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.
Conservatives, hands down. Conservatives are the ones the Left wants to pay for all their compassionate ideas. Liberals are all for YOU bearing the burden and paying the price for their generosity, but not them. Conservatives also donate more of their own money to charity, too.
Having been a conservative republican and a democrat and actively involved in politics around the country since the Vietnam war, I have to say that hands down, liberals are 100% more compassionate than conservatives.
Why do you think it is billionaires who own all the money? They are always conservative.
Compassion normally relates to the sufferings and misfortunes of others. Since a 3-week old embryo won't suffer if the mother takes a special pill (it objectively can't suffer as it doesn't have an immune system, it doesn't know it exists yet and it is at a stage where the chance of miscarriage is still quite high).
The mother, on the other hand, would have to undergo a long, uncomfortable and humiliating bodily process that would permanently change her body and culminate in the birth of a baby she did not want. The child would potentially end up unloved, abused or neglected. If the child was taken into care, they would be likely to come out of that experience emotionally affected especially if they were not adopted (as there are a huge number of kids in the system anyway).
So from a "who's suffering" point of view, the pro-choice are more compassionate.
But that's abortion. Not every liberal supports abortion in every situation, and there are conservatives who are pro-choice.
When it comes to liberals versus conservatives, it is true that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. However, liberals tend to advocate for policies that will affect people other than themselves, so tend to have a less selfish outlook on politics. On the other hand, this is only one small bit of the picture.
Extreme conservatives and liberals are equally intolerant and tend to discriminate in terms of who they help or feel sorry for. A conservative is less likely to feel sorry for someone who is poor because they are less well educated or are perceived to have not worked as hard, and some conservatives will feel less sorry for gay people, women who don't fulfil traditional gender roles, or black people. Some liberals are less likely to feel sorry for the wealthy, those they perceive as "bigoted" (ironically) and, in the case of extreme liberals, straight white men who can obviously never be oppressed ever.
Considering the person who created this debate has been shoving the feed full of almost identical arguments, and they have shown themselves to have their own agenda, yes, I would agree with you that it is a trick question, but for a different reason.
ROFLOL, I stopped reading after your first sentence speaking to 3 week old embryo's.
Read my post once again, it's very short and to the point.
I was speaking to the fact that Liberals and the Democrat Party support NO RESTRICTION abortions of late term viable babies for any reason up to birth in nine States (unless extreme cases which would be allowed under the GOP 20 week abortion compromise). Liberals refuse to compromise!
I have written many debates on how Pro abortion people deny the reality of the extreme radical pro abortion people on the Left.
You always want to speak about zygotes, or early first trimester abortions WHEN IN FACT YOUR PARTY SUPPORTS NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS!
Liberals are a very diverse bunch and the vast majority of people DON'T support your "no restriction abortions". So it's false to assume that everyone "refuses to compromise".
Pro abortion people deny the reality of the extreme radical pro abortion people on the Left.
First of all, how many abortions of healthy late term viable babies with healthy mothers, bothers you? Are you ok with one viable baby being killed? WHAT ON EARTH DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE HOW MANY ARE PERFORMED? ONE IS ONE TOO MANY!
If it hardly ever happens, why is the Democrat Party so adamate about keeping all abortions for any reason up to birth legal? Gee, it could not have anything to do with big money and votes from the Feminist and pro abortion lobbies could it?
It's the inhuman people in the Democrat Party who support it, that are the problem.
Do you want to take a fact check on Party affiliation with Liberals? I already know the answer. It is by far Democrat!
You would vote for a Democrat in a heart beat no matter their stance on No Restriction abortions. TRY BEING HONEST ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
Tiny minority? The Democrat Party vote in lock step to support No Restriction abortions. They stop the GOP compromise every time.
I'm not debating your overly emotional ALL CAPS any further as I can see you're getting upset. But I will point out to you that there is more to the world than just the USA and more parties than just Democrat and Republican. Sadly a lot of Americans I debate seem to forget this...
I don't have voting rights in the USA as I am not a citizen there. I feel sorry for your political choices as both main parties are filled with extremist idiots.
NO! ONE Party is made up of extreme idiots. That is the Democrat Party and I guarantee that you would be voting for them if you could.
This is the same mindless arguments from Liberals. To excuse their inhuman support of No Restriction abortions, they always say..."both sides are just as bad"
Most liberals don't support no restriction abortions. Stop strawmanning.
If you would, I invite you to go and respond to my original debate since you've been evading it and focusing on one tiny point. Probably because you couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote.
An ad hominem insult which I will ignore. I could feasibly call you a fool for strawmanning me and ignoring the rest of my argument for one tiny point, but it's not worth it.
There are many people who voted Trump who believe in climate change. Your point being?
Would you mind pointing me towards this "no restriction abortion" policy you keep bringing up? I can't seem to find mention of it, which seems odd.
Also, stop looking at the world through American-tinted goggles and pretending that everyone who is a liberal is a Democrat supporter. There's more to the world than your country.
I'm not wasting my time debating someone from another nation who obviously knows nothing about our abortion laws.
There are approx. nine States in America that allow no restriction abortions of viable babies for any reason up to birth.
The Republican Party have tried to compromise on this hideous issue and make a federal law making restrictions against abortions past 20 weeks (unless extreme cases which would be allowed).
The Democrat Party is tied to the feminist and pro abortion lobbies and refuses to compromise. Democrat voters know this when they vote for these extreme pro abortion politicians and knowingly keep no restriction abortions legal.
There is such a thing as priorities when voting for inhuman politicians.
Any woman who wants to have an abortion a week from birth only needs to drive or fly to the nearest State that allows the inhumanity.
Google the facts if you are so ignorant not to know that most Liberals vote Democrat.
Well, since the original debate (which we've moved a long way from) wasn't restricted to the USA, maybe we can go back to that? Go and dispute my other points.
First of all, one can’t be partially born. In obstetrics, you are pregnant or you aren’t, and you are delivered or you are not. For example, there is an obstetrical emergency called shoulder dystocia where the fetal head delivers but the shoulders get stuck. It’s an emergency and if you don’t act appropriately and promptly, the outcome can be horrendous. Even in this situation, the pregnancy is not delivered until every part is delivered. Using the term “partial birth abortion” is like saying “cutting out half the guts” when you really mean a hemicolectomy. The former is a very imprecise and poor descriptor for the latter.
[...]
The American Congress of OB/GYNs (ACOG) has taken this term “partial birth abortion” to mean an intact dilation and evacuation without fetal demise before the procedure. Some also call this procedure a dilation and extraction or D & X. It involves delivering the smallest fetal part through the cervix and decompressing the cranium with suction if needed. That may be hard for some to read, but this is surgery.
[...]
Consider a woman at 35 weeks and her fetus has Potter syndrome. This is typically not compatible with life (basically no kidneys or lungs). She did not want to have a termination and elects to go through with the pregnancy and deliver at term. She is now 35 weeks and her fetus is a transverse lie (meaning it’s laying sideways not head down or bottom down) and so can’t come out vaginally with a normal labor. The doctors can’t even attempt to turn it head down with a procedure called an external cephalic version because with Potter syndrome there is no fluid and without fluid you can’t turn a fetus. Her choices are a c-section or a D & X.
[...]
As an OB/GYN, I can come up with hundreds of scenarios where a D & X is the medically preferred procedure. Every timeI think something is just too catastrophic to happen, the human body surprises me. With the “partial birth” abortion ban, the government took the safest medical option off the table in most states. According to ACOG “the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E;) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States.”
[...]
There are very few providers in the country who can do a D & X over 24 weeks and most only take cash. Insurance companies don’t cover late-term abortions unless there is a health of the mother situation or a serious genetic issue. The providers with the skill to do these procedures generally only take cash, that’s around $15,000 at 24 weeks and by 32 weeks it’s $25,000. And no that’s not what the doctor is pocketing. That money goes to anesthesia, medications, the operating room time, maintaining an ultrasound machine and other equipment, building upkeep, the nurses, the office staff and THEN the doctor. How many women do anti-choice activists really believe are wandering into doctor’s offices with a spare $25,000 for a spur of the moment abortion?
[...]
The anti-choice movement needs the idea of partial birth abortions of a healthy fetus in the “ninth month” just like they need the devil. However, if you pull back the curtain on their sideshow, all you see are women in medically desperate situations in need of high quality medical care.
Doesn't seem as bad as it originally sounded.
Any woman who wants to have an abortion a week from birth only needs to drive or fly to the nearest State that allows the inhumanity.
How many women do you think would do that were it not for a serious medical reason?
Google the facts if you are so ignorant not to know that most Liberals vote Democrat.
Many American liberals vote Democrat (to be honest, it seems pointless to vote independent in a two party system, you vote for the party you think aligns best to how you feel), but like I said, the original debate wasn't country specific, you just made it so. Your American bias is showing.
Well, what on earth do you mean by no restriction abortions? Don't they, by default, extend into partial birth abortions?
Just so you know, it's not just because of my nationality. I've been speaking to a few American people who say they have no idea what you're talking about.
You are tlking to deceptive Liberals. They will say anything to demonize a Conservative. This is why I ban the deceptive ones.
Partial birth abortions was another barbaric procedure supported by the Left in the Democrat Party (what a shock).
They would purposely deliver the baby feet first. The baby's head would still be in the mother's body. The doctor would stab the baby in the neck, insert a tube and suck the brains out. This would help collapse the head so they could then deliver the baby out of the mother and supposedly would get around killing the baby after birth.
Doctors testified in Congressional hearings on this issue, and told us that the majority of PBA's were performed for special olympic children (Downs Syndrome). These special needs children were completely healthy but were not perfect in the eyes of those who would support killing them (Democrat Party and those who would vote for them).
The Republican would allow extreme case exceptions but as always, Democrats wanted no restrictions.
When George Bush was elected, the Republicans were able to ban the sick procedure.
Today, they kill late term babies in other ways, whether drawing and quartering the child, or other gruesome things.
The word compassion and this Liberal new age Democrat party should never be used in the same sentence.
He says that Prochoice people try to prevent abortions more than Prolife people because he constantly lies how Prolife people supposedly do not support birth control. (COMPLETE LIE) I know of no Protestant Church or Conservative that does not support birth control.
If you want to debate the few Catholics who do not support birth control, go for it! Until then try being a sane person and quit making the same moronic argument.
For the last time, here is a newsflash.....in all of your devil's advocate mindlessness, why would pro choice people stop trying to teach about birth control (and prevent abortions as you say) if killing unborn babies for any reason were now illegal?
Lets see, according to you we would be preventing unwanted pregnancies, and we would be preventing abortions.
Gee, what a concept!
But if you said that, you would actually be telling the truth and not being a complete fool as you most times are.
But wait a minute, the fool is not done talking. His next mindless post will say people will kill their babies anyway even if abortion is now illegal (even though we never had a million illegal abortions per year when it was illegal).
Oh, wait a minute again, he will now lie and say we did have a million illegal abortions per year with absolutely no facts to back it up.
But, he will never use his same logic and say that people will also not use birth control no matter how many times you tell them to.
Hmmmmmmm, oh that's why I always ban deceptive fools. I forgot
I hope so. You have that backwards, so if you stop calling me deceptive I will finally be deceptive.
He says that Prochoice people try to prevent abortions more than Prolife people because he constantly lies how Prolife people supposedly do not support birth control.
This is not a fucking lie. You have never actually supported birth control.
know of no Protestant Church or Conservative that does not support birth control.
Abstinence education is not birth control.
For the last time, here is a newsflash.....in all of your devil's advocate mindlessness
Telling the truth to you is not playing devil's advocate. You are responsible for every abortion in this country.
why would pro choice people stop trying to teach about birth control (and prevent abortions as you say) if killing unborn babies for any reason were now illegal?
This question makes absolutely no sense. It only serves to prove that you believe that pro choice people are the only ones supporting birth control.
Lets see, according to you we would be preventing unwanted pregnancies, and we would be preventing abortions.
Gee, what a concept!
So, your argument is that because pro choice people aren't perfect it is ok for you not to be perfect? How is that an argument?
But if you said that, you would actually be telling the truth and not being a complete fool as you most times are.
No, if I were to say that I would be a complete fucking idiot. Why would you debate a position that people don't have?
But, he will never use his same logic and say that people will also not use birth control no matter how many times you tell them to.
That's because you don't understand logic. It is easier to terminate a pregnancy than it is to go through with the birth of the child. If you tell people about birth control they will learn that birth control is easier than abortion. That's why I wouldn't say it.
Thanks for clarifying the foolishness of a fool. To deny that supporting birth control as well as supporting prolife, would be the best of both worlds, makes you a deceptive fool.
I didn't deny that, you fucking idiot. I denied that there was any reason to talk about it because no one holds that position. Congratulations on your deception.
You haven't debated anyone on this website. You think there isn't a single person here with a brainstem?
You have no desire to debate
You have demonstrated that it is you who is lacking this desire.
thus you won't get one from me.
Not so far, pal. You admitted that the only reason you won't give me a debate is because you are trying to piss me off. It had nothing to do with my desire for debate.
Have you ever tried this thing called listening? It's very fun! I do it all the time. It's also what keeps people from being a lying, deceptive judge mental intolerant dumb butt like you. You don't listen. It seems to me that you just rant. Now I THOUGHT that debates were supposed to be respectful arguments. Just a thought.
I'm sick of hearing the conservative "teach them to fish" excuse. What you're actually saying is
It's your own damn fault you're starving.
Go invent your own pole and string and hook and bait because you can't borrow from any of our fancy Cabela's gear.
And then if you do succeed in fishing the fact we caught more has nothing to do with our superior gear, it's because we're superior fishermen.
Also go fish in the dirty cesspool because the clean prime fishing spot is already ours. We own it.
Never mind that big companies are using dynamite and electricity to take all the fish for themselves. Everyone gets more fish if the big guys get fish.
If we want to grope your fish it's just clean fun.
If you want to grope some other guy's fish you're just a filthy satanic and you deserve your suffering.
If you don't pray to our fish god you're just a filthy satanic and you deserve your suffering.
And Trump is going to land the biggest most amazing fish you've ever seen, unless Obama lurking around like swamp thing scares them all way.
Yeah, conservatives are compassionate after they've lined their pockets and heard you kiss their @ss by saying and doing and living exactly the way their rules told you you're supposed to.
"I'm sick of hearing the conservative "teach them to fish" excuse."
Lol. Yeah, teach them to fish. Then tell them you own the sea and they need to pay you for fishing there. Welcome to the twisted mind of the Conservative.
And then if you do succeed in fishing the fact we caught more has nothing to do with our superior gear, it's because we're superior fishermen
If you were starving and now you have fish, you don't need to get pissed at the fish on your host's pole. Be grateful that you have fish and a ploe. Without your host, you'd have neither.
If you don't pray to our fish god you're just a filthy satanic and you deserve your suffering
If your fish god is the cause of your suffering and misery and then commands you to kill us, don't expect us to welcome you to our no kill zone pond, and then look in a mirror and ponder, "maybe my fish death cult is why they don't want me at their pond. Maybe it's me and not them".
Yeah, conservatives are compassionate after they've lined their pockets and heard you kiss their @ss by saying and doing and living exactly the way their rules told you you're supposed to
If a CEO takes on the most stressful job possible and makes $3 million, he's greedy. A Hollywood star or NBA player makes $200 million, he earned every penny.
If you have an i-pad, dish network, internet, AC, heating and air, and a car, and are worried about what your neighbor has earned and are pissed, you're thinking is trash.
The whole world is amazed at America's prosperity but refuses to become America themselves or do anything about it and is pissed that America actually did something with its life. Nonsense. Liberalism is one big excuse to fail and not get it done at the end of the day.
You switched who dies and is negatively affected, and it was more when Obama got control of healthcare. Saving 22 million to kill and hurt well more than 22 million isn't compassion.
Obama did what sounded good but didn't DO good. We want to do what DOES good. Look! Obama saved 22 million... Yes... at the cost of everyone else's money and lives...and that's overwhelmingly more than 22 million.
Obama created a system that liberals supported. It has taken the system 5 steps back. If one didn't know any better, with Obamacare and the unsermountable debt created by Obama, one might think he sabotaged the country on purpose. I digress.
Today, right wingers, have NO bill. But somehow you magically know TODAY what right wingers are going to do tomorrow like magic. So your claim is bs, and demonstrably.
Obama creating a quagmire, and then you saying to keep Obama out of this, is a logical fallacy beyond comprehension. It's like me burning down your house, then while you try to fix the house, I say "hey, don't blame me, you're the one fixing the house". Never mind that I'm the one that burned down your house in the first place...
If you are petting and scratching the balls of the healthcare destroyer and attacking the healthcare fixer, that says it all. You don't care about healthcare. You care about liberalism winning. If some theoretical "Trump Care" looked identical to Obamacare before anyone knew what Obamacare was, you'd crucify Trump as a healthcare terrorist.
In terms of providing health insurance to the uninsured, Obama DID what FOUR previous Democratic presidents TRIED to do, but couldn't.. That's at least 5 steps forward.
And, try as you might, you're NOT gonna take it away either..
I don't care to take it away. If they can find a way to keep premiums affordable, not punish the working class, and take care of the 22 million, go for it. If you have to destroy 100 million people financially to take care of the 22 million and wind up with 100 million "dead in the streets", then I'm against it. You are pushing for the entire working class to die in the streets to save the 22 million. That's mindless. That's not justice. That's evil.
Taking our money and demanding we support people from elsewhere as you keep bringing them in and in droves, when you have 22 million you can't take care of, is not compassionate. It's like filling the bathtub until it overflows and claiming it's a work of water overflow genius.
"Compassion" on its own is a pretty lousy way to make moral decisions anyway. Taking pity on people is all well and good, but it really isn't useful at all unless it's coupled with the reason needed to actually find solutions to problems.
I'm liberal for many ideas, and they stand up for the disadvantaged when they're in need, and what might appear to conservatives that liberals try to shut down their compassionate ideas, is actually done so that order is maintained, personally speaking, I would even help a conservative who is in need, and I won't be surprised if a conservative helps me when I'm in need, I think compassion comes down to what you are, not necessarily the ideology you believe in.
The difference between the left and the right is this. If there were ten people on an island with two fruit trees than can support ten people, we say we can't sustain any more on the island. The liberal brings over 100 more people, we ration the fruit and everybody starves to death.
The difference between the left and the right is this. If there were ten people on an island with two fruit trees than can support ten people, we say we can't sustain any more on the island. The liberal brings over 100 more people, we ration the fruit and everybody starves to death.
if the liberal could bring hundred more people, doesn't that mean the liberal can go out of the island? (since you've said there are 10 people in the island in the beginning ? : If there were ten people on an island with two fruit trees than can support ten people)
in which case the liberal, would either bring food from outside or come back later to take the ten people out of that island, doesn't make sense...
This debate is based on the false American interpretation of left and right. Liberals are not left wing. They are the left of the right wing. The left is factually more compassionate than the right because the left wants to distribute wealth evenly so that everyone has enough to get by, whereas the right wants to continue with the pyramid system we presently have where a small group of super rich people dominate resources which could be being used by everybody.
