- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Proof may be defined as "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it" (Wordnet). Colloquially, it is a set of statements which demonstrate the truth of a conclusion by logical steps from premises known or uncontroversially held to be true. Nothing of the sort has been provided here. Instead, a lot of claims have been made without evidence.
It is illogical to believe that a lot of random and false claims strung together constitute a proof that liberals are illogical.
It simply isn't true that all liberals believe someone else should pay anytime anybody needs money to pay bills. Whether or not some liberals do have such a stupid thought, not all do and it's not a necessary aspect of liberalism.
It simply isn't true that there is no way to pay for social entitlements (such as the US already pays). Most governments of developed countries levy taxes effectively, and when the markets they are taxing are huge (like US GDP) the revenue is enormous. This is why the US government is the most powerful organization on Earth for some time now - it effectively taxes the biggest market on Earth. Of course, there are limits even to what the US Government can do, but entitlements vary and the US does provide expansive entitlements as is (e.g. Medicare).
It is implied that there is no possible purpose in redistributing wealth except to create a situation where everyone has the same wealth, but no evidence is provided for this. For example, it may be cheaper and better to pay for some basic benefits than to deal with rioting or revolution (as becomes more likely when people are dying in the streets).
It is asserted that liberals are for abortion. I have never heard this position articulated by anybody. Many liberals believe that it should be the choice of the mother but I have never personally heard anybody saying that children should always be aborted, or even that abortion is a small matter.
It is implied that no one will work when handouts are available. However, living on food stamps is not enjoyable and makes a lot of Americans ashamed enough to get off of them. Everyone prefers to be wealthy or at least have middle-class luxuries rather than living on government cheese. Moreover, social welfare programs in the US generally have limits to prevent people from using them forever.
It is asserted that liberals act like intellectuals, and that non-liberals are rednecks. Some people believe this, but many liberals are not as described. Moreover, there are conservatives who believe the same thing - that all liberals are stupid (or even irrational, illogical or evil).
Given the foregoing, I question whether the poster really knows any liberals; or, alternatively, whether they are honestly representing what they actually see.
God is just, always doing what is just. All of us are sinners, even children. The wages of sin is death. Something is not truly bad unless God deems it bad. Thus, if the child had done something truly bad, it would not be just for God not to give the just punishment.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!