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.
Well, I tend to side with Republicans of course. :) I think the biggest qualm with Democrats is that they are so ready to abort babies but won't execute guilty murderers or wage war against an evil nation. Now, I've already discussed this before, so I'm not debating about that right now- get me another time. But Republicans tend to believe, at least the good old conservatives especially :), that abortion is wrong because it's innocent life being lost. The other cases are guilty life being lost. Just my opinion. You asked for the most sound logic and ideas, and this was a specific case in which Republicans have sounder logic. So stick that in your back pocket.
Not babies, clumps of cells. After a fetus becomes viable, it is illegal to abort, unless the fetus threatens the health of the mother.
"won't execute guilty murderers"
The death penalty is a bad idea for practical reasons:
1) It costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for life. (source)
2) If new evidence turns up that exonerates the criminal, you can release him from prison, but you can't undo an execution.
"wage war against an evil nation"
The cost of the war in Iraq has been massive. Almost a trillion dollars (and counting), thousands of American lives (and counting), over one million dead Iraqis. Saddam Hussein was not a good guy but at some point you have to draw a line and say policing the world is just not worth the price.
"so I'm not debating about that right now- get me another time"
Oh come on, you can't drop inflammatory nonsense like this and expect it to go unopposed.
The only circumstance where abortion is logical and ethical is when the fetus threatens the mother's health with an ectopic pregnancy, a cancerous uterus, etc. I also feel some cases of rape could call for very early abortions. However, life begins at conception. At this point, the zygote, still a single cell, has the same number of chromosomes as a developed human being and carries on the same life processes found in every living organism.
Although it may be more costly to execute a prisoner, I see the death penalty as a way to rid society of those not worthy to belong in it. The death penalty should not be used lightly, of course, as if we lived in the Middle Ages, but should be used only on criminals guilty of first degree murder or crimes as evil as this. The way I see it, people guilty of first degree murder thought about their actions beforehand and planned to murder others prior to the incident. It is not a freak accident or a crime of passion- these people are inherently evil and have no respect to life. And with the advent of DNA technology, the number of people wrongfully accused of a crime has dwindled. There will never be a foolproof justice system, but we are closer than we ever have been.
I think if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off. They no longer live under an evil dictator, they finally have freedom and democratic elections (government of the people!), and the economy there is improving to stability. So we have done a lot of good there.
"Almost a trillion dollars" I agree that's a lot of money, but at least it wasn't spent in vain.
"thousands of American lives" This is nothing. I feel a sense of honor for each soldier who is serving now, who has served, and who has died for this country. I salute them and I think they are the greatest Americans, but compare this to any other major war in American history, and it is smaller than many individual battles! In wars of the past (not Vietnam), people didn't complain about numbers of dead soldiers, they praised these men (and now women) for their dedication and honor! And every war in our history has been greater, casualty-wise, than the Iraq war. The problem is that the media goes on air and says "This many people died this week in Iraq," which is constantly exaggerating the war. We are not dying that much over there.
"over one million dead Iraqis" This is truly sad, but think about how many of these people were on the other side of the war to begin with. Also, think about how many people would have lived in terror or died because of Saddam Hussein. I think one million dead Iraqis is better than an entire nation terrorized constantly by their leader or dying from radical Muslims.
This is absolutely not true. The reason human life is precious is that we are capable of thought and feeling. A clump of cells is not capable of this. It is only alive in the strict biological sense, the same way a plant is alive. Would you argue that it's immoral to kill a plant? This is the same thing.
"I see the death penalty as a way to rid society of those not worthy to belong in it"
Life imprisonment removes evil doers from society just as effectively, and it does so in a more pragmatic manner. Your argument is thus invalid.
"if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off."
Yes, obviously they're better off with a Democracy. I'm arguing that the price was too great. Do you really appreciate the enormity of one million lives lost? How many would it take for you to draw the line? A billion? A trillion?
That fact is Saddam Hussein never posed a clear and present danger to the United States and thus the war in Iraq was unjustified.
Just like somebody in a coma, right? Aborting a baby can be compared to killing a comatose patient, but in a completely inhumane way only because his or her mother doesn't want him or her anymore. Now, indirect euthanasia is okay, as in removing any machines from the patient, but murdering the comatose is unethical, just like abortion.
"removes evil doers from society just as effectively"
Prison can be like a paradise for some of these criminals. So removing the death penalty could cause an surge of crimes because people don't have three square meals a day and a shower and bed. Regardless of this, keeping these murderers alive in prison always leaves the chance of parole, if available, or a prison break, which would be rare but still possible. I see the death penalty as the biggest deterrent for murder- kill and be killed. If the death penalty were removed, I'm sure people wouldn't hesitate to murder based on consequences because this would lead to a consequence of meals, showers, and beds, as opposed to death.
"How many would it take for you to draw the line?"
There is no line to be drawn- only comparisons to be made and scenarios to be though about. Scenarios meaning thinking about what the world or region would be like without the war ever have existed. Yes, one million people is a lot of people, but did they die in vain? Was it really that big of a loss in comparison to any war of human history?
Hmm, interesting comparison. But here's the difference:
People in comas still have brain activity; there's stuff going on upstairs. This is what differentiates a comatose state from a vegetative state. (coma info) Embryos have no brain. Your comparison falls flat.
"surge of crimes because people don't have three square meals"
Your portrait of masses of homeless bums murdering people in order to live it up in prison is just silly, and you know it. Spending the rest of your life in a six foot box is nearly as bad a fate as a humane death. More importantly, people who murder do so because they have a screw loose. The prospect of a humane death is not going to deter an insane person.
"leaves the chance of parole"
If we're talking about an offense serious enough to consider the death penalty, then obviously we're talking life without parole.
"a prison break"
No one has ever escaped one of our maximum security prisons. (source)
But now that I think about it, why are we even debating this issue here? This is not an issue that divides Democrats and Republicans. Most people favor the death penalty, regardless of party. (source)
Your final argument about Iraq just makes no sense to me at all. Scenarios to think about? Here's a scenario: We left Iraq alone. Saddam eventually falls out of power and is swept into the dustbin of history, like all petty dictators. Iraq eventually develops Democracy on its own, much like the rest of the world has. We as a country are fiscally sound due to not having wasted a ton of money. An inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided. Doesn't that sound like a better outcome to you?
So you're inferring that it's okay to "murder" a fetus that has not yet experienced brain activity but will and at the same time, it's not okay to "murder" a comatose patient that has already experienced brain activity and never will again. I'm referring to brain activity as thoughts and feelings, not motor functions and bodily functions. Even so, a baby has its first brain activity as early as 8 weeks, along with a heartbeat! I still believe life begins at conception and that all unnecessary abortion is wrong, but I can at least tolerate an abortion up to, but not including, this milestone. I can't stand how there are abortions after this point just because of viability.
Of course, parole and prison breaks were hypothetical situations I derived to prove a point that the death penalty is permanent, which is a good thing. But since Democrats agree with the death penalty, let's leave it at that. :)
"Here's a scenario: We left Iraq alone. Saddam eventually falls out of power and is swept into the dustbin of history, like all petty dictators. Iraq eventually develops Democracy on its own, much like the rest of the world has. We as a country are fiscally sound due to not having wasted a ton of money. An inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided. Doesn't that sound like a better outcome to you?"
That outcome sounds amazing and I wish it were that simple, but how long would we have to wait for Saddam Hussein to die and stop killing his own people? And what if he had a son who took his place and was just as evil? I'm sure in a nation like Iraq, there would have been plenty of people willing to take Hussein's place after he died and would have been just as evil or even more evil. So an "inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided"..... by Americans. The same can be said about the Holocaust. If we never got involved, it's no big deal for us, but it we did get involved. Yes, Japan attacked us first, but we really had no other reason to invade Europe other than stopping the Nazis and helping the allies.
"it's not okay to "murder" a comatose patient that has already experienced brain activity and never will again"
Um... no. Do you not understand what the word "comatose" means? A comatose person, even as they lie there, is actively having brain activity. They are thinking thoughts and feeling feelings. Therefore killing them is wrong.
I think what your thinking of as "comatose" is actually persistent vegetative state. This is when everything but basic motor functions are gone and will never come back. In this case I would say killing that hollow shell of a person is acceptable for the same reason killing an embryo is acceptable.
"I can at least tolerate an abortion up to, but not including, this milestone"
Good. I'm glad to see you moving toward a more sensible position.
The way I see it, there's a spectrum wherein a fetus goes from 0% human being to 100% human being over the course of a pregnancy. The fetus accumulates "moral weight" as it moves along this spectrum. By that I mean killing it becomes "more wrong" the further along it is. Determining the point at which to draw the line is an extremely difficult question.
Back to Iraq. You seem to be avoiding the fact that violence in the area before we invaded was nowhere near what it was after-word. Saddam killed what, maybe 100 people in a year? Compare that to the 1,000,000 that died as a result of our actions and it's clear we did the wrong thing. You seem to think the end justifies any means. I strongly disagree. If the price of achieving a goal is too high than it should not be pursued, regardless of how noble our intent.
And how in the world can you compare Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Nazi Germany? The scale between the two is absurdly different. Preventing the extermination of 10 million people obviously justifies the cost of full scale war. Preventing the deaths of a few hundred obviously does not. There are petty dictators all over the world who maintain power by murdering their opposition. Should we spend trillions of dollars nation building in Africa and South America as well? Obviously not. We can't afford it. Countries need to establish Democracy on their own. Sure we should push them in the right direction, but a full scale invasion is just madness.
I would have added in the Iraq part of the debate, that Saddam hated Al-Queda, and would never had allowed them to take a foot hold there, now it's their recruiting hot spot. I don't think we'll fully appreciate the irony of that for a decade or so.
"In this case I would say killing that hollow shell of a person is acceptable for the same reason killing an embryo is acceptable."
Well then we are never going to agree on this issue. :) Because I am opposed to the direct killing of either, unless necessary.
Once again, 1 million is a huge number, but I truly believe it is nothing in comparison to what it could have been and what there has been in wars of the past.
"Countries need to establish Democracy on their own."
If it were that simple, then yes, let them run wild and eventually tame themselves. It doesn't even matter if a nation has a democracy or a monarchy or a dictatorship to me, as long as the government does not oppress its people or abuse its power (or terrorize the world).
"Well then we are never going to agree on this issue. :) Because I am opposed to the direct killing of either, unless necessary."
Why? You haven't justified your stance that destroying something that is incapable of thought or emotion is wrong. I think we should be able to agree that it's acceptable.
"Once again, 1 million is a huge number, but I truly believe it is nothing in comparison to what it could have been and what there has been in wars of the past."
Excellent logic! I'll explain to the man I'm about to murder that his death is not such a big deal because millions of people died in World War 2.
I'm glad we can agree that it's better for countries to achieve stability mostly on their own.
Because it WILL BE a fully functional human being, granted there is no miscarriage nor mental or physical dysfunction. It is not the same as a gamete, which may or may not become a zygote and will die without another gamete being joined. As soon as that sperm cell goes inside of that egg and forms the first few cells of a fetus, it is destined to be a baby. It is technically alive, according to science, and there is no way you cannot consider it a human being. What else would it be? Does is gradually change its species and eventually morph into a human? No, it starts as a human and develops to become more and more recognizable.
I believe it is wrong to take innocent or defenseless life. Typically, that would be for God to decide and I don't think we have the right to take away the life of another without a consequence. But let's just say God didn't exist, for the argument's sake. Even then, most people would feel bad for killing another, especially when he or she didn't deserve it and/or couldn't protect him or herself. I believe this is the basis of all of our morals: would you feel guilty or bad for doing that? The only time killing another human being is justified is when it will benefit society as a whole. This is where capital punishment enters the picture (take a life, lose your own). As for wars, I would LOVE to see a world in complete peace, but there are evil people out there and the only way to stop them sometimes is by fighting them and their armies.
"An embryo is not a human, it is a potential human."
Saying it is a potential human means that it may become a human and it may not, but it all depends on actions and factors, etc. An embryo WILL develop into a fully-formed human being, who may be missing a body part unfortunately, unless it is miscarried (or aborted).
I would say it's wrong to kill because people have a capacity to enjoy life. This enjoyment of life is the most fundamental source of what we call "good." An embryo has no capacity to enjoy life, therefore destroying it is acceptable.
You're telling me that we shouldn't kill because it makes us feel bad? I don't like that answer. What if killing didn't make us feel bad? Would it then be ok? Also, I wouldn't feel bad at all about destroying an embryo, for reasons I've explained.
And no, "potential" doesn't mean "maybe", it means "not yet."
Okay, maybe that wasn't the best answer. Honestly, I've never thought about why the things I believe are wrong are in fact wrong. They just all seem wrong and I'm sure most people feel the same way about their own morals, but I've been thinking about this more throughout the day... We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain. And when we do want to cause pain in others, it's out of spite and we may feel bad about that later on. Our morals revolve around the Golden Rule, "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you." If you don't want somebody to do something to you, then don't do it to them.
These things seem wrong to you because of the strong values you have been raised with. Our society and especially our parents shape our ideas about right and wrong. Closer inspection, however, can reveal that these values don't always have a logical foundation.
"We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain."
This sounds reasonable to me. But, of course, embryos are incapable of feeling pain.
"This sounds reasonable to me. But, of course, embryos are incapable of feeling pain."
I have to strongly disagree with this. An embryo can feel pain as early as eight weeks, when it first develops brain activity and a heartbeat. And even before this, the mother can feel pain by realizing that she just gave up her own flesh and blood. I've heard stories of would-be mothers feeling extreme guilt or sadness from aborting a baby at any point during the pregnancy.
After eight weeks it's not called any embryo, it's called a fetus. I'm arguing there's definitely nothing wrong with destroying it before then.
I think I could convince you to push the line back further, but let's leave it there for now.
If a woman feels guilty about aborting an embryo it's just because of bullshit morals beaten into her head. Regret could come from not having a kid when she had the chance, but not from committing murder.
You seem to be under the impression in the abortion part of the debate, that making it illegal would stop it.
Even if one does for some reason believe that life begins upon conception (they would be wrong)
even then, making it illegal would not stop a single one. Abortions have been going on since before recorded history. Before it could be done in a safe and starile environment, it was done in basements.
You would revert to this brutal time in history, even knowing no lives would be saved, even knowing several more mothers would die,
all on the basis of some imagined moral ground?
The debate is about logic, not emotional self-righteousness,
which is why democrats will continue to win these kinds of debates.
Well life does begin at conception. End of story. "a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations." -Wikipedia
Let's see... A zygote is a cell that is comprised of water and carbon-based molecules, among other things.
It has genetic information, more importantly a complete set of human DNA.
It has a metabolism- it "eats" the yolk of the egg for energy.
It has homeostasis because it is maintained by the mother's body temperature.
It grows and it's cells divide.
It can respond to stimuli, more and more as it grows.
It doesn't reproduce yet, but hey... neither does a child, which is clearly alive.
And natural selection refers to the species, not the individual, and is true for all species anyway.
So how is it not alive?
True, making abortions illegal would not stop all of them, but it would surely stop some. So many women get abortions and then soon realize it was a mistake to do so. And it is a mistake. It's destroying life, as explained above.
Vegans don't kill humans for no reason other than the fact that they don't want a baby! Well they might, but that's not the point. Human life is sacred ans special. So sorry for not specifying that we were discussing human life. I kind of thought that was a given. We are the only organisms on Earth, as far as I know, that have a rational soul, that we can think logically and reason as a species.
vegetables have no more or less life than that cluster of cells being aborted.
science determines the best it can when something has a life, why any abortion has to be performed before a certain point.
which I agree with completely by the way.
but if you think that something has a soul the second of conception, there obviously is zero way that we are ever going to agree on this.
I don't believe in a soul though, I think it's just a brain, and the brain isn't working at that point, so there is no self-awareness, kind of like a vegetable.
life begins at conception. At this point, the zygote, still a single cell, has the same number of chromosomes as a developed human being and carries on the same life processes found in every living organism.
Not all living things have chromosomes. It's really a gray area as to when life begins, so it occurs to me that that distinction is simply a red herring-- it's been made the main issue because it's impossible to place for certain, in order to suspend a groundless argument. The real consideration, IMO, is when the fetus begins to feel pain. If I'm remembering correctly, that's the third trimester.
And with the advent of DNA technology, the number of people wrongfully accused of a crime has dwindled. There will never be a foolproof justice system, but we are closer than we ever have been.
While that's partly true, read up on the statistics: given conflicting DNA and eyewitness evidence, juries will usually believe the witness. Witnesses are extremely specious.
I think if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off.
Why don't we ask Iraqis? "of 600 Iraqi citizens randomly selected and surveyed in Baghdad, 63% of them report losing one or more family members to military attacks since the invasion, and more than half of these casualties were civilian. The survey also indicates that approximately 40% of all Iraqi children under age 10 lost one or more parents. 1 out of every five Iraqi children under age 10 were orphaned by the war and/or subsequent occupation. In a country of 25 million people, 45,000 civilian casualties have been documented by project Iraq Body Count, but both the Red Crescent and the Arab League believe the John Hopkins University/Lancet report of 600,000 deaths is "far more realistic". In his 27 year reign, Saddam Hussein is alleged to have killed 100,000 Iraqis. Why coalition soldiers are instructed not to conduct body counts remains an unanswered question. "To date, we can extrapolate that between 5,000 and 8,000 Iraqi children have been killed by military actions since 1991"
"Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'. Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago. Nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified. This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia. Growing disparity between Shia and Sunni satisfaction levels."
Although I would guess you don't understand the power dynamics of Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq, do you MK?
These aren't crazed "insurgents." They're people reacting to an invasion. Dictator or no, it was unjustified.
They no longer live under an evil dictator, they finally have freedom and democratic elections (government of the people!), and the economy there is improving to stability. So we have done a lot of good there.
Who is running these elections? Who benefits most? How much money and power stands to be gained by putting on a facade of legitimacy?
95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces
Nearly 66 per cent of respondents thought violence would decrease if US forces were to leave
Thirty-eight per cent were also "unconfident" that Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, would be able to improve the situation in Iraq and nearly 90 per cent described the government's implementation of its commitments and promises as very poor
36.5 per cent said they felt the official security forces were unable to keep control in the country
The funniest part of this debate, I just realized, is that you said you wanted them to debate you about that and nothing. I said I've already done it and I wasn't in the mood and got two people. Haha XD
I never said Democrats want abortions to occur, but they sure don't want them to stop. It's not as if Democrats go out and urge women to abort their babies, but I don't think women should be given the choice of an abortion unless there are certain circumstances, like endangerment of the mother's health or rape, as long as the abortion is early on, like in the first month or two.
And yes, we're finishing the war. Are you guys all happy? Because I sure as hell feel a lot more safe! Oh wait... no I don't. Oh that's right, I feel leaving the region entirely might spark a revolt by any remaining radicals and the nation might revert to the way it was in 2001! That sounds like a lot of fun.
I would like abortions to stop. I would like for people to not have to make that choice, or to not make that choice. I personally wouldn't abort a child no matter what my circumstances. But I personally love children, and have a stable life. I couldn't speak for someone in another circumstance.
I don't believe that religious teachings belong in politics, and it's a religious belief that abortion is wrong. I'm not anti-religion. I'm anti-religious interference in political opinions that govern over non-religious persons.
It's that lack of religious influence that I believe makes democratic logic more sound.
Well I feel many of these women could easily give the children up for adoption, which is very successful. And I know a lot of people think anti-abortion stances are religious, but they don't have to be. I look at the facts and I never blindly follow my religion based on what religious leaders say, like the Pope. I see abortion as murder of innocent life because I truly believe the fetus is alive at conception. Gametes are alive as well, but they are not humans in and of themselves. When they meet and form a zygote, they transform into a single-celled version of a human being.
They don't have to be religious stances, but they are. It wouldn't even be a question if it weren't for religion.
And it's fine that you believe that. But who does your belief effect? Everyone.
You, as a religious person, have a choice. I as a non-religious person have a choice. That's how it should be. I'm not religious. So why do I have to conform to your religious point of view?
Democratic ideals understand that it's a diverse world out there. Not everyone is religious, and we shouldn't have to be.
Republicans can be pretty ignorant, but they're more logical with their ideals.
The problem with Democrats is that they seem to have lost touch with Middle America. They're soft on crime and very soft on terrorism. The whole redistribution of wealth thing is really just a matter of opinion (at least, in my opinion it is). But they're focus on political correctness and humanism really just hurts their credibility. And on liberal issues that are more important they really pussy out on. Think of this, they are doing nothing to legalize gay marriage or at least make mandatory civil union ship in every state that gives the same rights as a married couple. And drugs are still banned on a federal scale. We have a completely Democratic government yet they have done nothing to cross over to these liberal civil rights.
The Republicans are also against gay marriage and drugs, so all it does is cancel out.
Middle America WANTS to be tough on crime and terrorism.
Obama was elected for "change"... which has hardly happened. This always happens, it's not about ideals, it's about the current events. Hoover had the Great Depression. LBJ had Vietnam and his great society. Bush has the Recession and the War.
That's sort of a presumptuous statement, don't you think?
And Middle America can be swung one way or another given the fitting propaganda, Bush's exaggerated (in retrospect) records and reports in making the case for Iraq pulled America almost unanimously into war.
So please establish whether Middle America really wants to be tough on crime and terrorism (especially given the controversy over Guantanamo), or is just currently scared or ignorant of the situation at hand.
As for this change you expect, it's been a few months, time will tell.
This is according to Gallup polls and basic human wants (psychology).
People feel that they're lives are more important than the comfort of terrorists or criminals. Yes, there's the Humanist liberal ideology and the Christian Right wing ideology that counters those beliefs, but most Americans are not Right Wing Fundamentalists or Left Wing Humanists. They're just average Joes who want to be alive the next day, and they couldn't give two fucks about about the comfort of terrorists.
"Change" was just a catch phrase. There's no real change. What? A little closer to socialism. We've been on that track. It's not change if we move further up the track. Obama is against gay marriage and against the legalization of any narcotics. The places where he could make a true difference he leaves untapped because he's against that true difference. He's just another politician.
Let's please distinguish between "terrorists" and terrorist suspects. Don't run right over the complex political structure and non-structure of our conflicts in the Middle East and pre-qualify these prisoners as absolute terrorists.
Most of the information we needed was obtained by verbal communication, so you should understand that I'm troubled over a suspect being waterboarded afterward 50+ times in a month, for what?!
It's a game of numbers. A handful of suspects in a prison means nothing on a news ticker, it's a rather elusive way that we treat death when the passing of a local girl sprang public outrage over the girl's parenting and supervision, whereas we're completely passive toward the 1,000's of soldiers who died in Iraq. It really depends on how absorbed you are into the situation, and when the whole world is watching you backstep on your own practice of due process and a fair trial, it becomes a little more than a symbolic issue.
Terrorist SUSPECTS, Pyg.
If you're truly interested in disclosing the argument about Obama and change, then by all means challenge me in a debate, however I'll have to reject this argument due to topical relevance for the current moment.
Coerce interrogation was only done to high valued detainees. you know, the leaders caught running operations.
Water boarding is what got information on the second wave of attacks.
it was all in the documents that Obama released. Yes, he did give away all of our secrets so that terrorists can now teach their men on how to resist our methods (you know, like the fact that the CIA KNEW that the terrorists were taught to give away information once they could no longer take any pain because Allah would grant them that permission... that information is useless to us now because it only worked since the terrorists didn't know that we knew that).
but, the average Joe doesn't mind a terrorists' discomfort if it means the safety of his family. Democrats do not realize this and Republicans do. Yes, I dislike both parties, but the Party that makes me actually feel safe is the Republicans.
p6667(53) Disputed 1 point "The problem with Democrats is that they seem to have lost touch with Middle America."
You're saying this AFTER Obama's election?
can you believe this guy? he honestly thinks obama won by population vote. if youv heard of the electoral collage you'll see that we don't do squat when it comes to voting. and 2 maybe the majority or near half did support obama, but thats because a quarter just did because whats that? hes black! and two after bush's poor show in office many wanted a change in gov. but the whole every one loves obama was blown out of proportion by the liberal media.
I just realize it's a ridiculous waste of a vote to not choose one side or the other,
and since democrats allow discention within their ranks, and republicans will even demonize General Powell, it seems incredibly logical to ally myself with democrats.
That's really ignorant and I thought you'd make a more clever argument than that... You're better than this. I, for one, am very pro-sex. ;) And I know that not all Democrats are tree-huggers...
I believe the Republican party best follows the principles on which the United States was based. We uphold crucial liberties that our constitution gives us and more importantly we don't bow down to every minority or activist group that cries inequality. Our government has let far too many things slide because god forbid some minority should be offended. If the founding fathers saw all the things the liberals have allowed in the name of "equality" they would be rolling in their graves. I am a proud republican and Obama can pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.
Why fix what isn't broken? America isn't broken why should liberals pretend to fix it. No what liberals do is destroy and rebuild the greatest country in the world into something less because they feel we offend people with our greatness. Plus they are communists something we fought against all these years and are now becoming it? No logic there.
America has been broken so many times, if it hadn't been fixed by liberals there would still be slavery, segregation, women not being able to vote, and so much more that the narrowminded people of our society would have rather kept in place.
I'll take an observational approach for each aspect of either philosophy.
Economically speaking, capitalism has enabled us to generate mass amounts of wealth by allowing the basic human element of personal gain/greed to empower society through investment and mass production. Usually we work upon an exploitable resource until new market trends point the industry in another direction. So we get a steady rise of wealth over time and an occasional recession when resources run out and the market forces reset themselves to a new craze.
That would be ideal. However, in today's society this profit-based motivation has pushed jobs overseas in search of maximizing profit. It has caused overproduction in housing and crashed its value. It has spawned loan sharks and usury. It has allowed the oil enterprise to dominate our energy industry and suffocated any attempts at pushing for efficient, American-made, renewable, non-pollutant energy like solar, wind, hydrogen, etc.
Today's society is too structurally complex for blind market forces to repair themselves into working order. We can't expect our energy producers to group together and re-organize countless gas stations, power plants, and energy production facilities to accommodate this.
We need a group of experts to oversee and intervene on behalf of the greater good. Folks, I'm sorry, we need government oversight.
What we don't need oversight on is our lifestyles. I think we can agree that morals will change from person to person, it isn't fair to force one's views upon another especially when morals are an extension of preference and are therefore subjective.
Unless you're religious, in which case is unacceptable in the realm of a free democracy, especially when it makes people fervently adopt fallacy for fact like:
1. A group of cells equates to a living, conscious human, such that when this group of cells is disrupted, it equates to murdering a person.
2. Homosexuality is harmful in some way to other people and changing the legality of same-sex marriage will change the sexual ratio of the population which has remained relatively constant for millenia regardless.
What group would encompass people who infringe on personal matters that have nothing to do with them? What group would encompass those who discredit science (the most reliable source of all) and credit people they like dressed in suits, or credit an ancient religion? What group stubbornly insists on rigidity in the face of emergent and duly needed change?
The Republican Party. I will take no part in that.
(about 1.) This alone has caused centuries of social and emotional damage, has destroyed women's lives, and stunted the most promising branch of medical research in all history.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of brevity, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as verbose as possible.
I'm with the Democrats more than the Republicans for the very reason that they're more open to change. Life changes, and they're willing to change the laws with it. I'll never understand the Republican stand to keep everything as if it's still 1776.
well, i guess i should first point out the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization...
anyway:
Gay Marriage
Both parties are against it. Consider this, we are currently ruled by the Democratic Party yet no legislation has been passed to legalize gay marriage.
War
You made the Democrats seem like the moderates and the Republicans seem like the extremists. If you were to present that fairly, you would have said that the Democrats were pacifists who would never fight no matter what.
Abortion
Once again, making the Democrats seem like moderates while the Republicans are the extremists. If you were to present this fairly, you would have said that the Democrats believe in abortion up until the chord is cut.
Evolution
Republicans on the most part aren't concerned about this. There are extremists, of course, but most of them just say "teach it as a theory" and the small 1% of extremists are actually against teaching it at all.
Taxation
Taxing at an equal rate isn't actually taxing them just as much. If you are referring to Flat tax, all that means is "the government takes 10 cents for every dollar you earn". Republicans mostly accept progressive taxing but believe that over 30% for the rich is too much. Especially when that money is just going to be used to pay for the poor.
Imprisonment
Once again taking the extreme ideal. This time, though, creating a false extreme ideal out of nowhere. The Republicans wish to execute murderers and child rapists and many support the three strikes rule (as in, three strikes and you're dead). This would not result in overcrowding of prisons. Most Democrats do not believe in rehab for criminals, either, but are against the death penalty. They are more likely to overcrowd prisons. There are some Liberals who believe that criminals should be rehabilitated and not punished (because they do not understand the levels of antisocial [originally sociopath] behavior). In fact, Behavioral psychologists don't even believe that you could fix a criminal by talking about his past or rationalizing. Antisocials rationalize the idea that "I do it because it's good for me, and fuck everyone else". The only way to make them realize that they shouldn't do these things is to make them feel bad when they do it. The only other way is aversion therapy, and that's illegal nowadays.
I hate how this was not rebutted at all... I mean, a perfect rebuttal to a blanket statement that seems to be getting much appreciation, and everyone ignores it.
Heh. The problem with libertarianism is that when you take power away from the government you're giving it to corporations. Without regulation, the wealthiest 1% would ruthlessly exploit the rest of us in the name of profit.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln, Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.
A democratically elected government is the people.
Do we elect the CEO of Wal-Mart? No.
Do we elect the President of the United States? Yes.
What stops Wal-Mart from using it's billions to drive every competiter out of business and thereby forcing us to buy from them alone? Anti-monopoly laws. And who enforces those laws? That's right, the government.
We do elect the CEO of Wal-Mart, or at least we have more control over that than the president. If you don't like the CEO, or disagree with any policies upheld at Wal-Mart, you can take your money elsewhere. You can tell others about the policies Wal-Mart upholds, why Wal-Mart is doing wrong, and why others should take their money elsewhere. Wal-Mart is not the only store you can shop at.
With the government, you can't just take your money elsewhere if you disagree with a policy. You can spend massive amounts of time, energy, and resources to get your opinion heard- but if the majority disagrees with you than they can just continue to take your money and put you in jail if you try to resist. And even if you agree with every single policy, that's not a valid argument for forcing others to go along with those policies if they disagree.
The fundamental difference is that governments are coercive, whereas corporations are not inherently coercive.
Corporations are coercive if you're poor. People need to buy groceries from somewhere, and there are only a few affordable options. There would most likely only be one option without government regulation.
It takes massive resources to be able to extract profit at such low margins like Wal-Mart does. This need for massive capital creates a nearly insurmountable barrier to entry for potential competitors.
Further, if one corporation adopts shady business practices to cut costs, the others will have no choice but to follow suit to avoid losing business. The informed, idealistic segment of society is a very small market.
Government needs to be coercive because many people will behave selfishly if they can get away with it.
On a side note, I think it would be better to have this conversation in a separate debate, rather than nestled in some obscure corner of an earlier debate. Feel free to create a new debate if you would like to continue this conversation.
Your gross over-simplifications and factual inaccuracies are tremendous.
The official stance of the Democratic party is not that gay people are "cool." And the Libertarian party does not officially state they disagree with homosexuality. Neither party makes a mention of whether or not homosexuality is okay.
The Democratic party is not opposed to war, and says nothing like "make love not war." Maybe what you think of as the stereotypical liberal would say that, but it just doesn't hold up to the facts.
Again neither party says abortions are okay or good, but the Democratic party and Libertarian party support the right to abortions.
There is no policy of the Democratic party that says evolution is true, unfortunately. Again you don't know what you are talking about.
Your ignorance is rather in tune with your gusto. Once again you are incredibly ignorant.
"liberals are completely opposed to war. the hippy liberals say "make love not war" theres your proof. All the hippies are liberals."
Wow you are so ignorant it's really kind of sad. Liberals are not completely opposed to war as I already told you. And hippies may be liberals, they do not make up a significant portion of the Democratic party.
"The liberals want to teach evolution."
They want to teach the prevailing scientific theory on the development of species to be taught, not a religion. As does the Libertarian party like you said.
"All atheists are liberal."
Not true.
"Most of the liberals I've met are alot dumber.
They say stuff that makes themselves look dumb.
Most of them just pull random shit out of their ass & throw it."
Thanks for the vapid anecdotal claim, that was really persuasive.
"They support obama just because he's black."
"They say anybody who disagrees with obama is racist."
Incorrect and unsubstantiated.
"They dont even know what the democrat platforms are."*
You sure about that? You wouldn't happen to have any evidence would you?
2. I'll grant you that the majority of the LGBT community probably votes democrat, but saying all gays are liberals is a generalization just like all blacks are democrats.
4. Please cite evidence that the democratic party thinks we can just talk to our enemies.
5. You are a moron. If you show me a peer-reviewed, widely accepted study by an actual scientific institution that disproves evolution I will PayPal you $1000 dollars. The theory of evolution is one of the most widely accepted scientific theories, and even hinting that evolution is incorrect in an academic or intellectual setting will have you laughed out of the building so fast, your head will spin.
6. There is a difference between secular and atheist.
8. You really need to learn to stop generalizing. How is it that if a black person voted for Obama they only voted for him because he is black, but if a white person voted for McCain it is because they made an intelligent decision? Please provide a study showing 50% of blacks who voted for Obama did so solely based on race.
9. So because some of your 14 year old friends don't understand politics it means all Democrats don't understand their party?
Wow you have just unleashed some of the most biased, overly generalized liberal nonsense I have heard in a long time. You have WAY overstated your case here and exaggerated the "facts" to the extreme. It's people like you who are bending the constitution out of shape. Not us.
I'm judging this when it comes to issues about equality, civil rights and foreign policy, and I have to tell you, the Democrats have come forward with far better ideas so far.
Take abortion. The Republicans want it illegal, thus forcing all pregnant women to have babies they don't want. The Democrats say "hey, when you are pregnant yourself, then you make a decision for yourself".
Take gay marriage. The Republicans recognize that it is a right but have it for nothing to take that right away. The Democrats say "hey, why are you so bothered anyway, no one is forcing you to marry a guy! they want to get married not sell drugs and guns FFS!"
Take terrorism. The Republicans go and bomb anything and everything that moves regardless of evidence. The Democrats say "hey, why not get friends with their neighbors and their enemies, and altogether tie the noose on them, that way we don't spend billions and no one hates us".
Overall the Republicans have many times stepped too far because they think they have the moral authority.
My initial reaction is NEITHER, but for the sake of the debate I will say Democrats since they haven't sold out to the religious extreme of their party. If the Republicans were more libertarian then maybe, but they mean what they say less than the Dems.
Lower taxes?..Only for the rich.Makes no sense to be R if you're not rich
Smaller government?... Yah right. Two Words: Terry Shaivo.
The constitution?... are you kidding me??
Family Values?..... David Vitter, Larry Craig, etc..Power breeds hypocrisy.
I could go on about the dems too, but since I chose sides for this debate I won't. The puppet show of politics is what it is, but like I said earlier, at least the dems haven't been taken over by religious pandering in a country that has a tradition of separation of church and state.
1. both are liars, nuff said. I will rebut some of your stereotypes on Republicans mainly because they're not fair... not because i agree with them.
2. The rich are the ones with the highest taxes. Republicans, first of all, believe in General tax cuts, so that does include the poor and middle class. Second of all, they would prefer flat tax which give an equal tax rate. So all classes are treated equally through taxes.
3. Terry Shaivo is a name. Also, in total they are for smaller government. You can't bring in one event and say "that nullifies any idea of them being small government". They believe in smaller government because they support State's Rights and less spending. Social issues sometimes juxtapose their general ideas, but in general they have stayed true to that. In fact, Terry Shaivo was handled by the state.
4. The only reason why SOME of them can be hypocrites is because they set standards in the first place. The mass majority stay true to family values and are deeply saddened when someone can't keep them. Democrats do not set standards, and therefore can never worry about being called hypocrites. "he cheated on his wife and had sex with a 13 year old boy", "w/e, he's a Democrat, they can do w/e they want".
5. Democrats gave in to not legalizing gay marriage and they highly support the NAACP, an extremely Christian organization that is more Radically religious than the Right Wing. Republicans just tend to say "God Bless America" more often and are not afraid to mention that they're Christian.
2. While that is what they say, Republicans in the last 30 years record of taxation shows a general bias toward the rich. All one has to do is look at the tax cuts of both Bushes to see this.
3. The federal government did interfere though. Republicans only want smaller government when they aren't in power. Government intervening in social issues is big government, and historically the whole state's rights thing really is a moot point after the civil war. It's a dead horse. The 10th amendment can and should be used successfully to defend many things from the powers of the federal government, but we should concentrate more on the "or to the people." part of it. The federal government has had the precedent of superseceding the states for 150 years now.
4. This entire paragraph supposes that democrats have no standard for moral conduct, which is bullshit even from my perspective. The whole family values thing is a con. It is used to con people into voting on social issues rather than on economic issues that will actually affect them. No one can "do whatever they want". Your bias is showing again. 99% of congress is christian. That is a fact. To me that means nothing about their morality, but you seem to think the ones who wear it on their sleeve are more likely to follow it rather than to use it to manipulate voters which is what they actually do.
5. No politician supports something until it's safe. The NAACP is a secular organization with ties to the religious community. No their not afraid to mention they are christian, or to try and pass laws that are based on said religion. Or to try and say this country is or was founded as a christian nation. Or to deny gay people rights based on religions ridiculous claim to marriage, which was originally a property arrangement by the way. Or blah, blah, blah. We live in a secular country and you should be glad of it. Being christian says nothing about your morality, men of power have always used religion as a tool to sway the masses, whether trying to destroy it and take its place or just use it to manipulate, it always works because people have this foolish tendancy to think religion equals moral. It does not.
2. When the rich have such a higher tax rate, it makes sense that they would get more tax breaks.
3. That doesn't change their small government antics. Both parties have big government motives, but Republicans have proven to be for less government than Democrats.
4. I don't believe in Moral values either, but to say that because a few Republicans did some shitty things automatically the family values thing is all hypocritical is bullshit. They believe in a moral standard. Do i agree with it? no. but pointing to people like Larry Craig doesn't help our argument. Instead, try to understand the other view and refute it with knowledge.
5. I guess this is hard to refute either way. the NAACP to me is the exact opposite of secular for the reasons you actually posted, they support all of these Christian, theocratic laws. But, if they slap the term secular to their movement, it's hard to say that they aren't...
Well this is a silly debate. This is really a question that someone should ask themselves introspectively.
But I am a Democrat, and feel that right now the Democratic party is more cohesive and unified than the Republican party. I also agree more with the Democratic ideals.
I'm not really one for either side but of the two, Democrats seem more logically sound and rational than the Republicans. Oh, well. Libertarians and Independents FTW.