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.
That would explain why (conservatives) and liberals have the same exact political opinions.
They have marginally different political opinions and those marginally different opinions are purposefully exaggerated and emphasised at the expense of the vast majority of things they both agree on.
They have marginally different political opinions and those marginally different opinions are purposefully exaggerated and emphasised at the expense of the vast majority of things they both agree on.
I'll give you a good example in fact: Brexit.
Brexit began as an internal dispute between different factions of the Conservative Party and has grown to absolutely dominate political media coverage in the UK. The press are the biggest problem when it comes to marginalising politics.
Why were all the liberals For brexit? Why are American liberals pro-life? Why do all the American Conservatives try to Socialize entire industries? Because they are literally exactly the same.
That would explain why (conservatives) and liberals have the same exact political opinions.
Conservatives are literally liberals, liberals are more liberal liberals. You are both capitalist republicans (not meaning the party but the republic system itself).
They have the exact same ideas at different times, evidently. Here is the 1956 Republican platform (According to Snopes Fact Check:)
1. Provide Federal assistance to lo-income families.
2. Protect SS, provide asylum for refugees.
3. Extend minimum wage.
4. Improve unemployment benefits to cover more people.
5. Strengthen labor laws so workers can easily join unions
6. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
No talk of the 90% tax rate that STILL allowed the rich to get richer … though at a slightly slower rate. The rest seems to point to improving the lives of working people. Kind of "leftish" it seems …. same old stuff, different party.
WHY did Republicans abandon the real, hard-working Americans?? Oh, they didn't, the TRUMPICANS did. There IS no Republican Party anymore. :-(
"Conservative" and "liberal" represent two different political metrics. Conservative means you want to keep things as they are, as opposed to progressive. So the term conservative can have different meanings depending on which country you live in. Liberalism is a specific term in no way connected to progressivism and/or conservatism. A mentally sound liberal will be conservative on some issues and progressive on others. The thing you call NON-classical liberalism (neoliberalism)is an abberation created by cultural marxists and post-modernists, and has little in common with actual liberalism.
"Conservative" and "liberal" represent two different political metrics. Conservative means you want to keep things as they are, as opposed to progressive.
Conservatives and Liberals are just different types of capitalist. It does not matter how you attempt to warp words, you cannot change the fact that they both believe in the same ideology. How would you feel if Muslims took over, gave you a choice between Sunni or Shia, and then tried to pretend they were the only two things a person could reasonably be in life? You wouldn't like it would you?
First of all, "conservative" isn't an ideology in and of itself. A conservative in Saudi Arabia is something very different from a conservative in the US or UK. Second, capitalilsm isn't an ideology, it's a very broad term describing economic systems with free trade and freedom of enterprise. And although the latter are an integral part of liberal ideology, they are far from being the only defining traits of liberalism. Otherwise you would have to call Russia a liberal country, which would be an absurd thing to do.
A whole bunch of countries with significantly differing ideologies adhere to that definition, which makes it meaningless. Saudi Arabia is in no way similar to the US.
A whole bunch of countries with significantly differing ideologies adhere to that definition
Try to get it through your incredibly thick skull that variations in the way countries use capitalism does not change the fact that they are using capitalism. You might as well tell me Christianity isn't an ideology because there are hundreds of variations of it. Shut up mate.
Idiot, can you keep track of the topic at hand? This was in refference to conservativism, not capitalism. It was you who pulled the 'similarity' between them from your own ass and you can't use this as an argument because you have yet to prove that you're right.
First, your quote does not run contrary to what I've said. Second, you are the retard who cannot understand the difference between an economic system and an ideology.
I assure you it is. An economic system is not an ideology and you are deliberately conflating the two. There are capitalist countries with very different ideologies and only a seriously sick person would fail to comprehend that. Deliberately conflating terms is a sign of retardation and/or bolshevism.
Yes, but we have already established that you are a retard.
Well since both of your personas are retaded (but each in a different way), it doesn't matter what you have "established"' between yourselves.
Ahahahahahahaha
So sad to see a retard laugh. An economic theory is not an equivalent of a functioning economic system. We were talking specifically about capitalism as a funcitoning economic system, and such systems can vastly differ depending on the legal framework. "Capitalism" aka free market and establishment of private property is not an ideology. It takes a lot more than these two things to form an ideology.
Retaded huh? Nice. This is like one of those Keanu Reeves memes: "What if the retarded people are actually the smart ones but we're just too dumb to realise?"
Lol.
An economic theory is not an equivalent of a functioning economic system.
The dictionary just literally proved you are wrong. What more do you want from me?
Look buddy, I can't help it if you are too stubbornly irrational to admit defeat. You claimed "an economic system is not an ideology" and it is the precise dictionary definition of an ideology. The fact of the matter is that you are an idiot who has a big mouth and a short memory.
You claimed "an economic system is not an ideology" and it is the precise dictionary definition of an ideology
Here's your dictionary quote, in case you forgot it: "Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory"
An economic theory is something completely different form a de-facto functioning economic system. And in no way are free trade and private property, which you have yourself said to be the definitive traits of capitalism, an economic theory. To summarize: You should really lay off the crack, your attention span is worse that that of a 5-year old.
An economic theory is something completely different form a de-facto functioning economic system.
Look buddy, I'm done because you're obviously not mentally well. You are my very personal definition of a retard which is somebody unwilling to admit when they make a mistake.
Look buddy, I'm done because you're obviously not mentally well.
Fine. Just keep in mind that feudalism wasn't based on any economic theory yet it was a functioning economic system. Maybe that will ring a bell for you, if not now then in some distant future.
Just keep in mind that feudalism wasn't based on any economic theory yet it was a functioning economic system
I think you should keep in mind that your desperate attempts to derail the conversation into an argument about semantics belie the fact that the dictionary just proved you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are in fact making it up as you go along.
This debate was over the moment you contradicted the English Oxford Dictionary, and that's when you attempted to derail it by attacking your own make-believe difference between a theory and a system.
An economic theory is something completely different form a de-facto functioning economic system
A system does not have to be functioning in order to be a system. A system is a set of theoretical ideas of how to do something.
You are literally a fucking idiotic prick who is trying to twist language backwards over itself in order to prevent yourself from admitting what an utter clanger you made when you claimed economic systems are not ideologies. Shut your stupid mouth pal.
A system does not have to be functioning in order to be a system.
Pehaps, but that is clearly what one refers to when speaking about "capitalism". If you are impying that capitalism is just an economic theory as opposed to a functioning system, you are obviously mad.
Not pehaps (sic). Obviously. A system is a set of theoretical ideas of how to do something. There is no significant semantic difference between a system and a theory other than the one you arbitrarily tried to invent out of desperation.
Obviously not. Some systems only exist when they are functional.
A system is a set of theoretical ideas of how to do something. There is no significant semantic difference between a system and a theory
There is a huge semantic difference between a system and a theory, and it's crucial to the issue at hand. System analysis considers every natural, technical or social phenomena to be a system, but not every system is a theory. An economic system can form spontaniously without the need for any underlying theory as its basis, such as in the case of feudalism. But I understand perfectly well that all of this will all fall on the deaf ears of a drug addict, so not really expecting a coherent reply.
Obviously not. Some systems only exist when they are functional.
That's literally hilarious. So we are forbidden from thinking about these systems and the ideas which underlie them? Name one single system which does not exist in theory as well as fact you stupid little runt. I'll be waiting patiently.
There is a huge semantic difference between a system and a theory
But no there isn't. You claimed "an economic system is not an ideology", the Oxford Dictionary outright contradicted you with:-
Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Which is when you went full retard and started screaming that you weren't wrong because a theory is different from a system. You're literally a fucking idiot buddy.
Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Yes you fucking idiot, an ideology can form the basis of a political theory. That's nowhere close to saying "an economic system is an ideology", unless you're a totally retarded drug addict.
Which is when you went full retard
The only person that went full retard in this thread was you, and I understand you have every intention of continuing. Bon voyage!
an economic system can form a basis of a political theory.
The dictionary said "economic or political theory and policy".
That's nowhere close to saying "an economic system is an ideology"
A system of ideas which forms the basis of economic policy is "nowhere close" to saying an economic system is a form of ideology? Are you actually five years old? I am just utterly astonished at your stupidity.
I made a typo in my presious post because I was tired of your sillilness
You have made at least five typos during this discussion, and I assure you that your errors are not my fault. In actuality we have hit the root of your mental illness, because you genuinely seem to believe that when you are wrong it is the fault of whoever points it out.
I unintentionally typed "economic system" where I meant to type "ideology". You had already responded when I corrected it. You may capitalise on that one typo, but that's pathetic. A typo is not an "error", otherwise I wouldn't have corrected it.
I unintentionally typed "economic system" where I meant to type "ideology".
Yeah, I unintentionally typed "retard" where I meant to type "jaw-dropping retard". It happens.
A typo is not an "error"
Ahahaha! And different economic systems aren't different forms of ideology. I won't bother using the dictionary to correct you this time, because obviously you simply don't give a shit when you are wrong.
An ideology can form the basis of an economic theory, as per your quoted definition. That's nowhere close to saying "an economic system is an ideology". If you can't understand this I'm done with you. No use arguing with a retard.
That's nowhere close to saying "an economic system is an ideology".
"An economic system" is LITERALLY a paraphrase of, "a system of ideas which forms the basis of economic policy", which is the definition of ideology. You are just simply astonishingly stupid. Fuck off.
There are capitalist countries with very different ideologies
If they are capitalist countries then their ideology is capitalism you lamentably stupid rent-a-clown. As I've already pointed out once, Protestants and Catholics are both Christians, just as liberals and conservatives are both capitalists.
There is NO ideology based purely on "capitalism". Only a total idiot or ignoramus would claim otherwise. Free trade and private property are a subset of liberalism, but they do not define liberalism. Liberalism also comprises several other key principles, like the concept of human rights and equality before the law. That's why the US Constitution does not contain TWO sentences, as would have been the case if your bafoonish theory was actually true. Putinist ideology is vastly different from liberalism, but it also recognises private property and free trade. Stop pretending to be more of a retard than you actually are.
That is an idiotic book, one apt for retards like yourself. Quote: "The ideology of capitalism that has been generally adopted is based on its supposed rewarding of hard work, thrift and innovation." Nowhere does the definition of capitalism state that free trade and freedom of enterprise should reward hard work, thrift and innovation. That is only true in liberal countires, because their legal frameworks, which are based on the ideas of classical liberalism, make this true to a considerable degree. And that is exactly the point I was making. There are certain forms of capitalism where hard work, thrift and innovation are not rewarded and often punished - such as Putin's Russia. So how about you stop bitching about "capitalism" and value what you still have in the West?
Lmao. Based entirely on the fact that it points out capitalism is an ideology, right?
You are the idiot. Not the book.
Nowhere does the definition of capitalism state that free trade and freedom of enterprise should reward hard work, thrift and innovation.
That's a misrepresentation of the very quote you just referenced, you deranged imbecile. The excerpt is trying to explain that this is the impression people have been given, not that it is the economic reality.
The problem is that you are just too stupid to read things properly and too stupid to listen to what other people say. All you appear to be interested in is the sound of your own voice.
Lmao. Based entirely on the fact that it points out capitalism is an ideology, right?
No, based on the fact that the book is called "The ideology of capitalism" and thus implicitly claims that capitalism has an ideology. But the author doesn't even make an attempt to define what they mean by ideology of capitalism. That becomes obvious when one searches for the keyword in the text of the book. The book pussyfoots its way around this term but never attempts to give any definition.
You are the idiot. Not the book.
No, the idiots are both you and the author of the book. A book cannot be an idiot. Easy enough to remember?
That's a misrepresentation of the very quote you just referenced, you deranged imbecile
That's not a "misinterpretation", it's a refutal of the idiotic claim that capitalism is an ideology in and of itself. An ideology is a complex system of ideas. Free market and free trade are not a complex system of ideas.
