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.
Why are liberals such heartless bastards?
Liberals show great compassion when spending other peoples money, I think that can't be disputed. But why are they such heartless bastards when it comes to speading thier own money?
Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times,(one of the most liberal newspapers in the U.S.) Nicholas Kristof, writes "Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. "
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.
A new study produced by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states.
“The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.” writes the Chronicle.
The study also found that the more religious states- which also happen to be more Republican- tend to give more than the less religious states
So what do you think? Why are liberals so cold hearted and conservatives so kind and generous?
Can you show any instance of "cognitive dissonance" in the above description or is your argument as empty-hearted as your politics?
Where did I say, or even merely imply that liberals are either elitist or free-loaders? Is there anything at all behind your attack or are you all shit talking?
1. Your links, besides the one with the chart, are hate speeches from bloggers who aren't smart enough to become journalists "let's see what the loud mouth liberal says" is not how an investigative report is generally written.
2. To the chart. The "study" is basically a copy and paste from a book, called something like "Who really gives" and the book was rife with missing sources and has been debunked as nearly worthless in actually determining whether liberals or conservatives actually help people who need help more.
However I don't doubt that red states as a percent of their GDP do give more, after all, they are nearly all broke and living off the prosperity of blue states like CA (yes, CA. They send more money to DC than any other state despite their debt and are the 4th largest economy in the world), NY, and IL.
So as a percent of the money they have, do they give more? Maybe, depends what you count as charity. And if they give more why do states like Mississippi and Louisiana have so many more poor people? It seems so counter-intuitive that these states just give and give and give, yet have so many more poor as a percent of population.
The reason it turns out is two fold 1. This chart counts religious donations as charity - hence why Utah gives so much, it's part of their religion. I'd argue there's little charitable about giving money to Church's. They have shitloads of money and most of it goes toward more spires and pretty suits for preachers. You do more good and Jesus would love you more or whatever if you gave it to Red Cross. 2. Charity is giving a person a fish. It is through access to education, healthcare, higher minimum wages that you help the poor and the undervalued of society. Keep your fucking charity. Instead invest more in society so teachers don't have classrooms of 40+. Open programs that treat those with addictions so they can contribute to society instead of just throwing them in jail. When someone is injured or sick, ensure their kids aren't forgotten and have the same opportunity and are not punished for the ill luck of their parents.
Charity does not do this. Shared social programs can though.
Ignoring the inaccuracy of the chart, even if red states did actually give more (and not only give more as a percent of their on GDP) even if this were the case, it is not the measure of who is actually helping their neighbor. Red states are more guilty than blue by far in recent history (since the southern strategy when democrats became republican and vice-versa) of attempting to discontinue all of the great things put in place after the Great Depression, ensuring money flows only up, leaving the poor poorer, children with less education, the stagnation of middle class wages, than the blue states.
Not that both are not guilty. But if we're talking about actual results and the effects on our fellow man, blue states are far more charitable and far less harmful.
Are liberals rich elitists or broke free-loaders? Make up your mind... and look up cognitive dissonance while you're at it.
So no? You can't show any instance of what you are accusing me of saying? You were just talking completely out of your ass then? If not then please display such or admit you were wrong. No one respects dodging direct questions and changing the subject.
1. Your links, besides the one with the chart, are hate speeches from bloggers who aren't smart enough to become journalists
Like columnists for the New York Times? Did you even read the first article that I quoted from in the description? Yeah they are all about hate speech over at the New York Times, huh?
According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[89] In December 2004, a University of California, Los Angeles study by former fellows of a conservative think tank gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal.
So you are clearly wrong, anyone can see that. The New York Times is not "hate speeches from bloggers who aren't smart enough to become journalists", neither is The Chronicle as you admit.
I can't help but notice your total lack of evidence to support your assertions, not a single study or article, nothing but angry opinion. Everything in the middle of the post above is just a liberal rant about increasing social programs, which has nothing to do with the debate. It's just a rant about your opinion. Notice how I didn't come on here with just opinions, most of the debate description is quoted from liberal sources and linked. Can I get any chart's or articles that agree with what you're saying? I don't see any.
All you have is this disorganized rant that is avoiding my question above? How many times are you going to break off into 1 and 2? It's not very organized..
Maybe if you spent more time reading the articles you are arguing against and less time on an angry rant you'd convince more people. Look up "illiterate" while you're at it.
Not that both are not guilty. But if we're talking about actual results and the effects on our fellow man, blue states are far more charitable and far less harmful.
We're not talking about "actual results and the effects on our fellow man", clearly, we're talking about dollars contributed to charitable organizations, of which liberals are sorely lacking. But anyway, do you have any actual evidence for such a claim?
So, everyone can see your post was just a bunch of empty lies from another greedy liberal. Don't you want to defend yourself? You okay with sounding like a whiny coward?
I've shown how kind and generous conservative Christians are compared to their greedy, penny pinching, liberal counterparts.
Don't you have any evidence or argument to the contrary?
Are liberals rich elitists or broke free-loaders? Make up your mind... and look up cognitive dissonance while you're at it.
What an interesting statement... so Liberals can only be one type of person?
I do find it interesting how pseudo-intellectuals have been throwing around cognitive dissonance lately in political discussion. I suppose you've studied at lot on Psychology in order to be throwing that term at someone who disagrees with your philosophy.
What an interesting statement... so Liberals can only be one type of person?
Of course not. So you meant to agree that this particular idea would be conflicting with itself. Are you saying this is not what this particular debate was saying? Very well, then say that.
I do find it interesting how pseudo-intellectuals have been throwing around cognitive dissonance lately in political discussion. I suppose you've studied at lot on Psychology in order to be throwing that term at someone who disagrees with your philosophy.
There's actual intellectual support for this as well. And whether or not one is a psychologist or is a pseudo-intellectual has no bearing on the merit of the statement. See reply to Jake for more.
So you meant to agree that this particular idea would be conflicting with itself.
If you demand that others pay for your services, you're a free loader. If you refuse to give to charity yet force others to do so, you're a greedy tyrant.
Both are liberals either way.
There's actual intellectual support for this as well.
If you want to believe it, yes, but no, you're just upset with the debate and have decided to use a smart reference you must have picked up at one point to try and discredit the post.
If you demand that others pay for your services, you're a free loader. If you refuse to give to charity yet force others to do so, you're a greedy tyrant.
Blue states have more money, therefore are paying more in taxes, therefore paying for more of the services red states enjoy to equal, or greater in some instances like Mississippi, proportion. So then Conservatives would be equally guilty of "freeloading."
If you're speaking of charity, no one is forcing anyone to pay. Minus religion liberals probably give just as much, and through the taxes blue states pay, probably end up paying for more stuff that actually helps people.
Either way though, no one is forcing anyone to pay charity. Taxes are not charity, they are agreed upon by society. They provide services that otherwise could not be afforded by individuals and would not be afforded by business.
Now, you can decide you don't like society and leave it and go live in the woods somewhere or out on the ocean. But don't pretend that you yourself have paid enough to even drive on the road you take too and from work. That road, and the school you went to, and the internet your complaining on, and a million other things are only possible when people decide to pay for them together.
Blue states have more money, therefore are paying more in taxes, therefore paying for more of the services red states enjoy to equal, or greater in some instances like Mississippi, proportion. So then Conservatives would be equally guilty of "freeloading."
Were not the ones asking for more services and more money from the government, that the liberals, just because blue states makes more money doesn't mean that its somehow fine.
If you're speaking of charity, no one is forcing anyone to pay. Minus religion liberals probably give just as much, and through the taxes blue states pay, probably end up paying for more stuff that actually helps people.
By "charity" we mean you liberals asking the government to shake us down for more cash, thats not charity, its extortion.
Now, you can decide you don't like society and leave it and go live in the woods somewhere or out on the ocean.
Heres a better solution, how about you leave and go to a liberal country, and we stay hear, theres plenty of liberal countries where you can go and act like socialists but were going to stay here. And stop comparing any society that doesn't force people to give up their money for some "charity" to be some wilderness or third world country, it just amplifies your ignorance and your lack of understanding of economics.
That road, and the school you went to, and the internet your complaining on, and a million other things are only possible when people decide to pay for them together.
Whats with you and roads? You don't think they would be built without the government forcing people to pay for them? You really think that private roads are a fairy tale or something and that they just don't exist? You can say that about anything, companies wouldn't exist if we didn't "pay for them together" well no shit, someone has to buy their products for them to stay open, so let US decide what we spend our money on. You force us to buy healthcare, if we don't armed men will break into my house and haul me off, now lets pretend that the costs aren't going to rise (which they will) and I am being forced to pay for this health care. Now I'm rather healthy, I don't take any medications, I'm in good shape and have no medical problems, so lets say I don't use this healthcare that I'm being forced to pay for, I can't say "I'm not using this, Id like to stop paying" no I am forced at gunpoint to buy it. So now not only will they not go out of business if their quality sucks, I am also being forced to pay for a service I don't use. Congrats, you liberals are really helping out!
Take your pick there's not much in the middle. (; Cognitive dissonance is the beautiful irony of liberalism. The 'broke' is what the elitists are always using to sell their arguments. So the conflict is already there.
Are you going to respond to this?? You seem to be ignoring me lately.
So you can't directly quote anything I wrote as displaying "cognitive dissonance" either? Can you show how I said or somehow implied that liberals are elitists or free loaders?
Nah, you always seem to be the second to respond, and I'm usually bored of the argument after the first guy.
For using the broke (to sell an argument) to be two conflicting thoughts working simultaneously, you'd have to show where elitists also use the broke to sell the opposite argument or something similar to the opposite argument.
Now, there may be instances of this phenomenon... um, liberals tend to be more anti-animal testing yet want more money spent on disease treatment and prevention which may often require animal testing? That works maybe.
There's got to be more though... Oh, the biggest and most recent ones. Against war and we spend too much on military but supporting the war in Afghanistan. Being for helping every nation's impoverished and exploited, being against the Iraq war even when it was (later) sold as just such an endeavor... granted that last comes more from a disbelief that that was the intent and a belief that the effort will prove in vain even if it were the intent.
The problem is from what I can see, liberal conflicting thoughts seem to be more complex, so much so that it's can be other things, other factors involved making these thoughts not necessarily conflicting...
But sure, there's dumb fucking liberals with cognitive dissonance aplenty, I happen to think in most cases their still generally correct even if correct for the wrong reasons.
It's not the same though, whether this debate outwardly said "liberals are elitists and oh yeah broke freeloaders too" in a single sentence, you cannot deny that that very thought is a very prevalent thing, and very mainstream in the very large and the currently in-control-of-the-GOP fringes, and this particular argument could easily be construed as such an argument.
Let's explore some others. Obama is an apologist knowing he's increased troops in Afghanistan and gave the order that killed Osama and (though they likely don't know this) has actually killed more high-level terrorists in 3.5 years than Bush in his entire two terms... still, he's an apologist.
Obama's policies are harmful to the economy and job rates. This though the stimulus was a bi-partisan effort actually passed before he was president, he actually wanted less of it to banks and more of it to production (like the GM portion), jobless rates are going down (albeit slower than anyone wants, still down though, not up), and GDP has increased both in terms of size, and when debt is compared as a percent of it (around 32%). The deficit, the deficit, the deficit. Particularly "This president has increased the deficit more than any in history" Not true by any measure of debt, and though the debt has increased, it's (again) a lower percent of GDP than it has been in about a decade and the rate of the debt increase has slowed.
There are many, many more. Immigration. This liberal administration has actually deported more immigrants than the previous conservative one. Spending on "Bureaucratic" jobs. There are actually less government jobs now than there were four years ago (which I think is ass backwards in a down economy, government should be putting people to work wherever it can). The list goes on.
These conflicting simultaneous ideas are not complex. They are right on the surface over a huge spectrum of the right, the majority of the right I'd say.
So, where did I, Judas, show any instance of "cognitive dissonance" in the above description? Where did I say, or even merely imply that liberals are either elitist or free-loaders?
I didn't. Why don't you just go ahead and say it. No 11 paragraphs of bullshit necessary, either it happened (and you should be able to quote it) or you're full of shit. Which one?
I used the number of words necessary to explain. That you don't understand, that this makes you mad for some reason, and that you are projecting the thoughts of someone else through the internet, does not bode well for your argument.
Why would you think I'm mad? My arguments are concise and to the point. I have no need to bring up animal testing, disease treatment and prevention, the war in Afghanistan, the deficit, Obama's policies, job rates and immigration to obscure the debate and lead away from my bullshit statements. I've never seen so many red herrings in one argument. I'm pretty sure none of those things have to do with the issue at hand, whether I typed something or not.
But sure, there's dumb fucking liberals with cognitive dissonance aplenty
Can you come back to the issue please. The issue you're dodging was,
Can you show any instance of "cognitive dissonance" in the above description? Where did I say, or even merely imply that liberals are either elitist or free-loaders?
So can you? Please show me where I said such things because I don't see them. Go ahead and copy paste the part where I said what you are accusing me of saying.
Are liberals rich elitists or broke free-loaders? Make up your mind... and look up cognitive dissonance while you're at it
Do you remember making this statement? It's time to back it up now.
I'll ask you directly for the third time now,
Can you show any instance of "cognitive dissonance" in the above description? Where did I say, or even merely imply that liberals are either elitist or free-loaders?
The correct answer is "Yes Judas, I am a total coward. I cannot back up my factually incorrect statements so I remain silent while you vilify and berate me"
Fine it's not cognitive dissonance it's just a lie from the left elitists. Much better. Cognitive dissonance just sounds so good though..dang.
The old lie is that the republicans are the rich greedy ones taking from the leftist little guy. There's much more to it than that and I'm not saying it's black and white. And I'm also not saying that we don't need roads and schools. (so tired of that argument by the way you libs are so in love with your roads and schools lol by the way have you ever seen the roads in a blue state they're always crap; not that I've been in every state)
Obama is an Apologist. K? And he doesn't get sole credit for anything good or bad including killing Osama.
I'm not as partisan as you seem to think. If I was saying that only democrats are to blame and everyone who is republican was great your arguments would hold more weight. But I'm not.
You're saying "our problems are better and more complex than yours". I'm saying all of those problems suck and I have nothing to do with them. Not that I'm perfect I'm wrong sometimes. But man it's great to not be tied to anything such as a party. -but I would still refer to myself as a conservative/libertarian.
The fact of the matter is that there are many types of liberals and your comment about cognitive dissonance is completely flawed. End of story.
1) According to the first article: According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.
Churches do a lot of charity work, and that certainly should be counted, but a lot of that money goes to the churches infrastructure and not to help the needy, so I don't think that counts as much as giving to the March of Dimes or some other organization that is strictly to help those that need it.
2) Also according to the first article: Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
So it seems like it isn't so much conservatives that are generous, but religious people, many of whom also happen to be conservative.
3) The numbers are taken from tax returns, so another possible conclusion is that conservatives lie on their taxes more. I'm not saying that that's the case, I'm just pointing it out as a possible interpretation of the numbers.
However, in all honesty, I think there is probably some truth behind the numbers. Going to church every week does serve as a reminder to do good things, and churches themselves do do good work with the money they receive. I do think this should serve as a wake-up call to us liberals to re-examine our values and to put our money where are mouths are.
Also, before you religious people get too smug about all of this:
Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. (Also from the first article.)
Well said. 100% agree. Conservatives don't give more to charity, religious people do.
Religious people give more to charity because their religions demand it. The practice of sacrificing valuables to god has been going on for thousands of years and today sacrificing your best lamb has turned into getting out your checkbook.
Lev 27:30 - 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD.' (tithe means 10%)
Also, 2000 years ago there was a guy named Jesus that was kind and said good things about charity like,
Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
...and today a lot of people still follow his teachings of charity.
So, basically liberals have some stiff competition when it comes to charity because their opposition believes that god demands 10% of their income.
I find this quite interesting when it comes to the philosophy of liberals and conservatives. Would it be that Liberals are greedy yet feel bad for the poor? Maybe since they, themselves, are greedy they don't understand how others can be charitable.
Other studies from a Psychologist who created "test your morals" found that Liberals found it harder to understand the positions of Conservatives than vice-versa. Maybe Liberals don't understand, truly, what it's like to be charitable. Instead, they feel that coercion is the only way to help the needy.
i am not sure if I get what you are trying to say. I believe that Jesus was a liberal though. i mean free healthcare, and feeding the poor, that is liberal to me. No offense brah. Besides, liberals have better sex, and that is pretty damn compassionate. Bad Ismaila, bad! ;)
Because SOME republicans donate a lot to religious establishments in an effort to remove seperation of church and state and lean towards a theocracy, it's not so much philanthropy but more a kin to donating to a superpac. liberals tend to donate more towards social Issues. although there are crossovers on both sides. MANY Republicans donate to some very good causes but they tend to be more moderate and pragmatic.
SOME republicans donate a lot to religious establishments in an effort to remove seperation of church and state and lean towards a theocracy,
Sounds nice, but it's not really true. The religious really aren't that sly, most Christians probably don't even know what "theocracy" means. I seriously doubt there is some organized conspiracy by religious people to buy off the government. That is not what these studies show either. If you have anything supporting that I'd love to see it.
These are some reasons I think liberals don't give as much to charity: (aside from just being heartless, hypocrite, bastards :)
As I showed above, followers of the bible (christians, jews, and muslims) are obligated by god to give to the needy, 10% of their income actually, which is way above average. The bible talks about giving to the needy throughout and Jesus was a great philanthropist. That's what they believe anyway.
liberals tend to donate more towards social Issues
This is simply not true. Conservatives have liberals beat in almost every sector of philanthropy. I'd like to see some stats on that if you are saying liberals give more to social issues. (hunger, poverty and drug abuse are all social issues)
I think what happens is this. (I am libertarian btw) Conservatives in general are for a small government and being responsible for yourself and your family. Liberals in general are for paying higher taxes and having the government take care of our every problem.
For liberals the responsibility of caring for the needy lies with the government. Their personal responsibility is only to support liberal politics and fight for more food stamps, higher welfare checks, minimum wage etc etc.
Conservatives take on more personal responsibility for their community. It is their job personally to fix this problem. They pay all the same taxes and support all the social programs financially, (because they are forced to) and then they get out their wallets and take care of their community on top of that. (to a much higher degree than liberals)
I think it's out of a feeling of obligation to god plus personal responsibility for their fellow man that conservatives give more to charity. I'm not saying they are saints, they are not kinder or more generous, but they have bought into this system that values charity and helping out your brother.
"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. "