CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
45
Conservative Extremists Legitimate Movement
Debate Score:81
Arguments:67
Total Votes:84
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Conservative Extremists (31)
 
 Legitimate Movement (36)

Debate Creator

NuclearFish(182) pic



The Tea Party

Americans live in a nation of incredible incredibility. Often times it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, even in the main political movements. Today, I want to examine the legitimacy of an increasingly popular movement known as "The Tea Party." Now, seeing as there is no central axis by which the Tea Party rotates and media coverage is almost entirely on biased lines *coughFoxCNNcough*, I imagine this is going to be one difficult thing for either side to argue. Go!

Conservative Extremists

Side Score: 36
VS.

Legitimate Movement

Side Score: 45
2 points

Ah the Tea Party, where to begin? The Tea Party claims to defend the Constitution with the same vigorousness that Nazis claimed to defend the ideals of Germany. Given this baseless comment that is likely to anger someone, I'll get down to business...

Defenders of the Constitution:

The Tea Party boasts its unyielding support to the Constitution. Yet in its jab to fight off illegal immigration, it is willing to kill the Constitution itself. Yes, I'm talking about the Fourteenth Amendment. One effect of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it grants birthright citizenship to people born in the United States- even if their parents were not citizens. The problem with repealing this piece of legislation is that then there is NOTHING defining the conditions by which American children are citizens. Future generations may be legally deprived of citizenship rights by simply removing this Amendment. Not only is that absurd, but what could possibly harm the Union by making people into citizens? Even amending it as opposed to repealing it is absurd. Citizens are documented and have to pay taxes. The way I see it, the Fourteenth Amendment HELPS the illegal immigration problem rather than accelerates it. I think this is a Tea Party sham to simply rally the angry support of thoughtless masses. The United States Court System is founded on the belief that a hundred guilty should walk free before a single innocent is imprisoned. I think we should apply this respect to human rights and decency to all aspects of our nation. There is also a call among many Tea Party supporters to repeal the 16th Amendment. While I see no reason why that can't be done while limiting the rights of Americans (and in fact support it to some degree), it is another to add to the list of Constitutional repeals yet to be enacted by the "defenders" of the Constitution. Furthermore, some Tea Party members are calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which is the citizen's right to a DIRECT election of their senators. That's not necessarily taking away Democracy, as Senators would then be appointed by popularly elected state legislatures, but it is a severe limit on it. So much for the great defenders of the Constitution.

Racism:

Now here's one criticism of the movement I don't necessarily think is true. Yes, there have been racists in the Tea Party, but they also show up in other groups. Aside from previously mentioned Fourteenth Amendment repeal, there is nothing to support the evidence that this movement is racially geared. By simply pointing to many black Tea Party members, one can deduct that racism is simply not the case of the movement, only (by some degree) to its sometimes loud and obnoxious supporters.

Traditionalists:

Conservatives in this nation have always been proud to call their roots back to the founding of America, but have since ignored the fact that so can American Liberals. The Tea Party takes this to a new extreme by adopting stances held by the Confederate States of America, to be expected when you look at the support base, (which, I must remind you left the Union and lost the war, thus losing the right to call its ideas concrete American. Say what you will of reconstruction, as a southerner I hate the way it was handled too, but it could have gone a whole lot worse) as opposed to the United States of America. The idea of shifting power from a federal level back to a local level is nothing short of Confederacy, and inconsistent/ineffective I may add. For evidence on the ineffectiveness of Confederation, I need only point at the United Nations and the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

Nationalism:

Love for a nation is only good in the hands of its citizens. In the hands of politicians, it's empty words that need to be proven and a waste of time. This is something liberals in America are guilty of as well. In fact, this may not be an argument against the Tea Party in of itself, but of nationalism as a whole. My suggestion to any political movement is to stop kissing citizen ass by telling us how much you love our nation. I assume an interest in politics is an interest in the well-being of the nation you live in. Hitler was a nationalist conservative, and even if you don't agree with him (like most sane people), you can't deny he loved Germany. Loving your country has little to do with serving it. This also goes for those who think military service means political wisdom/experience coughGrantcough. The Tea Party is especially big on this. I don't need to know how much Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh love this country to realize how bad they could screw it up.

Side: Conservative Extremists
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
2 points

" The idea of shifting power from a federal level back to a local level is nothing short of Confederacy"

Have you read the 10th Amendment ?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Side: Legitimate Movement
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

1993: Senator Reid Wanted To Alter The 14th Amendment

WASHINGTON TIMES: “For all the brouhaha over Republicans wanting to review the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the citizenship/birthright clause, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, once supported revising the current interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause in 1993. Mr. Reid introduced a bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. The bill, which died in committee after it was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, includes tough immigration provisions that would make many wonder where Mr. Reid truly stands on the immigration and border debate.” (Kerry Picket, “1993 Flip-Flop: Sen. Reid Introduced Bill ‘Clarifying’ Birthright Citizenship,” The Washington Times, 8/13/10)

S.1351 Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993

Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 8/4/1993) Cosponsors (3)

Latest Major Action: 8/16/1993 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Referred to Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs.

· Sen Exon, J. James [NE] - 11/22/1993

· Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993

· Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 9/30/1993

TITLE X--CITIZENSHIP

SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.

That's right...... Harry Reid sponsored the bill you now claim the Tea Party is killing the constitution with.

Side: Legitimate Movement
NuclearFish(182) Disputed
1 point

"That's right...... Harry Reid sponsored the bill you now claim the Tea Party is killing the constitution with."

You're making several base assumptions that are false here.

1.) I never claimed to like Harry Reid.

2.) I never claimed to keep the same ideals as the Tea Party. I think the Constitution has many improvements that can be made, and many things that should not be taken away. But I never claimed to be a "defender of the Constitution" as the Tea Party has.

Side: Conservative Extremists
1 point

basically the tea party is a butch of red neck people who want to pay no taxes and except republicans to do all this great stuff

Side: Conservative Extremists

The Tea Party is starting to lose credibility because of it's extremist views. I think most of the candidates they elected last November will be voted out next year.

Side: Conservative Extremists

I don't approve of the Tea Party. I view the group as mostly Extremists and anti-Obama.

Side: Conservative Extremists
3 points

I don't believe the Tea Party movement consists of only conservatives. I believe it is anyone who is ashamed and dissapointed in the U.S. government's wild and unconventional spending tendencies.

Supporting Evidence: Link (www.onenewsnow.com)
Side: Legitimate Movement
2 points

They do seem to be conservative extremists, but so would the founding fathers by today's society. Think back about two centuries ago when the United States was in it's infancy. There was prayer in public schools, the ten commandments in many courts, politicians made reference to God, execution was often the punishment of choice, there was very little government action in the business world, and things like homosexuality would have been condemned by society. I think they are legitimate because of their resemblance to this country's foundation (though unfortunately, little of it remains).

Side: Legitimate Movement
TheRavenKing(33) Disputed
1 point

In what way was that unfortunate?

Prayer was in schools? That's putting one religion over one and entwining Church and State. Violating the first amendment. See several of the cases where the Jehova's witnesses sued the US and won several educational suits by claiming that the first Amendment protected their religious rights equally to others.

The Ten Commandments were in courts - Okay. Several thousand years ago the Law of Hammarabi was the accepted law around the world. An Eye for an Eye is still unacceptable today. If you want the Bible in the courts obviously you want the Old Testemant in courts too. So if your wife has shrimp or impedes some obscure practice during her mences she should be stoned to death, as the bible says.

Politicians Making References to God - What? Like they don't now?

Execution being the punishment of choice? ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE LEGITIMATE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CRIMES SHOULD BE DEATH? Living with your crimes is better than instant relief.

Government had no control of business - Have you read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Perhaps you might understand what happens when the government doesn't control the food industry or the banks. The economy collapses and the food is covered in rat shit and broken glass.

Things like Homosexuality were condemned by society? Well obviously if you love this period so much and believe in this little bit you must, of course believe in the enslavement of african americans, right? Because, things like black skin were condemned then too.

Side: Conservative Extremists
TheRavenKing(33) Disputed
1 point

In what way was that unfortunate?

Prayer was in schools? That's putting one religion over one and entwining Church and State. Violating the first amendment. See several of the cases where the Jehova's witnesses sued the US and won several educational suits by claiming that the first Amendment protected their religious rights equally to others.

The Ten Commandments were in courts - Okay. Several thousand years ago the Law of Hammarabi was the accepted law around the world. An Eye for an Eye is still unacceptable today. If you want the Bible in the courts obviously you want the Old Testemant in courts too. So if your wife has shrimp or impedes some obscure practice during her mences she should be stoned to death, as the bible says.

Politicians Making References to God - What? Like they don't now?

Execution being the punishment of choice? ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE LEGITIMATE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CRIMES SHOULD BE DEATH? Living with your crimes is better than instant relief.

Government had no control of business - Have you read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Perhaps you might understand what happens when the government doesn't control the food industry or the banks. The economy collapses and the food is covered in rat shit and broken glass.

Things like Homosexuality were condemned by society? Well obviously if you love this period so much and believe in this little bit you must, of course believe in the enslavement of african americans, right? Because, things like black skin were condemned then too.

Side: Conservative Extremists
Republican2(349) Disputed
1 point

"That's putting one religion over one and entwining Church and State. Violating the first amendment."

They did not force anyone to pray, therefore they did not infringe on anyone's rights to conduct their religion as they pleased.

" If you want the Bible in the courts obviously you want the Old Testament in courts too. So if your wife has shrimp or impedes some obscure practice during her mences she should be stoned to death, as the bible says."

That's not the theological understanding of Christianity, and if you have any understanding of the bible you would know that Levitical laws were not the same as the commandments.

"Politicians Making References to God - What? Like they don't now?"

Of course they do now. But Back then they weren't criticized for it and they genuinely believed in it.

"Execution being the punishment of choice? ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE LEGITIMATE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CRIMES SHOULD BE DEATH? Living with your crimes is better than instant relief."

Absolutely it should be the punishment of choice. Many wrongdoers don't feel remorse for their crimes, and keeping them alive wouldn't really be a punishment. But it was intended more as a crime deterrent than a punishment.

"Government had no control of business - Have you read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Perhaps you might understand what happens when the government doesn't control the food industry or the banks. The economy collapses and the food is covered in rat shit and broken glass. "

Government didn't need to control business as much back then because they were much small and more dependant on each other, thus encouraging more cooperation. It's not true that they had NO control of business, but they had very little because they simply didn't need it.

"Things like Homosexuality were condemned by society? Well obviously if you love this period so much and believe in this little bit you must, of course believe in the enslavement of African Americans, right? Because, things like black skin were condemned then too."

That's more of a personal attack than a refutation of my argument, but I personally think we should enslave by condition of incarceration, not by race religion or anything else.

Side: Legitimate Movement
1 point

It's completely legitimate, despite weather or not you agree with its politics.

Nuclearfish compared them to the Nazis, I could just as easily compare Obama to Lenin.

Side: Legitimate Movement
NuclearFish(182) Disputed
2 points

I used the Nazis as an illustration for the pursuit of nationalism, which is arguably one of the admirable traits of the Nazi regime.

Side: Conservative Extremists
saintlouis(161) Disputed
0 points

I used the Nazis as an illustration for the pursuit of nationalism, which is arguably one of the admirable traits of the Nazi regime.

And I used Lenin as an illustration for the pursuit of socialism, which is to many one of the foremost traits of the Obama administration.

Side: Legitimate Movement
2 points

How could you compare Barack Obama to Vladimir Lenin? That's making a mountain out of a molehill. Barack Obama has not 1. created a communist state (despite what many Tea Partiers think, we still do have a stock market) 2. we do not have nationalized banks (something which Lenin did) 3. we do not have nationalized wages, farms, "single payer" or "universal healthcare" or a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Secondly, the Tea Partiers are easier to compare to the Nazis because they have expressed NATIONALISTIC(Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and have expressed RACIST sediments, including calling several prominent members of the government "niggers" "spicks" and "faggots". As well, in Germany the Nazis were a single ethnicity, how many black people do you see in the Tea party?

Side: Legitimate Movement
saintlouis(161) Disputed
2 points

How could you compare Barack Obama to Vladimir Lenin?

Just as easily as those who compare tea partiers to the nazis

how many black people do you see in the Tea party?

Many, very many.

RACIST sediments, including calling several prominent members of the government "niggers" "spicks" and "faggots".

Name three who have done that.

RACIST sediments... "faggots"

homosexuals are not a race.

Side: Legitimate Movement
Republican2(349) Disputed
1 point

The Tea Party isn't nationalistic like the Nazis were. They are patriots. There's a difference: Patriots love their country, nationalists love their country's government/leader. The Tea Party loves the United States, but they don't want it's government to have more power. They want a lot less governmental power. The Nazis on the other hand, were always wanting more powers in their government because they thought they would be more successful. The Tea Party knows better because a government that has too much power becomes a threat to the rights of it's citizens.

Side: Legitimate Movement

I don't see how you can compare them to Nazi's. The Nazi's ere socialists who had the government control everything.

The Tea Party wants a smaller government and less economic regulation.

Side: Legitimate Movement
JayAr(182) Disputed
1 point

Errrr... They were national socialists.

When you combine nationalism(right-winged ideology) and socialism(more on the left) you get fascism!

It is VERY different from standard socialism, and VERY different from standard nationalism. What do you expect of a hybrid of political views.

The tea-party on the other hand, if they are true libertarians then they would be the opposite of fascists.

HINT: They are just as libertarian as the kid wearing Che' shirt is Marxist.

Side: Conservative Extremists
trumpeter93(998) Disputed
1 point

They aren't fascist. Fascism wants the government to control everything. The Tea Party wants less economic regulation. They are not socialists either. They want a more free market.

Side: Legitimate Movement
TheRavenKing(33) Disputed
1 point

In calling the Tea Partiers NAZIs we're comparing them to people who had similar policies on Minorities and people who thought differently than them. I.e. The Tea Party has expressed openly racist, homophobic & nationalistic views, therefore they are similar to the NAZIs.

Side: Conservative Extremists
trumpeter93(998) Disputed
1 point

similar policies on Minorities and people who thought differently than them

I don't see them throwing people into death camps and slave labor camps.

The Tea Party has expressed openly racist, homophobic & nationalistic views, therefore they are similar to the NAZIs.

The Tea Party is not about race, it's about smaller government. Wanting to solve our immigration problem is not racist.

You can't expect all people to want gay marriage. Not believing in gay marriage does not make you a bad person.

Being a patriot is not a bad thing.

Side: Legitimate Movement
1 point

Taxed Enough Already- asked individually, a majority of Americans polled agree that no more than 25% of anyone's income should be paid as taxes.

Side: Legitimate Movement
egbindiana(7) Disputed
1 point

A majority of Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. Ever since Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, the government budget has routinely broken bank. Libertarians can rail about profligate spending habits, but in reality a good 60% of the budget includes things like Social Security and Medicare (a system which people pay into and are reimbursed by later in life) and interest on the national debt (which can't be absolved simply by changing the law or voting red). Even if we cut all discretionary spending (including the military), we're still operating in the red.

Side: Conservative Extremists
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
2 points

Breaking the bank has nothing to do with tax cuts. Whenever Reagan reduced the rate,MORE taxes were collected.Reducing the rate leads to MORE taxes being collected from more people because more are working. What President collected the most taxes? George W did.We spend way too much.

Side: Legitimate Movement

A lot of people like tea and everyone loves a party ;)

Side: Legitimate Movement
2 points

Agreed, but I dislike The Tea Party. Tea happen to be my favorite drink. Parties happen to be a lot of fun. This one happens to have terrible tea.

Side: Conservative Extremists

Taste is subjective. Something may leave a bad taste in your mouth but it may also leave a sweet taste in some one else mouth. I don't particularly care for tea. ;)

BTW, it was possible to predict the tea party because that which you resist, persists. And if the tea party wins, there will be a liberal backlash right around the corner. So it all balances out ;)

Side: Legitimate Movement