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.
I would side with Liberalism because it is founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
Whereas Conservatism promotes retaining traditional social institutions, to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
So the way I see it Liberalism has a broader world view of democracy, human rights and freedoms.
Lib/con are ideologies that fit different types of people based on which function is more dominant in the individual voter. Conservatism is more concerned with self-preservation as an instinct. Conservatives favor cutting taxes for the wealthy and raising taxes on the poor by cutting or eliminating programs for poor people (WIC, Social Security, Education, Obamacare, Medicare, etc,…) That being said, Liberalism plays on the altruistic, mutual-aid side by raising taxes on the wealthy and establishing programs to help working families and poor.
Conservatism is tied in with nationalism, and nationalism can destroy a nation historically. A crisis happens and the nation in question becomes disillusioned with nationalism and dissolves. Liberalism is an attempt to prevent this from happening by means of change and progress.
Liberalism is better because liberals support the following rights: Gay rights, bisexual rights, education rights, healthcare rights,worker's rights, and children's rights.
What if someone doesn't have the money? Or they want to prevent pregnancy right now, but now later? Or what if their partner lies to them about contraceptives?
That doesn't mean that contraception will always work. If you pay for contraception, but then contraception fails, how is that the fault of the person?
That doesn't answer my question. You allow abortion if the mother's life is in danger, but it doesn't always happen in absolutes. What if the mother would end up paralyzed for the rest of her life? Is abortion ok then?
(If you read the above, answer the questions I posed. If not, just restate your extremely basic, black-and-white views.)
Ok, that is absolute proof that you did not read what I said. I literally told you what to do to prove you were actually reading my comments, which you did not do. You clearly did not read it, and claiming you did would go against the evidence presented. You have officially lost credibility as a debater (which may have happened a while ago, but your failure to actually debate here and this proof that you did not read what I said validates that)
You sick woman. Just because you believe that life starts when at conception you are advocating women going through a potentially dangerous operation?? You prolifers are revolting.
Abortions would still not be okay. Pregnancy is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of sex and no contraception is 100% effective. As such, you need to take responsibility for your actions and the reasonably foreseeable consequences, that follow from them.
Secondly, if we start from the premise that the fetus is a human being with the right to life, then whether contraception fails or not is completely irrelevant. The right to life outweighs the temporary limited freedom of the mother.
What if the mother is going to die? Or the baby is likely to die? Or the mother will suffer long term (non-lethal) physical, emotional, or economic damage?
You cannot kill other innocent people to save your own life, especially when you yourself created the danger in the first place. If the mother had voluntary sex, then she placed herself along with the fetus in harms way voluntarily.
If the baby is going to die, then abortion is not okay. We're all going to die some day, that doesn't mean it's okay to kill us prematurely. If I shoot a patient in the head with a shotgun, and then tell the authorities that ''Well he had terminal cancer, he was going to die anyway very soon'', then the cops most likely won't take me seriously.
The mother suffering long term damage is hers to bear. Emotional or physical trauma does not justify the killing of another innocent human being. I cannot kill someone just because his continued existence causes me emotional damage. If economic damage is enough to kill someone, why can't parents kill their already born kids? After all, these kids don't work and are only a drain on resources.
I wasn't saying they do or don't have that right. I was just clarifying that liberalism supports that right. You forgot it in your list of liberal positions.
yeah exactly these rights do matter and as a matter of fact a lot of social progress has been achieved due to the liberal open-minded;conservatism has kinda become obsolete
Well yeah ,I kinda contradicted the thing and pointed to both sides of the coin,certainly I stand in the middle not too much of a liberal nor too much for gay marriage;I'm saying you've to be trendy and accept whatever's rocking our culture,society and there are benefits of conservatism and there's also the fact it has got obsolete
Financial stability is as much a part of Conservative ideology as it is Liberal ideology, and is as poorly executed in Conservative politicians as it is in Liberal politicians in this country.
Raising taxes to pay for everything is not stability And cutting taxes all the time does not lead to stability, but neither that, nor what you said, is inherent in relevant political ideologies.
Poor execution is done by both parties, so that was a bit of misdirection.
Less of a misdirection, and more of an attempt to preempt the type of responses I expected, not necessarily from yourself.
Conservatives want to cut spending instead of just finding ways to get the money to spend. It isn't about cutting taxes.
Can you point to any aspect of Conservative political ideology that desires cutting spending? I recognize that is what Conservatives in the United States tend to say they want to do (but fail to do when in office), but in ideological terms, that seems to be more due to an aversion to government programs.
Your question implied that the president is in complete control
No, not necessarily - that is just how you read it.
Simple and straightforward fact. The leaders I mentioned were in power
No, it actually isn't straightforward at all. (Note: a majority does not control the Senate)
The more precise question is - under which policies did collapse/recovery occur?
What Pelosi/Reid policy got passed before the Recession (which started in Dec 2007) which caused it?
Did the collapse occur more because of deregulation and reduced oversight, or more?
Did the stimulus quickly change the direction of the economy?
Did an increase in the top marginal tax rate destroy the economy as was predicted, or did it drastically reduce the deficit while the economy continued to recover?
Fact: It is conservative Republicons that oppose gay rights while liberal Democrats and Green Party members support gay rights. I am a liberal who used to be a conservative, so I know what I am talking about.
I agree that it is Conservative Republicans in this country that oppose rights for homosexuals, but you claimed that it is conservative in nature, and I am asking what aspect of Conservatism is anti-gay in nature, in your opinion.
When I was conservative, I bullied gays out of fear and religious indoctrination. As I became more libneral, I mentally bitch slapped myself and got over it. This is why I try to be nice to the antigay crowd, because I am not perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. I would say that religion is the number one reason for antigay rhetoric. I hope I answered your question, and thanks for posting. :)
Liberals try to again financial stability by raising taxes on wealthy people, a method that is proven to be effective both in history (FDR, Clinton) and in comparing red states with blue states (Wisconsin vs. Minnesota).
You may disagree with liberal ideology, but you cannot claim that they are lacking in financial stability when there is strong evidence to the contrary.
California's debt/lag was because conservatives were blocking progressive policy scholarly source Now that the democrats have a filibuster proof super-majority the problems are going down scholarly source
California is only recovering because it had to make across the board budget cuts that liberals don't normally want to make. When the Democrats follow a conservative budget they end up with surpluses.
I back Conservatism because left wing parties always over-spend, and parties that are right in the middle like the UK's Liberal Democrats are always undecided on laws. Conservatives rule!
As usual to find Lib creating the debate and certainly conservatism is more acceptable for it includes wise decison-making,being circumspect and tactics.Liberals are more action-oriented without any proper planning
Liberals want to take middle class people's hard earned cash and give it to fat, lazy bastards who can't even be bothered to get up in the morning and go to work. Liberals quite rightly denounce the evil of Christianity yet support the even more evil religion of Islam. Also liberals love immigration. Immigrants destroy the culture of where they go to and they take people's jobs and housing space. Liberals seem to love criminals.
Liberals want to take middle class people's hard earned cash and give it to fat, lazy bastards who can't even be bothered to get up in the morning and go to work.
That is not an ideological issue for you, that is a political one, and this is an ideological debate. Nothing in Liberalism inherent supports welfare for able-bodied unemployed individuals.
Liberals quite rightly denounce the evil of Christianity yet support the even more evil religion of Islam.
Again, that is political, not ideological.
Also liberals love immigration. Immigrants destroy the culture of where they go to and they take people's jobs and housing space.
Now you are starting to get somewhere. Liberalism does tend to support multi-culturalism, for a wide variety of reasons. I would ask you why that is a bad thing, but for someone who is hyper-nationalist (not using that as an insult, it's just a fact based on your history of posting here) I could see how that would be bad.
If the culture they left was so great they shouldn't have left it. If the culture they are going to isn't good enough they shouldn't go there. Changing the place you migrate to to be more like the place you left will probably not be an improvement.
If the culture they left was so great they shouldn't have left it.
Very, very few people leave their homes because of the culture, they leave because of the conditions of the country. One can love their culture with all their heart, but fear for their lives or seek somewhere with more economic opportunity.
Changing the place you migrate to to be more like the place you left will probably not be an improvement.
That requires the assumption that the culture involved inherently leads to the conditions in the country involved, which is certainly not the case. Come to Chicago and look at Polish Downtown around Polonia and you will notice that, despite it being culturally very Polish, the conditions are not the same as that of Poland. Same with Devon (Little India); plenty of Indian culture (overwhelmingly so), but the conditions are not like India. I could go on, but I think I made my point. Conflating the desire to maintain one's native culture and the desire to maintain the same political and economic conditions of the country of origin is not only wrong, but it is downright silly considering this very country was founded upon the idea of maintaining one's native culture while creating a politically and economically differing state.
To argue that the countries culture has nothing to do with cultivating the people that cause fear is ridiculous.
but it is downright silly considering this very country was founded upon the idea of maintaining one's native culture while creating a politically and economically differing state.
The culture that was here was completely eliminated and I hear shit about that all the time.
Can you point to me ever saying it has "nothing to do with" it? Because that seems like a straw man to me
Yes.-"That requires the assumption that the culture involved inherently leads to the conditions in the country involved, which is certainly not the case."
It is true that the native cultures of North America were mostly wiped out, but I said this country, as in the United States.
Oh, you are totally right. I have never heard anyone ever complain that the United States wiped out the Native Americans.
inherently leads to the conditions in the country involved,
What you quoted does not, in any way, imply that there is absolutely no connection. There can be a connection without it inherently leading to those conditions.
Oh, you are totally right. I have never heard anyone ever complain that the United States wiped out the Native Americans.
Which is why that response of yours regarding the culture of colonial America was rather silly.
I think you are the only one arguing that it is inherent and that is a bit of a strawman against me.
I am arguing that "If the culture they left was so great they shouldn't have left it. If the culture they are going to isn't good enough they shouldn't go there. Changing the place you migrate to to be more like the place you left will probably not be an improvement." implies the culture inherently creates the conditions of the country in question, and that I believe that is not true.
If my complaint was silly we wouldn't hear all this crap about wiping out the Native Americans.
Why wouldn't we, as they are two different issues?
When you said they would change the place they migrate to simply by maintaining their culture, you did far more than imply there was a connection.
And again, the reference to Colonial America was to point out that early Americans (non-Native, of course) wanted to maintain their European culture while at the same time creating a country that significantly differed from it, which I was using to further elaborate on how maintaining one's native culture does not inherently lead to one recreating the conditions from their country of origin.
When you said they would change the place they migrate to simply by maintaining their culture, you did far more than imply there was a connection.
It isn't about maintaining your own culture it is about changing the culture of the people around you and making others have to ignore their own culture to cater to yours. If you don't do that you are fine. If you do then it is bad and my point stands.
And again, the reference to Colonial America was to point out that early Americans (non-Native, of course) wanted to maintain their European culture while at the same time creating a country that significantly differed from it, which I was using to further elaborate on how maintaining one's native culture does not inherently lead to one recreating the conditions from their country of origin.
My point was that the Native Americans would oppose immigration in hindsight. I was not saying that the same exact conditions would happen. The European culture was to go around everywhere and conquer whatever they saw. How much did the non-Natives avoid that culture?
It isn't about maintaining your own culture it is about changing the culture of the people around you and making others have to ignore their own culture to cater to yours. If you don't do that you are fine. If you do then it is bad and my point stands.
But that was never mentioned in the conversation prior to you chipping in. Multiculturalism itself is not what you have just described, so I am a little confused as to why you brought this up.
My point was that the Native Americans would oppose immigration in hindsight.
Except we didn't immigrate, we essentially invaded. Many Native Americans did oppose our colonization, but considering how their population was at 10% of what it was before Europeans arrived in North America due to one of the largest plagues the world has ever seen, they really didn't stand much of a chance.
The European culture was to go around everywhere and conquer whatever they saw. How much did the non-Natives avoid that culture?
They didn't avoid it at all, but I am still confused. The Native American reference seems completely irrelevant to the point that was being made regarding colonial America being an example of bringing your culture without bringing the relevant nation's policies and systems. That being said, this seems like a bit of a dead end to the conversation.
But that was never mentioned in the conversation prior to you chipping in. Multiculturalism itself is not what you have just described, so I am a little confused as to why you brought this up.
Yes it is. Problems occur when the immigrants don't try to acquire the current culture and demand multiculturalism.
Except we didn't immigrate, we essentially invaded. Many Native Americans did oppose our colonization, but considering how their population was at 10% of what it was before Europeans arrived in North America due to one of the largest plagues the world has ever seen, they really didn't stand much of a chance.
Irrelevant.
They didn't avoid it at all, but I am still confused. The Native American reference seems completely irrelevant to the point that was being made regarding colonial America being an example of bringing your culture without bringing the relevant nation's policies and systems. That being said, this seems like a bit of a dead end to the conversation.
We are talking about reasons to be opposed to immigrants. You are making it all about how immigrants won't turn the country into the exact same country they left and I never said they would.
Yes it is. Problems occur when the immigrants don't try to acquire the current culture and demand multiculturalism.
Demand multiculturalism? That would be simply demanding that people don't try to force them to culturally assimilate. Could you please address the examples I gave you, such as "ethnic towns" in large cities?
Irrelevant
I agree, but it was an irrelevant response to and irrelevant comment made by you on that topic. Don't want an irrelevant response, don't make an irrelevant comment :P
We are talking about reasons to be opposed to immigrants.
But, again, we were not immigrants to this continent, we were invaders.
You are making it all about how immigrants won't turn the country into the exact same country they left and I never said they would.
"If the culture they left was so great they shouldn't have left it. If the culture they are going to isn't good enough they shouldn't go there. Changing the place you migrate to to be more like the place you left will probably not be an improvement."
If you were not saying they were going to do what you said, then why did you say that at all?
Demand multiculturalism? That would be simply demanding that people don't try to force them to culturally assimilate. Could you please address the examples I gave you, such as "ethnic towns" in large cities?
It is fine to create a small area where you can go be yourself, but it is not ok to demand that every government form use your language. Is Chicago forced to build Polonia, or was Polonia built by Chicagoans who happen to be Polish.
I agree, but it was an irrelevant response to and irrelevant comment made by you on that topic. Don't want an irrelevant response, don't make an irrelevant comment :P
The only way that an example of one culture wiping out another culture as a demonstration of a problem with not assimilating is irrelevant is if you don't want to actually debate.
But, again, we were not immigrants to this continent, we were invaders.
The only difference is negotiating with the people that currently live in the area. If you don't assimilate to the people that are currently there you are an invader.
If you were not saying they were going to do what you said, then why did you say that at all?
Quote me saying that someone will change the new country to be more like the old country to prove that I said they will transform it to be exactly like what they left. Congratulations.
It is fine to create a small area where you can go be yourself, but it is not ok to demand that every government form use your language. Is Chicago forced to build Polonia, or was Polonia built by Chicagoans who happen to be Polish.
Polish immigrants congregated in that particular area, which is how multiculturalism almost always works. What are you referring to when you say "demand that every government form use your language"?
The only way that an example of one culture wiping out another culture as a demonstration of a problem with not assimilating is irrelevant is if you don't want to actually debate.
It is irrelevant because this is a conversation about multiculturalism and immigration, not about ethnic and cultural holocausts. The comparison simply does not work.
The only difference is negotiating with the people that currently live in the area. If you don't assimilate to the people that are currently there you are an invader.
In other words, it is the difference between immigration and something else. If you do not negotiate with the natives, then it is not immigration, it is in fact invasion. It was violent, hostile, aggressive, and illegitimate. If you don't assimilate to the people that are currently in an area, you don't negotiate for the right to move to said area, and you violently take over an area, THEN you are an invader. You are grossly oversimplifying this.
Quote me saying that someone will change the new country to be more like the old country to prove that I said they will transform it to be exactly like what they left. Congratulations.
How about you turn the snark off, it is unnecessary and unproductive. I never said "exactly like" at any point. In fact, the term I used was "conditions", which is fairly vague.
Polish immigrants congregated in that particular area, which is how multiculturalism almost always works. What are you referring to when you say "demand that every government form use your language"?
Mexicans.
It is irrelevant because this is a conversation about multiculturalism and immigration, not about ethnic and cultural holocausts. The comparison simply does not work.
I am sorry that my example was too hardcore for you too handle.
If you don't assimilate to the people that are currently in an area, you don't negotiate for the right to move to said area, and you violently take over an area, THEN you are an invader. You are grossly oversimplifying this.
It doesn't have to be violent. It just takes disrespect for the culture that is currently there.
How about you turn the snark off, it is unnecessary and unproductive. I never said "exactly like" at any point. In fact, the term I used was "conditions", which is fairly vague.
You implied the exact same conditions of the country they fled from.
That is incredibly vague. How many of them are demanding this, and in what capacity?
I am sorry that my example was too hardcore for you too handle.
It's not that it was too "hardcore", it's that it is an entirely different concept. Comparing immigration to invasion just doesn't work within a serious, legitimate conversation.
It doesn't have to be violent. It just takes disrespect for the culture that is currently there.
Should I go down the list of dictionary definitions of "invasion"?
You implied the exact same conditions of the country they fled from.
You can provide the quote that contains what you believe to be the implication, something I have done with statements you have made previously in this conversation.
This conversation is completely pointless. You made a statement that I believe had a clear implication that you are claiming did not, and I made a statement that you believe had an implication that I am claiming did not. We are now simply going in circles.
One doesn't need look further than the presidency of Ronald Reagen and compare it to Jimmy Carter to see why conservatism trumps liberalism. While the Carter economy was one of stagnation and dismal job creation, Reagen added millions of jobs and steam rolled economic growth. While the Carter foreign policy gave us the Iran hostage crisis, Reagen's leadership led to the downfall of the notorious Soviet Union.
Perhaps no other American president's foreign policy is worse than that of President Obama's current. Butchers like Assad and ISIS run the middle east from the Golan Heights to Bagdad, Iran's bullying it's neighbors just because, Putin's constantly poking us in the eye and China with their cyber attacks and massive millitary buildup also consitute national security threats. Our adversaries had more respect for us even under George W Bush!
One doesn't need look further than the presidency of Ronald Reagen and compare it to Jimmy Carter to see why conservatism trumps liberalism.
Aside from how illogical it is to point to one president from the left and one from the right and declare that an entire ideology is better than another, let's just deal with Reagan and Carter for a second:
Reagan: Massive tax raises (11 times), massive spending increases, tripled the deficit, increase in unemployment (on top of disproportionately increasing taxes on the lower class, increasing taxes on the lowest 5th by 16% and lowering taxes on the highest 5th by 5.5%), increased the size of the Federal Bureaucracy, gave amnesty to millions of immigrants, the Iran Contra scandal (essentially violated the separation of powers), funded the Islamist mujaheddin, paving the way for the Taliban, I could go on. The point being that Reagan was not some paragon of Conservatism, and would never be elected in today's political climate.
Carter: Presided over a period of time when global oil prices skyrocketed, leading to severe inflation and economic depression, negotiated a historic peace between Israel and Egypt, and spent much of his presidency trying to fight for human rights in the 3rd World. Now this isn't to say he was a great president, because he certainly wasn't, but he was hardly the horrible president the right tends to claim. He was idealistic and often inept, yes, but he was more of a neutral factor than anything else.
Perhaps no other American president's foreign policy is worse than that of President Obama's current.
You say that after George W. Bush's administration got us into Iraq and Afghanistan? Seriously? Or how about LBJ and Vietnam? Yes, Obama's foreign policy is bad, and is part of the reason I really despise him as president, but to say that his foreign policy is the worst is completely devoid of any sort of historical context, or facts for that matter.
Our adversaries had more respect for us even under George W Bush!
Which is why Al-Qaeda is doing far worse now than under Obama? Which is why we haven't had another 9/11 under Obama? I mean seriously, what are you basing that on? The world laughed at George W. Bush's ineptitude, and while they certainly scoff at Obama's, he is at least sending drones to the right countries.
