The Instigator
Walrus101
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
jordansshuler
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Conservatives should be catagorized as "Back Woods"

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 10 votes the winner is...
Walrus101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 32416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (10)

 

Walrus101

Pro

I would like to challenge you over the issue of all conservatives being "Back woods". I think that it is completely true and you will have trouble defending yourself. Best of luck to you.
jordansshuler

Con

Wrong. I am Conservative and I am not even close to back woods. Actually, you could say that I'm the complete opposite. I am much closer to a city person than back woods.
Debate Round No. 1
Walrus101

Pro

First of all, I would like to recognize that you are back woods in the worst case. You remind me of Ed Bassmaster. Do you happen to know him? Never mind that. Let me tell you something about your people. They are very thickheaded in their views, careless about the feeling of others, and only can take one side in an argument. You just can't see the other side, or even hope to do so. All conservatives are complete derps. Derpy derp derps.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

They forgot to add conservatives.

This brings me to another point. You are so bias on any decisions based on political party. Most back woods people are this way. If someone does not think like you will completely reject the idea without anymore thought. Conservatives are all just racist, back woods, hicks. Are you going to side with the racists? Hicks? More importantly, Derpy back woods people?
jordansshuler

Con

I am not back woods at all. In fact, I would like to move into a big city and get out of the back woods of southern Indiana. Ed Bassmaster? Who the heck is that? And when you use a source, make it credible. Yours doesn't even have any evidence, much less credibility. And the point about making decisions based on just being what the GOP says is right is not true. I could be categorized as liberal in a few areas, mostly education. And Conservatives aren't racist. If we were racist, why did a lot of Conservatives like Herman Cain? And I am not a hick, but I have nothing wrong with them. Most of my family in West Virginia could be classified as hicks or back woods, but I am not, and I am a Conservative. Therefore, your claim is wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
Walrus101

Pro

You are not seeing the point of this. Conservatives are back woods. There is no room for argument there. Now just because your a race other than white doesn't make you safe from racism. I doubt you even read anything on the link. You just immediately ran it off as "False". If you conservatives don't want to be considered "Back woods" you shouldn't be bias, derpy, or racist.
jordansshuler

Con

My room for argument is that I am Conservative and am not back woods. I don't know why you say that I am not white, because I am, but I'm not racist at all. Yes, of course I read the link. It had nothing to do with anything. I don't get where you are saying that all Conservatives are racist and back woods. And of course we are biased. EVERY political party is biased to their own beliefs. No offense, but you may be the worst debater I have seen on here.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Walrus101 3 years ago
Walrus101
Shut Up, Jordan.
Posted by jordansshuler 3 years ago
jordansshuler
Actually that is not true. If you actually take the time to look at their profiles, they aren't all Conservatives.
Posted by Walrus101 3 years ago
Walrus101
I can see you are all conservatives.
Posted by linaguemar 3 years ago
linaguemar
aHAHAHGSDAAWDHGSBAjshbszlslsl
Posted by linaguemar 3 years ago
linaguemar
aHAHAHGSDAAWDHGSBAjshbszlslsl
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Georgenewland 3 years ago
Georgenewland
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: just because i live in the back woods
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Before the debate, I just thought Pro was trolling. He was of course, but I honestly believe he was the better debater, due to actually trying to address the subject. Con used an example of a non-Back Woods Conservative, but avoided the main topic. The point of the debate was to establish whether the class Conservatives and the class Back Woods should be joined (In a one way fashion, of course. Some Back Woods could be Liberals, I suppose.). The way Con treated it, I would assume that the topic statement would be 'All Conservatives are Back Woods'. Con provided examples of people, but never actually addressed the main issue. Pro was losing conduct until the last sentence (last sentence=can't be countered) by Con: 'No offense, but you may be the worst debater I have seen on here.' That's extremely unsportsmanlike and unprofessional. Shame on you, jordansshuler. You should apologize to Walrus101.
Vote Placed by KingAwesome 3 years ago
KingAwesome
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd have to say that I agree with Walrus on this one. One needs to watch fox news for five minutes to see the truth.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: How can you deny the obvious, Jordan?
Vote Placed by Napoleon_Dynamite_915 3 years ago
Napoleon_Dynamite_915
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conservatives are backwoods!
Vote Placed by guesswhat101 3 years ago
guesswhat101
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: That was stupid, even if Pro was trying to troll
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, but he never argued, only insulted.
Vote Placed by Volk23 3 years ago
Volk23
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, funny troll, but seriously... don't be a D.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
Gondun
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Do you even need an explanation?
Vote Placed by po.osullivan 3 years ago
po.osullivan
Walrus101jordansshulerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I am the fun killer. I kill fun.