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'm still waiting for one Progressive on this site to address State sponsered hate speech.
It's funny how the Progressives, Liberals, Democrats on this site refuse to address my debates that shows them to be such hypocrites with unbelievable double standards. Our Government is sponsering hate Art in our public Colleges by allowing funding to some public Colleges that chose to display Trump's severed head on their walls.
I want examples of State sponsered hate speech or hate Art against Obama on our public College walls!
So far all I get are posts from deceptive idiots talking about things private citizens have said against Obama.
CRICKETS! SILENCE! NOTHING AS ALWAYS!
I've been waiting for weeks to get a response from Liberals on this site who are complaining about how medicaid cuts by republicans would have people dieing in the streets. But when I enlightened them to the cuts to medicare by Obama's healthcare plan (obamacare), they refuses to respond to why older people would not be dieing in the streets.
Oh I get it, people only die when Republicans make cuts, it's as clear as mud.
It's sad that someone such as yourself, who has the education and ability to write a coherent sentence, keeps missing the entire point. I would suggest you completely understand the point but lack the integrity to admit it.
You asked me where I get the notion that the Left thinks displaying Trump's severed head on the walls of public Colleges is acceptable. Let me explain the obvious.
The Democrat Party has no problem funding public universities that choose to display hate Art such as Trump's severed head! THAT'S IT! We also hear no outrage or protests in the streets from these same Leftists who scream everytime Trump sneezes.
This means it is acceptable to the Left because there is no call by the Left to cut funding to the very Colleges that would do such a barbaric thing. This is nothing less than Government funded hate Art.
If you want me to actually believes this type of hate Art bothers the Left, then show me where Democrats are calling to defund these Colleges if they refuse to stop displaying hate Art.
You seem to be repeatedly claiming that the "Democratic Party" has no problem with it.
It made the news on Brietbart, the Blaze, and Fox for one day and one article. I follow the former and the latter (maybe 3-4 times a week) and completely missed them.
I follow twitter (even right wing stuff), and it wasn't on any trending articles; I didn't see it figuring prominently on much or any media.
I searched the NYT, WaPo and MSNBC and couldn't find any mention of it; and no article in support of it.
Indeed, when I did a full news google search of it and it shows no major news articles from any network (including Brietbart, or Fox) and barely leaks into the second page.
You claim, that the Left and the democratic party have no problem with this:
How do you know that? Who have you talked to?
Are you just basing this off a lack of comment by anyone but the one or two people in the university involved?
If Democrats or the left are unaware of it; I suspect it's pretty unfair for you to presume that it's evidence that they support it.
Indeed, in this one example; it seems you are mostly just asserting, with no evidence or justification that democrats support this type of hate speech even though all the evidence points to it not being a very prominent news story, and not one that made it very far in the media to the point where I would expect many democrats to come out in support/reject it.
I agree with you, this is an unacceptable image and should be removed. It is unacceptable for the same reason that Kathy Griffin's depiction of Trump was unacceptable.
Here's what you ignore.
Do Democrats tolerate hate speech : Generally, No.
As I (and others) pointed out, examples where people cross the line are generally widely denounced by the democrats: Kathy Griffin is a case in point. You pretend that somehow that she is a private citizen and the college is a public institution makes it somehow a different thing: but both are effectively depicting the same image for the same reason, it is the INTENT and CONTEXT that matters (as I've kept stating).
The Shakespear play; was DEFENDED by WaPo, and the NYT through freedom of speech grounds; there was no uproar when Guthrie presented a depiction of Obama in Julius Caesar 5 years ago; nor his death in Kingsman.
You and the OP are sitting there, and investing some narrative that if such depictions had been made against Obama the left would have reacted differently.
I have two, specific actual examples where the democrats have denounced hate speech when it was against Trump (something you say they do not do), and have not kicked up a fuss or screamed when Obama was portrayed in Julius Caesar (something the OP said they would do).
Like I said, I'm not trying to say that Democrats or the Left are perfect and there are MANY things that I think need to change; but if you want a discussion about that, you have to accept the faults in your own team rather than acting as if everything wrong with the world is because of them; and you have to stop manufacturing these false accusations that do not stack up to the actual facts or evidence as has been shown here.
I repeat, the Democrat Party refuses to cut funding to a College that displays hate Art. Republicans have made attempts to do so but are always stopped by Democrats.
These same Liberal Colleges that display hate art against republicans, or against Christians, etc., refuse to allow Conservative speakers to their campuses. They say that these Conservative speakers might cause protests from the Left and create problems. I guess displaying the severed head of our President causes no such concerns. Gee, I wonder what that tells us about who actually has more tolerance for diverse opinions?
IT TELLS US THE LEFT IS MUCH MORE INTOLERANT OF DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT, WHILE THE RIGHT IS MUCH MORE TOLERANT AND DOES NOT CONSTANTLY CHOOSE TO PROTEST IN THE STREETS WHILE CENSORING CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS.
Your post contains some outrageous lies. I'm going to cover these one by one.
The Democratic party "REFUSES" to cut funding to a college that displays hate art?
No. You just made this up.
This occurrence was neither covered prominently, nor for very long. I can see no democrat on the record or even ASKED about this; it did not blow up on twitter.
So, in general, I think the most likely explanation is that "The Democratic Party" probably hasn't even heard of this.
So the idea that the democratic party refuses to cut funding to a college over some art that they weren't aware of; given that I'm sure that you can present no evidence of anyone going on record refusing to cut college funding, is a lie.
Secondly, it's in Alaska: In Alaska the Republicans have control over the state funding through control of the legislature AND governorship. The incident was in April 2017; Betsy Devos was in place for the department of education, and would have final control over any federal funding to the college.
It is a ridiculous lie to claim that the Democrats "refuse" to do something that it is not in their power to do anyway.
Thirdly, in reality, even if they had the power to do so, removing funding would be harming students, not the professor; unlike private organizations where removing funding, or pressuring sponsorship simply hurts a business. There could be threats to reduce funding, but never to end it; that would be detrimental to the state after all.
Finally, you keep strongly implying that this has happened more than once.
That is absurd.
So, what is pretty clear, is that you've been caught lying at least four times in this one reply.
1.) That democrats "refused" to cut funding.
2.) That democrats are even in a position to cut funding.
3.) That democrats even know about it as it was not a prominent story.
4.) That it has happened multiple times.
When you have to issue 4 untruths in a single reply in order to support your position; it should indicate to you that your position is not a strong as you claim.
What are you smoking? It seems you live in some cave and know nothing of what has been going on in our nation.
Have you heard of the crucifix in a jar of urine? This type of hate art has been displayed in publicly funded buildings for decades and the Repubican party has tried numerous times to defund Museums or art galeries that would display such hateful intolerance on their walls.
YOU COMPLETE LIAR!
Democrats have screamed everytime Republicans try to defund any of these biased intolerant places paid for by the Federal tax payers.
I'm about through here. You are proving to be a clone of every other Progressive I have debated. You see the world through Liberal ideological glasses.
How old are you? You seem to have just popped out from under some rock and know nothing of these controversial issues debated for decades. The Left has refused defunding of publicly sponsered controversial events such as these for decades.
Either wake up to what is going on, or stop playing dumb and being deceptive.
You strongly implied that this political hate-art occurs repeatedly.
You expand this two examples; with art that is unrelated in both Tone, Context and intent. Art can be contentious; that's often the point. I agree that the Trump example crosses the line, but you can't decide any art you don't like is "hate-art"; the context is pretty specific.
You also lied by saying that the Democrats "refused" to defund the college. This is a ridiculous untruth as pointed out in the previous lie.
You seem to have left that remarkably untouched.
You also seem to forget that this example was neither prominent, nor well reported; so your whole argument is dependant on Democrats as a whole knowing about something that wasn't well reported, wasn't picked up significantly by the mainstream media, wasn't big on twitter, and didn't feature prominently anywhere.
I don't understand why you can simply ignore all of those obvious falsehoods; ignore every example where democrats behave completely contrary to how you say they behave (and the examples are numerous):
and then claim I am the liar, and I am the one living in a cave.
Your position is incoherent, reliant on you ignoring contrary examples, and manufacturing evidence.
You're problem, is that you don't even seem to have a consistent or coherent definition of what it is you're taking issue with.
To me, hate speech, is speech that is attempting to explicitly incite violence, or prejudicial actions or can be reasonably presumed to incite violence of prejudicial actions by the demonization, dehumanization of an individual or other depiction that could cause the normalization of violence or prejudice against that person; I cast the net widely, in that it doesn't have to be against a race, gender or protected group like much of the law.
I think that's a pretty fair definition; and Art would be one form of that hate speech.
In this respect; Julius Caesar is not hate speech; the painting of trump is border line, Kathy Griffin and the likes of Ted Nugent who implied death on Obama were very much cross that line.
Piss Christ; offensive probably, but hate-art no.
So, do you have a consistent definition for hate-art?
Or are you simply a snowflake, who has been triggered by Art that you simply find contentious or offensive, but cannot find any other argument against?
I'm simply a person that has lived life, has followed politics and know 100% the truth of what I'm telling you.
You are like every Liberal I have ever debated. You act like people living on other planets denying any knowledge of the things that the Left has done for decades and is stilll doing today.
The Federal Government should get out of funding all Art museums, galleries, Colleges, when they continue to display very controversial things. Tax payers should never be forced to pay for things that you yourself say could be hate Art depending on each person's view.
Why are we funding abortions in Planned parenthood? IT'S TOO CONTROVERSIAL!
The money should be going to women's health organizations that DO NOT PROVIDE ABORTIONS!!!!!! How simple would that be? But Democrats ALWAYS REFUSE TO COMPROMISE!
People who elect these Liberal Democrats are responsible for tax dollars paying for Abortions, and people who say they don't want tax payer money going for abortions, but keep right on electing these controlling Liberal Democrats, are responsible.
You claim to "know 100% the truth of what I'm telling you."
You claimed that "Democrats refused to defund" the college.
REPUBLICANS are in charge of this colleges STATE funding.
REPUBLICANS are in charge of this colleges FEDERAL funding.
No one would try and defund a college anyway, even were this correct.
And you have offered no evidence at all that "Democrats" even really knew this happened; commented on it or defended it.
So no; you don't know 100% the truth of it, because you've MANUFACTURED at least this claim (and demonstrably others as I've pointed out).
You've barely attempted to defend ANYTHING you've said when I've pointed out that there are many examples and evidence that you are wrong; and have either changed the subject, or have done what you're doing here: and simply resorted to a rant about how evil you think Democrats are based on the same untruths that I have shown to be untruths.
So, in reality; no.
You may "Know" that democrats are evil and are living on other planets; but you're arguments to try and show it are all based on misrepresentation, ignoring key evidence that proves you wrong; a refusal to defend of your accusation with evidence, and the manufacturing of key facts to make the people it's already clear you hate look bad.
No, you are making up evidence to support your own bias.
The reason I can happily say that you are making things up is because:
1.) You've repeatedly been saying things that are demonstrably untrue.
2.) When this is pointed out, you have almost never defended those claims; instead you have made another unrelated argument or simply gone on a rant.
3.) You have repeatedly refused to consider, or even acknowledge that democrats have often done the very things you claim they never do.
4.) You have repeatedly refused to consider, or even acknowledge that republicans (including the president), repeatedly engage in behavior that is arguably worse and more dangerous and have for the last 25 years.
So no, you're not correct; reality does not show you are correct; an ACTUAL EXAMPLES and ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
You are confusing BEING right, with WANTING TO BE right and the way you can tell is pretty simply:
I'm sorry, wait a second. DEMOCRATS refuse to compromise????
You want to de-fund a program where only 3% of it goes to abortion-related instance. Now, I realize 3% out of 100% is a VERY high number for you so let's break it down by numbers.
42% goes to STD screening. This is a good thing. Men use it too.
34% goes to Contraception. This is a good thing. I mean you don't want those babies to be aborted so the logical step would be to support a system that helps prevent that choice from becoming an option. Men use it too.
11% is other women's services. This is a good thing.
9% is Cancer screening. This is a good thing. Men use it too.
3% is Abortion services. Yes this is not so good but that's there.
1% is other.
So out of ALL that, 97% goes towards those who aren't getting an abortion. It goes to people who can't afford typical medical care, it goes to families, it goes towards adoption services (yes, Planned Parenthood does help and provide information for adoption services), it goes to the needy. But because a VERY small percentage of it goes to abortion (which can be used if the woman is at high risk pregnancy, in instances of rape and incest and so on...) you want to remove the safe haven they all go to. Yeah, Democrats don't compromise....sure.
Not all of PP goes to women's health, I thought I made that clear. Nothing I said was deception, it was fact, just because YOU don't like it does't make it deception.
What you did was waste our time telling us all the good things that women get from the Government funding for women's health issues.
Myself and the GOP AGREE and say we would rather fund organizations that do not deal in the abortion trade, and continue to help women. NO BRAINER!
It's sad we have people like you so deceptive to try and scare people to how women will lose all those health benefits if we stop funding Planned Parenthood.
There can only be one reason....... you want to keep forcing tax payers to pay for abortions.
You see absolutely everything that you don't agree with as deception. Tax payers would pay MORE if it was defunded as the cost of Medicaid spending would increase without the reduced cost of care that PP provides. If low-income people can't get affordable care or have access to the services (for both men and women) that PP has where do you think they are going to go? But you don't really care because 3% goes to abortion, how much of that 3% are having to abort because of health issues, rape, and incest? What you want is to cut of your nose to spite your face.
You are wasting my time as with most of your responses.
Here's the reality of what would happen if defunding for PP happened.
PP would either stop their inhumanity of supporting abortion, or another women's organization would gladly take Government money to support women's health issues without killing unborn babies, which by the way is unbelievable controversial!
To even mention Rape and incest as reasons for PP makes you a true waste of time.
Do you have ANY IDEA how few of those types of abortions there are compared to the vast majority of elective abortions for simply ending a pregnancy?
Please spare us all the moronic pro abortion rhetoric. We've heard all your deceptions a million times before.
We will put those few rape and incest abortions under medicaid ok? Nah, there is no getting fools on the Left to compromise with this sickening controversial abortion issue. You want tax payers to fund all abortions for any reason as per usual.
Last I checked, you hold and maintain a somewhat extensive ban list of your more vocal opponents, so it's not terribly surprising that they don't respond to your statements (which are, quite ironically, almost exactly like those of certain other persons, if opposite in ideological polarity).
You should check again because the people I ban are not just vocal. They are deceptive, they are childish, they are vulgar. Each person I ban has different traits that belong nowhere on the debates I create.
I am vocal and passionate about the issues I speak to but one thing I am not is deceptive, childish or vulgar.
I do not care when people ban me but they seldom do because I always strive to be honest and civil to those who are honest and civil to me.
I look at the ban feature as I do the power of the boycott. We all have the power within us to make America a better place.
We can improve our businesses with the power of the boycott. We can improve our debate sites with the power of the ban. Vulgar people woud not be vulgar if everyone banned them. They need an audience to spew their vulgarity.
People on this site constantly say that we should allow all people to express their opinions, and if we don't it is considered censorship.
I say it is anything but censorship. They have every right to keep creating their vulgar deceptive childish debates, but no one has to be forced to listen to it.
I guarantee you that if everyone started banning bad behavior, the bad behavior would improve. This is how society functions. We hold people accountabile for their actons. This is how we raise our children, this is how businesses hire and fire people, this is how we send a message to Government with our vote, etc. etc.
When we allow unchecked irresponsibility, it will only get worse.
Have I ever banned someone who did not deserve it? Probably so, but I try not to make a habit of it. I give people second chances on my debates and the ones on the ban list have had multiple opportuinities to be honest.
I may have banned you before yet here you are. When you stay honest and civil I will most times reply in kind.
If I recall correctly (and as you acknowledge in your last statement), I was previously on your ban list for some time. Now, being quite prideful of both my mannerisms and rationality, I can't say I've ever been "deceptive," "childish," and "vulgar," particularly on a debate site. Would you kindly inform me, then, as to the reasoning behind my ban?
First of all I don't remember having you on my ban list, and if I did it was for a short time, Unless you changed your name and started acting less deceptive.
Let me explain what I consider deception because many people deny being deceptive in their posts.
I recently debated a person concerning defunding Planned Parenthood.
The GOP has stated that they want to stop funding PP because it supports a very controversial issue of abortion.
The GOP stated very clearly they did not want to stop the funding for other women's health issues. They want to start giving the same money they give to PP, to other women's organizations that do not deal in the abortion trade. WHAT A GREAT IDEA COMPROMISE...RIGHT? Nahhhhh, not to the Left.
The Progressive I was debating read my post and respinded with paragraphs of how 97% of PP is dealing with heath issues other than Abortion, and since supposedly only 3% went to killing babies, we should keep the funding.
She said that the GOP & myself would deny women 97% of the non controversial women's health needs, because of abortion.
THAT IS PURE DECEPTION! I clearly stated that the GOP wanted to keep funding the 97% of non controversial women's health issues.
The people I ban refuse to admit their deception and it is CONSTANT!
Political art on the walls of public colleges is nothing new. A college can endorse an artist's right to create art (remember the first amendment) without endorsing their message. "State sponsored hate speech" is a massive stretch.
If a public university brings in a speaker who is controversial, is that amoral?
Do you want to try it again? Or do you want to get banned once more for telling others I ban people who simply dissagree with me? THAT'S A LIE!
First of all Community Colleges are not funded by our Federal Government, so the people in individual communities decide for themselves what they display on their walls. If i were a tax payer in an area where my taxes help pay for hate Art, I would try to stop it.
Secondly, you show me LOVE ART, not hate Art!
They are depicting Obama as the greatest man to ever walk on this Earth. A man with no sin, who loved the world so much that he was willing to die for us all.
My point is that colleges, and state-sponsored institutions, fund artists, fund political thinkers, fund speakers, and fund people with opinions. And there's no "hate art" exceptions to the first amendment. You can endorse someone's right to create work and hang that work on a wall without endorsing the work, be it "love art" or "hate art" or anything of the sort.
If i were a tax payer in an area where my taxes help pay for hate Art, I would try to stop it.
So you would only support the funding of artists if the artists were spouting a message that you find appropriate? I personally think that's rather problematic.
.
Also
Or do you want to get banned once more
Dude, I don't care if you ban me. Last time you banned me because I "spouted the lies" that you have, in the past, banned people for being off-topic (which you have, and that's well within your right) and because I said that anti-Obama art exists. I stand by both of those statements, you can do what you want.
First of all you are a liar to suggest I banned you for what you said about Obama. You lied about why I ban people and I will always ban liars.
I have made it clear many times that Government shouod not be in the business of funding anything that could be controversial such as abortion, the Arts, Planned parenthood, etc. etc. etc.
If people put Obama's severed head on a public College wall, I would be just as opposed to it, but of course we know that the Right is not so clinically deranged to do such a thing on public buildings.
We have hate laws that prohibit things on public buildings that might incite violence, but of course when it comes to demonizing Conservatives, the hate laws do not apply.
There are no hate Art exceptions to the First Amendment of the United States Constitutioon.
There is one exception. Can you describe the difference in basic principle between Freedom and Liberty? Freedom equals liberty minus self-value. Freedom is not the same as Liberty.
Only Art containing the likeness of objects is art demonstrating freedom, by basic principle art that holds the likeness of a person is a liberty.
