The Instigator
Charlie_Sheen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Does the name "Progressive Conservative" contradict its self?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 62764
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Charlie_Sheen

Pro

PROGRESSIVE:
Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
CONSERVATIVE:
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Notice, the word progressive is indicating change, reform, not wanting to keep things the way they are. Now look at conservative; not wanting to change, against improvement.
Mike_10-4

Con

From dictionary.com you forgot to include Conservative: "... limit change, ... cautiously moderate..."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Therefore, "Progressive Conservative" does not "contradict its self."

What is Conservatism? Conservatism, includes neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleo-conservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), and Constitutional-conservatism (emphasis and protection of Unalienable Rights having small limited government).

One needs to question Progressive "improvement" for who? Let's take the mentality of the Progressive Liberal in the US for example.

During the dynasty of the former President Woodrow Wilson (a leading father of modern Liberal Progressivism) was a promoter of the Social Darwinism ideology, advocating little resistance to constitutional structural change, shifting the power from the states to the oligarch in DC (aka the 17 Amendment moving our Republic to today"s oligarchy). Wilson stated the following from his book:

http://books.google.com....

"Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

Wilson, in his book, also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights, where he went on to say:

"No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."

Clearly, Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution (protect the individual's unalienable rights) and started a slow cancer known as the progressive liberal "living constitution," and this cancer is starting to metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist more than the people, while the President has a "pen and a phone" to make law, and also, the administration branch (a fourth branch not part of the US Constitution"s three branches) is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, NSA, EPA, etc.). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of government employees, who are not elected, writing regulations having the same power as law, to control, monitor us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have.

It should be no surprise why the US government controlled educational system promote "living constitutional" concepts, to benefit the freedom and growth of government, while reducing the freedom of the people.

The indoctrination of progressivism, through our government controlled educational system, is a spark of genius from generations of powerbrokers to embrace the progressive liberal ideology, while demeaning Conservatism--the natural Property for the preservation of our Constitutional structure.

Unbeknownst to many, innocent and unaware of the subtle power of progressive indoctrination is evidence by such social progressive entrapment, embracing the progressive crusade with the clear objective by demeaning Conservatism to advance today"s liberal tyrannical big government agenda. A type of tyrannical government embraced by both Republicans and Democrats; a government who no longer follows the US Constitution.

Here is a way we could "Progressive Conserve" our US Constitution:
http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Sheen

Pro

Charlie_Sheen forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Con

Again, from dictionary.com, Conservative: "... limit change, ... cautiously moderate ..."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Cautiously moderate" is the natural Conservative flow of progressive evolution that made life possible here on earth via the Laws of Nature. By the way, the Laws of Nature do not change, yet, this unchanging matrix of Laws made the Progressive Conservative evolution of life possible.
http://www.amazon.com...

Therefore, "Progressive Conservative" does not "contradict its self," throughout the nature of life.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Charlie_Sheen 2 years ago
Charlie_Sheen
I was referring to the Canadian political party, actually.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Charlie_SheenMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
Charlie_SheenMike_10-4Tied
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: Forfeiture added to the fact that Pro never responded to Con's arguments.