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.
Democrats are outraged that Guiliani called Obama unpatriotic! Do Dems. call GOP RACISTS?
It is so funny watching the Left try and destroy the GOP with constant hypocritical outrage over something said by a Republican. Now let me get this straight, Democrats live and breathe calling the GOP a bunch of Racists who hate minorities, hate poor people, hate women, hate old people, etc. etc. but that's ok! Then these same people pretend to be outraged when some out of office Republican talks about Obama's lack of patriotism? You can't make this stuff up! Obama suggested that George Bush and the GOP were unpatriotic when the debt went up 4 trillion under Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress. Obama has doubled that amount in 6 short years.
Can you spell hypocrites? They are after Scott Walker with this so called outrage and are trying to tie Guiliani's statement with Walker. There is nothng the Liberal media and Democrats will not do to demonize their opponents. It is pure politics but you would think they would try sticking to things that actually matter such as the policies of those they demonize.
"It is so funny watching the Left try and destroy the GOP with constant hypocritical outrage over something said by a Republican. " I don't think criticizing the comments one individual made count as trying to destroy the Republican party.
"Now let me get this straight, Democrats live and breathe calling the GOP a bunch of Racists who hate minorities, hate poor people, hate women, hate old people, etc. etc. but that's ok!" No, that is not okay. It is just as unacceptable as Republicans claiming Democrats are socialists, or communists, or unpatriotic, etc.
"Can you spell hypocrites?" Except you seem to be as well, as you are outraged by the Democrats part in this, but you aren't outraged by Republicans part in this. Both sides are being hypocritical here, and both should be recognized as such.
"They are after Scott Walker with this so called outrage and are trying to tie Guiliani's statement with Walker" They are both Republicans who in a short amount of time made similar (and ridiculous) statements.
"There is nothng the Liberal media and Democrats will not do to demonize their opponents. It is pure politics but you would think they would try sticking to things that actually matter such as the policies of those they demonize." And the exact same thing can be said about Republicans and Conservative media. That is the unfortunate state of politics in this country, and it needs to change.
HOGWASH! The GOP hardly ever lower themselves to such trivial insults. You are doing what you always do.... trying to say both sides are just as bad.THEY ARE NOT! Just because some Republican plays the same ludicrous games once in awhile, does not mean both parties are just as bad.This is your same argument no matter what the topic is. You are a joke to refuse to hold the more egregious side responsible.
You do the same thing with Abortion and any other subject that shines a light on the Democrat party. I talk about late term abortions and you spew the ludicrous arguments that the GOP are not much more against it. You waste our time as usual. Are the GOP perfect? Of course not but they are a thousand times better than these thin skinned arrogant Democrats.
1. Want me to provide countless examples of the Republicans doing exactly that?
2. Yes, both sides are just as bad. The Republican Party plays the exact same game the Democratic Party does, and it is despicable on both sides. And no, it is not my argument no matter the topic, it is just something I point out. Additionally, we differ on which side is more egregious, I simply don't forgive the side I consider less egregious.
3. You make claims about the Democratic Party that are untrue, and I point out those claims can be made about the Republican party as well. That is not a waste of time, it is pointing out an issue with your argument.
But you never form any actual counter argument, so why do you come here? Do make the same claims over and over and then get mad any time someone disagrees with you, but refuse to actually debate? What's the point?
Obama was raised without knowing the love of country that most Americans did. His mother was a hippie, his father a Kenyan his second father an Indonesian his mentor a commie, his preacher for 20+ years hates America.
He stated that he wanted to fundamentally transform America.
What is fundamentally wrong with America that Obama wants to change.
is our Constitution fundamentally wrong. Is our leadership role in the world fundamentally wrong? Are we conquerors? Should we let the balance of powers in the three branches of our government dissolve into the administrative branch?
I am not here to explain to you the evident threat to freedoms that the liberal progressive movement represents. Read Saul Alinski, read Bill Ayres, read Mark Levin. Stop sucking the Kool-Aid.
Should I bring up some Conservative bookgeymen and pretend the same thing applies to Conservatism, or are we going to cut the crap and have a real debate?
To bring up boogeymen which most of the Left do not agree with and pretend they represent the Left is absurdity itself, Daver. I have had legitimate, constructive conversations with you before, so I do not understand why you are falling victim to this sort of nonsense now.
1. I did call them boogeyman, because they are individuals who people like yourself trot out whenever you want to make the left sound scary, despite the fact that they do not represent the left in any way.
2. "YES I would like to see your list of conservative leaders who avow to replace our democracy and our freedom with Lenin's socialist utopia." Do you really think that was a rational thing to say, Daver? You are intentionally avoiding the point I made, which is that there are extreme members on both sides of the political isle and that neither one represents their respective ideologies. Why are you avoiding this fact?
3. "We have constructive discussions when you refrain from twisting what others say or just making up boogyman statements that you can attack." Please demonstrate how I have twisted anything, and explain how you can criticize me for that after your second sentence on this very post.
1. Calling them boogeymen twists your words how, exactly?
2. I offered lists of conservatives that are equally extreme in their views as the "boogeymen" (yes, I used that term again) that you listed. Before I do so, do you recognize that is both what I intially meant, and what I am elaborating now? I am not going to go get that list only for you to say "see, they aren't Leninists!"
3. And the extreme right has captured control of the Democratic party (see Congressional Republicans). We live in a hyper-partisan country right now, unfortunately.
You are making claims about my words, yet you will not explain them? Is this kind of like how it is wrong for me to ask for evidence for claims I disagree with, only for you to turn around and demand evidence from me for claims you disagree with?
If the extream on one side wants a socialist state and the extream in the other direction wants to support the ideals of our founders, which way are you supporting. Or is that kinda puttin you on a spot to answer?
I'm jumping in here because you seem to think Republicans support the ideas of the founding fathers. There wasn't billionaires or corporations when the founding fathers were around. So where do get this stuff from? Saturday Night Live?
"If the extream on one side wants a socialist state and the extream in the other direction wants to support the ideals of our founders, which way are you supporting. Or is that kinda putting you on a spot to answer?" Except that isn't the case, at all. The extreme on one side wants a socialist state, the extreme on the other wants a fascist state. Those are the extremes of the political spectrum (though the third extreme was an anarchistic state).
Please, try to be a bit more honest in your questions, rather than such blatantly partisan posturing.
I believe he is changing too much. First he takes our guns to put on his racks, he takes paychecks from real workers and passes them to the lazier, he tries to flush something with as much meaning and history as our anthem down the toilet, and that is just a start. The second someone critzies him or anything he will go strait to plain out political mud slinging from blaming Bush to acussing racism. Hell, by now I expect them to try to balance exsucutive power with more people. One man should not be in charge of this much. The things Andrew 'Jackass' did with his power should have been enough. We need a different system!
Are your posts meant to be serious, or are they meant to be jokes? That is not intended to be an insult, I am just struggling with Poe's Law right now and needed to know if you actually meant what you are posting before responding.
It is obvious that Obama and most Liberals hate traditional America. They hate any notions of moral values being lifted up in our culture. They believe in a transformed America where words such as responsibility and accountability are no longer used in our English language. They are the no fault Progressive ideology unless of course it is a Conservative view point and then it is ALL their fault.
Obama is definitely unpatriotic along with most of those on the Left. They spend every second of their lives tearing down our traditional Christian heritage, replacing it with humanistic Political correctness where Government will form our children's core values, not our Constitution or Christian heritage, a heritage that made this nation the greatest on Earth. To Progressives, our Constitution is a living document that should change with the times. Nuff said!
Everyone should hate traditional America. Traditional America is a country of slave owners where non-land owning individuals could not vote, women had no rights, etc. It was a land of racial atrocities.
Now Liberals do have moral values, they simply differ from yours. They believe in responsibility and accountability, they just have opinions that differ from yours. They believe in "fault", but, again, they have an opinion that differs from yours. So why do you continue to lie about them?
Obama is not unpatriotic, and neither is the left, and I say that as someone who loathes Obama. You calling the left unpatriotic is just as ridiculous as the left calling everyone on the right racist.
Our heritage is not "traditional Christian" (you are using the term traditional in ways that do not accurately apply), and most Liberals are Christian.
To many Conservatives, the Constitution is a living document as well. That is why Republicans have recently proposed Constitutional amendments. Why are you not calling them out?
Again, why do you come here, when you don't want to have a real conversation with people of differing opinions? I am legitimately trying to figure that one out and would appreciate an answer.
Hogwash, it was the Christians who wanted to end slavery. You are exactly proving my point. For you to always dwell on the bad things in our nation at that time is what those on the Left do. Every nation has good and bad at any point in history. The good of America far outweighed the bad and when compared to other nations, we are the best in the history of this planet.
Most Liberals are anything BUT Christian. They stand for most things that go against the Bible..... Homosexuality, Abortion, feminism, etc. etc.
LOL, as always, you never have one post that does not say the GOP are just as bad.
I don't come on here to hear your ludicrous denials of the obvious. I've asked you many times to ignore me if you need to constantly judge the way I debate. I live in reality where you live in your ideology regardless the obvious.
OUR HERITAGE IS OBVIOUSLY CHRISTIAN. To deny this fact makes you the fool.
It was also the Christians who wanted to continue slavery. THey made up the entirity of both sides of that issue.
I dwell on both the good, and the bad of our country. That is what you have to do: Accept all aspects of our history. "we are the best in the history of this planet" based on what metric?
"Most Liberals are anything BUT Christian" No, they are Christian. You disagree with them on political issues, but they worship Christ, which makes them Christian.
"you never have one post that does not say the GOP are just as bad" That is because I am not blinded by partisanship and I recognize that both parties are equally horrible.
"I don't come on here to hear your ludicrous denials of the obvious" But that is what I am asking: Why DO you come here? It clearly isn't to talk to people of differing ideals, so what is the point of posting here?
"OUR HERITAGE IS OBVIOUSLY CHRISTIAN" Nope. We were not based on Christian ideals, our heritage isn't Christian, etc. You can argue that we have been a nation made up of primarily Christians, but that would imply something else entirely.
But I love the whole "Agree with me or I will insult you" thing you've got going on, especially considering how angry you get any time I even come close to insulting you. Can you please try to keep this civil for once?
2. That is a real answer. I was created by my parents, and you by yours. If you mean "who created humanity", I would say nobody did, we came about via evolution.
3. In the United States, you are not legally required to swear upon a bible in court. It is still quite common, but I assure you that if you request a different item to swear upon, they are required to provide it.
4. True, I quaked and trembled at the effort required!
You made the claim twice there, and once on another debate, that Obama wanted to change the national anthem, and on the debate I linked I provided two different fact checking websites that indicated there was no proof of that claim.
What is the date in which the Constitution was signed?
"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
I stated a fact, this is in the Constitution. The evidence is the Constitution. Please proved evidence contrary to this. Failure to do so will be an admission of defeat on your part.
Someones opinion from 2011. This falls in there lower than an F grade.
"Pledge of Allegiance not written until 1892 over 100 years since the founding of America and the under god part wasn't added until 1954 nearing 200 years at that point." Cuaroc
And now you want to use information as late as 2011, try to be consistant.
Pledge of Allegiance not written until 1892 over 100 years since the founding of America and the under god part wasn't added until 1954 nearing 200 years at that point.
You mean the one made by Francis Scott Key on September 14, 1814 when he saw the flag being waved after an important battle in the War of 1812? Also, weren't ONLY. So it was a tradition in our history. Isn't that neat. :3
Same for this debate. If you want to make edits and lies upon lies instead of debates than I will no longer waste my time on this discussion with you. For the people who don't know what is going on this man made an edit after I responded to him so I would look dumb and he would win. So farewell you trickster.
Since you want to talk about the anthem very well. "Under God we trust" only appears once in the Anthem so it's safe to assume it didn't become the anthem for that small line.
