The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Are republicans closer to the definition of an American than democratas?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 6 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 61853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (6)

 

cheyennebodie

Pro

The republican platform, not individual republicans, there are many who have lost their way.Is closer to what an American is than democrats. The republican party started out as a personal responsibility party.They are the true Americans.

The democrat party started and are to this day against personal responsibility.A true American would never visit his problems or mistakes on others using government force ( law) ).
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for starting this debate.

The definition of an American is: " a person born, raised, or living in the U.S." [1]

Republicans live in the U.S.

Democrats live in the U.S.

It seems to me that they equally fit the definition of an American.

So the answer to the question is a resounding "no."

Thank you for reading.

--------------------

Source:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Pro

That would a citizen of America. But it is not a definition of what an American is .Like I said. An true American would never force his neighbor to pay his bills.Nor would he visit his problems and mistakes on others. This was America before there ever was a constitution.And they wrote the constitution based on those principles. Just as cancer is part of the body, it is an invasion of a disease. the democrat party and its platform is an invasion of America with a disease.Liberalism.They do not represent what this country is founded on.

Now if people want to do away with our founding principles, then call it the soviet states of America.Which is what we are becoming since 50% 0f people are living off the other 50%
Jonbonbon

Con

No, I literally posted the definition of an American. If you want you can go read it.

If you'd used American as an adjective, then this wouldn't be a problem, but you used it as a noun which always means a citizen of America.

You're still wrong.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
cheyennebodie

Pro

You may be right.As an adjective I am right. And as a noun you are right.I did not major in grammar , that is for sure. Math was my strong point. But I still have a very strong point to make as American being an adjective.My hat off to you. I will not make that mistake again.
Jonbonbon

Con

Well all you have to do is look at the dictionary and see where it differentiates between the noun and the adjective.

Also, you're not necessarily right if used as an adjective, you can just plausibly make a case.

Anyway, I believe that was a concession. Thanks for reading the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by General_Grievous 2 years ago
General_Grievous
F*uck both sides. They both suck and are worthless.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
@Cheyenne:

"But it is not a definition of what an American is .Like I said. An true American would never force his neighbor to pay his bills"

This might help...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Can't disagree with you on anything there! :P
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
I mean, it's been a while since I checked the numbers, so "three times" was just me naturally using hyperbole. I just checked the numbers for debt though, so I didn't measure the deficit.

I'm not a huge Clinton fan either, but the way I see it he had a good idea of what to do with the economy at least. Although, there are circumstances to be considered with other presidencies, and honestly, I usually blame the Congress for debt more than the President. They can cut the amount of money he's allowed to use any time they want with a popular vote. So it's technically the Presidents who aren't spending responsibly, but the Congress could stop it with a solid vote.

And honestly, I don't even want the GOP or democrats to exist anymore. The way I see it, there's too much of a power grab between them to the point that it's not about America anymore. Politicians are more concerned with control because of the competition. I'd prefer some better independent parties to take the primary positions in elections.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
It depends on how you look at it. The debt was slightly over $10 trillion when Obama took office -- the deficit was at about $1.2 trillion from Bush's last term -- and now it's about $17.7 trillion. So by no means did he add "three times as much debt as any other president." But there have been historically significant declines in the annual deficit under Obama, which is projected to fall to about $540 billion in FY 2015.

Eh, I'm not the biggest Clinton fan. I was a tad skeptical of NAFTA, welfare reform, et al., but Clinton was the quintessential moderate. Frankly, he's what the GOP ought to aspire to these days.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Oh and by the way guys, America has had debt since 1787. That's the year the Constitution was officially ratified in case you didn't notice. We sort of borrowed money form the start.

But MonetaryOffset, I'm not really sure what you're talking about, because last time I checked the numbers, Obama added three times as much debt as any other President. I think the last person that actually did economics well was Clinton.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Cheyenne, sorry for the late reply. First of all, you should add a question mark at the end of that first sentence. In case this debate taught you nothing about me, I am a grammar nazi, and I will burn your mental flesh off with mental mustard gas.

Second of all, going in depth doesn't mean covering up the truth. When you analyze something in depth, you merely gain a greater understanding of it. For example, in a 1,000 word round, I can assert that Americans are greedy and take things in the consumer based market. I could probably make a small elaboration. However, there would be no room for evidence or any sort of in-depth analysis of why that's true. In the end, you only get assertions that prove nothing and explain nothing.

If I say, "Indigo is the sky," you're not going to read that and be like "Oh yeah, I know exactly what she's talking about." You're going to read that and wonder what the crap I was trying to say, because that doesn't make sense. If I give an in-depth explanation, then I can help you understand. In the same way, if I say "Democrats are closer to Americans than Republicans, because Republicans are more supportive of corporations" then you would probably want me to explain why that makes Democrats more American.

It wouldn't be enough for me to leave it at a baseless assertion like "Corporations are corrupt in the way they treat the poor, and they're corrupt in the way they deal with the government." I mean, I can say that, but it doesn't make it true. That's why you need in-depth explanations and evidence. Otherwise, you're not debating. You're in a lunch table argument at school.

Oh, and by the way, I used up almost twice as many characters to type that comment than you allowed in your rounds. That's why it's upsetting to only have 1,000 characters to work with. Less characters =/= more truth.
Posted by funnycn 3 years ago
funnycn
This is a weak debate. I'd ignore this debate.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
And, just to note, I didn't conflate deficit and debt. Deficits indicate the rate of change of the national debt, and presidents who inherited their predecessor's fiscal situation ought not be obligated to drastically flip out and start indiscriminately cutting -- e.g., if Obama, after being handed a $1.2 trillion deficit from Bush, slashed $1 trillion in spending, the economy would have disintegrated on par with the 30s, and Republicans who loved deficits under Bush would be scolding him for "lack of leadership."
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
@Cheyenne:

First, Alexander Hamilton supported the Bank of the United States, tariffs, and subsidies.

Second, the founding fathers were hostile to corporations. Corporations needed to draw up a temporary charter with the government for a specific purpose before they were disbanded. They had no ability at all to influence elections, unlike today where they can run roughshod and buy politicians -- particularly corporatist Republicans -- to do their bidding. They weren't even opposed to taxation -- just taxation without representation. They opposed taxation when their only form of representation was "virtual," or a royal governor from London. The taxes weren't even particularly cumbersome at the time.

Third, your ignorance of the origins of the debt baffle me. Deficits fell under Democrat administrations -- Clinton, Obama, et al. -- and rose under Republican Administration -- George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. The last Republican to ever balance the federal budget was Dwight D. Eisenhower, and that was because marginal tax rates were as high as 91 percent and he was actually willing to speak out against excessive military spending. The GOP today -- and to a lesser extent the Dems -- are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defense industry. The deficit today, which is falling actually at historic levels under Obama, grew under George W. Bush who threw away the Clinton surplus on two rounds of tax cuts, two stupid wars, defense contracts, a recession (i.e., deregulation that the GOP supports to this day), and Medicare Part D.

So, before you mindlessly attack an entire group of people and make baseless assertions, please be sure that you have your facts straight. I'd love to debate you on this. Stunningly, I managed to fit this into 2000 characters.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
cheyennebodieJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had good conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Con. Pro's grammar was poor in quality with spacing issues being apparent throughout the entire debate. Arguments - Con. Pro basically conceeded in the final round. Con was also able to properly refute all points raised by Pro and had her own challenges which remained standing. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sourcing throughout this debate, unlike Con. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by benko12345678 3 years ago
benko12345678
cheyennebodieJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cheyennebodie's grammar was ATROCIOUS! Pro named the debate in a way that fit into con's refutation (an american is defined as a person who lives an america, next time word it: behave more as true americans), Con is the only one that used a source.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 3 years ago
Codedlogic
cheyennebodieJonbonbonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concede Cons position.
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
cheyennebodieJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gracefully concedes
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
cheyennebodieJonbonbonTied
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: Pro doesn't know what the definition of American is and still didn't know when the definition was posted. My advice for pro is that if his resolution can be cl defeated with a definition than he should rethink his resolution.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
cheyennebodieJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: A concession from Pro. Conduct just because at least Pro didn't make Con wait out the clock with forfeits.