The Instigator
Krelus
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Creed-Diskenth
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Compromise is the first step to a solution.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,009 times Debate No: 781
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

Krelus

Pro

Stubbornness is all well and good, and it has helped me out of a jam more than once. However, I believe that it has no place in Congress. To completely shut out an opposing idea without appreciating its merits is nothing short of foolish. The USA is fairly evenly divided, with no clear majority being either Liberal or Conservative. Thus, passing legislation that is clearly far-left or far-right is utterly irresponsible. The spirit of America is that everyone's voice is heard, and everyone is considered when a law is made. That spirit has been perverted into a system where whichever party has the majority in Congress this year gets their way, and everyone else gets shafted.

George Washington wanted nothing to do with a partisan system, and in all likelihood, it's because he knew what would happen. Indeed, the moment he was out of the picture, two parties sprang up, leading to a series of some of the ugliest elections this nation has ever seen.

America is a country which encourages disagreement. In fact, I think nothing is more American than a good battle of the wits. However, if two people disagree on how to solve a problem, nothing will proceed until one of them gives up at least some ground. Some call it spinelessness. I call it responsibility.
Creed-Diskenth

Con

Debating and the battle of wills is also the american way, as it were.

You reject the idea of a majority getting decisions made too much on one side of the political spectrum, and how this disagrees with the american population as a whole.

"That spirit has been perverted into a system where whichever party has the majority in Congress this year gets their way, and everyone else gets shafted.
"

The house of representatives, and to a certain extent the Senate, were built so that as the times changed and people moods changed certain groups would get their views passed into law. The Congress IS a reflection of the majority and the fact remains that any agreement made whatsoever would leave one party getting shafted.

"George Washington wanted nothing to do with a partisan system, and in all likelihood, it's because he knew what would happen. Indeed, the moment he was out of the picture, two parties sprang up, leading to a series of some of the ugliest elections this nation has ever seen."

George Washington willingly rose to the responsibility of command with a sincere devotion to seeing a true american government begun. He knew what he was taking a part of, and he had his chance to turn away. Do not say that he wanted no part in a partisan system. Two parties had already sprung up, ever since the constitution fought to get past the state governments. Even during Washington's reign Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson raged against each other to fill their leader with their own opinions.

As times change new opinions and problems will form and each and every citizen has the free will and right to empathize with whoever the want. They can also defend their opinions with their right to elect representatives.

Your opinion has merit only when national crisis looms, and then the presidents executive orders are what count most, and we still have the ability to guide his opinions. The government serves the people, it is a reflection of the public consensus and attitude. That is the beauty of a democratic system.
Debate Round No. 1
Krelus

Pro

It should be noted that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, but that's neither here nor there.

"You reject the idea of a majority getting decisions made too much on one side of the political spectrum, and how this disagrees with the american population as a whole."

I don't dislike the majority getting what they want. I dislike the minority getting nothing due to being outvoted. Ideally, a responsible government should compromise and service all groups equally within reason. However, all too often politicians are so busy keeping their job that they forget to do their job.

"The house of representatives, and to a certain extent the Senate, were built so that as the times changed and people moods changed certain groups would get their views passed into law. The Congress IS a reflection of the majority and the fact remains that any agreement made whatsoever would leave one party getting shafted."

This is, of course, assuming that there are only two answers, black and white. With few exceptions, however, there is a middle ground which can satisfy members of both groups. This middle ground is largely ignored. Not everyone is hard-left or hard-right. As a moderate myself, I am utterly annoyed by the sheer level of polarity and our system's apparent intolerance for moderation.

As for George Washington, you're right. That was sloppy verification on my part. However, my point there still stands: Washington despised the polarity and lack of cooperation which political parties tend to bring about. This is best expressed with an entry from his Farewell Address:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Put simply, when two factions in a country compete for power over each other without cooperation, nothing good will happen. If you'll notice, the average American citizen has little to no faith in the legislative branch. Without any doubt in my mind, I blame polarity and hostility between the two parties. If only they could think of each other as co-workers, rather than enemies, our faith in Congress might one day be restored.

"As times change new opinions and problems will form and each and every citizen has the free will and right to empathize with whoever the want. They can also defend their opinions with their right to elect representatives."

If you vote for the losing side, you're not being represented the way you want. The least the winner could do is pay at least some attention to those who voted for the other guy.

"Your opinion has merit only when national crisis looms"

I fail to see how paying attention to ALL voices and not just those who have the most votes is a silly idea when the country is stable. The federal government has a basic and unavoidable responsibility to serve ALL of its citizens and not just the ones it agrees with.

"The government serves the people, it is a reflection of the public consensus and attitude. "

Picture this. Candidate 1 is the color yellow. Candidate 2 is the color purple. Twenty people vote for Candidate 1, and thirty vote for Candidate 2. The color purple clearly won. However, two fifths of the populace is in support of yellow and yet absolutely no yellow exists in the color purple. Without compromise, the "losers" get shut out with no representation. Compromise is the responsible thing to do, and while there's no legal way to enforce it, Americans as a whole would be far happier if it was practiced more frequently than it currently is.
Creed-Diskenth

Con

I concede to you only this point: the government needs work. A system has been developed that focuses on keeping our politicians there rather than to do anything useful in a timely manner.

However, compromise is by itself not a sound solution in a significant amount of cases.

People are guided by principle, and often compromise still leaves a party marginalized. And when two completely opposite views collide, compromise is impossible. Such as abortion. Its either allowed or it isn't. Even a "compromise" in this case would not achieve either parties goals, to either completely outlaw abortion or let everyone who wants to get an abortion.

This applies in other circumstances, such as the war in Iraq, legalizing narcotics, etc. Often there is no middle ground, and eve when you can see it that doesn't mean that compromise is acceptable or even worthwhile.

As for your purple and yellow case... the fact is that sometimes people will vote purple, and yellow will get nothing. But sometimes people vote yellow, and purple gets nothing. That is the basis of our system. Keep in mind that there will be pros and cons for both sides, and that common sense should keep a majority from voting on something overtly destructive. Even if yellow is put down, it still can come back and win the next one if people start to dislike purple.

That is the essence of our capitalist society. Let the best man win. Only the best will survive, and if they aren't the best, then oh well. Better luck next time.
Debate Round No. 2
Krelus

Pro

Krelus forfeited this round.
Creed-Diskenth

Con

The government is compromised of elected officials who are elected to support the opinions of those electing them. They were not elected to stand down at every chance of a fight. Its often not an acceptable choice. However, to counteract that, it is also the responsibility of citizens to elect intelligent officials who will also know when compromise must be accepted. fanatic and extremists will certainly harm our government, but policy needs to be made decisively and in accordance with the majority of the citizen's views.

On the outside it may be fine to talk about compromise, but often voters are stuck with two choice options, unless they just refuse to vote. By the way, that is definitely not the right choice. We've seen what kind of things result from not enough people caring about the issue.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Krelus 9 years ago
Krelus
Oh for the love of... Silly holidays distracting me... I'm so sorry for not posing a counter, in my silly sense of honor that equates to an insult or something...

Ugh.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
Blatant close-mindedness is one thing, but compromise isn't always (or often) the solution.

Candidate A favors segregation. Candidate B is opposed to segregation. Should Candidate B defend his viewpoint to the death, or in the name of fairness toward his opponent compromise and agree to "a little" racism.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by yoon172 8 years ago
yoon172
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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 
Vote Placed by redrandomity 9 years ago
redrandomity
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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 
Vote Placed by Creed-Diskenth 9 years ago
Creed-Diskenth
KrelusCreed-DiskenthTied
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