CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why can't Liberals see their narcissistic elitist arrogant hypocritical personalities?
Have you ever wondered why Liberals (so called Progressives) are so blind to their own hypocrisy? They speak down to those of faith, censor their free expression in public, as if it is ok to insult and be bigoted against those they disagree with. When someone says something against their ideology, they attack and insult mercilessly. Remember when Obama labeled Christians as a bunch of weak minded people who clinged to their God & their guns. CAN YOU IMAGINE SUCH CONDESCENDING ATTACKS BY A PRESIDENT? Imagine if Bush had said something like "Gays cling to their own insecurities". Can you imagine the outcry from Liberals & the Liberal media? So many on this site openly insult & degrade Christians as ignorant weak minded losers.
Liberals are like some kind of clinical dysfunctional group of people who truly believe they are the intellectual ones who know better than the rest of us and can dictate to the masses how we should all live our lives. They say we are too ignorant to handle guns safely, or to eat the right kinds of foods, or to buy health insurance without being forced to do so, or to raise our kids properly without "spanking" them, or too ignorant to know who we should hire or fire, or who we can rent out homes to, or to whom we should cater their functions, or how we should spend our taxes, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Liberls are the control fanatics! Now to every person on this site who will say I do the same things against Liberals, you only show your ignorance. I do not insult Liberals because of their beliefs or ideology. I do so because they want to control my life, my fmily's life, every America's life with their Political correct laws and mandates. Get out of our ives and allow Americans the freedoms our constitution guarantees us. When you do so, you will never hear another word from my mouth. We all deserve the freedom to believe as we see fit without others telling us how to live.
Well perhaps you should review your original argument and evaluate why he replied in that way. You did not present your argument in a manner that could be taken seriously. You did not use efficient language (for example, the entire point of your argument was hypocracy, and... well, you spelled hypocracy wrong).
Why can't you actually address the substance of others' comments rather than making personal attacks on people and misrepresenting their views? Answer that, and maybe you will make progress in answering your own rant.
Against sound advice, I will respond to your comment. Lets see if you attack me again.
So many on this site openly insult & degrade Christians as ignorant weak minded losers.
I agree that theists of any flavor should not be the subject of ill regard, simply for their beliefs.
Liberals are like some kind of clinical dysfunctional group of people who truly believe they are the intellectual ones who know better than the rest of us and can dictate to the masses how we should all live our lives.
I believe that many liberals and most progressives do think this way. Having been a theist most of my life, then becoming an atheist, I did not experience an increase in IQ. I also have not developed a disdain for theists.
You chose to insult liberals. This is a mistake. Liberal and progressive ideology are fraught with inaccuracy's, invalid assumptions and demonstrated failures when implemented.
Take a look at these links as examples of sound arguments that you would agree with. Use one of these to create a reasoned debate. My suspicion is that you will find that many disagree with you and many do agree with you.
Wow, maybe I will have to change my opinion of you. I have no problem with Atheists who do not try to silence people of faith and who support their freedom to express their beliefs and the freedom of private businesses to refuse catering things that go against their faith.
I believe that many liberals and most progressives do think this way.
I agree; I also happen to extend that to just about every ideological demographic instead of limiting it to just one. Most people are insular thinkers who do not like to be challenged or contested, and most believe they are correct and everyone else is wrong.
IMO this countries far left liberals as well a progressives have distinguished themselves from many conservative ideologies by actively subverting our Constitution's clear intent to establish a limited federal government.
Fromwithin said: Liberals are like some kind of clinical dysfunctional group of people who truly believe they are the intellectual ones who know better than the rest of us and can dictate to the masses how we should all live our lives. While its a certainty that people generally hold their political ideologies to be valid, when a particular ideology threatens freedom, it no longer represents the fundamental beliefs of our founders.
Neither supporting bigger government nor imposition of personal views onto others strike me as particularly distinguishing features between conservatives and liberals. For instance, while affirmative action was introduced by executive order under liberal President Johnson the first significant program was implemented by conservative President Nixon (The Philadelphia Plan) who also endorsed the ERA and included his support in his campaign for office. Conservatives were also responsible for the sodomy laws that restricted private, personal conduct for decades in this country. They also support anti-abortion laws which impose limitations based upon their personal views. I could go on, but I think this suffices to explain my skepticism as regards yours and FromWithin's claims?
In general, I think it somewhat fallacious to attribute the subversion of limited government to one party or the other, since that process has been ongoing pretty much since the government itself was founded and both parties (whatever they have been) have had their hand in the process at one point or another. It is in the interests of career politicians to centralize power, so it should come as little surprise that regardless of how long either political ideology has held power and in spite of any claims to the contrary the trend has consistently been towards a consolidation of power away from the states and towards the federal government. To be clear, I personally object to that trend and find it problematic for a number of reasons. At the same time, a lot of that trend has been tacitly or even explicitly accepted by the states themselves.
Though both parties have drifted to the left over the past hundred years. It remains true that the ideology of conservatives involves limited federal government, while liberal ideology openly supports a powerful federal government. If our nation is to halt its drift to the left, it will have to begin in the ideology of the right.
This seems rather non-responsive to a lot of what I already wrote. In particular, I included multiple examples of federalist conservative policies that not only were not initiated by liberals but were actually actively opposed by that demographic. Conservativism is not fundamentally an ideology of anti-federalism, but rather of conservation (e.g. opposition to change). By the same token, liberalism is not fundamentally a federalist ideology, but an ideology of change.
Daver, do you want evidence of the Republican party attempting to do the exact same thing, just on different topics? Because it really would not be difficult to show you how Conservatism within the United States is guilty of the EXACT same things.
Thank you, but that is not necessary, as clearly both parties have drifted to the left over the past hundred years. It is however also clear that the ideology of conservatives involves limited federal government, while liberal ideology openly supports a powerful federal government. If our nation is to halt its drift to the left, it will have to begin in the ideology of the right.
"clearly both parties have drifted to the left over the past hundred years" By which metric, exactly? Is your claim that because they have increased federal power, that means they have become liberal? Because Neo-Conservatives would have something to say about that, as would our last Republican administration (which was Neo-Conservative), as would Classical Conservatives.
I can point to social security as a bipartisan act.
In the House, 284 Democrats and 81 Republicans supported the bill.
In the Senate, 60 Democrats and 16 Republicans supported the bill,
Also the war on poverty was voted for by both parties.
Jan 7, 2014 - The president announced his War on Poverty from the Fletcher porch in 1964. ... to end poverty, Congress passed the bipartisan Economic Opportunity Act of ... Medicare; Medicaid; Head Start; and expanded Social Security.
Clearly both were huge shifts in the reach of the federal government.
3.5 - 1 and 4 - 1 Proportion is hardly actually bipartisan, that is only bipartisan by our very divisive current standards. Do you have any arguments regarding how their ideology has shifted towards the left, and, again, are you defining it as going to the left purely based on increases to the size of federal government?
3.5 - 1 and 4 - 1 Proportion is hardly actually bipartisan, that is only bipartisan by our very divisive current standards. Of course you can makeup your own definitions of bipartisan to support your argument if you wish, but you will be sorely pressed to Google any that mention ratios. Just say'in.
are you defining it as going to the left purely based on increases to the size of federal government?
YES the size and the power. These are steps away from the powers enumerated by our founders.
I have hardly made up my own definitions of bipartisan, I have simply pointed out that when essentially 4 democrats for every 1 Republican votes for something, that is hardly legitimately bipartisan. That is not a definition, by any measure.
And since liberal is not defined by the size of the federal government, I am confused as to how you use that as an indicator of an ideology moving to the left. There are steps Republicans have done that are away from the enumerated powers that are certainly NOT liberal, but by your definition, are "left leaning" simply because it increases the size and scope of the federal government.
I don't think anyone would claim that the government defining marriage so as to prevent homosexuals from getting married is an indicator of a "left leaning" shift, for example.
3.5 - 1 and 4 - 1 Proportion is hardly actually bipartisan,
If your comment was not meant to define bipartisan as something other than what the writers of the time labeled it, then what was it, just your opinion?
And since liberal is not defined by the size of the federal government, I am confused as to how you use that as an indicator of an ideology moving to the left.
Let me help you understand.
Liberal ideology in the U.S. is understood to promote larger and more powerful federal government. Conservative ideology in the U.S. is understood to promote smaller and strictly limited powers of federal government. When conservatives promote larger and more powerful federal government, they shift towards the left or liberal ideology.
I don't think anyone would claim that the government defining marriage so as to prevent homosexuals from getting married is an indicator of a "left leaning" shift, for example.
May I ask why the left leaning legislators are pushing gay marriage if is not a liberal position?
Except your definitions of liberal and conservative ideology are not, in fact, accurate. Liberalism tends to favorite larger government for a lot of fiscal issues, but smaller government for social issues and vice versa for conservatism, but even that is a massive over simplification. So when you say that any move towards larger government in any way is shifting left, you are not being accurate in terms of political science and ideology.
And I did not say that marriage equality is not a liberal position, I said that BANNING homosexuality, which is an increase in government power and scope, is not a liberal stance but it IS a conservative one.
My apologies. I meant liberal and conservative. political ideology. As was clear from my references to big and small government.
I said that BANNING homosexuality
No you did not. Here is what you said:
I don't think anyone would claim that the government defining marriage so as to prevent homosexuals from getting married is an indicator of a "left leaning" shift, for example.
Changing your statements is no part of valid debate
But that's the thing, what you have defined is not an accurate description of liberal or conservative political ideology, which makes the conversation on your PERSONAL definitions of those ideologies rather flawed. And I did not change my statement at all. Can you tell me why you think I have?
Just realized the issue, which is that it was supposed to be "banning homosexual marriage". Not idea why in the world I said banning homosexuality, though Republicans did consistently attempt to do just that right up until (and in some cases even after) Lawrence v. Texas. Regardless, my apologies, I definitely meant "banning homosexual (or same-sex) marriage".
Same reason everybody else does. They don't know how to effectively communicate with other people, so in their frustration, their obnoxious personality spills over.
It's not a question of communicating to people. It is ALL about forcing people to bow to their beliefs & their ideology. I could care less what Liberals think as long as they do not try to take my guns, or take way my religious freedoms to express my faith, or force me to cater things that go against my faith such as Gay wedding receptions, etc. IT'S ALL ABOUT FREEDOM TO DISAGREE! That is what America is all about!
A person's view point does not force others to follow it. Can you grasp the difference between a Liberals viewpoint saying that Gay marriage is ok, and a Liberal Democrat Government cheer leading Gay marriage and FORCING Christian owned private businesses to cater Gay wedding receptions? Or appointing Liberal judges to over ride the votes of entire states and forcing Gay marriage. THIS IS THE PROBLEM!
All people have a right to their view point but no one has the right to force their viewpoints onto others.
Conservatives do not try to force all Americans to buy guns for safety in their homes even though they believe having a gun for safety is a good thing. Democrat's viewpoint that Guns are BADDDDDDDD, constantly trying to take our guns one step at a time, forcing their viewpoints on all law abiding gun owners.
These are the differences between Conservatives & Liberals.
So Liberals force people to adhere to anti-discrimination laws, while conservatives try to deny folks their equal protection and due process constitutional rights by banning marriage equality.
What kind of fool sues states for his ludicrous claims that marriage rights are an equal right's issue. If that were true, men could have 100 wives and tell us it is their equal rights. Liberals are a laugh and are truly hurting this nation.
The kind of fools that are winning through out the country in front of liberal and conservative judges. I can provide some for you if you would like, so you can actually learn about about this issue. The marriage contract is a contract between two people, so no, your absurd polygamy argument does not hold any water. There is no "equal rights" argument for polygamy within our current marriage contract frame work. If you want to change that frame work go right ahead, I have no issue with polygamy. But all you have is an illogical straw man, then ad hominem. Please, PLEASE, I want a legitimate debate. Can you not participate in one?
You're not used to debating are you? There is no reason why someone can't be in favour of homosexual relationships but against polygamy. One doesn't naturally lead to the other. Stop scaremongering.
Liberals force bigots not to bee behave in a way that damages others. Get over it. You want to do whatever you want because of your believes? Treat certain people like shit? Well you can't.
I wonder what would happen if Conservatives forced laws against Christianphobic Liberal Democrats, who spend their lives insulting and degrading entire Communities, telling them that their free expressions of our religious heritage must be censored from our Public lands. Imagine what these hypocrites would do if they were forced to bow to Conservative beliefs. Oh I forgot, Conservatives believe in individual freedoms and would never grow a corrupt Government to control the people.
Have you ever seen such thin skinned arrogant people who would demonize others for their faith in God. Some Liberals would even take the name of a Christmas tree and remove the word Christ. They have already taken our Christmas & Easter holidays out of schools. What control fanatics! Our nation is all about freedom of religion, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!
A person's view point does not force others to follow it. Can you grasp the difference between a Liberals viewpoint saying that Gay marriage is ok, and a Liberal Democrat Government cheer leading Gay marriage and FORCING Christian owned private businesses to cater Gay wedding receptions? Or appointing Liberal judges to over ride the votes of entire states and forcing Gay marriage. THIS IS THE PROBLEM!
All people have a right to their view point but no one has the right to force their viewpoints onto others.
Conservatives do not try to force all Americans to buy guns for safety in their homes even though they believe having a gun for safety is a good thing. Democrat's viewpoint that Guns are BADDDDDDDD, constantly trying to take our guns one step at a time, forcing their viewpoints on all law abiding gun owners.
These are the differences between Conservatives & Liberals.
If all gun owners were law abiding, then Democrats wouldn't have to take any steps. If the Repulicians could fix the problem, Democrats wouldn't need to step up to the plate. Gun owners are the problem. It is not those being shoot at that is the problem.
This is like saying the majority of crimes are not committed by Afro-Americans, but by blacks.
One has to fix the problem from within and not cop out with lame excuses. Most legal gun owners also buy, sell and trade guns. These legal gun owners do no background checks or register these guns that they deal in. If gun owners themselves would follow the basic laws that are in place for new gun purchases fewer guns would end up in the wrong hands.
You insinuated that a large amount of, or a majority of, all gun owners took part in this. Your link only pertains to gun shows, and does not include the percentage of gun-show sales as a part of total national gun sales.
And why the entirely unnecessary insults? How do you think that has helped your case, or accomplished anything productive? Did it make you feel better or something?
Who puts on gun shows? Gun owners. If gun owners wanted to control who gets guns, they could do it. They don't, so government has to step in where gun owners fail to regulate who gets guns.
I provide links, show me a link that has statisic to show where gun owners don't go to gun shows. Your opinion isn't anything then wishful thinking on your part.
You are arguing with strawmen again. I never said that people who put on gun shows weren't gun owners, I questioned using that when referencing the majority of gun transactions or gun owners.
Do you see the distinction? I FULLY endorse better regulations for gun show transactions, by the way.
Your arguments aren't anything other than attacks upon opinions I do not hold, so please, try sticking with what I actually say.
