Liberal Over Conservative
Debate Rounds (4)
As on the debate over the death penalty, liberals will tell you that cruelty to any human at all is intolerable. Torture and/or death contributed to them by law is not in a positive mark, but rather a depressingly negative expression. Why would one take away from one what we hate them for taking away from others? By doing so you yourself become the monster.
To be entirely honest, I do dislike capitalism and industrialism. I believe in a free market-to an extent. From where we are right now that is the only plausible solution to our economics, but the 'bigger is better' motto destroys us.
I am not anti coal, gas, or oil, but I do understand the drawbacks of them. We need to find new, and preferably cleaner sources of energy. That is undeniable.
Also, terrorism as in the conservative belief, is in fact a large problem that needs to be dealt with. However, discrimination labeled under being cautious should not be permissible behavior.
I do agree with liberal views for the most part, with a few opinions varying and ending up on a more conservative end. In short I believe that liberal values are far more humane and helpful to everyone than conservative self-helping rich-centered core values.
"How you look, from where your come, your religion, your sexuality/romantically or lack thereof do not define your character." Not all cultures are equal, this is the flaw in multiculturalism. Australia, Britain, America, Canada are some of the best places to live in the world because of their Britannic heritage founded in the rule of law, freedom and liberty. These cultures are superior to those in the middle east, Africa, Eastern Europe etc. Why? Because we see objective measures such as life expectancy, GDP per capita etc. Thus religion plays a vital role in culture and the success of any given people. Note I am not talking about the color of ones skin in determining success but rather the culture they possess. Ethnicity is irrelevant.
"I do dislike capitalism and industrialism." What is the alternative, Mao's China, The Soviet Union, North Korea other failed communist and socialist states? The free market benefits those with good ideas, those who are productive, those who contribute to humanity. Henry Ford revolutionized automobiles and made them affordable to millions of Americans. This system rewards those who contribute.
Liberals believe the coercive powers of government should be used to deliver solutions to problems. There are only problems in so far as man himself is the problem; he is flawed. There are no solutions only trade-offs. For example, we can have more equality of income if the government increases the redistribution of income. But doing this negates the incentive for people to create wealth in the first leaving everybody worse off. Trying to achieve equality before freedom and liberty leaves you with neither.
Perhaps the most scathing attack on liberals is there ability to produce victims in society. Look at the liberal figurehead Barack Obama. He sets blacks against whites in order to create victims. Victims vote for him because he promises a solution. He focuses upon white on black shootings ignoring that fact that African Americans are more likely to rape, murder etc. Instead of trying reduce these figures instead he blames such disparities on White America. Why? because its the easy, soft, sappy explanation that does not hurt anyone feelings. If he wanted to truly fix such problems he would criticize hood rat culture including rap music, tall poppy syndrome, anti intellectual culture, drug taking etc but he doesn't.
"liberal values are far more humane and helpful"
"Overall, the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income went for Obama. "
We believe that change happening also doesn't imply negativity. We are in constant need of improvement. There is nothing more evident than that. Just because something has "always been that way" doesn't mean that it can't be bettered or that it is right at all.
For all of life's well being I meant not only humans. As on many issues such as global warming, rainforest habitats, animals rights, and so on I would take Earth's side. We humans are not the only living things!
Culture, I agree, does play an important role. However, it does not always mean that the person that displays this culture is going to fit some of the harsh stereotypes labeled onto them.
I did say that I did not particularly like capitalism, but I also stated that I, in part, agreed with free-market. For where our economy is at right now it is the only relevant option. However, it is the shark-like aggression that goes on within commercialization that brings in more questionable morality (overly provocative commercials for food items is a good example) is a very negative swing.
I do agree that man is flawed. That is evident as well. However, you can achieve equality. You need not make everything start fresh, but rather get rid of things making it impossible to start from where we are. Such as for unequal wages for men and women, make it so that you may not differ between them due only to gender. It's as simple as that.
First of all, Rap Music is not necessarily "hoodrat culture". In fact, there is a lot of christian rap with uplifting lyrics. The overly sweetened things displayed there do need to be fixed. However, it is true that racism exist and needs to be stamped out as well.
As to bring a focus on ideology, the sorts of places in which you give your money matter. Also, overall vote of a state does not necessarily depict that liberals did not have input in these charity-givings. Some of the Obama-voting states were much poorer than Romney ones.
Man and women of the same age in the same occupations get paid the same. Statistics such as women earn 79 cents for every dollar a male earns is is true but your conclusion that gender inequality exists on such huge scale is false. Women CHOOSE to work fewer hours, tend to work in lower paid occupations, have to take time our for child rearing etc. So when you compare apples and apples and not apples and oranges the inequalities cease to appear. No economists take the gender pay gap seriously, otherwise firms would only hire women because their 21% cheaper than men. There are also biological differences that favor men in some areas and favor women in other areas. For example, my physics class has 3 girls and 20 boys and there are 3 boys in ext 2 maths. Boys tend to be better at maths, and the well paying occupations such as engineering, economics tend to be dominated by males. Furthermore, according to IQ studies the average female is smarter than the average male but the smartest people are males and the dumbest people are males. Hence, the male IQ bell curve is stretched to both ends more so than the female bell curve. This helps explain why super smart scientists, inventors and CEO's tend to be male dominated.
But of course there some people who discriminate against women, but they are few and far between. But the free market will weed them out. Take for example the couple who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. They got sued but this is profoundly wrong. ie I agree with the cake makers. Instead of getting sued the free market will tend to discourage customers going to their store in favor of other gay friendly stores. Thus over time they will lose business. Likewise, its costs firms money to discriminate. If a female is the best job candidate and the employer knocks her back because he/she is sexist, that costs the firm, and slowly resources will be allocated toward other non discriminatory firms.
As far as homosexuality is concerned, i thinks its morally wrong but that is simply my opinion, and they are free as adults to do whatever they so desire. Gay marriage is a different debate (one which i am currently engaged in).
Animals do not have rights but we have a responsibility to treat them humanely. I am against hunting for non food purposes, but i do not seek to impose my will on someone else. If someone wants to shoot elephants on private property that there business even through i think what their doing is dumb.
As for global warming (climate change is a dumb word because climate is always changing der) carbon emissions have increased but the effects have been overstated (see Lord Monckton on youtube). It requires a doubling of CO2 emissions to raise global temperatures by one degree. The stated impacts of CO2 emissions have been overstated 7 fold to fit agendas.
Environmentalism=Socialism. A way to get government control through back door.
RayneOfDeath forfeited this round.
RayneOfDeath forfeited this round.
DoesThouHoisteth forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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: I'm just not finding that Pro ever meets his BoP, which is to show that liberal ideals are objectively better than conservative ideals. He lists off a bunch of things he agrees with, but never gets down to the basic point of assessing outcomes beyond some nebulous views on how the world should be through his lens. That's not enough. Much as I find Con's arguments problematic (particularly where they focus on specific politicians and policies instead of the ideologies themselves), nothing from either side really sways the debate, so I vote Con. Conduct to Con for the extra forfeit.
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.