The Instigator
migmag
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BenJWasson
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
BenJWasson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 93671
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

migmag

Pro

Democrats are for Women's Rights, LGBT Rights, Animal Rights, Student's Rights, Senior Rights, Minority Rights, Healthcare Rights, Environmental Rights. What are Republicans for? Tax cuts for THE RICH.
BenJWasson

Con

I accept this debate, and look forward to it. I am assuming that I can put arguments in round 1 as there are no rules against it, so here we go.

OVERVIEW/RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS
There are a couple things I have noticed in this resolution that I would like to point out and explain.

First of all, the wording of the resolution does not specify to whom democrats are better to. I will go ahead and assume that because this debate is about the two main political parties in the United States, my opponent is trying to say that democrats are better in every way to said country.

Second of all, take into consideration the "every" that is in the resolution. This means that all I have to do as the Con side is prove ONE way that Republicans are better than Democrats.

With that over with, let's move on to my refutations to the Pro's first speech.

REFUTATIONS OF THE PRO SPEECH
In the Pro speech, all my opponent does is list things that he believes are beneficial on the democrat side, and then he continues to list one thing he personally believes to be detrimental to the U.S... He backs these claims up with not a single source while also including a huge amount of personal bias as to what he believes is good.

He states that "democrats are for Women's Rights, LGBT Rights, Animal Rights, Student's Rights, Senior Rights, Minority Rights, Healthcare Rights, Environmental Rights," yet what he doesn't state is why all of this is good... Why does it matter? Well, we don't actually know, because he never says it. He continues by asking "what are Republicans for? Tax cuts for THE RICH." Again, he fail to point out why tax cuts for the rich are bad...

To conclude my refutations, all Pro says is biased remarks that rely heavily on the voter's personal beliefs and are backed by no sources. However, these refutations honestly weren't needed, as all I have to do is list just one way in which Republicans are better than Democrats (which I will do next) - look to my resolutional analysis. Now on to my argument.

ARGUMENT OF THE CON SIDE
The argument of the Con side is that Democrats have less perspectives and diversity than Republicans, making them less democratic as well as less beneficial in total.

There are many more different Republican perspectives and standpoints than Democrat ones. Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, journalists, worked with The Washington Post in which they did an analysis on the different types of Republicans and Democrats. The study concluded that there are four types of Democrats:

-"The Agnostic Left",

-"DIY" Democrats,

-"Urban Liberals",

-and "God and Government" Democrats.

On the other hand, the study said that there were five different types of Republicans:

-“Tea Party Movement" Republicans,

-“Old-School" Republicans

-“Religious Values Voters”,

-“Pro-Government" Republicans,

-and “Window Shoppers" or self-indentified Republicans.
(The Scribe, http://prairieweather.typepad.com...)

Now you may be thinking, what does all of this mean? Well here is where it all comes together. See, one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, wrote a book titled On Liberty. In this book, he argues that when the views of the group or organization differ, the diversity of said group helps it make better educated decisions with more perspectives to see the issue from. Using this logic, we can say that the Republican party is better than the Democrat party in the category of perspectives and views - 5 types instead of 4 means that the Republican party is more democratic because a larger amount of different types of people are getting their voices heard.

CONCLUSION
I have refuted everything and introduced a point of my own, showing just one way Republicans are better than Democrats. Keep in mind, I only need to prove one way (see Overview/Resolutional Analysis), and I have done my job. Due to fulfilling my burden and refuted the Pro points, vote for the Con side of this debate!
Debate Round No. 1
migmag

Pro

Republicans a racist, homophobic, sexist, elitist, end of story
BenJWasson

Con

Okay... In this speech I'm just going to explain what has happened so far in this debate, as my opponent hasn't refuted my argument nor responded to my refutations.

EXPLANATION OF THIS DEBATE
So really what this debate comes down to is the "every" in the resolution - as I explained in my overview/resolutional analysis section of my first speech, the word "every" means that I only have to prove ONE way in which Democrats are worse than Republicans, and I have done so.

Look, migmag, I can agree on part of what you say, some Republicans may be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. but not all are... Hell, even I am a Democrat, but part of being a good person is accepting the flaws of you and what you participate in - the argument I used was completely valid whether or not Republicans are actually all bad people, so you continuing to mention the flaws in the Republican party isn't a refutation to my argument nor a valid argument itself (see my refutation in my first speech), and I don't mean to be rude, but I think as a 44 year old you should be much more capable than I, who is just a 13 year old, of accepting some of the flaws of the Democratic party and to change the obvious biased view you have on Republicans.

To win this debate, I had to make one argument in which I prove Republicans are better than Democrats in just one way, and I have done so. I fulfilled my burden. Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 2
migmag

Pro

If you are a WOMAN you should vote DEMOCRAT if you are BLACK you should definitely vote DEMOCRAT if you are LGBT you should DEFINITELY vote DEMOCRAT if you are a STUDENT you should DEFINITELY vote DEMOCRAT if you are a SENIOR you should DEFINITELY vote DEMOCRAT, in fact the ONLY group of people who SHOULD vote Republican is Rich, Straight, Old Religious White Men
BenJWasson

Con

In this speech I will be providing my views on this debate as well as refuting what my opponent has said in their speeches.

THOUGHTS ON THE DEBATE SO FAR
So... This debate is honestly ridiculous at this point. I have provided a well thought out argument and my opponent just makes claims backed by no evidence without responding to anything in my speeches. Basically, since none of what I have done has been responded to, I am going to go in to even more depth and detail in my opponent's speech to make it 100% proven that I should win this debate.

REFUTATIONS TO THE PRO ARGUMENTS
In this section I'm going to nit-pick at everything Pro has said in this debate and prove it wrong. This section is categorized by Pro speeches.

Pro First Speech:
I have already responded to this in my first speech, if you don't want to go there, I am going to paste it here as well.

In the Pro speech, all my opponent does is list things that he believes are beneficial on the democrat side, and then he continues to list one thing he personally believes to be detrimental to the U.S... He backs these claims up with not a single source while also including a huge amount of personal bias as to what he believes is good.

He states that "democrats are for Women's Rights, LGBT Rights, Animal Rights, Student's Rights, Senior Rights, Minority Rights, Healthcare Rights, Environmental Rights," yet what he doesn't state is why all of this is good... Why does it matter? Well, we don't actually know, because he never says it. He continues by asking "what are Republicans for? Tax cuts for THE RICH." Again, he fail to point out why tax cuts for the rich are bad...

All Pro says in round 1 is biased remarks that rely heavily on the voter's personal beliefs and are backed by no sources.

Pro Second Speech:
Again, I have already responded to this in my second speech, but I am just going to paraphrase what I have already said.

Basically, I concede partially. Some Republicans may be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. but not all are. Generalizing a group like that is completely unfair to said group, and that is exactly what Pro is doing.

Pro Third Speech:
For most of the third Pro speech, he says some sort of propoganda, remarking that "if you are a ____ you should vote democrat" repeatedly... However, he does not provide any sort of reason why - this is a recurring theme in his speeches: making ridiculous claims not backed by any sort of evidence... and before Pro says that he doesn't need to provide evidence because it's "not his job" (as he has said in his other debates), it completely is his job as the Pro side - there's something called the burden of proof, when you put forward a claim, you need to have evidence backing it up, it's one of the most commonly known rules of debate as well as other subjects such as science.

On the other hand, Pro finishes his third speech by basically saying that Republicans are all rich, straight, old religious white men. I will be refuting this with some demographics about Trump provided by Real Clear Politics. I chose Trump because he is the Republican nominee this election and is the most relevant and recent Republican political candidate. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...)

As you can see in the demographics, quite the opposite of what Pro says is true. In terms of wealth, these Republicans are less wealthy and educated than others. Also, slightly over half are women, and many are races other than white. The claims my opponent has made in round 3 are simply ludicrous.

CONCLUSION
So as I pointed out in my first speech, all I needed to do to win this debate was prove one way Republicans are better than Democrats, and I have done so. Pro has not refuted this, meaning it still is valid and stands. What I have done after this is refuting the Pro speech, even though it is unneeded I just want to make sure that the voters know who won this debate. The win is clearly going to the Con side at this point. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
migmag

Pro

This is NOT a "competition" this is RIGHT versus WRONG! Republican policies WRONG MANY groups of people, gays, women, seniors, students, the poor, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics....
BenJWasson

Con

I'm just going to talk in this speech, as all I have said so far has been unresponded to, and there's no need for repitition.Basically what this comes down to is that I have put out facts, statistics, etc. and all the Pro can do is ramble on about Republicans, as it seems he has some sort of personal bias against them. He makes generalizations and assumptions but can't back it by facts. I believe that it is clear that I have won the debate so far, so vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
migmag

Pro

FACTS are FACTS, POLITICS 101 is FACTS based material. EACH party has a PLATFORM and THAT is how they VOTE and the type of LEGISLATION they promote, get out of here is you can't handle BASIC POLITICS 101! Dems are for RAISING taxes Repubs are for LOWERING taxes DEM are for BIG GOVT Repubs are for "small" govt, Dems are FOR gay marriage, Repubs are AGAINST Gays even being allowed to EXIST, the list goes on and on, wise up or DONT VOTE
BenJWasson

Con

In this speech I am just going to go over the flaws in the Pro speeches to ensure that I win this debate.

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE/SOURCES
Throughout the Pro speeches, he has not said a single source, however he insists that all of his statistics and "facts" are true. He fails to meet his BoP because of no evidence provided, and he still spouts this nonsense without any sort of source.

BIASED CLAIMS AND GENERALIZATIONS
Looking at all of the Pro speeches, you can clearly see he is completely biased and makes many generalizations, like thinking all Democrats follow these certain beliefs and ideologies to thinking all Republicans are "rich, straight, old religious white men". Again, as I have said in the previous section, he doesn't use any sources to back up these ludicrous claims.

LACK OF RESPONSES
The final and most important flaw of the Pro side is that he has not responded to a single thing I have said in any of my speeches. He says the same thing over and over with different wording, yet he doesn't respond to any of what is in my speeches. Moreover, I have refuted every single speck of the Pro speeches, meaning I fulfill my job and he does not.

CONCLUSION
I have clearly shown that Democrats are not better than Republicans in every way, therefore fulfilling my burden. I have also refuted all of the Pro speeches, further proving I should win. I have done my job, Pro has not, and that is why you should vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SchinkBR 9 months ago
SchinkBR
"Guess who just got REPORTED for HATE SPEECH and PERSONAL ATTACKS"

oh the hypocrisy in that statement...
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
Thank You sir!
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
Yeah ILikePie, I saw that one. Good job with that debate man
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
BenJWasson, migmag did the same thing with my debate: Who should become President?? Trump(Pro) or Clinton(Con). He is just a troll and the voters will decide. You check out my debate, I'm winning 27 points to 0, because of migmag' ignorance.
Posted by RonaldTrumpkin 10 months ago
RonaldTrumpkin
In addition to my RFD already posted with my vote, the BOP was entirely on PRO to state why Democrats were better in every way. He failed to do so and had trapped himself into a corner by creating a debate that focuses on a bunch of absolutes. Political parties are subject to the peoples' preferences for how they want to live. There is no inherent right or wrong.
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
Migmag, all you do is personal attacks...

MentalDeadlock, it's funny because it's true.
Posted by MentalDeadlock 10 months ago
MentalDeadlock
And the debate continues after the debate.
Posted by migmag 10 months ago
migmag
Guess who just got REPORTED for HATE SPEECH and PERSONAL ATTACKS
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
You're a biased old man who needs to either get some sources or stop saying random things you think are true - that's a conclusion I came to after your speeches in this debate.
Posted by migmag 10 months ago
migmag
BASIC POLITICS 101
Dems are FOR gay rights Repubs are AGAINST, Dems are FOR the ERA and Equal Pay for Women, DEMS are AGAINST Racial Profiling Repubs are FOR it, Dems are FOR Immigrant Rights and Protections, Repubs want to BUILD A WALL,
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FurryDragon 7 months ago
FurryDragon
migmagBenJWassonTied
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: Migmag, the pro side, had a lack of evidence to substantiate his claims. Con overall had more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 9 months ago
SchinkBR
migmagBenJWassonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con using Caps is typically read as shouting and is poor conduct. Sp/Gr: Con, Pro used fragments, run ons and broken sentences like "... get out of here is you can't handle BASIC POLITICS 101! " Arguments: Con, Pro made no structured arguments and never attempted to refute Con's. Sources: Con, because they actually used a source and Pro didn't.
Vote Placed by warren42 10 months ago
warren42
migmagBenJWassonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a near-impossible BoP. I'd urge you to, in the future, set up an easier BoP for yourself. Con proved that the higher number of factions within the Republican party create a more democratic system than the Democrats. As Con proved one way, Con wins. Con also sourced, while Pro did not, so sources go Con, and Pro's constant assaults on Republicans as homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. were uncalled for, as the majority of Republicans likely do not fit this description. Conduct Con.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 10 months ago
zmikecuber
migmagBenJWassonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins because he actually presented a case, and refuted Pro's arguments. Con showed that there are other ways republicans are better, and also showed that Pro's arguments did not work. Con had better conduct since Pro beat around the bush and didnt really debate the issue in some of his rounds. S/g to Con also because Pro used excessive caps lock.
Vote Placed by RonaldTrumpkin 10 months ago
RonaldTrumpkin
migmagBenJWassonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON wins points for conduct. PRO resorts to ad hominem attacks and refuses to acknowledge CON, as can be seen throughout the debate. Spelling/Grammar to CON, as PRO uses fragmented sentences, overcapitalization, and misses punctuation in various spots. CON gets points for arguments. PRO's arguments were hasty generalizations and were based on no evidence whatsoever, stating that all Republicans are evil and that all Republicans are old rich white males. PRO also fails to assert why the opposite platform is actually better, instead just stating what the left's platform is. Source points, finally, go to CON. PRO uses a total of zero sources, and CON uses many.