The Instigator
magpie
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
amcclinton
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

A pro life voter who Attempts to justify a vote for Obama is rationalizing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
magpie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,544 times Debate No: 8921
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (101)
Votes (11)

 

magpie

Pro

Voters: When voting on this debate, please consider the arguments, regardless of your personal feelings of Obama.
amcclinton (CON) - in his profile and his email to me made the following statements:
"At the time I voted for him (BHO), I had no evidence that he would not be a more than adequate President. I know most people focus on the abortion issue. However, abortion (which I know to be wrong) is murder/killing and so is going into battle and killing others for whatever reason is equally wrong. Those who voted for Bush simply because of abortion reasons are missing the big picture. War is controlled at the command of the President. Abortion is not. A person still has to choose to have an abortion. There are many things that are immoral that we have not and most likely will not pass laws against. Should we not vote all together? Some religious people don't."
"I weighed the historical implications versus my political and religious views. I'm biased and ultimately the Bible indicates that God is in control of who our leaders are - good or bad."
"Obama showed himself to be unlike any Presidential candidate I've ever seen (this regardless of race). To answer the liberal versus conservative question. The conservative alternative is not nearly conservative enough. Mitt Romney I believe would have been a more conservative President than McCain, but I don't know that for fact. I don't support Romney's beliefs at all, but only the appearance of what I believe his actions would be - based on those beliefs."
"In short it comes down to the better of two evils. There are three choices (mostly). Vote Republican, Democrat or don't vote. Ultimately, one of the two major candidates will win and this is historically R vs. D. There isn't a candidate yet that I believe will have the same convictions that I have. I'm either at odds with the abortion issue with the Dem. or the war issue with the Rep. So I have to go with the one I believe will do the most good without creating laws that will cause people to sin rather than creating laws that allow people to sin. Make sense?"

ACE: I dispute every one of you assertions. I believe that you are rationalizing.
If you believe that God has chosen to determine who our leaders will be (sounds like a cop-out to me) then why bother to vote?
Voting for the "better of two evils is still voting for evil. You (and I) could have voted for Alan Keyes. I admit that I did the wrong thing.
There were more than the three choices that you quote. Even If, as you say, a D/R will win, you/I need not have contributed to the problem.
I think Keyes comes much closer to what we claim, we believe.
You said: "So I have to go with the one I believe will do the most good without creating laws that will cause people to sin rather than creating laws that allow people to sin. Make sense?" Yes this makes sense, but it is not what you ended up doing. The logic was correct – if a bit suspect – but your premise was false. A false premise always results in an invalid conclusion.
Yes, the Dems have a pro-abortion plank in their platform, and B.H.O. Is (by far) the most aggressive pro-abortion president, ever.
The Repubs have no pro-war plank. A simple review of modern era (1900-present) war-time presidents reveals that Dem presidents were far more likely to get us into (or keep us in) war.
To say that war is controlled by presidential edict, but abortion is not, is patently false.
The president may not legally enter into a war without congressional concurrence.
Presidents nominate judges to the Federal Courts, including the supreme court. The courts determine constitutionality. Therefore, the president, does control abortion, albeit, indirectly.

Presidents of the modern era (1900-2009) and their wars:
26.Theodore Roosevelt - Republican 1901-1909 No War
27.William Taft - Republican 1909-1913 No War
28.Woodrow Wilson - Democrat 1913-1921 WWI
29.Warren Harding - Republican 1921-1923 No War
30.Calvin Coolidge - Republican 1923-1929 No War
31.Herbert C. Hoover - Republican 1929-1933 No War
32.Franklin Roosevelt - Democrat 1933-1945 Entered WWII.
33.Harry S Truman - Democrat 1945-1953 Ordered A-bomb on Japan
34.Dwight Eisenhower - Republican 1953-1961 Ended Korean War.
35.John Kennedy - Democrat 1961-1963 Escalated Vietnam to a war.
36.Lyndon Johnson - Democrat 1963-1969 Continued Vietnam War
37.Richard Nixon - Republican 1969-1974 Ended Vietnam War
38.Gerald R. Ford - Republican 1974-1977 No War
39. (Jimmy) Carter, - Democrat 1977-1981 No War
40.Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911- 2004) Republican No War
41.George H. W. Bush - Republican 1989-1993 Entered Iraq-Emirates war.
42.William Clinton - Democrat 1993-2001 Entered Czech. war.
43.George W. Bush - Republican 2001-2009 Started Afghan & Iraq wars.
44.Barack Obama (1961- ) Democrat 2009- Continues Afghan & Iraq wars.

"abortion (which I know to be wrong) is murder/killing and so is going into battle and killing others for whatever reason is equally wrong."
Do you actually believe that defensive war is immoral?
"A person still has to choose to have an abortion."
My answer: ...and an enemy still has to choose to attack the USA.

"At the time I voted for him, I had no evidence that he would not be a more than adequate President."
Did you look for any? Rev. Wright, William Ayres, no executive experience, Two years a US Senator, all the while on presidential campaign, Frank Marshal Davis, voting to neglect babies born alive to a botched abortion.. I could go on, but I'd run out of space.
Finally, you said: "Obama showed himself to be unlike any Presidential candidate I've ever seen (this regardless of race)."
Excluding race, how is Obama unlike any presidential candidate, you've ever seen?
amcclinton

Con

I would like to first thank my opponent for his invitation. I would also like to add that I look forward to debates such as these. I believe common ground can be reached without hearts and minds being so hindered by agenda. And hopefully perspectives can change.

This will be my first debate and I thank my opponent for his challenge and taking a chance on a newcomer such as myself.

RESOLVE: There is no contradiction in a "PRO-LIFER" voting for a "PRO-CHOICER".

Here are my following arguments:

I believe there is no contradiction in a prolife advocate voting for a prochoice advocate.

>>>If you believe that God has chosen to determine who our leaders will be (sounds like a cop-out to me) then why bother to vote?

Do we not plan even though God determines our steps? "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." – Proverbs 16:9

Additionally, it is not a "cop-out" in light of passages that say, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." – Romans 13:1

The U.S. is a governing authority. The office of the president is a governing authority. God established all authority. God established the United States Presidents. God established Barack Obama. Does this make God a "PRO-LIFER" or a "PRO-CHOICER?"

>>>Voting for the "better of two evils is still voting for evil. You (and I) could have voted for Alan Keyes. I admit that I did the wrong thing.

A famous quote that is well known is, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." – Edmund Burke

The action of voting against "evil" is not the same as voting for "evil." I chose to vote for the candidate that I believed would do the best job. So why not vote? Well I think it is self-evident.

>>>I think Keyes comes much closer to what we claim, we believe.

Someone claiming to believe what I believe is different from someone displaying qualities of moral character, nobility and sound judgment.

>>>You said: "So I have to go with the one I believe will do the most good ...A false premise always results in an invalid conclusion.

Major Premise: Choose the candidate that will do the most good that will not promote laws that cause people to sin.
Premise: War causes people to sin.
Premise: If you refuse to participate in a draft there will be consequences (imprisonment).
Premise: Most Presidents (Dem or Rep.) believe war to be a justifiable means to defend the freedom of the United States of America.
Premise: Barack Obama (D) voted against the war while serving as Illinois U.S. Senate (his present position is debatable)
Premise: Barack Obama supports abortion, but not the war.
Premise: Laws allowing abortion (regardless of term), though horrendous in thought, however does not cause women to have abortions. There are no laws that would imprison a woman if she refuses to abort a child.
Conclusion: Voting for Barack Obama would accomplish my goal in my Major Premise. Make sense?

>>>The Repubs have no pro-war plank. A simple review of modern era (1900-present) war-time presidents reveals >>>that Dem presidents were far more likely to get us into (or keep us in) war.

>>>To say that war is controlled by presidential edict, but abortion is not, is patently false.

By your reasoning you believe laws control actions and they do not. "…if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" – Galatians 2:21

Even in the case of war. A president or a congressional concurrence cannot force anyone to pick up a gun and shoot the "enemy" (such as the case with Muhammad Ali). However, there are consequences that force compliance such as torture does for confessions. Therefore, there is more control, whether direct or indirect that causes a person to sin (in war) than there does exist regarding abortion. "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." - Matthew 18:6
Therefore, it is better to not cause someone to sin rather than support a law that would allow someone to sin.

>>>The president may not legally enter into a war without congressional concurrence.
...
>>>Therefore, the president, does control abortion, albeit, indirectly.

The president does not control a woman's choice. Therefore, he does not control abortion. He controls the laws indirectly (as you say) that govern abortion, but he himself does not determine what a woman will do with an unborn child.

>>>Presidents of the modern era (1900-2009) and their wars:
26.Theodore Roosevelt - Republican 1901-1909 No War
...
>>>36.Lyndon Johnson - Democrat 1963-1969 Continued Vietnam War

Only this part forward of your stats are valid for what we know of today as Democrats and the Republican Party. (See http://en.wikipedia.org...

"When the Democratic left took over their party in 1972, Nixon won reelection by carrying 49 states. His involvement in Watergate brought disgrace and a forced resignation in 1974 and any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the scandal."

>>>37.Richard Nixon - Republican 1969-1974 Ended Vietnam War
...
43.George W. Bush - Republican 2001-2009 Started Afghan & Iraq wars.
>>>44.Barack Obama (1961- ) Democrat 2009- Continues Afghan & Iraq wars.

Therefore according to the 37th through the 44th Presidents 2 republicans entered or started a war and only 1 Democrat entered a war before the 2008 election.

Also, as a result of understanding the transition of the Democratic Party and the History of the Republican Party we would note that the stats for the 26th through the 36th Presidents would be in reverse since the ideals of the Democratic Party were actually the Republican prior to 1960. Therefore, you have 5 "Democrats" who would be considered Republicans today that have entered, escalated or continued war as opposed to 6 "Republicans" (Democrats) who have either ended a war or did not enter, escalate or continue a war.

In fact, your statistics only prove to strengthen my position. That is a total of 8 to 1 in favor of war for the Republican Party.

>>>Do you actually believe that defensive war is immoral?

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does." – 2nd Corinthians 10:3

This is not an implied "turn the other the cheek" moral code (though that is sufficient). This is a direct "do not wage war" command. How can you uphold Christ as King and yet let another ruler veto His commands?

>>>"A person still has to choose to have an abortion."
>>>My answer: ...and an enemy still has to choose to attack the USA.

They are different because if a woman chooses not to have an abortion – she does not go to jail. However, if a person chooses not to engage in war if they are drafted (regardless if our enemy chooses to attack) then they will be imprisoned.

>>>Did you look for any[evidence]?
I did not have to look for "any." The same "evidence" you list is the same that came across my news channel as well. In fact, recently I watched Barack's full rebuttal to the Rev. Wright charges – outstanding! As for the other evidence I will simply defer this question to my next remarks regarding Obama showing himself to be unlike any Presidential candidate I've ever seen.

>>>Excluding race, how is Obama unlike any presidential candidate, you've ever seen?
No other opponent came close to his tact or poise. So when you see a candidate that is able to raise $745 million in campaign contributions; win states that were largely favored by his opponents; set a new precedent in web-campaigning; and stir the hearts of a nation by speaking a message of unity and not division. Then, yes indeed, you have a unique candidate.
Debate Round No. 1
magpie

Pro

Dear Amcclinton, While reading your arguments, I'm reminded of "Alice in Wonderland" (circa 1984). You quote Edmund Burke and take the exact opposite meaning from it. You (selectively) quote from the Bible to support various (contradictory) positions. You distrust those who say that they are pro-life conservatives, and support those who demonstrate that they are pro-abortion liberals. All the while suggesting that God gives authority to the government leaders – after selecting them and directing them to do what they do, you insist that they can do no wrong for they are but the pawns of God. But if they order you to war, then it is you who commits sin.
If as you state, the "LORD determines his steps." – Proverbs 16:9" Then how can the leader direct you to war?
If as you state: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." – Romans 13:1
Then tell me Ace: how can it be a sin to do what those authorities tell you to do?

Edmund Burke did not mean that it is better to do wrongly, than to do nothing. He was saying that good men MUST do that which is right.

You further imply: … Obama displays moral character.

Do you mean like when he voted in the Illinois Legislature to abandon babies who were born alive during a botched abortion?

You also said: "The president does not control a woman's choice. Therefore, he does not control abortion. He controls the laws ...that govern abortion, but he himself does not determine what a woman will do with an unborn child."
My response:
The president also doesn't control a rapist's choice to rape. He doesn't determine what a rapist does with a woman. But, if he funded rape and did not jail rapists, you and I would say that he supported rape. And we'd be right! You are rationalizing by making distinctions without a difference.
You come across as a teeny-bopper voting for Home Coming King, instead of a serious voter , voting for the President.
I quote: "tact and poise, able to raise $745 million, ...stirring hearts. Frankly, this sounds like a man-love thing, similar to Chris Matthews : "...when I hear him speak a thrill runs up my leg."
Finally, when you took the untenable position that you had to choose between a pro-choice Dem., and a pro-war Repub., that you chose the former. This is a false choice. There is no evidence that McCain or Repub. Candidates, in general, are more inclined to war. When I demonstrated that the statistics would suggest the opposite, that Dems – since 1900 are far more likely to have entered or long continued a war, you responded with some gibberish about how past Dems would be Repubs., today.
But I'll answer this, anyway. Wilson, FDR, Johnston, Clinton and Obama were all Dems. And would never have been Repubs.
amcclinton

Con

Your use of levity is very funny. I laughed a little and was impressed by its humor. I thought I should bring a bit of levity to my argument as well. Here goes…

How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?
260. One who already wants to change the light bulb, and 259 politicians to make a law forcing him to do it.

Which brings me to the very point of my argument.

It would appear as if you are making the claim that Republican and Christian are synonymous and a professed Christian is the same as a proven Christian.

Laws do not regulate morality.

Obama's choices regarding abortion and the like are not hard arguments to win. I've already conceded this point regarding the ethics surrounding abortion. You seem to be attempting to argue the extremity of the issue versus the issue itself. Are late term abortions or abandoned botched abortions somehow better than first or second trimester abortions? Abortion is wrong at any stage period. Therefore to argue what laws Barack Obama passed regarding abortion only signals to tug at an emotional string of those who don't support abortion. Consider my heart strings tugged. However, prochoice advocates like to pull at heart strings also by asserting the necessity of abortion in cases of incest, rape and the threatened life of a young mother.

Also, regarding your analogy about rapists being supported is not the merits of my argument. If there was a candidate that "supported" rape and another candidate that supported genocide – hmm let me think about that one. Which one would I vote for? Again, having moral character against genocide is not the same as having overall moral character. You also, have never lived in a country where women are treated like property and for that reason would find yourself in this very scenario where a leader would in fact support rape because it is the society's norm. For the love of all that is holy, there are countries where you can set your wife on fire and it becomes dinner conversation. "So how's life treating you?" "Well, I had to set my wife on fire for burning my breakfast this morning, but other than that – same ol' same ol'."

If I had voting rights in those countries, you better believe I'd be exercising that right to vote until all those atrocities are changed. Also, my hope doesn't depend on that country's politics, but rather on my freedom to preach the gospel in that country. Only by the moral change of a man or woman from the inside can these things be changed for good. And only that by the saving power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is what is meant by, "we don't wage war as the world does."

Here are a few statistics that should be somewhat shocking to us. This is what our laws have accomplished so far against the war on rape related crimes: (http://www.rainn.org...)
•1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men will be a victim of sexual assault in their lifetime.
•College age women are 4 times more likely to be sexually assaulted.
•In 2007, there were 248,300 victims of sexual assault.
•Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.
•60% of sexual assaults are never reported to the police.
•Approximately 73% of rape victims know their assailants.
•Only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.

Lastly, you claim I had to choose between the two candidates. This is a false assumption. Obviously I was not forced to vote for either. My assertion was that the voting would undoubtedly come down to these two major candidates. There were several other candidates that you and I voted for alongside the presidential candidates. Did you give as much thought to those candidates as well? Perhaps you did. Regardless, if it came down to a vote for or against Saddam Hussein; guess who I'm voting for? And you see what having no vote or voice leads to.
Debate Round No. 2
magpie

Pro

We live in a splendid Constitutional Democratic Republic. It allows everyone to vote as he/she sees fit. I support your right to vote for whomever you choose. A majority voted for Obama, and I expect that the voters agreed with his beliefs and policies. For those who really do believe as he does, their vote was consistent with their beliefs and I say "Right on". That's the way the system works. But some, including amcclinton, claim that their beliefs are else-wise, but they voted for him, anyway. To them, I say: "If you think that you are truly a conservative and disagree with Obama's position on abortion, then by what process of self deception are you able to justify this?"
For pro-choice liberals who voted against Obama, I have a request for you: tell me your reasoning in a comment.

You said: "It would appear as if you are making the claim that Republican and Christian are synonymous and a professed Christian is the same as a proven Christian."

No, I'm not saying that! Unless proven differently, Keyes is a professed conservative, Christian, who is consistent in his actions. Obama, is a professed Christian, who demonstrates his absolute disregard for human life. He goes to the extreme – even past NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood - in promoting a practice that no practicing Christian would condone.

Pro-life proponents maintain that it is never justified to murder.

You said: " However, pro-choice advocates like to pull at heart strings also by asserting the necessity of abortion in cases of incest, rape and the threatened life of a young mother."

No, I was not arguing "extremity" My point was that there is no 'CHOICE' wiggle room for Obama. With him, it is beyond CHOICE. A baby lying in a utility room, unclothed and unattended, is not a threat to his mother's health.

You said: "If I had voting rights in those countries, you better believe I'd be exercising that right to vote until all those atrocities are changed."

So,you'd vote to end atrocities in other countries, but not this one. I think, I finally get it!

Here are a few statistics that should be somewhat shocking to us. This is what our laws have accomplished so far against the war on rape related crimes: (http://www.rainn.org......)

And here is another viewpoint: http://www.angryharry.com...

In any case, it seems to me that your suggestion is that there would be little/no difference in the incidence of rape, if there were no laws against it.
I am almost so much against rape as I am against murder, and I'm for laws against both.

You said: "Lastly, you claim I had to choose between the two candidates."

Wrong, ace. YOU said that you had to choose between two (presidential) candidates. You said that you had to choose between a "Pro-choice Dem and a Pro-war Repub". I maintained that you had set up a "False Choice".

In conclusion, it appears that (for you, at least), that one will jump through hoops in defense of the indefensible. I would speculate that very few, if any, pro-abortion/choice advocates voted for Alan Keyes. They don't need to justify their vote. They voted, consistent with their views. That is Democratic-Republicanism as it is meant to work.

Fifty-four percent of Catholics and 49% of other Christians voted for Obama.
"Well you see Lord, it's like this: even though Obama is overtly Pro-abortion, and there were Pro-life alternatives, I voted for Obama, because a thrill ran up my leg. You, do understand, don't you? WHAT! YOU DON'T?"

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Ace, Thank you for the honor of sharing your first debate with me.
amcclinton

Con

"Well you see Lord, it's like this: even though Obama is overtly Pro-abortion, and there were Pro-life alternatives except when it comes to mass killings in the name of democracy, I voted for Obama. You do understand, don't you? WHAT? Did I do your will? Where is that written? Matthew 7:21? {speechless}.

I will try to keep my argument as short and to the point as possible. In short, my argument is that any Christian who truly upholds the Bible as his or her standard and votes is voting contrary to his or her beliefs.

I will state this again so as to not have it lost in the entirety of the argument.

1.If you are a Christian, according to the Bible, then your standards and the standards of this world (including our government) are not the same.
2.Regardless of Republican or Democrat or any other Party, you will undoubtedly be in opposition to at least one or more major issues regarding what the Bible says and what these Parties represent.

I could make the argument that to vote or not to vote or vote either side would only end in a continued corrupt society and more corrupt politics. I could argue that a person should vote so that a history of voting for a certain demographic could be established and once an opportunity to make real changes appeared there would be no need to first fight for the right to vote and then vote for the change. I am, however, not making these arguments.

My argument is short and not hard to understand. If given a choice between active genocide and passive suicide, then I choose passive suicide. I made these analogies to show the extremity of my position.

Murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Lying is wrong. Adultery is wrong. Sexual immorality is wrong. I make no equivocations about what is right and what is wrong.

What I do state and believe is there are differences between a person who allows someone to choose to do wrong and a person who is in a position to coax, persuade, or even force someone to do wrong. The major difference being between CAUSE and ALLOW.

As Christians and Pilgrims on earth we have found ourselves under sinful governments throughout history. Even in a time when the people of God had their own kingdom (at the time ruled by Saul).

David made a choice between two evils: to lead under Saul's government (a man actively seeking to kill David and a rejecter of God's commands) or lead under the Philistines (an uncircumcised people and worshiper of foreign gods) for a year under Achish son of Maoch king of Gath (according to 1st Samuel 27 http://www.biblegateway.com...).

David believed he could accomplish the most good under Achish – Achish, a foreign ungodly king of the Philistines (a sworn enemy of the Israelites)!

We understand and know that David was really God's chosen king and David was really only interested in serving the one true King. However, he was under a time in Israel's history where godly leadership was not available. This is often the case with the people of God. Our kingdom is not an earthly kingdom.

Therefore, the person who believes he is voting consistent with his beliefs and votes Democrat or Republican would be gravely wrong because neither Party represents fully the beliefs of the Christian moral, ideals or goals.

I am grateful to live in a country where I am free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. My hope is that those who are weighed down by sin will see the light of hope and repent and be free from the snares of Satan. This is my active war against abortion, terrorism, rape, murder and injustice everywhere. I will preach until I can do so no longer. I will win as many as possible and hopefully save as many women and children (including those who would have been aborted) in my efforts.

I will end with this question to my opponent. What are you doing to end the atrocity of abortion?

Is your hope only in our laws or our government? You were called to freely give as you've been given. Or don't you remember what you've been saved from?
Debate Round No. 3
101 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 6 years ago
magpie
Ace: Hindsight is always 20/20, so this comment could - erroneously - be labeled as rearward. You maintained in the debate that you were voting for a pro-abort Dem, rather than a pro-war Repub. Well, what you got was a pro-abort & pro-war & incompetent Dem.
It's okay to make mistakes, but we should stand up to them.
Your friend, Magpie
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I was on a roll though...
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Rob1Billion, You actually belive that your ideas about society are new? Everything you have said so far has been there, did that, done that, a hundred times over. It doesn't work.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Your point about having to cover other people's sex changes, abortions, face lifts and the like is not troublesome to me. Under universal health care, we could easily distinguish between NECESSARY and UNNECESSARY procedures. Instead of the insurance company deciding whether Amy gets her heart transplant, we simply give it to her without the hassle. Instead of Michael Jackson being able to afford seventeen face lifts while Amy is dying in a bed waiting to be sued by the insurance company, we simply tell Michael "sorry, we will deal with you if when we can" and make Michael ration some of his resources for an unnecessary procedure. Now, if Michael isn't allowed to own $500,000,000 in resources, he will have to actually do a cost/benefit analysis to figure out if he wants it. He won't be able to just buy and buy and buy and buy and pour all our resources out the window. Take a hard look at Michael Jackson, Magpie: you helped create him. And you will create many more with your capitalist ideals.

The only problem comes in to play in YOUR model when inefficient insurance companies are used as mediators and rulers of the American people. You want to live? Better go through the insurance company! You conservatives value businesses so much, yet they are nothing but greedy self-interested entities that are consistently unethical whenever they can get away with it. At least I have the ability to elect the government, and can criticize what they are doing. Businesses have no accountability, no transparency...
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
You see, Magpie, this is why people live and die. People like you who are old and wise can use your extended knowledge to guide the rest of us. However, just as people's bodies get old, thier ideas get old as well. There are new minds with no wisdom being born every second. Most of them will be inundated with the wisdom of the current elders and grow up with similar ideologies. But others will not. These are the fresh new minds that change societies. These are the minds that, through radical ideas and new perspectives, break the cycle of the past generations. If it weren't for fresh minds that were untainted from conservative ideology we would never have achieved racial equality. We would never have achieved religious freedom. We would always be stuck in the past doing the same old thing. There is a chance that everything I said is complete nonsense. It will never work. But there is also a chance that your ideas about things are getting old. Your ideas, in my opinion, are twentieth century. Where is capitalism taking our world that it already hasn't taken us? There WILL be change in the future, although it may not be to my liking, granted. Perhaps we will tear down capitalism and be subjected to tyrannical rule or we will collapse lke the USSR. Honestly, I think the American people are too educated at this point to fall victim to a tyrant. People who have fallen victim under these circumstances lacked education and power, and probably were being held back in many other ways. Religion is another way for people to be held back. The opium of the people. Have you ever smoked opium? Of course not. It makes your body numb and makes you indifferent. When people lose loved ones, fear death, or are overwhelmed with the philisophical implications of life, they use their religious opium to numb them. "Dad's in heaven..." "God is taking care of us..." "We are not 99% genetically identical to apes..." Hush, hush, baby don't you cry God has it covered.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Rob, Your update that begins: "Rich people waste resources because they are able to." is an incoherent rant. Wow! Have you forgotten to take your meds?
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Rob, You have a visceral hatred for the very class of society, that you expect to support your leisure. I suspect that you have been brain-washed by Marxist professors. You spout the very same rhetoric about the rich, that abounded in the so-called Bolshevik Revolution. The result of that event was 80 years of continued poverty. If your comrades are successful here, it will be worse.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Rob, You missed my point on coverage. A single straight male, who doesn't need coverage for pregnancy, must still pay for coverage for pregnancy, sex change, addiction, etc., because the state mandates that all insurance companies are required to provide all these to everyone.
You obviously are ELOC. Since you can not/will not pay for medical insurance for your family, you want Sadolite and Magpie to pay for you. So, your CBA tells you that paying for M.I. is not beneficial to you. Well guess what, my CBA tells me the same thing: your insurance is not beneficial to me. The government taking my money to buy your medical care is tyranny.
I didn't graduate college because I chose to provide the best medical care to my family. Working a full time job and a part time job and studying for school, proved too much for me. But I you want me to get a part-time job, to provide M.I. for you! Are you for real?
Your comparisons re: police and fire protection are ludicrous. Defense, (military, fire-control, judicial, police) are all for society as a whole. Your choices, to go to school buy a tie, see a movie, or eat a hot dog, are your personal business. The American people pay huge amounts of money for AFDC, Medicaid, Emergency medical care, food stamps, and Section Eight housing. You want us to also, buy you M.I. Do want us to rock you to sleep, too? How did you come to be so dependent?
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Alrighty then. Imagine all the people with no possessions "The Beatles, Imagine" Now imagine the unemployment. The rich employ millions upon millions of people. Poor people with no ambition employ no one. That is all. Good luck to ya.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Now what about the waitress? I waited tables for 4 and a half years, and there's no way in HELL I would do that again, ESPECIALLY if I didn't need to. So would we be able to go to restaurants at all if there were no cooks in the hot kitchen and servers for us to complain to? I think we would do just fine. First off, we would be forced to realize that the waiters are not dogs and we should probably treat them with a little respect. They would no longer be forced to stress-out all day over us, so we would actually have to be nice to them (I know, it would be tough). The cooks wouldn't be working as hard (although some people would, some crazy people actually enjoy hard work for some reason) so we couldn't complain if our food wasn't out when we wanted it. But you know what? The whole restaurant experience would be unbelievably more enjoyable for everyone involved.

"You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Beatles. "This town needs an enema" - 80's Batman. I think we have a lot of progress to go yet in our society. I see a much different world in the future than we have now. Although I don't think the technological advances in "Star Trek" will ever come true (warp drive, transporters, replicators) I believe that the cultural ideas will. A world that is united is one idea they have. A society where money is non-existant is another. People work hard to better themselves instead of get rich. If you think about it, that's all we are doing now anyway, except we view material wealth as a measure of our success. Why not view our accomplishments as our measure of success? Our charitable acts, our relationships with others, our contributions to society. Our talents, our hobbies, and our innovations. These are the things we should be striving for. And I won't accept that it is impossible. I see almost all our environmental, social, international, and health problems as side effects of the root problem: a societal focus on material wealth
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pollocklady 8 years ago
pollocklady
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by whitakerj 8 years ago
whitakerj
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by JonathanCid 8 years ago
JonathanCid
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
magpieamcclintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03