Labeling people as Republican or Democrat is silly and has become meaningless
Debate Rounds (3)
In reality there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties they are ALL hungry for money and power and they want to take away your rights and your freedom. The government isn't split in two but America's people are. The government isn't attacking itself, it is attacking us and we need to start defending ourselves. The government is very familiar with the strategy of DIVIDE AND CONQUER and it is using this strategy on us now!
"A house divided surely will not stand"
"Government is a fearful servant and a terrifying master"
The resolution seems to be: "labeling people as Republican or Democrat is silly and has become meaningless."
Republican - a person supporting the Republican party, which advocates the freer America where everyone has the opportunity to achieve the "American Dream". Supporters called Liberals.
Democrat - a person supporting the Democratic Party, which advocates the social-liberal America where everyone is equal in achieving the "American Dream". Supporters called Conservatists.
Silly - having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment.
Meaningless - having no meaning or significance.
Some basic rules as well. Comment if you would like to change them (only my partner)
( 1 ) No trolling
( 2 ) No deconstructional posts and/or comments
( 3 ) All points have to be presented in the second round.
I await my partner's main points.
And remember, if you liked this debate, well, there is a button for that.
Our current election system is neither a democracy or a republic. It is very bizarre and corrupt. In our election system several candidates compete for a spot as the republican or democrat candidate. This is called the primaries. Not everyone's vote counts in the primaries. The primaries aren't all done at once even though they easily could be. Instead they are done one state after another and if a candidate loses in the first few states he will not get the chance to run in later states. By the time the voting happens in Arkansas often the candidate people wanted to vote for isn't even on the ballot and yet they were whenever the primaries went through North Carolina.There is no reason why all of the candidates cannot run at once! Once we finally get to the real election peoples votes may or may not count because of the electoral college. Some presidents have lost the popular vote and won the electoral college vote. Al Gore was voted the president of the United States by the citizens but he lost the electoral college vote and Bush won. There is no need for the electoral college. It is so ridiculous that whenever I tell people about the electoral college they usually don't believe that it exists. Basically whoever wins in a state gets a vote in the electoral college and the states population affects how much the vote counts. For example Romney got 3 votes in the electoral college because he won the vote in Alaska and Obama got 55 votes for winning in California. Why do we need to have the electoral college? It was set up whenever it was not possible for everyone to get to a ballot so that they would have representation but now everyone can easily vote. Whenever the 55 points came from california it basically showed that everyone in the state voted for Obama when really many people voted for Romney.
The names democratic and republican have also become meaningless since both parties have changed what they stand for and who they represent so much over the years. Here is one example that I find very ironic.
Democrats main supporters were southern farmers. The democratic party was pro slavery
Republicans main supporters were northerners. Anti Slavery. Abe Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a republican.
Democrats main supporters are northerners. They claim to want to help minorities. Leans towards socialism.
Republicans main supporters are southern. Claims to support conservative ideas.
If a political party can support slavery and 160 years later have the support of almost all African Americans there is something wrong there. It just goes to show you that the Democratic and Republican Parties don't actually stand for anything. They just pretend to stand for whatever will get them the most votes.
Also the two party system makes it pretty much impossible for 3rd party candidates to win anything. Has there ever been a president from the Green party? the communist party? It is likely that there never will be. A lot of Americans don't even know that these third parties exist. Many election ballots do not even include the 3rd party candidates. Here in Arkansas they are included in the primaries but not in the real election. I remember I voted for Bob Barr in the primaries in 2008. In the real election his party wasn't even on the ballot there was only the Republican and Democrat candidates. That basically showed me that I had wasted my vote in the primaries since it didn't even count enough to get his party on the ballot and that I would have to waste my vote in the real election since I didn't like either of the 2 candidates.
Labeling people as Republican or Democrat, while it is silly, is also very meaningful inside this nation. If you look, you will notice that even the definitions don't match: Republicans are very much different than Democrats.
Whenever someone is labeled as a Republican, people usually think of him as more liberal, more wealthy, and as a snobby richie who is much better off and wouldn't mind leaving the poor behind. That stereotype is in it for the money, quite obviously, and will attempt to empower the candidate who promises lower wealth taxes, or something that helps out their buisnesses. The problem is that not every Republican is an image of this stereotype. In my experience, none of them come close.
I personally live in a well-off area where the dominant party is the Republican party. I have spent two years here, made many great friends that'll last me through life, and had a chance to meet many of their parents as well. All Republicans (well, not all). But none were even coming close to that stereotype.
This kind of shows that Republicans sort of have their ideals. While it is a nice profitable thing to believe in as well, all of my friends support it simply because of the principal. Freedom, it's the thing the country was built on, and, according to me, the way the world will topple. Needless to say, I would probably call myself a democrat.
Democrats are very different. They're a more socialistic side of things, viewing the nation as a community instead of a group of individuals. I have come into contact with masses of Democrats as well, but then we were a bit too young to talk about politics. Democrats are much different from Republicans, because they occupy the other end of the spectrum. They are poor lazy workers, instead of rich snobs (according to stereotype).
Democrats want to unite America as a community where everyone helps each other out wether they want to or not. Things like Obamacare, where they don't have to pay for themselves, that's what they are into. But, again, I doubt many people fit this sterotype.
Most likely people see it as a grand community, a return to ancestral roots where people didn't have to fight over game, because game was everywhere. People were nicer, they shared, they helped out their neighbors, they wouldn't mind giving a cup of flour on asking. In other words, the tribe would be ONE. Of course, one can exploit this just as easily as the other party to simply not have to pay.
I think that these two parties are dominant because they express exactly opposite views. I mean, on says we should be ONE, the other says we should be MANY. It doesn't get more different than that. The problem is that no person fully believes in either one, but gists his beliefs into one of these categories. (MAIN POINT): In America, REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT have no longer remained simply parties; they are opposing views on how to run a nation. That is why labeling a person as Republican or Democrat is incredibly meaningful, because it not only reveals his views, it also reveals that you dissapprove and therefore side with the opposite views.
It is silly though. Meaningful, but very silly, if you know what I mean.
The names originally had nothing to do with the corresponding parties' beliefs; but they now stand for them. For example: 'Google'. What's that supposed to mean? But we understand now that this is a search engine company.
Our current election system is incredibly bizzare and incredibly corrupt, and I personally believe this sort of warrants the removal of the government, but this in no way proves that labels are neither silly nor meaningless.
They can either signify how you want to cheat other people, or how you actually believe the nation should be run.
Admitted, main parties are very adventurous in their beliefs, yet they don't change quickly enough to actually lose their followers faith. For me, well, I already stated exactly what I think each party believes. I think a majority of people looking at this debate have their own definitions as well. That just proves that the names are meaningful, even though their meanings change over the decades.
That's actually very interesting though. What could have happened is an internal political integration, where lots of people without beliefs came into the system and were sort of convinced by both. Which caused both to shift towards each other and eventually come close enought that they would essentially work for the same thing, then gradually seperate back slowly as immigration decreased. of course, there is no reason that they shouldn't switch places at the high point, switching followers as well, then falling back to what they opposed before. That's my explanation.
And sorry for your vote. That kind of does show the weak spots of the system.
MegadethRocks44 forfeited this round.
My partner has not shown any counters for my rebuttals, therefore I ask the viewers to consider them null and void. My single point still stands strong, unchallenged by my partner.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con gains conduct as Pro forfeited the final round of debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Arguments to Con as Pro failed to demonstrate that labeling people as Republican or Democrat was "meaningless". The entirety of Pro's constructive case rested on the Democratic and Republican party *vastly* changing their stances, and I can see a strong impact here. But, as Con notes, Pro fails to establish a link for their arguments, i.e. is unable to show how their argument relates to the resolution. Con notes that "meaningless" is "without meaning", and even seemingly non-coherent terms such as "snobby" have *meanings* -- different interpretations of the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" *still* entail a certain meaning, ergo it isn't meaningless. Pro is unable to show the terms are *meaningless*. I vote based on the BoP, which Pro is unable to fulfill. Ergo, I vote Con on conduct and arguments.
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.