Conservatives Are Not Crazy Or Terrorists
Debate Rounds (3)
However, I think the names being thrown at conservatives are a lot more extreme than those against liberals. Calling someone a terrorist is a serious accusation anyway you put it. Especially when someone has shown no intention or indication of committing terrorist actions.
Conservatives believe in self-efficiency where someone should have to earn their success and wealth through hard-work and perseverance. They don't believe in giving things to someone who has not earned it. They take pride in our nation's troops who many of them give their lives for this country. They believe in a small Federal government that rarely intervenes in public affairs. They are pro-religion, pro-speech, and pro-guns because they believe those are their constitutional rights. They are anti-abortion because they believe a human being is dying in the process of the abortion. They believe if a person comes to this country illegally they need to be deported because they broke the law and that it is not fair to people who came to this country legally to have someone get to have the same opportunities as them despite the fact they came here illegally.They believe a criminal who has committed first-degree murder should be put to death because they took the life of another human being.
I disagree with them on some things such as anti-gay laws, against marijuana legalization, medical euthanizing of humans at their request, and the abolition of the IRS. However, none of these beliefs suggest that they have the intention of committing terrorism nor are these terrorist beliefs.
Also I want to lay out some terms just to clarify, please tell me your thoughts on them.
Terrorist - person who uses terror in order to achieve political aims.
Crazy - definitions in Oxford dictionary are imprecise, numerous and unclear. But outstanding words include: FOOLISH and WILD. I will argue that conservative philosophy is inherently foolish and wild.
Conservative - a political philosophy or force, that aims to conserve the pre-existing system.
I am going to assume that we are talking about the conservatives of England, Europe and America. Not about theoretical people who want to maintain the status quo in a theoretical society. Yes?
You seem to want to understand why people can be so aggressive towards conservatives. Also you want to know how one can compare conservatives to terrorists. I hope I can shed light on this for you.
When people talk about 'conservatives', they mean people who want to maintain the status quo. They do not mean people who believe in self-efficacy, 'free-enterprise', 'hard-work' and all that. All reasonable people believe in these things, there is nothing exclusively conservative about hard work and a so called free enterprise. It's inherent in any reasonable person that dedication to work, a bubbling climate for human enterprise and responsibility are desirable things. What sets conservatives apart is that they believe all these things are already true, which I disagree with. Also, conservatives believe that humans should be self-orientated rather than community orientated. They also, in the developed world, are influenced by corporations and are essentially a party that represents the super-rich.
I don't believe everybody who describes themselves as conservative is an idiot, I believe it's philosophy of hard work and good climates for business, is goodly in its nature. But I believe that it's now time for a different approach to society building, and conservatives resist this change.
I believe that the way those at the top run this society, is mad. Also to some degree, they could be described as terrorists. Therefore I am saying that those wishing to conserve it, the Conservatives, are inherently mad in this belief. I am not saying that you are mad, nor anyone els in particular who describes themselves as conservative, but I am saying that they could be described as mad or terrorists and it would not be absurd or totally false.
My argument is as follows:
Conservatives can be described as terrorists. They bombed Irag and Afganistan to achieve stability (this is a political aim). This causes terror, in order to achieve that political aim. To the innocents caught up in that assault, the bombers where terrorists. Conservatives, who legislate this action, are therefore terrorists. In the same way Osama BIn Laden is a terrorist for 'legislating' 9/11.
Secondly, conservatives do fall under the definition of crazy. They wish to maintain the status quo, the status quo is destroying the environment that is essential for our survival. This is comparable to a person who self destructs and is incapable of looking out for themselves for the future, this could be described as foolish. 'Foolish' is in the definition of 'crazy'. Also in the definition of 'crazy' is the idea of excess and extremism. If 100 people divided a cake, and 1 person got a quarter to himself-would that be extreme? I think that when 16% percent of us are living in poverty in the US, it's excessive and extreme that one person can be in control of amounts of money in the tens of billions. So yes, it's crazy that we are tearing down our habitat, pursuing profit so much that we are forgetting our rights as humans to help out our fellows who are less fortunate, and that we have things like laws that stop free people from doing things such as smoke pot, be nude, be gay etc etc. yes it could be described as crazy. Conservatives are in favour of this, they ignore the enviromental consequences of their actions and they make money of war and illness, they are in favour of the immense economic disparity between rich and poor and for all intents and purposes they mean to maintain this (crazy) way of life.
So this is why people sometimes refer to conservatives as crazy, or like terrorists. Because they see conservatives as supportive of our current system and in favour or resisting social development. They are always on the wrong side of history, always against the social movements of the time such as gays, women and black people. The societies of the world have been inherently unfair for thousands of years, conservatives wish to conserve them systems that are radically being changed in this new age.
Conservatives at least in this country have better ideas for getting people employed than liberals do. Most liberals I have seen have continually insisted on letting people have unlimited welfare payments. President Barrack Obama pushed for taking away work requirements for welfare along with many others with his beliefs. People who actually paid for Social Security are not getting it because the government spent it all yet they are giving it to people who do not work and also to immigrants who came here illegally.
So far I have seen Conservatives do more to create jobs than liberals. The Keystone pipeline was something that would create thousands of jobs, but it was shut down by President Obama. Under the Obama administration the profits of those in the 1% have risen since the time President Bush was President. Not to mention there are many liberal politicians who are themselves apart of the 1% like Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Elisabeth Warren. All of whom think that the 1% is killing the lower class which is very hypocritical. I rarely see corporate leaders in congress with Conservative views.
Conservatives are not for the 1% they are for economic growth and job creation.The people who create those jobs are the 1% which is why Conservatives try and make things easier for them.
As for the false accusation that Conservatives bombed Iraq and Afghanistan not all Conservatives were for those wars. Afghanistan in my opinion was necessary because the Taliban government was unwilling to hand over Osama bin Laden after the September Eleventh attacks. President Bush asked for their compliance with finding bin Laden, but they refused. We were trying to catch a dangerous criminal which the Taliban were denying us. We had no choice other than to go in and find him and remove the Taliban for their aid to al-Qaeda. You can't deny we had no choice in that.
As for Iraq I don't think that was our business, but Conservatives were not the only ones who voted on that. Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton voted to go to war in Iraq along with other liberals in congress. As for the bombings themselves President Obama ordered more drone and air strikes than President Bush did. Also going to war with another country is not terrorism it is war. History is full of wars that have this effect.
It is not just Conservatives pursuing profits at the expense of others Liberals do that too. The individuals I mentioned above are prime examples along with businesses like Facebook and Bank of America. Conservatives do not believe in two classes of wealth. They want to convince business and corporate leaders to create jobs for the poor and middle class. The laws about being nude should not change because there are some things children should not see until they are older.
Conservatives want job creation and a good economy. The only way you get that is with lower taxes for everyone including the rich. That is basic economics.
If I recall almost every liberal American president of the 20th century has either gotten America involved in a war or escalated it. The only justifiable one is Roosevelt, but I think he didn't do enough to prepare for an attack like at Pearl Harbor. Harry Truman dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan which is considered by many to be a terrorist action. Truman also deployed U.S troops to Korea. General Douglas MacArthur a democratic candidate against Eisenhower opted for nuclear weapons to be used against China even on civilian populated targets. President Kennedy deployed the first troops to Vietnam and ordered the Bay of Pigs Invasion. President Johnson ordered hundreds of thousands of U.S troops many against their will to Vietnam. President Eisenhower took us out of Korea and Nixon out of Vietnam. Both of them were Conservatives who knew being in those conflicts was hurting those countries and ours. President Clinton ordered U.S Special Forces into Somalia which resulted in many dead Somali and the event known as Black Hawk Down. Liberals have started more wars than conservatives in the past century.
I think you are over simplifying. 'Welfare' is a governments attempt to distribute wealth to those who need it and cannot produce their own wealth. I don't understand your position, are you against welfare altogether? And if not, then to what extent is welfare acceptable in your opinion? How can you say we are paying too much to poor people when 16% of us live in poverty in the US? I understand your point that the legislation isn't water-tight, and people fall through the cracks or play the system, but the problem of poverty and benefit fraud and all this lack of drive to work and all that, is not going to be solved with benefit legislation. The problem is not immigrants or powerless people using the system to get by, it's those with power who bare the burden of blame. Like I explained with the pie metaphor: there are one hundered of us; we have a hundered dollars. You are blaming the 40 poorest people, who have about 1/2 a cent each, for wealth consumption, when one guy has $34.60 just for himself. Put it into perspective, don't believe what you read in the newspapers and watch on the TV, for they will tell you to blame those scrounging benefits and seeking asylum in the US rather than the corporate giants that actually control everything. For they are the one person with $34.60, and they want us to blame each other to prevent us realising that they have the power to end poverty and all that comes with it.
You say conservatives aren't the 1%. A lot of them are, but as a whole, they represent the the 1%. So whether they are or not is not really relevant. You say they represent them because they make jobs. Since when is creating work a good thing? Surely if they didn't steal all the resources, we wouldn't need to work so hard. Like I said; death, illness, crime etc. all create jobs, it doesn't mean they are good things that should be continued. You need to broaden your perspective on societies and humans living on the earth. The conservatives (and the liberals) both fight to maintain the system pretty much how it is, they are in the pockets of the rich and powerful.
You say: "Conservatives....are for economic growth and job creation". So they are for creating more work that needs to be done, and for encouraging the growth of something that is destroying our habitat, forcing millions into poverty, and making species of animals go extinct. Yes, this could be described as crazy. For they are destroying the house they live in and are so addicted to profit, they let everything else come second to that addiction. Much like a drug addict. So environmental damage is only an afterthought, likewise is the planned obsolescence system that creates far more work, waste and resources purely for the monetary gain of those who already have too much.
You may argue that this is the behaviour of rich people and not necessarily conservatives. This is not the point. The point is that our current government allows for this to happen. Our current government is to blame. Many or most of our representatives have either no idea what they are part of, do know and are trying to change it, or are there because they have been put forward by an organisation to represent big companies and the super-rich. I don't know how it all works. I don't know if they know its bad and don't care, or if they just don't know, but what I do know is, that its extreme, mad and could be described to some degree as terrorist-like in some aspects of its behaviour. What I am saying is: conservatives make up half the government responsible for this mess, and if anything, the worse half, so to liken conservatives to terrorists is to liken the actions of our government to terrorist actions. Regardless of whether some conservatives disagreed with it or not. It happened, we did it, we went to war and congress decided to do it. So conservatives (in the broad sense) can be said to have 'gone to war'. (So can the liberals) I am not saying liberals are good. I think they are mad too. I am talking about those in power, not the everyday person who describes themselves as liberal or conservative.
You say: "It is not just Conservatives pursuing profits at the expense of others". So they are then you say? For I know liberals are too. There isn't really any difference between the two you know, they just are there to give the illusion of democracy and make people feel like they have a real choice.
You say: "Conservatives do not believe in two classes of wealth. They want to convince business and corporate leaders to create jobs for the poor and middle class". This I don't understand. You mention three classes...(corporate LEADERS to create jobs: poor people, for lowly jobs I assume: and middle class people). This is the same system we have now.
You say: "laws about being nude should not change because there are some things children should not see until they are older."
You say:"The only way you get that is with lower taxes for everyone including the rich. That is basic economics."
Is it that basic? Then why are we in this mess? How do you know the ONLY way to improve the economy is to lower taxes? What do you even mean by economy? And should we not be focused on adaptation and change, rather than fuelling this thing we call an 'economy' that results is disparity of wealth, environmental destruction and the breakdown of community values?
Most of your arguments are slating liberal presidents, to try and make them look as bad as conservative presidents. This doesn't work because I would argue that those few who make the decisions in government are mad and terrorists regardless of the party affiliation. I think those liberals you are saying are bad, are bad, just like the republicans.
I don't mean to say that all members of government are bad people. I am saying there is a lot of greedy people and rich people have a high influence (more than poor people at least) in the doings of government. They use it to make a better world for themselves, we are just collateral.
I think this argument, for me, boils down to: Is the government, as a whole, (in light of their actions only) describable as crazy or terrorists? Not are individual conservatives describable in this way. For they obviously are many who are not like this at all.
So in light of this, people on benefits are not the problem. Rich people are (or the problem is the societal structure that has allowed this sort of thing to occur). Both of these are the conservatives: the Conservative party (or Republicans in your country) are funded by the super rich, and they endorse free-market capitalism which creates massive economic disparity. So they are in favour of having a super-rich, which inevitably means that some will miss out, and they refuse to help those people out.
The reason we are in such an economic mess is because we literally tax everything. I don't know if you have heard about the new gas tax in California. The government is saying it is for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and help the environment, but many residents who use gas consuming vehicles say it will increase their already high expenses. Most people in that state use gas consuming cars an can not afford a battery car. This will put more financial strain on them. That is the very problem is that there are too many taxes. Meat, fruit, and veggie prices are going up because the BLM and the EPA(Nixon created this agency by the way) is closing more and more land that the ranchers and farmers can use while charging the same prices for having less land. They are going out of business quickly and if it keeps up there will be food shortages in a few years.
Corporate and business leaders are getting taxed so much that they are finding ways to avoid those taxes and lay people off because of the large amount of taxes. The reason this economy went to hell in the first place is because Harry Reid and Barney Frank passed a law that would make banks give loans and mortgages to everyone who asked for it. Now this sounds good in theory, but it gave loans and mortgages to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. So the housing market goes bad then the banks lose a ton of money and close which made poverty rise and the economy downturn. Not to mention the numerous corporate and business taxes imposed by the Democrats(mostly liberal) who had control of the Senate and House making the Bush presidency irrelevant in laws and bills passing. Not to mention when they had the Presidency, Senate, and House the country's debt went up even more during the Bush Administration.
My point is Conservatives are trying to fix this by lowering taxes and stop limiting the amount commerce a business can do. While protecting the environment is important limiting the amount of commerce and resources is just going to make business leaders more cheap and greedy. The reason people don't have jobs is because of all the taxes on the rich making them unwilling to create new jobs saving them money. That is economics make commerce and business easier in order to create jobs. Wanting the citizens of your nation to prosper is not crazy. Harming the environment? In what way, oil pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. Would you prefer drilling in the ocean? Global Warming? It is called climate change and there is no real evidence that it is man-made. The Earth's temperature changes all of the time naturally, and there is evidence of twelve ice ages throughout the history of the plant. Global Warming is not real. It is not crazy to believe there is not enough evidence to support the theory of Global Warming.
I believe welfare should be temporary because there are obviously people who need help. However, the amount of time welfare is given needs to be limited. Conservatives are reasonable in their thinking that the current welfare system is too easy to take advantage of. Not to mention the welfare given to those people comes from the taxpayer's money.
As for nudity, do you believe a child should be able to look at pornography or images of naked women or men? It is almost the same thing as exposing children to naked people in public.
Overall, Conservative ideals are reasonable. If we are attacked by a foreign nation or force we need to respond with military action to protect our citizens. Lowering taxes on the rich will make the rich more willing to create jobs and lowering taxes on everyone else will lower financial strain. Conservatives do not represent the 1% because a majority of them are not apart of the 1%. A study showed Liberal politicians have more money than Conservatives. Conservatives do not believe in deliberately harming the environment, but when jobs are scarce sometimes we have to take that risk. Illegal Immigration is a crime and it should be treated as such. There is a right way and a wrong way to come to the United States. They also add to the poverty level in this country and may carry diseases.
Conservatives ultimately believe the American people come first and they must be allowed to succeed and have their civil liberties protected without Government interference. There is nothing crazy about those beliefs. There is nothing in those beliefs that would involve terrorist motives.
You say the problem is with taxes. This is far out, it's far more complicated than that. Firstly: what problem? You mean that most people work really hard and still don't have enough money? Well let me tell you, taxes pay for what we need. The reason why we have little money is because one person owns 34.60 and 40 of us own 1/2 a penny. If he owned "10 those 40 could have 0.36p each-which equates to 72x what they currently own under the system the conservatives aim to conserve. Yes there was no typing error, if the 1% earned a full tenth of the wealth, rather than a quarter, then the bottom 40% could be 72 times better off that they are now. I am not saying we should go this far (though I think we should) I am just trying to put in perspective for you where all the money actually is. It's not in the hands of the people who provide everything you need to keep alive, and who are in serious debt. But in the hands of the super rich, who want to maintain the same system the conservatives want to maintain. Your Republican Party is the party of the super rich in the thinly valed guise of something more acceptable.
Capitalism, as we know it, is self-destructing and not maintainable on this earth. You say that the environment must take a backseat when 'jobs' or profits are at stake, you think like an economist. You don't appreciate that wealth itself is the environment, the earth provides everything we call commodities and wealth. And this is arguing from a humanistic perspective, for indeed what right have we to destroy other animals habitats anyway? Republicans typically deny global warming, this is because they are in influenced by corporations who's profits can be lost because of environmental legislation. So OUR earth is being destroyed for small amounts of people's profits. And no, we don't NEED these things. We don't need a new mobile phone model created every week, two cars per family when the average car is in use 10% of the time, planned obsolescence in EVERYTHING (the planned self-destruction of commodities to create more profit), the list goes on. Apart from owning all the money, these techniques make us more and more strapped for cash.
You speak like a politician: "wanting the citizens of your nation to prosper is not crazy" you say. Like I disagree.
You don't believe in global warming? The overwhelming majority of the (mostly independent) scientific community, across the globe, acknowledge global warming as a fact. I think the only scientists who 'disagree' are those funded by corporations. It's clever because if just some scientists pretend to dispute it, the public who are largely ignorant to science will believe that it is not defiantly real. For they don't understand it at all, but they know there is debate about it and so this says that it's not certain. It is certain. Climate might always change, but it's changing more rapidly than it should be. We are cutting down the rainforest at a rate of about 1 football pitch every thirty seconds, and poisoning the streams and oceans-killing the sealife
population. Not to mention all the species that have become extinct or endangered by our actions. We are destroying our habitat-this is crazy. For it is stupid, reckless and excessive, all these words are in the definition of crazy. Republicans don't care about the environment and so they could be described as crazy.
A lot of your argument is not saying that conservative actions aren't crazy, but rather saying that liberals do it also. This is irrelevant as I think those liberals could be described as crazy as well. This argument isn't concerned with liberals, it's about conservatives.
So the summary of my argument is as follows: I am trying to argue that the conservative philosophy and the persute of conservative beliefs could be described as mad (or terrorist like). I am not saying they are completely mad as a whole (though I personally believe they are), I am saying for the sake of this argument, that they COULD be described as mad (or terrorists).
-The definition of crazy is not precise, but words include 'stupid' and 'extreme'. I argue it's STUPID to tear down your own habitat, and I would argue that it's EXTREME to endorse a society that can have such economic disparity, that 13% can live in poverty and others be making billions. So they fit the definition of crazy, however loosely you may perceive it.
-As for terrorism. The definition is to make terror to achieve political goals. Bombing in the Middle East created terror to achieve a political goal. So it is terrorism. Just because they don't fit the stereotype, doesn't mean they are not still terrorists if they fit the definition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I am legitimately surprised to be voting for Con. I expected to vote as a null, based on this debate being abusive in nature. But Con ran, to some extent, a semantical argument, and Pro didn't really have a good response. Arguments, surprisingly, to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.