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.
Liberals are all about SOCIAL JUSTICE. There is no emphasis on personal responsibility, but rather simply on social equality. You can be lazy, shiftless, irresponsible and "the victim" and society still owes you a free ride. There is little to be found of manliness in such an outlook.
No, it basically isn't about either. Those were probably irrational appeals pragmatically posed to your empathy, or some took it too far on kindness (in the latter, consider it the equivalent to conservative position on abortion.)
For both the purposes, it'd be a price worth paying for the convenience, but it isn't something crucial.
It is about letting people think for themselves rather than relying on archaic customs.
That way is the most efficient for progress.
Some are kind enough to accommodate those who fail at the task. Some 'hoping' that they won't always be failing, and thus aren't worthless. Or that their children might be worthy, similar to how you treat abortion.
But I'm fine by your argument that we shouldn't do so. They can be let to decay away from humanity, if that's what most people want so dearly.
I sense confusion. You propose that individuals think for themselves, yet you want government to increase control in their lives. What are these archaic customs that are preventing people from thinking for themselves? You speak of individuals who fail at the task. What of the ones who never try, how are they to be helped? You say that some are kind and want to help. Why must government be the agent of that help, rather than individuals?
I didn't say government should increase control on people. If it's the example you're referring to, then there is, of course, a difference in that thing when applying to liberalism.
What are these archaic customs that are preventing people from thinking for themselves?
The kind of things conservativism is about supporting.
What of the ones who never try, how are they to be helped?
If you don't play, then you lose nothing. They can decide to not try - the decision isn't forced.
Why must government be the agent of that help, rather than individuals?
That'd be part of some later step, when the role of government be reduced. (It leads to minarchism.)
The government is a collective of people.
But this deciding to help by government is upto the majority. That's how it works in democracy, and their deciding anything on it doesn't harm the position.
The kind of things conservatism is about supporting.
OK ------- for instance what?
If you don't play, then you lose nothing. They can decide to not try - the decision isn't forced. Your earlier statement said that liberals want to help those who try and fail. Again ---- what is the nature of that help?
That'd be part of some later step, when the role of government be reduced. (It leads to minarchism.) Please offer an actual example of a liberal government that has shrunk.
There are of course conservatives who are not Christian, as well as liberals who are Christians. I believe we are discussing liberals -vs- conservatives rather than religion. Come up with an actual point in purely conservative ideology that you find to be an archaic custom, which prevents people from thinking for themselves.
Government providing accommodation.
Why is it the purview of government to accommodate individuals who have tried and failed. You must realize that a handout is very different from a hand up. Be specific about the accommodation you are proposing.
Governments have been getting more liberal Yes they do tend that way. You said earlier that there is some "later step" in which the role of liberal governments reduce. I have NEVER seen liberal government programs do anything other than expand. Please offer just one example of this reduction happening.
There are of course conservatives who are not Christian, as well as liberals who are Christians.
Remember the theory being taught in schools somewhere in US?
That's a political decision to prevent people from thinking for themselves by teaching it in schools.
Why is it the purview of government to accommodate individuals who have tried and failed. You must realize that a handout is very different from a hand up. Be specific about the accommodation you are proposing.
It's something along the lines of that they tried for human progress, so we should not let them suffer. And those other hopes I said earlier.
The accommodation... Well, that requires a majority decision of those who want it. I'd say that anything which allows them to stay alive and have another attempt (or, at least, considerable chance of it) would be enough. It's more like rehabilitation.
Yes they do tend that way. You said earlier that there is some "later step" in which the role of liberal governments reduce. I have NEVER seen liberal government programs do anything other than expand. Please offer just one example of this reduction happening.
An example would require a sufficiently large list of liberal governments throughout history along with the history of their political situations.
But there is no reason to think that a government will stop getting more liberal at any particular stage that is small, here, about 40-50%.
Though there have been many examples of this in all branches of progress.
You seem to be unable to come up with direct answers and more importantly examples to illustrate your claims. This is not surprising, given that there really aren't any. Your thinking runs along with the liberal notion that government is the solution to social inequities. This is your opinion and your certainly entitled to it. I would recommend however that you not try debating it, since there are no facts that support it. It was interesting talking with you. Thank you.
It is just about a government optimal for progress.
A chance again by rehabilitation certainly reduces risks to try, but it, right now at least, doesn't make it any more efficient as a system, so it'd be a flexible decision for democracy.
But social inequality isn't really something crucial to target. Though it'd certainly help a bit, it isn't free and thus perhaps not efficient enough. Such things can be decided democratically.
There are more complications to target than finding examples.
If you're not picking up what I'm putting down then yeah, they would seem meaningless. Every time people argue against an ideology, they argue against alleged real world affects. Every time someone supports an ideology, they argue in favor of an alleged ideal form.
Every time people argue against an ideology, they argue against alleged real world affects. Every time someone supports an ideology, they argue in favor of an alleged ideal form.
Okay. That'd be somewhat right.
But the reason would be that most fail to understand what they are following, and then the effects might as well be random.
Then the group identifying with an ideology is filled with a majority of such people, and irrational things happen.
Those defending the position are not part of that majority which doesn't understand it, which is what media likes to show.
Likewise being conservative is effeminate because you're afraid. Afraid of change, of anyone different than you, of foreigners, of disagreement. It's actually more effeminate to be hardline conservative than it is to be a bleeding heart liberal.
You know what's neither masculine nor feminine but simply being a well balanced adult? Being a moderate. That's right. Being neither afraid like conservatives nor caving to give anything and everything to whomever whines for something like a liberal. Be an adult folks. Be moderate.
And by the way, the only reason I used the word effeminate is because the debate heading did. It was not meant to knock what it means to be like a female.
Personally, I do care, about a lot of things, but I want to see those things dealt with fairly, based on accurate information, within available resources, and after fair debate about it.
