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.
Except the Nazis were directly responsible for the holocaust. Republicans go out of their way to make sure that unwanted pregnancies definitely will happen. That directly leads to abortions. The Republicans are the Nazis of abortion.
The only thing that has ever been seen to reduce pregnancies is safe sex and sex education. Anti abortion laws do not reduce abortions. Reducing pregnancies reduces abortions.
Republicans are for the primary thing that causes abortions. The Nazis were the primary cause of the holocaust.
You're not fooling me with your fake conservative nonsense. I know you are just a sad liberal troll trying to pretend like you think like a right winger. It doesn't work on me any more.
At a certain point, you need to think about "effective" responsibility. Conservative attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and limit access to birth control have consistently increased abortions in the areas in question, while Liberal attempts to increase funding for these types of services and increase sexual education proliferation have decreased abortions in the areas in question.
Rhetoric doesn't translate into results, so when the Right says they hate abortion, but cause abortions to increase, while the Left says they don't care about (or at least don't actively seek to outlaw) abortion, but cause abortions to decrease, then you might want to think about why that is, and who you should really be blaming.
It's such a waste of time debating Liberals. You ALL speak like clones of each other.
If you had an honnest bone in your body, you would admit the GOP is trying to take the funding from Planned parenthood (because of their controversial abortion clinics), and give it to OTHER WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE ABORTIONS BUT DO PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL AND OTHER WOMEN'S HEALTH NEEDS.
You are a deceptive joke like every single Liberal I debate.
Do you always baseless insult anyone who dis agrees with you?
Because I'm sure as hell not a liberal, and you've never talked to me before, but by simply disagree with you, you've decided I'm somehow your enemy and worthy of derision. If you are trying to actually persuade people (it is a debate website after all), you might want to try behaving decently to others.
Nah, you are not a Liberal. You just support the non sense they spew. You support tx payer funding of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics but you are not a Liberal.
Let me guess, you vote for the extreme Liberal Democrat Party?
LOL, don't worry, I won't be wasting my time with yet one more deceptive person.
If you had an honest bone in your body you would admit that the GOP also wants to give money to organizations that will not be providing birth control.
The Jewish population that vote Democrat are living safe and sound here in America, but there were fewer Jewish votes for Hillary than for other Democrat Presidential candidates.
It's shameful they care so little for Isreal when voting for Democrats. I guarantee you the majority of Israelies do not support the Democrat Party.
That figure makes no sense, as the media is not itself monolithic. Are you claiming cable media is 90% liberal? If so, where's the proof? Are you claiming print media is 90% liberal? If so, where's the proof? Online media? Where's the proof?
2)Per Wikileaks, we have seen the DNC openly admit that they spread propaganda.
And the Republican party has openly admitted it as well. That's the messed up state of politics in this country.
4)A debate is not propaganda because it gives the other side an open forum to oppose it.
That does not preclude it as propaganda.
Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
This means that you could (and did) use propaganda as the premise for a debate, and then let people talk about it. Doesn't change its nature.
I wouldn't say "most of the left is religious". Being a "cultural Christian" is not the same as actually believing and following Christ. We also know most Atheists and Muslims are Democrats.
It doesn't matter what you say because you don't determine the legitimacy of their religious beliefs. The fact that they don't follow the same cultural beliefs as you does not undermine their belief in Christ's divinity.
It's not a false equivilency. You used a word that has meaning: "monopoly". If the most popular cable outlet is conservative, then the idea that liberalism has a monopoly on cable news is demonstrably false.
If you believe that arming am insurgency against communists is equivalent to allying, then you must think that many Republican presidents, such as Reagan, also "allied" with Islam, seeing as how they too supporter Muslim insurgencies during the Cold War to fight against Russia.
Um, no they didn't and no it isn't, you stupid lying bigoted idiot.
The 70th anniversary of the D-Day Allied invasion of Normandy this month provides a welcome opportunity to recall and re-evaluate the often ignored or misrepresented Arab and Muslim role in the Second World War.
Islamophobic and other hostile voices in the West often misÂcharacterise the Arab and Muslim participation in the war as largely or entirely pro-Nazi, while Arab and Muslim societies tend to focus on anti-colonial struggles at the expense of the Second World War.
The record is a complex, mixed and nuanced one, but the overarching fact is that Arab and Muslim involvement in the war was overwhelmingly on the Allied side, and was a significant factor in fighting on the ground. The overwhelming majority joined the cause voluntarily, despite British and French colonialism.
---There is no "Left-wing" alliance with Islam?---
You must have missed the hijab fitting and the Call of the Azan by white liberals during the Women's March. And the organizer of the Women's March, Linda Sarsour... is openly a Muslim.
Keith Ellison, the up and coming DNC leader is... openly a Muslim.
Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's "right hand woman" is.... openly a Muslim.
Linda Sarsour, the Women's March organizer is... openly a Muslim.
Sadiq Khan, the Liberal mayor of London, England is... openly a Muslim.
John Brennan, the CIA Director under Obama, was accused of being Muslim. He doesn't admit or deny the claim, and even Snopes, the liberal hack, says this on its site.
Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the U.S., was raised in Indonesia (the largest Muslim nation), took Islamic Studies in school as a child, and quotes the Quran from memory in speeches. (Taqiyya, Muruna) At best he is a Cultural Muslim. At worst he is practicing Taqiyya and Muruna.
None of that demonstrates that "The Left" (a non monolithic group) had any alliance with "Islam" (a non monolithic group). It simply demonstrates that members of the left are not openly hostile to Muslims
---Most Liberals are Christians, and the Nazi's never declared war on Christians.---
Hitler demonized Christians in his speeches and fought against nations that were 90%+ Christian. He also infiltrated the Catholic Church with "Nazi Priests" to "reform the church to the Nazi worldview", something the DNC openly spoke about in their hacked emails.
Most liberal "Christians" describe themselves in a way that falls under what is called "Cultural Christianity", which basically means they like Jesus' teachings and were raised around Christians, but as for Jesus being infallable or the "Son of God", they are "unsure", "don't know", or "don't believe it".
Evangelical Christians of the Right, believe Jesus is the Son of God, is infallable, and apply his words as "gospel truth". The application of his teaching by the Right is what causes those on the Left to oppose Evangelicals and hate them.
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4]
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n* with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5]
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.!
---LIBERALISM = INDOCTRINATE AND BRAINWASH COLLEGE STUDENTS
That's really not happening. The fact that globally, educating correlates with more left-wing ideologies isn't brainwashing.---
Your second sentence proves your first sentence incorrect.
Educating used to correlate to right wing ideologies. Yes, pushing a worldview to the youth is brainwashing, whether that view is correct or incorrect. Notice, the new Liberalism is quick to tell you about the Liberal version of morality and "who we are", despite secularism having nothing beyond evolution to dictate any sense of objective morality. Liberalism has become a cult.
Just because I already know where this is going and it will be fun to see the twist anyways, can you point to which point in history education correlated with right wing ideologies?
No, they weren't. You claimed that the Democratic party tried to organize a sort of internal coup in the Catholic Church. The only evidence you have shown has him explicitly stating the opposite. Redirecting me to the same argument does not disprove the claim that, again, rested upon that evidence. That's beyond circular.
Somewhat true. You have to remember though that Hitler had enemies closer to home and he needed the Middle Eastern nations to help him, otherwise the UK and France would have control over all of Africa and the Middle East.
None of those prove your actual point. They just prove that the Left, unlike the Right, aren't taking an actively antagonistic stance against a religious minority. In the case of some, such as Hillary, it's for political expediency and foreign policy purposes (hard to keep Arab allies as allies if you go around calling Islam evil).
What's with your spectrum? What kind of person does a spectrum anyway? Hillary wanted america to be more historic during her time. The same could be said for Hitler.
Talk is cheap unless one applies their "Christianity". Cultural Christianity isn't "Christianity" per Biblical definition. If one doesn't apply Romans 13:1... well....
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ROMANS 13:1
Then they shouldn't be allowed to "ally" with Jews due to the barbaric demands of the Torah. When you discount human autonomy and group people based on outdated practices you end up being against most religions.
Who said it is "outdated"? And if it is, then why should we give a flying crap about the liberal version of "morality", seeing it defies evolution and the survival of the fittest and our greatest survival instinct, which is? Fear....
People would criticise the Israeli government whether they were Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc... It has nothing to do with antisemitism. They have extremely poor human rights records and there is intense institutional racism with the country.
Considering Nazis and neo-Nazis are very far-right, it makes no sense to deflect and call liberals antisemites (especially since, like another poster pointed out, the vast majority of Jews are left wing or left-leaning).
No religion is my ally. I do not care for their beliefs, I care for their person.
Anyone can be antisemitic. Many Christians and Catholics are, too.
A Muslim who goes around spouting antisemitic, homophobic, misogynistic propaganda can go fuck himself. I couldn't care less what religion they belong to.
If they're a kind and caring person like all of the Muslims I personally know are, then I have no issue.
I do not judge people on their religion, I judge them on their character. This means I do not generalise entire groups of people like you love to do.
This, in turn, means I do not support antisemitic Muslims. Contrary to popular alt-right belief, not all Muslims hate Jews.
Even though I agree with you in a way, Israel isn't without sin as a nation. And Israel could always find other allies closer to them. Russia would love the opportunity as they have shown recently.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.
You'll notice the word "equality" pops up quite a bit in that definition.
The Nazis treated the Jews as subhuman. They did not grant them equality. If Liberalism was Nazism and Hitler was a liberal, there would have been no holocaust and no WW2.
You'll also notice in the definition:
freedom of the press
freedom of religion
civil rights
international cooperation
Hitler was against freedom of the press.
Hitler was against freedom of the Jewish religion.
Hitler actively persecuted an entire group of people, breaching their civil rights.
Hitler was aggressive in his expansion, and refused to cooperate with the rest of Europe, leading to war.
In conclusion, Nazism and Liberalism are extremely different and certainly not the same, and you are an idiot. Delete your account.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.
So the Democratic Party, which supports Islam and the burka is not liberal per your own given definition.
I am not American, and so am not a supporter of the Democratic Party nor do I know a great deal about their general beliefs and policies.
However, you seem to be running on the idea that supporting liberalism (or the Democratic Party) and supporting the practice of Islam are incompatible. This, however, is blatantly false, as you can probably deduce from the definition of liberalism I gave you; "freedom of religion" is specifically stated as an idea of liberalism.
One can support the freedom to practice a religion without agreeing with the religion itself. Being LGBT myself, I obviously disagree with the doctrines of Christianity/Catholicism/Islam/Judaism/etc in regards to their bigoted beliefs about myself and others like me, however that does not mean I do not support a Christian's/Catholic's/Muslim's/Jew's right to hold that view and practice their religion.
That's what it means to be liberal. To be tolerant, despite the differing views of people. Many modern liberals have forgotten this, and decide to belittle and berate individuals for having the "wrong" opinion.
However, you seem to be running on the idea that supporting liberalism (or the Democratic Party) and supporting the practice of Islam are incompatible.
Yeah. One wears vagina suits and protests naked and supports feminism. One thinks women should cover up and not show any skin. One is pro gay. One throws gays off of tall buildings....
Key phrase: supporting the practice of Islam. Not certain beliefs, such as homosexuality as a sin.
One thinks women should cover up and not show any skin.
The Quran says no such thing. Islamic scripture demands that both men and women dress modestly; it has no verse which states that women should cover their entire bodies.
The states which enforce such laws are, without a doubt, misogynistic, and I have not seen a single feminist or "liberal" defending those countries. What I do see, however, is feminists and liberals defending the actual religion itself, namely the practice of the religion - not how it is executed in the middle east.
So, no, supporting the practice of Islam is not incompatible with liberalism. Supporting middle-eastern states which enforce misogynistic, homophobic and generally backwards laws is, however, which is something I haven't seen any liberal claiming to do.
One throws gays off of tall buildings....
Who does this? ISIS? Are you attributing all Muslims as terrorists whom chuck homosexuals off the sides of buildings to their deaths?
Very well then, whilst you peddle such laughable nonsense I'll politely point out that, whilst the KKK enjoys burning black people, I do not attribute their behaviour to the rest of the Christian community.
Or, how I do not condemn all Buddhists for the atrocities happening in Burma... against the Muslim population, no less. I suppose that's a conflict you're not concerned about, though, am I right?
The states which enforce such laws are, without a doubt, misogynistic, and I have not seen a single feminist or "liberal" defending those countries... Supporting middle-eastern states which enforce misogynistic, homophobic and generally backwards laws is, however, which is something I haven't seen any liberal claiming to do.
The first link is completely irrelevant to what I was saying, and did you think that perhaps the second is a sad reflection on how maternity leave is executed in the West?
You're shooting yourself in the foot, bront. Claiming those places are extremely misogynistic yet also showing a link which demonstrates that one of their laws treats women better than a Western law does. Perhaps you should be focusing your attention closer to home if you really care about women's rights?
What am I saying? You don't care about women's rights, or gay rights for that matter. You and the rest of the alt right merely use them to your advantage when you want to bash Islam.
So, no, supporting the practice of Islam is not incompatible with liberalism.
Oh good. Seeing that Islam is ultra Conservative, then liberalism should be compatible with Conservatism. So you can now start supporting Conservative ideas. By this logic, Liberalism is compatible with Conservatism, and you should openly support the practice of Christianity.
But you weren't talking about the laws in certain states. You were implying that Muslims in general throw gays off of buildings.
I never denied the fact that homosexuality is punishable by death in many Islamic states, and neither do liberals.
I honestly think you're being ignorant on purpose, bront, because it baffles me how anyone can completely miss the difference between "supporting the right to practice one's religion" and "supporting the beliefs of one's religion". Do you understand the difference, bront?
Or, how I do not condemn all Buddhists for the atrocities happening in Burma... against the Muslim population, no less. I suppose that's a conflict you're not concerned about, though, am I right?
I condemn all acts of violence against any group. I'm not a liberal. I don't have a Progressive religion that demands I support ANTIFA as an ideologue.
Very well said. American conservatives are so into making the word "liberal" into 4 letters that they allow their imaginations to go into a fantasy mode. The weirdest is when they accuse liberals of being what THEY obviously ARE. It's okay for them, but terrible for U.S.!
I have a question.. Seeing that liberals toss around evolution like a mantra, then why the hell would we not see a liberal alliance with Islam simply as a weak survival trait that overlooks the greatest survival instinct? Which is fear... And that liberals are simply the part of the species that is too stupid to survive, thus must be over-ridden by those of us with common instinct survival instincts.... ya know... the whole "kill all unbelievers" thing in the Quran....and ISIS must have manifested 50,000 soldiers in a week because? they just playin...
NEWS FLASH! Not all liberals believe in evolution, not all conservatives believe in creation.
In like manner, obviously not all conservatives believe in the Constitution (at least as written). They pick and choose what fits their agenda. We either have "no religious test" or not. "Kill all unbelievers" IS illegal in the U.S.. Islamists MUST follow U.S. law IN the U.S. One places his/her hand on the Bible/Qu'ran/Constitution and swears to UPHOLD said Constitution, NOT to uphold whatever else he places his hand on.
Certain conservatives seem to be a part of the species that are afraid of the Islamic shadow while they are to stupid to realize why the EU has placed Trumps name as "one of the threats" to Europe! I'm not worried about ISIL killing U.S., I'm more worried about Trump killing the WORLD! I realize he's "just playin'....at being a President, but, HE is a more dangerous player than ISIL! I haven't seen the numbers yet, but, I'm sure the ranks of ISIL have expanded over his first few moves!
And yet "equality" would not be a word anyone with a brainstem would use to describe what liberals want conservatives to have...
What? Are you implying that liberals want to strip conservatives of their rights/enslave them? That's preposterous.
I've had the displeasure of looking at comments on some hard conservative sights. I've even seen similar things on Facebook; the "alt-right" calling liberalism a "mental disease" and that liberals/anyone left wing should be rounded up and shot. I don't say that's what all conservatives want, though, do I?
I'm a liberal. I believe conservatives should have equality. There. Your "argument" is officially irrelevant.
I agree. That's why I moved right. The left in America is no longer liberal. It's anti liberal by definition, thus to stay apart of it would be nonsense.
And that's the problem with American politics. It's all based around identity, and this idea of being "left or right". You'll refuse to accept a left wing idea bevause it's left wing, even if it makes logical sense.
I've seen so many Americans say "I used to be Democrat, but I turned Republican!" or vice versa, and it's baffling to outside eyes such as mine because it makes no sense. Why would you do a u-turn on everything you believe in? It's unthinkable in England. I very rarely hear someone who used to be Labour switching to Conservative, or a Conservative switching to Labour, and that's because the very idea of it would go against someone's personal values.
People like you who switch parties/ideologies like a flip of a switch do so because you care about how people perceive you, not because it's what you believe in. First, it's "the right are cruel and racist!", then it's "the left are intolerant and aggressive", and next it'll be "the right are corrupt, lying racists!" or something similar. It's honestly why America is the laughing stock of the world; your politics are just so painfully identity based, rather than based on your actual beliefs.
You'll refuse to accept a left wing idea bevause it's left wing, even if it makes logical sense
That's because it rarely makes logical sense. 48 genders? Nope. Let's scrap our world leading economy for socialism? Nope. Every hurricane is a sign of manmade climate change rather than weather cycles, and let's ignore the worst hurricanes recorded were pre industrial revolution? Nope. I'm a black person trapped in a white body? Nope. The media are honest and bipartisan? Nope...
Yes, they were. You're confusing "being German" with "being a Nazi".
The Nazis were a party, and an ideology. The vast majority of German soldiers were not actually Nazis, they were merely fighting for their country which happened to be run by Nazis.
A US soldier isn't a Democrat or a Republican depending on what government is in power: they're simply a US soldier, who happens to be fighting for a Democrat/Republican government
Yes, they were. You're confusing "being German" with "being a Nazi".
Or I'm saying that some Nazis weren't blood thirsty mongrels, but were doing what they had to do to survive, and yet with normal minds, were still very dangerous because of groupthink.
Following orders from dangerous ideologies is very dangerous. Just think if everyone was afraid, and did exactly what the next tyranical system tells them to do. They'd be just as dangerous as if they were the tyrants themselves.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.
Which would make us all warm and fuzzy if liberals actually still supported all of that as a group. If you want to see a group that opposes free speech today, you'll have to look left.
Liberalism is, of course, not Naziism. Naziism is a subset of Fascism, which exists on the far-right end of the political spectrum (note that is not me comparing it to other right wing ideologies, that's just a fact of political science).
You may find difficulty in using "left" and "right" terminology. The supposed spectrum started as an accident of history in France and the terms have since become so flexible that they can be argued to fit whatever happens to be ones political purpose. The Nazi's were Nationalist Socialist after all. You can argue that nationalism is right, socialism is left, so Nazis must be political centrists. The spectrum is almost useless.
They called themselves National Socialists to appeal to the lower classes but we're not actual Socialists in practice or ideology. That is why they are considered solidly right wing
And the spectrum is by no means useless within the field of Political science. I agree that it has no use if you are discussing it with people who are unfamiliar with it (or the more accurate double axis spectrum), or if your are talking to people who don't know very much about political ideologies.
They called themselves National Socialists to appeal to the lower classes but we're not actual Socialists in practice or ideology.
Your post is a great example of why the spectrum is a poor analytical tool. One has to pretend that the supposed right wing socialists were not actually socialist, so that they can be considered right wing.
Pretending that the Nazis were not socialist ignores their official title, their party platform, and their actual policies. The Nazis had national programs for education, labor, and healthcare. They called for equal rights for all Germans. Rather than attacking the bourgeoisie or the 1%, they attacked the Jews. They had de facto ownership of the means of production when, after inflating the money supply to finance government programs and public works leading to the implementation of price controls and causing soviet style shortages, they directed production through the force of their strong centralized government. All of this taken together, and that last part in particular, is as socialist as you can get, which makes sense because that’s what the Nazis were.
To claim the Nazis are right wing requires the kind of bending and stretching of terminology that I alluded to.
