The Instigator
Ariesx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nymphomaniac
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 67590
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Ariesx

Pro

I will be defending conservatism and attacking liberalism. Round 1 for acceptance, Round 2 is for arguments, Round 3 for initial attacks, Round 4 is for defense
Nymphomaniac

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Pro

I will be attempting to prove the idea of conservatism and how it could work for any great nation.

Argument 1: Family- As we all know, family and upbringing play a huge role in a child's success. We can see that behind every self-made person there was a family that believed in them and inspired them. That is why I want to emphasize tradition on families. It is our traditions that made America so great. America in just 200 years went to space because of our conservative ideas. Now, I will present three people that represent why conservatism in family works.
Bill Gates- Bill Gates's family was a very hardworking family. The father had an above minimum wage job and the mother was on board of IBM. They emphasized conservative traditions such as the Bible, hard work, good grades, humble, competitiveness, and not to brag. These words made Bill Gates one of the richest men on the planet. How did he become rich? He took the conservative lifestyle which governed his actions in his later life.
Steve Jobs-Even though Steve Jobs was born in a very left-wing place, his father and mother made a promise to his real mother that they would be able to put Steve in a college. Now, how could they put him in a college. They followed conservative principles. They taught Steve the hard work, good grades, humbleness, competitiveness, and perfection. These were all the foundation of conservative principles and it worked on him.
George Washington- George Washington was also raised in a very conservative lifestyle. His father taught him a lot of things about life. Most of them were conservative. If you ever read anything on George Washington, you would know the story of him cutting down a tree. If you don't know the story, than I will be happy to write antecedote on what happened. George got an axe one day and he wanted to cut a tree. His father told him not to cut the tree, but George wanted to cut down the tree. So, he went and cut it down. His father came home and George Washington had to make a decision. Would he lie to his father and get out of it or would he tell the truth. He told his father the truth and his Father was angry. Historians now agree that one of the things that kept George from doing that was the Bible. It helped him keep his pious ways, and helped him from going into a darker path.

Argument 2: Black Protesters- As we all know there have been various riots in Ferguson and New York. They all are trying to send the message that cops are killing young black people. Now, I think that the question should be asked why are cops killing young black people. Is it because they are racist. Well, lets look at the facts. According to the Sentencing Project, even though African American juvenile youth are about 16 percent of the youth population, 37 percent of their cases are moved to criminal court and 58 percent of African American youth are sent to adult prisons. Racial Disparities in Incarceration
" African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
" African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
" Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
" According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
" One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
" 1 in 100 African American women are in prison
" Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).
As you can see, blacks dominate the jail population. It is human nature to blame someone else for your own wrong doing. The protests are a perfect example of that. Dr. Ben Carson notes that it is not cops that are the problem, but it is the family that is the problem. It is the absence of the father and the mother. It is the absence of the conservative lifestyle that all the self-made men need today. Dr. Ben Carson is an example himself of a black man who was helped with conservative traditions. If you read his auto-biography you would see that Ben Carson was heading in the wrong direction. He was a TV Nut and he was lazy. He was a C grade student with no real values. But, his mother worked at rich homes, and she learned the difference between rich people and black people. Rich people have better upbringings. Rich people get values taught. Rich people have the conservative lifestyle. His mother decided to make a change in her household. He emphasized conservative traditions on her son. She emphasized hard work, the bible, honor, humbleness, and competitiveness. He stayed away from drugs because of these values, he almost killed someone but stopped because of his values. His values saved his life. Conservatism works.

Argument 3: Liberalism- Liberalism is a new model and it has never really been practiced in the US government. However the liberal upbringing has been practiced and the liberal values have been practiced by our American people. Blacks have not embraced a conservative lifestyle and look what happened. " African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
" African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
" Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
" According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
" One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
" 1 in 100 African American women are in prison
" Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).
This is the reality of a household that does not teach conservative values.
By Douglas Lyons
2 September 2014
The state of Colorado has been experiencing a rapid rise in homelessness. The homeless rate in the city of Pueblo has ballooned by 75 percent since January 2014. Before January 2014, there were 1,720 homeless people; as of August 21, more than 3,000 people are reported homeless. It is also recorded that the homeless have been smoking pot. Pot is now being smoked be these people and the government is now subsidizing free healthcare and welfare for these individuals which results in more government spending.

For all of these reasons I ask for the judges to consider a better reality for our children. Vote Pro.
Nymphomaniac

Con

I'll start with definitions. Conservatism emphasizes tradition, natural law, and moral hierarchy. It opposes rationalism and expresses a preference for longstanding prejudice. [1] [2] Liberalism, on the other hand, emphasizes liberty and equality. It supports rationalism rather than the historically inherited. [3] [4]

Arguments

1. Conservatism is often at odds with liberty and equality. Preserving tradition would limit freedom by banning same-sex marriage, criminalizing marijuana use, and placing limits on sexual freedom and reproductive freedom. In fact, many conservatives want to return to earlier times, when women couldn't vote, schools were segregated, and homosexuality was a crime. The US is better off promoting liberal values instead of retaining longstanding prejudices against women, blacks, and homosexuals.

2. Liberalism allows individuals with competing conceptions of the good to peacefully cooperate, by organizing the political order around neutral ideals like freedom and equality. This is especially good for our country, which is characterized by a pluralism of reasonable yet incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs. Furthermore, most Americans support ideals like freedom and equality, so liberalism aligns more closely with the values of everyday Americans.

3. Liberalism promotes political, social, and economic reform. Liberals strive towards improving society. Conservatism, on the other hand, strives toward keeping society the same. Liberalism is thus better for our country because it strives towards improvement.

Rebuttals

1. Pro argues that the traditional family unit is the best. Specifically, Pro argues that "behind every self-made person there was a family that believed in them and inspired them." Pro doesn't offer any sourcing for that claim. I'll offer a counter-example: Frederick Douglass. http://en.wikipedia.org... Frederick Douglass was a slave who was separated from his mother as an infant. He then taught himself to read and, after escaping from slavery, became a leader of the abolitionist movement, standing as a "living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens." Frederick Douglass is not only a self-made man who didn't have a traditional family -- he is one of the most extraordinary and inspiration human beings to have ever lived. He was also black (a group my opponent doesn't seem to have much respect for).

Pro also gives three examples of self-made conservatives: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and George Washington. First, anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence here; there could be so many other factors besides being conservative that led to the success of Gates, Jobs, and Washington. Second, Pro admits that Jobs grew up in a "left-wing" household, not a conservative household. Pro states Jobs "followed conservative principles." But Pro offers no sourcing or evidence that Jobs was a conservative or that he grew up in a traditional conservative family. Pro also offered no evidence that Gates was conservative, so I have no way of checking Pro's claims. Likewise, Washington. I can't argue against claims unless I know where they came from. Plus, even if these anecdotes are true, they don't prove anything about conservatism generally. Most of these people became successful for reasons totally unrelated to conservatism. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were geniuses with computer software and business. George Washington wasn't great because he followed the Bible. George Washington was great because he was a great general, a founding father, and the first President.

2. Pro argues something about black protesters, the jail population, and Ben Carson. Honestly, I have no idea what Pro's arguing. I just spent 10 minutes trying to decipher Pro's words and this is what I have: "black people who lack conservative values go to jail, while rich people with conservative values get richer." I might be giving Pro too much credit here, but the argument appears to be: conservatism produces rich people; anything else produces criminals. There are like 20 million problems with that argument.

First, lots of rich people aren't conservative. Second, lots of conservatives go to jail. Third, lots of blacks who go to jail are conservative. Fourth, Pro offered no sourcing or evidence for his generalizations about rich people and black people. Fifth, anecdotal evidence about a dude named Ben Carson doesn't tell us much about conservatives or black folks generally (again, the story lacks sourcing, so I'm hard-pressed to even believe it's true). Sixth, Pro's argument is racist and racism is bad for our country. I'll stop there.

3. Pro also argues something about liberalism. First, Pro says liberalism "is a new model and it has never really been practiced in the US." Pro's just wrong -- liberalism dates back earlier than conservatism and is at the heart of our Constitution -- but since the point isn't relevant to the debate, I'm not gonna belabor it.

Second, Pro goes back to the "blacks have not embraced a conservative lifestyle and look what happened" argument. Again, this argument not only lacks any sourcing or evidence but it's also profoundly racist. The fact that blacks are arrested more often than whites doesn't tell us anything about conservative values. If anything, it just speaks to a racist criminal justice system, or to the fact that blacks generally occupy a lower socioeconomic class, or the fact that they experienced years of oppression (slavery, segregation, etc.) for which they are still suffering. It also points to the fact that drug laws are fucked up and should probably be changed.

NOTE: Yes, I'm using profanity in a debate. Please don't take off spelling/grammar/conduct points for that. The words reflect opposition to conservatism and are therefore rhetorical tools.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.constitution.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.earlymoderntexts.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Pro

I am very sorry that my opponent made attacks on her own misinterpretations of my case. I will have to correct the following statements my opponent has made, and then prove conservative lifestyle is the best in achieving a better country.

Rebuttal

1. It is very interesting what my oppnent claims in her case. Conservatism limits freedom such as banning same-sex marriage, criminalizing marijuana use, and placing limits on sexual freedom and reproductive freedom.In fact, many conservatives want to return to earlier times, when women couldn't vote, schools were segregated, and homosexuality was a crime. The US is better off promoting liberal values instead of retaining longstanding prejudices against women, blacks, and homosexuals. But is my opponent right on her attacks. I will admit that horrible things happened during the conservative era such as slavery, women not being able to vote, schools segregated. and homosexuality as a crime. By using my opponent's logic, communism embraces Stalinism and will always evolve into stalinism. Communist governments kill there own people if there people revolt. Stalin killed christians who celebrated Christmas. This is a biproduct of Communism. This is the logic you would support if you were won by my opponent's argument. Sharing communism's name with Stalinism is a horrible idea because it is a lie itself. It does not say anything about the idea, but people will still point at Russia for being so cool. My opponent's logic can not uphold in this case. These were things that just happened during that time. Slavery was world wide. Britain practiced slavery. Hitler hated black people. So are you going to tie in the facist ideology with Hitler. I urge you not to accept my opponent's argument because it is illogical and can hold up as a lie. The same logic would apply to women. Woman were mistreated everywhere. It was in the status quo at that time. Do not hold the ideology responsible for human nature. We can fundamentally disagree on gay people, but that would have to be another debate. Marijuana, I also would funamentally disagree with you on.

National Institute of Drug abuse

Marijuana overactivates the endocannabinoid system, causing the “high” and other effects that users experience. These effects include altered perceptions and mood, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory.

Marijuana also affects brain development, and when it is used heavily by young people, its effects on thinking and memory may last a long time or even be permanent. A recent study of marijuana users who began using in adolescence revealed substantially reduced connectivity among brain areas responsible for learning and memory. And a large long-term study in New Zealand showed that people who began smoking marijuana heavily in their teens lost an average of 8 points in IQ between age 13 and age 38. Importantly, the lost cognitive abilities were not fully restored in those who quit smoking marijuana as adults.

If you want that kind of reality for you or your kids than vote con.

2. Liberalism- My opponent argues that liberalism appeals more to American ideals such as freedom. But allowing your people to smoke marijuana, and letting them lose cognitive abilities and have there IQ scores go down is absurd to me. If you accept my opponent's logic, than I should drive my car how fast I want to drive it. I don't have to wear my seat belt. It feels like my opponent's logic works for all of these things, so if you have been won over by my opponent's arguments, well than let people start speeding. My opponent notes that conservatism keeps society at the same pace, but I would also note that Conservatism helped build America. Its amazing how in just 200 years America went to space. Our fundamentals kept us strong. Our funamentals have helped middle class people become rich. It is our funamentals that keept us alive.

Defense

1. My opponent argues Frederick Douglas, and that there was no family behind his success. Well, let me refrain and say that the majority of rich people have had families behind them. But, I will admit that my opponents argument seemed to win me over. That is why middle class people's children are getting better education. That is why the middle class kids are just magicaly getting common sense and are deciding to learn without no inspiration. This is my opponent's logic and if you are won over by it than you probably believe in ghosts or extremely idealistic.

2. My opponent tries to dismis my arguments on self-made people by saying I offered no sources. My sources were books, and I tried to make a short summary of what these books were, but if it pleases you than here are my sources.




Tell me in the next case if you have read any of them.

My opponent makes the claim that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were just computer geniuses. Its not like anyone every told them about hardwork, making good grades, and religion. If they were born in the hood they still would have made it because they just were naturually geniusess.

Read George Washington's book. I think its safe to say you would have inaccurate analytics on him just as you did with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

I provided a well-known doctor who was raised in Detroit and is a black person. He became wealthy off of conservative traditions. http://www.amazon.com...

Calling my argument racist is an insult, not a rebuttal. Using my oppnent's logic, white prevelage is racist to me and other whites, because we are not privledged at all. But, we don't overeact and start throwing out insufficiently informed analytics that state your racist for accusing whites of being privledged. When I make a fair critique on black households that is not being racist that their lifestyle needs to have a change so they can stop dominating jail populations. If they had good upbringings such as the upbringings of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, George Washington, Dr. Carson, they could do well. I guess anyone who has ever wrote a critique on Obama is racist. I guess anyone who has ever wrote a critique on Kevin Hart is racist. The last time I saw real racism was when people were literally pissed off because they saw a black person drink water.


I think that the last argument is an engine of absurdity influenced by an ever evolving political correctness. Blaming our system for being racist is a very human thing for african americans to do. But, as well-educated blacks such as Dr. Carson know, the problem does not lie in the government it lies in the people. The absence of the father and mother is totally unacceptable to conservative philosophy. Ben Carson benefited from conservative philosophy and he was raised in Detroit. The point that I made here and the reality liberals will not accept here is the conservative lifestyle worked. It worked with Ben Carson. It worked with Bill Gates and it worked with alot of other rich people. I want to apply the same philosophy to other people. I want blacks to have more rich people in there statistics. We can do it thanks to conservative philosophy. Liberals have only proved that they can capture the media. Vote for a better reality for America.
Nymphomaniac

Con

Phew. That was a tough round to read and decipher. I had to smoke a joint and down half a bottle of wine before getting through that. Now... to my arguments.

Definitions

Per last round, conservatism means preserving the status quo (traditional social institutions). Liberalism means pushing political, social, and economic reforms when necessary. Conservatism is about imposing a "natural law" that is universal and never changes, while liberalism is about protecting individual rights of liberty and equality. I offered these definitions last round. They weren't contested, so I'll assume Pro concedes these definitions.

Note that conservatives interpret "natural law" to be unchanging and universal. That means the law in the 1700s should be the same law today and the same law 50 years in the future. Conservatism is about imposing this natural order, so that the law doesn't ever change. Pro hasn't offered a clear definition of conservatism, so prefer this definition, as it's the definition provided by Wikipedia and comes directly from Edmund Burke's writings (a classic conservative philosopher).

Burden of proof

Pro has the burden to prove conservatism is "much better" for Americans than liberalism. Showing that conservatism is "better" isn't enough; Pro must show that conservatism is "much" better for Americans than liberalism. Please hold Pro to that high burden by requiring substantial evidence that conservatism is better than liberalism.

Relevance of Pro's arguments

The topic is conservatism and liberalism. The stuff about communism and black people isn't relevant to this debate. Even if there is relevance, Pro hasn't offered any connection between his arguments and the debate topic. For instance, Pro offers no evidence that poor blacks are liberals and rich blacks are conservatives. And Barack Obama stands as proof of the opposite (some rich blacks are liberals). So the generalizations Pro makes about blacks and rich people are unfounded and irrelevant to the debate. The stuff about communism is equally irrelevant.

Pro's only argument for conservatism

Pro argues conservatism is wealth-creating, i.e. that folks with conservative values become rich people. However, Pro's only evidence is anecdotal and therefore unreliable. You can't generalize about a group of people or a political ideology based on a couple examples.

Furthermore, Pro's examples don't show what he claims they show. Steve Jobs grew up in a liberal household with liberal values. He identified as a democrat and voted democrat in elections (showing that he's more liberal than conservative). Bill Gates never identifies his political or social affiliation. He's neither liberal nor conservative. However, he contributes more to democrat campaigns than republican campaigns. At the least, that shows that Bill Gates is not the hardcore conservative that Pro thinks he is.

Of course, all the anecdotal evidence in the world doesn't mean anything when generalizing about groups of people (poor versus rich) and political ideologies (conservative versus liberal). Pro offers no evidence that the majority of rich people are conservative. And even if Pro did offer evidence that the majority of rich people were conservative, that still wouldn't show that conservatism creates rich people. It's just a correlation, and correlations don't prove causation. There's no way to tell what "caused" that person to become rich. Like I said previously, it could be because the person was a genius and hardworking, which are independent of political ideology. Sometimes, it's luck. Other times, it's hard work and perseverance. Everyone's story is difference.

Pro has offered no evidence of any relationship between conservative values and becoming rich (i.e. Pro hasn't shown that being conservative makes you more likely to become rich). This was Pro's only argument to support conservatism, so Pro has not met his burden of proof.

Marijuana

Pro claims liberalism is bad because it allows people to smoke marijuana and thus allows them to "lose cognitive abilities." Well, here's some anecdotal evidence: I can assure Pro and our readers that I'm high right now and that I've been smoking since high school (7 years) and my cognitive abilities are better than ever. My IQ probably went up 8 points since I started smoking.

Pro says letting people use marijuana is like letting people drive without speed limits, but that analogy loses sight of a key distinction. People can use marijuana in private where it doesn't harm anyone else - no one even has to know you're doing it. Colorado (where I live) legalized weed, but there are still restrictions like not smoking in a school zone. Some municipalities have even said you're only allowed to smoke in your home. That's a lot different than taking away speed limits, which affects every single person who decides to drive a car.

Liberalism recognizes that individuals have the right to personal autonomy. The US was founded on that idea. It's better to keep government small and not intrude on the private lives of citizens. Even if we assume marijuana is harmful to people who do it, the government's job isn't to ensure that people make smart and healthy decisions, so we shouldn't be limiting marijuana use unless it harms other people when you do it.

Also, Pro didn't cite the sources he used to say marijuana is bad. I'll just point out that there are many medicinal uses of weed, not to mention that many philosophers and intellectuals and artists and musicians swear by the intellectual and artistic benefits of weed, too.

Liberalism versus conservatism

1. Pro admits that conservatism is often at odds with liberty and equality. Liberalism is therefore better because it upholds the ideals of liberty and equality, which are at the heart of the Constitution and most Americans' values.

2. Pro admits that traditional social institutions used to include things like school segregation, prohibiting women and blacks from voting, and even slavery. Pro even admits slavery was part of life during the "conservative era." Under a conservative framework, these traditional social institutions should have been preserved. Conservatives are the one's who argued for slavery during slavery, who argued against women voting rights when women weren't allowed to vote, and against homosexuality when homosexuality was a crime. Today, conservatives still argue for limits on sexual freedom and reproductive freedom. They still argue against gay marriage. Conservatives support the status quo, even if the status quo contains bad social institutions. Liberalism, by contrast, supports political, social, and economic reforms when those reforms are better for society. Liberalism is forward-thinking; it's progressive. Conservatism is backward-thinking -- they want a "return" to a "natural order."

3. Liberalism allows individuals with competing conceptions of the good to peacefully cooperate, whereas conservatism imposes a specific conception of the good on everyone. Prefer liberalism because it allows people to pursue their own beliefs, instead of imposing beliefs on people. Pro dropped this argument (made in the previous round), so I assume he concedes it.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Pro

Well, it seems like we live in a world in where smoking and drinking make a great debater.

My opponent claims that Liberalism means pushing political, social, and economic reforms when necessary. "Conservatism is about imposing a "natural law" that is universal and never changes, while liberalism is about protecting individual rights of liberty and equality. I offered these definitions last round. They weren't contested, so I'll assume Pro concedes these definitions." In my second round, I clearly put the conservative lifestyle. So, my opponent's attack should be ruled as irrelevant.

My opponent claims that I have not provided sources when I have clearly gave books as sources by very respectable authors. My opponent on the other hand has provided nothing but Wikipedia links. On top of that, my opponent tried to make an analytic claiming that George Washington did not think of the bible when he was about to lie. You can read the book that I provided a link too that shows what Washington's thought process was. Since, my opponent's analytic was wrong it should also be counted as a lie, because my opponent said something about a subject that she was very na"ve in. This proves that my opponent not only made an analytic without knowing what she was talking about, but this proves that she can be very untrustworthy about what she is talking about. Also, she makes another analytic of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates not becoming rich because of their upbringings, but because they were just geniuses. This analytic also should because Bill Gates says in his book that "their was a time in where I was not doing well in school, and my mother told me that if you wanted a better life you better start studying or else no college is going to accept you and you are going to have no house and no friends". If his mother did not say that than we would not have Windows. We would not have the innovations that we live with today, and for my opponent to say that Bill just got their because he was a genius is absurd and her analytics should be ruled as untrustworthy. My opponent also makes another critique on my argument on the absence of a conservative lifestyle in poor black neighborhoods as racist. My opponent makes another untrustworthy analytic on something that is just proving that if black people used conservative methods in their lifestyles they would be wealthy. I provided evidence of Ben Carson who was also raised in Detroit, and his mother raised him up on conservative principles and he became a self-made doctor who graduated from Yale. My opponent's burden of proof should be ruled as irrelevant because she herself is responsible for making untrustworthy analytics and you can find in the rebuttal that I have put clear sources on everything my opponent wanted.

My opponent argues that I have communism and black people isn't relevant to this debate. Pro hasn't offered any connection between his arguments and the debate topics. Pro offers no evidence that poor black are liberals and rich blacks are conservative. It seems that my opponent's argument is based off of the laziness of not being able to read an argument right. My opponent was making the case that conservatism brought slavery, women not being able to vote, schools segregated, and homosexuality as a crime. I offered connection by stating this "By using my opponent's logic, communism embraces Stalinism and will always evolve into Stalinism. Communist governments kill there own people if there people revolt. Stalin killed Christians who celebrated Christmas. This is a byproduct of Communism. This is the logic you would support if you were won by my opponent's argument. Sharing communism's name with Stalinism is a horrible idea because it is a lie itself." To any educated person this simply means that my opponent is blaming conservatism for the things that humans did themselves. Communism was supposed to be fair share, but Stalin killed his own people. Are you going to blame communism for the deaths of Russian lives. This is why my opponent's logic doesn't work. Her basis was a logical fallacy. My opponent than tries to claim that poor blacks are liberals and rick blacks are conservative. No, that is not what I said. I provided the crime rates in young black males. I simply said that the problem was the family. It had nothing to do with being liberal. All I was saying was that if they embraced a conservative way of life, they would be better off. I provided an example of Ben Carson who was raised in Detroit. My opponent's attack was based off of misinterpretations which makes my opponent untrustworthy in her ability to interpret an argument.

My opponent also argues my evidence is anecdotal and therefore unreliable even when I provided all of the books that were sources for my anecdotals in the rebuttal. This is only proving that my opponent's attacks are in the foundation of misinterpretation. I placed a couple of examples, because they were a lot more of them and I couldn't list them because I would run out of characters. My opponent blamed me of examples when she only finds one person that did not have a family. So, her argument would actually be more irrelevant than it already is.

My opponent attacks the examples I gave by saying that they identify themselves as liberals. My case was that they were raised off of conservative values. My opponent's argument is based off of misinterpretations of my arguments. I don't even think that my opponent read my arguments. I said they were raised on conservative principles. My opponent blames me for having no burden of proof when she makes analytics about things that she doesn't know.

My opponent tries to refute evidence that was provided by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. My opponent claims that her IQ went up 8 points when she started smoking, when another more reliable source. My opponent's argument is irrelevant because her experience should not be upheld by a judge because her own personality would have bias to liberalism. My opponent does not cite any sources for her case on Marijuana, that is why it is irrelevant My opponent also makes the case that I did not cite any sources when clearly I sited National Institute of Drug Abuse, which means that there is a serious problem with the way she reads arguments.

1. I do admit that conservatism is often at odds with liberty and equality, but what I am saying is that the conservative model works and you can just look at the various examples of how it works, while my opponent still wants an untested model to run.

2. My opponent also says that conservatives have backward thinking and that I admit that slavery was in the conservative era. But, my opponent's argument has a big logical fallacy because she blames conservatism for slavery. I pointed out that by using her logic Communism brings in torture because Stalin used torture. Stalin just represented communism, he didn't speak for the ideology. It is in just human nature that we this. It is evolutionary. You can't blame an ideology for doing that.

3. My opponent says lastly that liberalism allows people to pursue their own beliefs, instead of imposing beliefs on people. I have provided examples that prove that this is a much better route. If you want to be a liberal, than that is fine. The resolution is Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country. My opponent just assumed that conservatives wanted to feel that way. I represented examples of black people in Detroit that were raised in the conservative lifestyle and became very wealthy. The conservative philosophy can produce a better country. If you don't like it, than that is fine, but look at the examples that I have provided. People that have made extraordinary benefits to America. They all were raised on the conservative philosophy. Vote for a better reality. Vote for the side that knows what they are talking about, and does not make analytics about things they are na"ve about. Thank
Nymphomaniac

Con

I'm going to be brief to save you some time. Pro's arguments have no relevance to the debate topic. His arguments are also unsupported by reliable sources. His arguments are fallacious (correlations don't prove causation). And his arguments are too vague - and his definition of conservatism unclear.

The burden of proof is on my opponent, as the instigator and Pro position. He has not met that burden with the arguments offered. I'm not gonna waste more of your time getting into the details. Previous rounds discuss the problems

Pro also hasn't responded to my affirmative case sufficiently. So I win this debate on those grounds too.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
"Conservatism" and "Liberalism" are both very broad categorys.
They can mean different things in different places.
Is it moral or political conservatism/Liberalism?
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
False dichotomy.
Posted by Nymphomaniac 2 years ago
Nymphomaniac
Wylted, I did that once in a debate with thett lol...
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Too broad
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I really want to accept and show how libertarians fit the definition of liberal and then argue.
No votes have been placed for this debate.