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.
If a person votes for an admitted KKK member, is he responsible for racist policies?
A five year old would possess the simple honesty and intellect to say... of course.
Why is it those on the Left on this debate site refuse to answer the simple question? I've given you many opportunities on other debates to answer the question. Why do you refuse?
We all know the answer to that question don't we. If you answered it, you would be admitting your culpability in the furtherance of the legalized inhumanity of aborting any viable baby for any reason?
People on the Left and on this debate site, refuse to admit their culpability for keeping No Restriction abortions legal in nine States. What does that say about a person's stance when he refuses to admit what he supports? If you can't bring yourself to admit supporting No Restriction abortions, why do you lack the decency to stop electing those who will keep it legal?
This bill would have still allowed extreme case abortions past 20 weeks. Except for a couple Democrat Senators, the entire Democrat Senate voted against the bill. Except for a couple GOP Senators, the entire GOP Senate voted for the bill.
“It is disappointing that despite support from a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators, this bill was blocked from further consideration,” Trump said in a statement. “The vote by the Senate rejects scientific fact and puts the United States out of the mainstream in the family of nations, in which only 7 out of 198 nations, including China and North Korea, allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. We must defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge the Senate to reconsider its decision and pass legislation that will celebrate, cherish, and protect life.”
I realize that Liberals lack the honesty to answer any question that destroys their deceptive rhetoric.
So prove me wrong... answer the question and then explain to me how you are not responsible for keeping No Restriction abortions legal with your vote for Democrats.
Voting is a relatively inconsequential act, and putting something as broad as 'racist policies' onto a single vote is a move that obviates our general complicity in a social landscape that permits and promotes racism.
In my experience, most people who harp on about how others vote (or don't vote) aren't very civically engaged in ways that really matter and this is an easy way to scapegoat people and avoid implicating themselves in social problems.
Robert C. Byrd, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd, wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd attempted to explain or defend his former membership in the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[1] Byrd, a Democrat, eventually became his party leader in the Senate. Byrd later said joining the Klan was his "greatest mistake."[2] However, in a 2001 incident Byrd repeatedly used the phrase "white niggers" on a national television broadcast.[3]
Ignoring history makes you a Leftist Fool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted "separate but equal".
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said "Segregation Forever".
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. - and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party - most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house nigger".
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion. (sic) It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.
Little Gurl you historically ignorant by your own admission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to read and stop showing your ignorance dummy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.
History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.
History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted "separate but equal".
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said "Segregation Forever".
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. - and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party - most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house nigger".
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion. (sic) It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.
Little Gurl you ARE historically ignorant by your own admission !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Little Gurl Jace can you explain this away ???????????
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Slave trader
Nathan Bedford Forrest, called Bedford Forrest in his lifetime, was a cotton farmer, slave owner, slave trader, Confederate Army general during the American Civil War, first leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and president of the Selma, Marion, & Memphis Railroad.
If Republicans elected an admitted KKK member, the Left would go in hyperbolic outrage.
Yes, I suspect that most of them would. I'm criticizing that, not defending it.
For you to try and deny culpability for electing extreme politicians shows the constant denial the Left wallows in.
By the time an election happens the stage has already been set. I don't think voting is of much consequence, but I do hold people culpable for their more substantive (in)actions.
A person is responsible for those they elect and are responsible for every viable baby killed when electing Democrats.
The difference between us is that I would say they are responsible for reasons other than their vote. Again, any individual's vote is effectively inconsequential. What we do (or don't do) in our everyday lives is of far more consequence.
Robert C. Byrd, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd, wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd attempted to explain or defend his former membership in the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[1] Byrd, a Democrat, eventually became his party leader in the Senate. Byrd later said joining the Klan was his "greatest mistake."[2] However, in a 2001 incident Byrd repeatedly used the phrase "white niggers" on a national television broadcast.[3]
You have problems with factual history Little Gurl Jace !!!!!!!!!!
Ignoring history makes you a Leftist Fool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert C. Byrd, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd, wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd attempted to explain or defend his former membership in the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[1] Byrd, a Democrat, eventually became his party leader in the Senate. Byrd later said joining the Klan was his "greatest mistake."[2] However, in a 2001 incident Byrd repeatedly used the phrase "white niggers" on a national television broadcast.[3]
You have problems with factual history Little Gurl Jace !!!!!!!!!!
Ignoring history makes you a Leftist Fool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Having trouble with the history of your party affiliation there Little Gurl ?????????
Do you understand at what lengths you are going to deny your accountability when voting for politicians who have admitted what they support?
There is NOTHING a person can do in his every day life to change the law and protect viable unborn lives.
Voting is the only way to actually change laws. The politicians we elect will effect the votes they cast when a GOP 20 week abortion bill is put forward.
The Judges and Justices they appoint will also effect our laws.
Time to ignore your denials, it's wasting my time.
Do you understand at what lengths you are going to deny your accountability when voting for politicians who have admitted what they support?
As I do not vote it is hard to see why I'd go to any lengths to deny my accountability for voting.
There is NOTHING a person can do in his every day life to change the law and protect viable unborn lives.
You're obviously incorrect since there are people who make laws (as well as people who influence those agents). I'm not suggesting that it is easy or that most people would be willing to do what's necessary in their everyday lives to effect the change they'd like to see. But it is possible.
It comes down to opportunity cost - how badly does a person want something? Enough to dedicate their lives to it? Or just enough to cast an inconsequential vote? People like you who insist that voting is an empowered act and then dismiss more substantive courses of action aren't very committed to the values they profess.
Voting is the only way to actually change laws. The politicians we elect will effect the votes they cast when a GOP 20 week abortion bill is put forward.
Please explain to me how any single vote changes anything given the exceeding rarity with which any election is determined by a single vote. It's just fallacious.
I'd be more effective if I pursued a well-paying career and invested in the political machine, or became a government bureaucrat myself.
The Judges and Justices they appoint will also effect our laws.
Sure. And my vote won't influence those appointments in the slightest. Neither will yours.
Time to ignore your denials, it's wasting my time.
Wow, imagine if everyone thought like you and did not bother to vote because their one vote won't mean anything.
When millions of Liberals or Conservatives vote on issues, it matters big time, and the very reason Trump was elected, and has now appointed two Constitutionalist Justices to the Supreme court!!!!!! Those votes will indeed effect our laws!
Your one vote along with another Liberal's one vote ADDS UP!
When I debate these issues, I'm not just trying to enlighten you to how extreme the Democrat Party has become. I'm trying to reach millions of voters.
You are aware of the saying.... if a person talks to ten people about an issue, and each of those ten people talk to ten more people, it does not take long to change a nation.
It's millions of those one votes that has complete power over our laws.
Although aggregated votes produce some effect, it does not follow that my individual vote is of any consequence whatsoever. The result will generally be the same whether I vote or not. But your concern is one reason why many other democracies have compulsory voting.
You persuading numerous other people to share your views is precisely the sort of civic engagement that I'm suggesting is more substantive than voting. If you cause ten other people to vote in a way they otherwise would not have this is more impactful than your individual vote could possibly be.
Similarly, if one engages in other civic engagement that affects what is politically viable before an election even happens this will be more impactful than their individual vote could possibly be.
Of course we should all try to enlighten people to the problems with opposing ideologies before the election, but when all the debating and civic engagement is done, it means nothing if people refuse to vote.
If many people thought like you, a very small majority would be controlling our laws because they voted.
I still think the emphasis you place on voting is exaggerated, but even supposing that it isn't my particular individual vote still has no impact and my abstention does not cause anyone else to not vote. Again, though, your concern is addressed through mandatory voting in a lot of other democracies; there's a practical solution.
Hardly. I am criticizing deflecting one's own culpability for their social environment by focusing on one of the most inconsequential acts of civic engagement (voting). This evasive and simplistic approach enables the rise of fascists and racists, so my dislike of the KKK is in part why I'm criticizing it.
Hardly. I am criticizing deflecting one's own culpability for their social environment by focusing on one of the most inconsequential acts of civic engagement (voting).
No, you are not. That is just a word salad you have invented to try to dig yourself out of your own position. FromWithin wrote:-
If Republicans elected an admitted KKK member, the Left would go in hyperbolic outrage.
To which you replied:-
Yes, I suspect that most of them would. I'm criticizing that, not defending it.
So you are criticising the idea of being outraged in the event the Republicans decided to elect a KKK member. Attacking the political process doesn't align itself with your position because FromWithin's comment was premised on the opposite principle. The voting process must necessarily be consequential because in the example given it is used to elect a KKK member.
My original intent was as stated. It's not particularly nuanced as it's presented on account of who I was responding to, which is why you'd understand me to have said something rather different. Regardless, I'm comfortable defending the argument you think I'm making instead.
If a KKK member secured an office because a sufficient number of individuals voted for them, then I would still be critical of people being outraged at those individuals who voted for the person in question. This is not because I endorse the KKK or agree with those people, but because it strikes me as a dangerously naive way to think about the event.
Something like this is not an isolated event, but exists within a broader social context for which we are all responsible. Being outraged at people who vote for a KKK member centers the fault on only some of the people who are culpable for the outcome, and it comes far too late in the game. The KKK does not rise to power in a vacuum. It happens because we are not paying attention and/or are not directly addressing the social dynamics that allow its rise to power.
The voting process is technically consequential in the way you describe, but not in a way that matters substantively. Even if the voting process were legitimate, the outcome is determined well before the elections themselves. For the people who will suffer because a member of the KKK is elected, the moral outrage that follows their election is as useful as thoughts and prayers in the wake of a school shooting. They needed substantive action before then, and that's still what's required after that fact.
Moral outrage is virtue signalling that affects little. Focusing on elections and the voting choices of individuals is a red herring. We need to look at how our beliefs and behaviors contribute to a social environment that produces that sort of result. Treat the cause of the problem, not one of its symptoms.
You are truly trying to excuse yourself for not doing the one thing to keep the KKK or Nazi out of office. YOU CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE!
You are the problem. It matters not what led up to a culture that would actually elect a KKK members such as the Democrat Party repeatedly did with Robert Bird.
You and millions of others could do the simple thing of voting and preventing a deviant social environment from gaining power.
I say to you, it matters not how a culture became so inhuman to even support a KKK member or a No Restriction abortion supporter. What matters is your vote to prevent it!
You are truly trying to excuse yourself for not doing the one thing to keep the KKK or Nazi out of office. YOU CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE!
You are the problem.
No, you are the problem, because you do not understand that the political system is controlled by the rich and powerful. Any candidate who does not adequately represent the agenda of the rich and powerful will find themselves lacking the necessary campaign donations to afford to participate.
I didn't want Hillary to be the President, but in your version of reality I should have voted for someone I did not like or want as President simply to stop someone even worse from taking control. If you willingly participate in such an obvious con rather than demand reform then you are the problem.
Yes, the political system has been controlled by the Rich powerful elites until Trump came along. He was his own man, bought and paid for by no one. Both sides did not like him...REMEMBER?
RINO's did not like him, Democrats did not like him, yet the common middle class folks were sick of the extreme Left's political correct fanaticism.
It sickening how those on the Left demonize Trump. He is everything this nation has been longing for! A man not controlled by the powers to be. A man who is actually doing everything he said he would do before election.
Yes, most times there is no perfect candidate, and we are left with voting for the lessor of two evils. Trump was a God send to this nation, not the lessor of two evils.
Yes I have been demanding reform for decades, and along came Trump! Thank God!
But if the Democrat witch hunters get their way, the Rich and powerful will once again control our elections.
Yes, Trump has a huge ego, is thin skinned, is not very diplomatic (rocket boy) :), but he is trying to do everything he told the American people he would do. REFRESHING!
I have no need to excuse myself for not doing enough to keep the KKK or Nazis out of office. My not voting has not contributed to any KKK member or Nazi holding an office, and it never will.
Although I do not vote I am engaged in other, more substantive forms of civic engagement that actually do contribute to keeping fascists out of positions of power. You're assumption to the contrary is precisely why I'm critical of the emphasis people place on voting.
It absolutely matters how a culture comes to support undesirables in office. If you don't understand that then you're not going to be able to keep them out of office or remove them.
Congrats, though, on finally finding common ground with progressives. You both seem to agree that I'm responsible for fascism in America. Lol.
I'm not worried about a KKK member getting elected because neither side wants it.
My entire debate is showing what total hypocrites there are on the Left when they try to deny culpability when voting for those who keep No Restriction abortions legal.
They would call any Republican a racist if they voted for a KKK member (and they would be correct), but refuse to call themselves supporters of No Restriction abortions when voting for those keeping it legal.
This is a no brainer! To deny this simple truth is to waste our time on debate sites.
Really? You seemed quite worried that my abstention actually risks or contributes to fascism.
I don't believe I've disagreed that someone's a hypocrite for criticizing others by a standard they refuse to hold themselves to. My point is it's a silly sort of hypocrisy to waste time on, given how insignificant individual voting is.
You need to read and stop showing your ignorance dummy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.
History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.
History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.
The criminal justice system in the US disenfranchises millions of citizens, predominantly of lower income backgrounds. Immigrants may also be disenfranchised and tend to have lower income backgrounds as well. Gerrymandering also effectively serves to disenfranchise people, regardless of class background. As does the electoral college. Having a bipartisan political system also limits representative options, and while it does not actively disenfranchise anyone it effectively means that people cannot elect legitimate representatives to uphold their interests (which are often informed by class, among other considerations).
Voting is relatively inconsequential regardless of the form of government. One's vote has a negligible impact upon the outcome of almost every single election, even if the electoral process is legitimate. Particularly when compared against other forms of civic engagement which may actually influence the social viability of candidates or policies (e.g. educational initiatives).
