CreateDebate


Debate Info

50
20
TRUE FALSE
Debate Score:70
Arguments:41
Total Votes:79
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 TRUE (27)
 
 FALSE (14)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11163) pic



When Democrats refer to progress, is the progress towards Socialism and Communism?

Progress

TRUE

Side Score: 50
VS.

FALSE

Side Score: 20

Anything Democrats claim as progress is ultimately the result of incremental steps towards socialism and communism, and they regard this as success.

Side: True

All TEN Planks of the Communist Manifesto can be applied to the United States.

Side: True
4 points

What else would they be progressing towards? Liberty? No. Freedom? No. Capitalism? No...

Side: True
3 points

Democrats themselves? Yes, it's TOWARDS Socialism. I don't think, however, that they mean to go all the way.

I am a Progressive. But my idea of progress is lowering the power of government, cutting spending, and taking away laws that inhibit civil rights. In some ways, my idea of Progress is Regressing all the way back to the birth of the United States. I say only some ways, of course, because one part of civil rights is NOT having slavery.

Side: True
4 points

"my idea of Progress is Regressing all the way back to the birth of the United States."

It might be a good idea for the nation to go back to the roots of its foundation. Well, some of its roots. You know what I mean - minus the slavery.

Side: True
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

><

slavery

no infrastructure

power concentrated to only those who own land

no minimum wage so mining towns could basically enslave everyone, not just black people.

Awsome Hallow, you're obviously a well thought-out individual.

Side: False
2 points

The birth of our country did not support slavery. Frederick Douglass concluded after reading our Constitution that it was an anti slavery document. The 3/5th clause was in regards to population vs. congressmen and not people. Our country HAS to get back to its principles and totally away from progressive ideals. Our founders understood that straying from our constitution would lead to our demise which has come in the form of progressivism. And they do wish to go all the way, Socialism and Communism are praised in schools. Capitalism is demonzed in all the text books.

Side: True
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

Demagoguery Ahoy!

Our country HAS to get back to its principles and totally away from progressive ideals.

{laughs}

And what "principals" our nation needs to get back to seems to vary depending on who I ask. Unsurprisingly people tend to think their ideals best represent our founding principals, which is strange considering people who hold very different often contrary views nearly all believe this. They can't all be right, can they? Are you you one of these befuddled fools? Looks like it.

The constitutional framers didn't have much to say about Progressivism, mostly because it didn't yet exist. Although some may point out that the American progressive movement gave women the right to vote, a right they should have been granted from the very beginning. So is it possible that the founders didn't believe in women's rights? If they did they didn't do very much to ensure those rights when they wrote the constitution.

Sometimes people will forget that although the founding fathers were very intelligent men, revolutionary for their time, they had their share of flaws including those instilled upon their from socio-economic institutions of the time. Several of the founding fathers owned slaves. This is history. The founding fathers were smart, but they were not prophets, they could not predict future events. This is why they made the constitution a "living document\" that could change and adapt to a changing world.

This idealistic past is perhaps not as idealistic as you might want to think.

Side: False
3 points

I'd much rather have some form of socialism than capitalism. You know what we need? Anarchy.

Side: True
3 points

I think that Democrats tend to support more socialist policies, but none of them would go all the way to communism. None of them have the guts. It would ruin their political career.

Side: True
1 point

I agree with the arguments on the right side of this page that say some Democrats only support some parts of socialism. For the majority of the Democrats, that's probably true, but those that have the most power and influence, it's obvious what they believe because they've been pushing in the direction of total socialism step by step and they've been pushing hard, either taking all opposition out of the way or assimilating it's loyalty. It's not for no reason that only one major news network in all of the United States still doesn't spin things towards the left. Our educational system seems to produce so many more liberals these days. Think about it, Democrats dominate the arena of education and the text books that are written.

The point I'm trying to make is this, it doesn't matter that most Democrats and liberals are not all about total socialism, the fact is, they're still moving in that direction, and seeing how utterly successful Democrats and their media have been at convincing most of liberal America, literally, to believe any ridiculous thing, like the common expense of a dress worn at an RNC, who freaking cares, leads me to believe that when the time comes, most lower-level Democrats and most of liberal America will still support them.

I mean look at what's happening today. Liberals still back Obama and the Congressional Democrats like never before. Democrats have been at the seat of financial power in this nation for 2 years before Bush left office, yet none of the blame for this economic fiasco is laid upon them by liberal America. Democrats had unchallenged power over this nation for an entire year after Bush left office in both the financial and executive arenas. And for a year after that, republicans only had a single seat in the Senate with which they could only filibuster to stop legislation they didn't agree with, and only if they all agreed would they even be capable of filibustering. Now, for this last year, Republicans have only dominated one half of the financial arm of Government, the House.

In these three years, the first where Democrats had unchallenged control, they proceeded to pass a massive, unprecedented borrowing of money, of which, they have nothing but exaggerated numbers that don't even pass the declining numbers. In the second year, Democrats were about to pass a universal health care bill that was so bad, that it was not changed because of Republican opposition, because Republican opposition did not even matter at that time.

It was changed because of pro-life Democrats in Congress that threatened to side with Republicans if public funds could be used for abortion. After some more hashing, Obama was able to pass the bill on to the House, but again, pro-life Democrats were having difficulty accepting it. Then the MA senator came onto the scene, and finally Republicans could filibuster. However, Obama got the bill attached to a Budget bill so that it would not have to go back to the Senate and be threatened by a Republican filibuster, but still pro-life Democrats were not satisfied. Obama appeased them with an executive order that has questionable power to actually be enforced, and they got that $trillion health care bill attached to that budget bill so that the changes would not have to go back to the Senate for approval.

These were the most damaging things to our economy during these three years, and Republicans had nothing, whatsoever, to do with them. In fact, Republicans called out time and time again how damaging they would be to our nation, and in fact not only produced an alternative to the costly Obama health care bill, but to every single stimulus, to every single borrowing bill the Democrats passed. What's more is that those Republican alternatives focused on job creation and considerably less than even $100 billion, much less $700+ billion that the Democrats passed as they ignored Republicans.

Yet despite all of this, which was reported in the news all throughout, liberal America blames Republicans, one because they blame only Bush despite the fact that Democrats controlled Congress in 2006 and presided over our financial arm of government when the decline started that eventually resulted in a collapse by two very loyally Democrat-supporting companies that conveniently caused our recession just in time for elections.

Despite the fact that Republicans have been against and provided alternatives, and even warned us that we'd go through all we're going through now, liberal America still thinks that it's the Republicans fault for resisting Obama and not working across party lines. Well, Republicans haven't had any power, working across party lines for them would have meant to vote with Democrats on things they did not, at all, think was right for this nation. Apparently, they were right.

So, I say, that regardless of what the majority of liberal America believes today about socialism doesn't matter because when the time comes, they will be convinced by their leaders and liberal-loyal media to support their leaders as we are led into complete socialism.

I can't help it that liberals are so easily convinced. it's not Conservative America's fault that liberals won't think things through before they throw their support behind someone or something.

I mean look at Occupy Wallstreet for crying out loud, a bunch of liberals crying out against big business, just now, because recently, they were told by their leaders that big business was to blame, why, because they're greedy. That's all, and liberals take to the streets all around America in protest to capitalism.

The exaggerated numbers themselves, forgetting the lack of tangible evidence, prove that Obama's borrowing of massive amounts of money did nothing, were dismal failures.

But does that matter to liberal America, no, because they were told big business, greedy, protest, scream, yell, big business, greedy. It's like liberal America has forgotten what it means to have a rational thought for themselves. A nice punchline and a statement that lines up with their baseless preconceived notions, lie or half truth as it may be, and you can literally convince a liberal of anything.

And here's the 2nd most sad part of all of this. Not only do liberals see themselves as the most open-minded and intelligent in society, but they see all who disagree with them as lesser stupid people who need to be controlled so that they don't go blowing up things or starting fires and burning books. And it's because of this arrogance, that they are so easily manipulated, and so easily convinced not to listen to any arguments that would go against their preconceived notions.

You want to know what the most sad part of all of this is:

If liberals actually got all that they wanted, all their leaders were in absolute control of their governments, we went entirely over to socialism, and redistribution of wealth reigned supreme, they'd still end up losing. And you know why? Because, when governments have that kind of power over their people, it's only a matter of time before a dictator will usurp their rights and seek to control them for his/her own ambitions.

It's sad because liberals look at big business as rich, greedy, and using their money to corrupt politicians and politics. What's really sad here is that their answer, the one answer they will fight for, possibly even give their lives for, is to give all of that money that they believe has so corrupted big businesses solely and entirely to those who have the sole power over law.

Let me spell this concept out for the sake of liberals. The common liberal ideal is to take all of the control over the money away from those who are forced to influence others to introduce laws on their behalf and give it's control entirely into the hands of those that actually make the laws. You think corruption is bad now, well wait until those who make the law also control all of the money, as they see fit, then you'll truly see corruption.

This is why I say that even if liberals actually won all they wanted, they have still lost because they gave government unprecedented control over them. Only now, instead of a king-subject relationship where a king always knew that his life depended upon his nobility willing to tolerate him, we'll have a monarchy that's called a Republic, an autocracy that's called a Democracy, and the kings and queens who run it all don't even have to worry about other royalty killing them in their sleep when they screw their nations for their own gain.

Side: True
-1 points

Democrats...Communists...Socialists, pretty much interchangeable terms. It's like comparing grapefruit to oranges. Who gives a fuck about the details, they are all anti-freedom sacks of shit. Republicans suck almost as badly, but not quite.

Side: True
Tillerman(29) Disputed
0 points

No, they're not. They're just fooled, like many many more of us would be if we didn't have the failures like Nazi Germany, Communism, and socialism to learn from.

It's just that liberal America has been told by everyone around them to blame the wrong things, to hate certain people, to despise those that earned their place and success in society.

Side: False
3 points

I only refute this because it is presented as a blanket statement and I do not believe it refers to all Dems.

Some aim for socialism. Many wish to integrate socialism into the capitalist system to varying degrees but do not want to go all the way. I believe some support socialist ideas without actively realizing it. And I personally know a few who are completely opposed to socialism.

I do not think you can say that all Democrats are trying to progress towards socialism and communism, although it is more common on that side of the aisle than on the right.

Side: False
1 point

I believe some support socialist ideas without actively realizing it.

Yes, like public school systems. Police agencies and Road workers. Parks and wildlife reserves. Social security.

{Shakes Fist Angrily}

Side: False
1 point

Heh. I will assume that since you supported my comment, that you are not shaking your fist at me. But I would like to point out that I never said word one about my opinions on socialism. I fully support EVERYTHING you mentioned, and more.

Side: False
TPARTY(31) Disputed
1 point

None of which were left up to government in the first place. All of these things could be privatized, social security could be eliminated. Social Security and Wildlife Reserves were all brought about during the progressive era (FDR, TR, HH). Police could be left up to the states as could school systems. Public schooling does not work, and police forces have a hard time getting funding as well. The more social programs you have the harder it is to fund them. Yet the progressives still want more

Side: True
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

All of which (except for Social Security, which should be eliminated anyway) are left to the state.

But even if you want to go down that road, the difference is that security agencies protect the people, which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Socialism comes from the government taking over the market, as opposed to letting the people choose prices, employment, services and goods, etc.

Side: True

Democrats do not like Socialism or Communism. Democrats believe in equality for all and compassion for the poor.

Side: FALSE