The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

America, formed with the Declaration of Independence, the opposite of socialism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 61773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




America was formed by some hard working, productive human beings that were capable of providing for themselves, and that is the essence of independence. They were also mostly Christian, and who on this planet could say that Jesus was a bad human?

Socialist America is being run by folks that want us to sign a Declaration of Codependance. Obamacare is a great example. Do you need others, as you are a thin skinned, easily offended, wimp, who needs the power of your fellow herd animals?

Then a socialist you may be, but American citizens you should not.

BoP is your burden, not mine.


I shall accept this debate. First, bringing things back to the resolution:
"America, formed with the Declaration of Independence, the opposite of socialism."
First: America is a super-continent, not a country. The United States of America was formed first with the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution; the Declaration of Independence was by 13 separate states. As for opposite of socialism, the Constitution gave the Federal Government a monopoly on multiple items, essentially making it socialist.

In response to your point on who on earth can call Jesus a bad human being; Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, two founders of the United States, both noted for their ideologies concerning government, were not Christians. Jefferson was an atheist, and Franklin was a deist. So, apparently, one can be a "true american" without Jesus.

Lastly, you talk about "socialist America" being run by, well, socialists. Then you say socialists should not be American citizens. One, is that not contradictory and two, why would you want to try and remain proud of citizenship to a government that no longer recognizes your ideals?
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the acceptance.

Are you a USA fan, or a USSA fan? Well then, what?


"Are you a USA fan, or a USSA fan? Well then, what?"

False Dichotomy. I am a fan of liberty, no matter what flag the opponent to it waves. So, Pro, which is more important; the country, or the man and his ideals?

Audience please note that no real rebuttals have come from Pro. Also, I jumped into arguments immediately to save time considering the number of rounds.
Debate Round No. 2


Oh gosh, your pandering to the peanut gallery is disgraceful.

In this case the country is the most important because we live under the constitution of the US of A-----merica!!!!!! The document of the founding fathers ideals, no matter their period correct ideals that resulted in tyranny for people of color, is what America is. The freedom of speech, The freedom of religion, The right to protect yourself. Those are all the rights that matter and the rights that socialists wish to dismantle. You are very naive if you think that I respect the leaders of this country. What I respect is the forefathers ideals, while at the same time understanding that they were party to truly offensive actions due to the culture of their age. As for your reference to Jefferson, you need to read the wikipedia on him. He was not a self avowed atheist, he was labeled one by the howlers. As for Franklin, he wanted us all to be dutiful turkeys, in line with his flock. You just don't get it do you? The constitution is king here, we the people, not we the sheeple, and we the wall street tyrants. Thanks for the fun!


So, still no defense of the original resolution? Fair enough, I shall use this round for the goal-shifted resolution that the United States of America (as opposed to the supercontinent America), formed with the Constitution (as opposed to the Declaration of Independence) is the opposite of socialism.
Part of the powers enunciated in the Constitution was for the establishment of post offices, roads, and the coining of money.[1]
The Federalists quickly turned this into monopolies for themselves. If this great piece of parchment was the opposite of socialism, why is it so good at excusing the socialization of money creation, roads, and first class mail? And this is but the tip of the iceberg; understand that all the greater government controls have been established and argued to be constitutional based on being necessary and proper and/or for the common good. So, love it, hate it, don't care about it, it is undoubtful that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit socialism, and has even been used to support socialist facets of the United States. Thus, it cannot be the opposite of what it supports.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wxyz2000 2 years ago
What is it that you are debating? I see many topics.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
I WANT THIS. Finish our other debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm afraid Pro is wrong in R1 - the BoP is on him. Pro had to show that there is not an inkling of socialism in the beginnings of this country, something he fails to do. Admittedly, Con fails to provide reasoning for why the country involves socialism (federal controls are not socialist), so that might be enough to vote Pro. However, the resolution says that it was formed as "the opposite of socialism." Pro never even establishes what the opposite of socialism is, let alone how it meets that view. In fact, he seems to have a very odd view on what socialism is and how it contrasts with a democratic republic. As it's Pro's burden to uphold the resolution, and as the resolution remains, at best, dubiously upheld, I vote Con.