The Instigator
Sleezehead
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Liberal or Conservative

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...
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,208 times Debate No: 31791
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Sleezehead

Con

Which party would the people here consider the more appropriate for the United States? Not as in which party do we need more of right now but which party would you say is overall more politically correct when it comes to pros and cons?
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for hosting this debate, and would like to thank you, the audience, for following along and being part of this great and noble experience. Your participation is what transforms this from two lonely bitter men arguing pointless into two lonely bitter men arguing pointlessly in front of a crowd. I'd like to thank my house keeper, Martha, for doing my laundry and the dishes. And I'd like to thank Jesus for being Jesus. I'd also like to thank Mohammad, whoever the Jews worship, and Buddha, just in case.

I'll send the mic over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Sleezehead

Con

So I'll be taking a more passive roll towards this debate as in through you and the comments, I wan to here what the peoe think of the two bigger viewpoints in the U.S.

So Mr. Zak, it appears that you swing libertarian. What do you think has hindered the Conservative party in the U.S. in the past year? And what makes the libertarian views more intellectual, moral, and sound compared to conservatives views?
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

What is libertarianism? To me this political philosophy rests upon an axiom : that it is immoral to initiate force. That it is wrong to use violence or coercion to get other people to do what you want. In short, libertarians believe in the voluntary interaction of individuals. We can then take this axiom and apply some logical rules to it to deduce a political philosophy. An important moral principle is universality. If it is wrong for me to go out and attack someone, it is wrong for all individuals to go out and attack someone. Another important point here is that only individuals can attack. A group cannot do anything, only the individuals in that group can do something. It is wrong for me to rob; it is wrong for everyone to rob. But robbing is exactly what the taxman does. The taxman says, give me your money, or we will initiate legal proceedings against you and throw you in jail. Jailing someone is an act of aggression. That's not to say that no one can ever be jailed. Sometimes it's okay to use violence or force. Doesn't this contradict what I said above? No. It's wrong to initiate force. But if someone attacks you, then you can use force to defend yourself. You can also use force to bring criminals to justice, so long as you are authorized by the victim. But not paying taxes is not an act of aggression and it's not an act of theft because the claim that money is owed is invalid. No organization can unilaterally form a contract. The only time I can owe someone money is if I make a contract with them, or borrow money.

So, if I do not pay the taxes the taxman claims I owe, and I refuse to pay after their sham legal proceedings (sham because no organization should be able to preside over a dispute which they themselves are a part of) then eventually I will be locked in a cage. This is an act of aggression, one which if I defend myself from, I will be murdered. It is now apparent that the state is in contradiction with the non aggression axiom. Either we are to throw out the non aggression axiom, we are to throw out the moral principle of universality, or we are to throw out the state and since I do not want to live in a world where it is survival of the fittest and dog eat dog, and I cannot abide by hypocrites, then I am left with no conclusion other than that we should live in a truly voluntary society, i.e. a world without government. Not a world without police, roads, and courts but instead a society where these services and goods are provided by the market and funded voluntarily instead of through a coerced levy.
Debate Round No. 2
Sleezehead

Con

Very well done Mr. Zak! Bravo! That's was a delicious report of the libertarian side of our current state. In the last decade, it is said the the right wing has become a currupt system of overall old-world values and disconcern for the decisions & choices of our minorities. Conservatives have been labeled as the new extremist movement with such advocators as Sarah Palen, Bill O'Rieley, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Obviously being a libertarian, do you agree with any teachings of a more conservative America? Is conservatism harmful or helpful for our current predicament of the recession? Lastly do you think morality is better favored correctly in one of these parties?
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

I agree with some of the rhetoric that conservatives use about smaller government, lower taxes and personal liberty but on the other hand when they talk about "illegals", going to war with poor middle eastern nations or locking up non violent drug users that really get's my goat. And then of course conservatives might talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, but when they are in office they tend to outspend liberals. So basically they're a bunch of hypocritical lying jerks.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Noswad63 4 years ago
Noswad63
Wow, zak had a bias on libertarianism so he basically just slandered the conservatives and made liberals look good. Well i think the same about liberals jak thinks of conservatives, with a very different and added problems. So, there you go.
Posted by Sleezehead 4 years ago
Sleezehead
I was just seeing what people thought of both parties
Posted by JustinJen 4 years ago
JustinJen
Who's for Liberal and Who's for Conservative
Posted by Noswad63 4 years ago
Noswad63
Maybe put this on the opinion section, seems better suited there.
Posted by Sleezehead 4 years ago
Sleezehead
The forums appear to be mostly dead. I know this is a broad discussion and probably uttered many times on here but its definitely worth arguing for. :debate
Posted by Fanboy 4 years ago
Fanboy
Hey bro, I am not criticizing but, this would be better for the forums
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
SleezeheadZakYoungTheLibertarianTied
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: All of pro's arguments still stood at the end of the debate, so arguments is clear. There were no sources or egregious conduct violations so no points there.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
SleezeheadZakYoungTheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con did not make rebuttal arguments, so Pro's position was uncontested in the debate. Con needed to contest the Pro position that use force by government to achieve goals is justified, and he did not. Con has an obligation to write a clear resolution. There is a Conservative Party in New York State, but it seems Con was not referring to that one. So what was the debate supposed to be about? I get the general sense of big government vs small government, but the resolution should have been more specific. Technically, the muddy resolution is a conduct violation, but I'll let that go.