When I speak out on what Liberals support, I give facts of how they support No Restriction abortions of viable babies for any reson up to birth.
I show with facts their total lack of compassion for our most vulnerable children. I show their intolerance and censorship of opposing opinions.
I show the facts of Public funded Colleges displaying paintings of Trump's severed head on their walls.
Liberals are the biggest hypocrites on the Planet, pretending to have compassion and tolerance while supporting the exact opposite.
Go climb back into your hole, and if you perfect your intolernt hate, you might someday end up with a fake news job.
