I agree with the resolution that liberal ideals are much better for the nation than conservative ideals. First off, conservative ideals in America are predominantly Christian. The stances on abortion, gay mariage, and other hot button issues are not the ideas of people who have studied politics, but Christian leaders. Having religion in politics is not a good thing. Next, liberal ideas are generally more peaceful than conservative ideals. The conservative(cst) stance on war is so much more aggresive. Liberal ideals are actually more leaned to saving lives. Third, cst's are inclined towards playing on fear. Post 9/11 drama is letting them do what they want. They play on irrational fear, and end up killing people. Fourth, they are causing many problems. Bush put another 4.9 trillion dollars to America's debt. That is a lot of money. Finally, conservatives and tea party members are creating opposition for democrats. Normal republicans can at least get along a little bit, but conservatives just stop all progress. They won't let anyone get anything done, even if it is a republican against their idea. This is why I support the resolution. Please vote for Pro because you are making the country ACTUALLY safer, not just playing on fear. You are helping the economy, and saving lives.
Since my opponent has posted arguments in the beginning round, it is only fair that I post mine in the first as well. To begin I will make a simple case to support my stance, followed by rebuttals of my opponent's arguments.
= Case =
One of the biggest distinctions that can be made between liberals and conservatives is that both have a different perception of human nature. Liberals believe that human nature is intrinsically good, and that the relationship between good and evil is actually a misunderstanding. They hold that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well. Conservatives know better than this - they support autonomy when it is affiliated with personal responsibility. They know that human nature is flawed, and that to combat it we must uphold a moral standard. By putting occasional restraints on freedom, more people will use their agency for bad and will abuse it, which will lead to the downfall of themselves, others, and a moral society.
The government cannot control human behavior, but its policies can influence it. Conservatives want to use it in a good way, a way that promotes virtue and socially moral society. Liberals want to take restrictions off of certain things such as abortion or drug use, since it would promote personal freedom. This freedom, however, is one that can be used to infringe on the rights of others, such as the unborn and the victims of car accidents caused by people who used their drug freedom too freely and decided to drive under the influence, which would take the right to live of another away. To create the best American society, who must use conservative ideals rather than liberal ones as our basis for the law and for promoting the best kind of community
= Rebuttals =
Religion in politics
Although many conservatives identify as religious, not all are and not all have been influenced by religious factors. I have heard some people claim to be liberal because of their religion. That being said, I don't believe it is fair to accuse conservatives of bringing their religious beliefs into political matters because 1) Pro has not proved how religion and politics together are necessarily bad and 2) not all conservatives are religious and not all liberals are secular either. Pro is making a broad assertion here and has yet to argue this point as a legitimate one. I ask Pro to elaborate on this contention if possible.
Again, Pro here has not quite shown how more peaceful solutions to foreign affairs are necessarily better and more efficient than non-peaceful ones. Conservatives know that evil regimes of the world such as ISIS and Al Qaeda cannot be "talked out" of their dangerous objectives. They insist that to protect citizens' lives it may be necessary to use forceful solutions to accomplish certain goals. When national security is being threatened such as in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, certain freedoms may need to be curtailed to protect the American people. If Pro could argue exactly how liberal foreign policy solution have been better than conservative ones, that would give this argument actual value.
First Pro must prove that George W. Bush, who added 4.9 trillion dollars to the national debt, was actually a conservative. Some would argue that he was not one because he expanded the government quite a bit, along with other more liberal policies. President Obama, with his liberal objectives such as redistribution, food stamps, immigration reform, etc. has added more debt than all the previous presidents combined, with a whopping $7.5 trillion addition to the debt. We must also keep in mind that Bush's circumstances were much harder than Obama's, with national threats, recessions, hurricane Katrina, etc.
Pro's claim that Republicans refuse to compromise is one without merit or evidence, and can be easily be dismissed since it is another baseless assertion.