The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,607 times Debate No: 59480
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Hello and I would love to welcome a debater of conservative background and beliefs. We will argue the classical point of which ideology is better for America. Not a global ideology but specifically for America.
No devils advocate please.
1st round Acceptance
2nd round arguments ,3rd round rebuttals/arguments if wanted
4th round conclusions and rebuttals if needed
Thanks and looking forward!


I accept and looking forward for a constructive debate and learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Mike and dido.

Lets first look at the true nature of conservatism shall we. Conservatism is the political ideals of tight spending and stay with past functions of policy to guide a country.

Lets also look at the creation of American-Conservatism. After the second constitution tow major groups formed from the events. Federalist and anti-federalist, Liberals and conservatives respectably. The federalist knew that they needed a strong central government to hold down a crazed country at that time, while the Antis wanted to stick to the past articles and basically risk an all out state vs state apocalypse. Conservatives stick to the nature of past believing it would be better for the future but, that is never the case.
Then you have a very conservative-southern democratic party while a new liberal republican party takes the nation by storm. Democrats were for slavery and past agriculture policies, while the liberal republicans supported abolishing and wanted to go forward with the promise future of manufacturing, they were right again. You have conservatives wrong morally and economically speaking.
They you get southern conservatives fighting for segregation and anti-civil rights and also keeping notions of protecting fat cat CEOs and support for Vietnam war. You have liberal politicians that are the opposite like FDR and JFK and LBJ.

Conservatives stick to the past just because it kind of worked, liberals think to the future for the betterment of America and its people.

I will continue with arguments in third round as well and thanks again.


Thank you Pro on your philosophy of “Liberalism>Conservatism.” Con interprets the symbol “>” as the following: Liberalism “greater than” Conservatism and this is Pro’s position.

Pro's short overview of Liberalism covered a historical range from the founding of the US to modern day. However, Pro failed to mentioned the difference between Liberalism from the philosophers of France Bacon and John Locke (reflected in the US founding), compared to modern day Progressive Liberalism, which evolved during the Progressive Era over the time period of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson.

Con will make reference to this Progressive Liberal evolution while covering 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), libertarianism (emphasis on individualism having small limited government), and compassionate conservatism (conservatism with lipstick and a heart).

Conservatism is also found throughout nature. For example, during the Enlightenment Era, the concept of Liberty started to blossom. France Bacon, the father of empiricism (aka the scientific method), inspired John Locke to develop the social contract theory leading to concept of “Life, Liberty, and Property,” which inspired Thomas Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;” finally those Unalienable Rights were found to be an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, and therefore part of the physical Laws of Nature and not man-made.

Over a period of 400 years our knowledge of liberty Conservatively evolved to today's current understanding, coming full circle starting with Bacon's empiricism to today's understanding relative to the physical Laws of Nature. One of the nine Properties of the Laws in Nature is defined as: “Stable;” aka Conservative. In science, our knowledge of a physical Law in Nature slowly evolves by the freedom of research and new discoveries in related Laws through the Property of “Symmetries.”

Since humanity is a product of Nature, attention to the symmetry of cultural norms relative to the first 7 Properties of the Laws of Nature is crucial in understanding our connection to the order found in nature. There are striking similarities how cultural norms follow these Properties by replacing the phrase “Physical laws” with “norms,” and replace “universe” with “culture.”

Progressive Liberals like Conservatives, and most humans, embrace a “Stable:” culture, values, individual freedom, and a security to protect such stability. Who in their right mind would embrace social chaos?

So what is the difference between Progressive Liberals and Conservatives?

Conservatism is not an ideology, but found in all civil societies, where cultural norms are the “Stable” element within a society, where one will find the most “Stable” societies are the ones whose governance support a slow moral social evolution as a function of the individual's freedom. Societies that depart from this are unstable.

On the subject of governance, the value of Conservatism is crucial. The US Constitutional configuration of government, is based on a physical Law in Nature known as life's Unalienable Rights (a Conservative stake in the ground, Amendments 5 and 9). The US government objective was to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less. This small limited “strong central government” had power over the states, to execute this objective. The state governments did all the rest, competing with each other for the best and brightest to move and enrich their state (Amendment 10). The Tenth Amendment along with second part of Article V, convinced most of the anti-federalist concerning the Conservative structure of the Constitution.

This form of governance sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of nature.

Having the mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights, the US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently Conservative. Slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills, as a result, slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the Conservative evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights and the design of Congress, representing the people, and the only branch to make law correcting such cultural ills.

Life's Unalienable Rights are the evolution engine of life (Takac). These Rights are also the engine for social evolution, if, and only if, the configuration of governance supports such natural engine at the social level. The US Founding Fathers develop a configuration of government supporting evolution before Darwin came on the stage.

Eighty some years later, Darwin's work eventually came to light, where scholars in political science throughout the world at the turn of the last century, adopted a perverted view of evolution known as Social Darwinism. Our founding Fathers viewed the foundation of the rule of law to be stable (Conservative) within a Newtonian context making the structure of our Constitution difficult to change via the Amendment process. 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. Wilson stated the following from his book:

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 and started a slow cancer known as the “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, Education, 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. The “living constitution” benefits the uncontrolled growth of government, while reducing the freedom of the people. Such move towards tyranny adds more control and political incarceration by this “strong central government,” while taking freedom from the states.

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

Unbeknownst to many Progressive Liberals, innocent and unaware of the subtle power of progressive indoctrination controlling their political vantage point, as illustrated by Pro's view on Conservatism; is evidence by such social progressive entrapment, embracing the progressive crusade with the clear objective by demeaning Conservatism to advance a tyrannical government.

This is stuff you don't learn in our government schools.

Con's position is, without the Conservative property throughout nature, from the unchanging Laws of Nature to the limited stable man-made laws, there will be no life, no Liberalism. Therefore Conservatism > Liberalism.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks again and please let us start,

First you use the notion of conservatism is found and bonded with nature, the literal aspect is horrendous, no ideology or way of life co-insides with nature. Also you refute that conservatism is the proper of unalienable rights, that is also false.
Take Jefferson, an outstanding liberal that put his life on the line to unsure that citizens have unalienable rights. At that time the concept of unalienable was a ghost. Not heard of in Europe or anywhere else especially since have the country was in an area that slavery was legal. If anything the concept of unalienable rights is a liberal notion because you are not sticking to the past but for the future.
The many forms you listed of conservatism is correct but still fit under the umbrella of conservative facts. They all believe that in their specific situation you must go backwards and stick to the past or go back in time even farther to find the correct solution to the current issue. The ideology is very sad.
I did take us through a very short process of American history showing the many mistakes of assumptions and policies of conservative people. Take the KKK, a very conservative cult that supports the past, old time America with family values and race separation. KKK is not a good party to be associated with. You can also make claims with Nazi Germany, economically speaking along with family values were very conservative and many people mistake them for being full blown liberals on the socialistic side.
Take some famous liberals and see if they are good company.
Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr.
These are all men that wanted change for the future and wanted the past to be past and move on. You have many current issues also were conservatives are on the wrong side of the moral and logical battle. Take gun rights, Jefferson said many times in multiple newspapers that the 2nd should be overlooked and could be changed every 20 years based on the current times. A famous liberal giving great liberal advice for an amendment that conservatives think they should have. If Jefferson were alive today he would 1) be disgusted by the government to not change it and 2) regret a lot.
Also you speak of the invisible government or 4th branch. I totally am for the destruction of these agencies and think there is no room for them anywhere anytime and the reason why liberals are not kicking and screaming is because our president is a democrat.
Liberals want to change the current for a better future while conservatism is the notion of sticking to the past programs and hope they will work because hey, were alive right so something right.
Thanks and again Liberalism>Conservatism


Pro selects the negative elements of human behavior to be Conservative as in not wanting to change, while showing the good side of humans to be liberals supporting progressive change. This is no surprise considering the effects from our government controlled educational system. Highlighting progressive change, to include the “living constitution,” can only be a good thing having no negative repercussions. To believe this mantra, is simply naive.

Pro failed to mention some of the good sides of Conservatism that has been around for a long time. For example, through all civil societies, the Conservative concept of “Thou shalt not kill,” is a good Conservative principle. Since the debut of the traffic “Stop Sign,” it is a good thing that Conservative symbol does not change. Talking about Conservative symbols, our number system and alphabet have been stable for a long time, etc.

Pro stated, “Also you [Con] refute that conservatism is the proper of unalienable rights, that is also false.”

Pro fails to understand that change itself, is a Conservative property of evolution that has been around before humans. Just after the Big Bang, change was under the influence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a Law that has never changed in this universe. At the macro level, Constructal Law is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, explains how everything that moves or flows, whether animate or inanimate, naturally evolve in ways that facilitates such movement.

Relative to the Constructal Law for the animate, once alive, “Life” has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of survival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Positive-feedback for humans, can be summarized to include the emotion of “Happiness,” in addition, survival is a prerequisite for “Happiness.” The primeval working function of life having the freedom in the pursuit of survival, is the foundation to the Natural Selection Process. Unbeknownst to Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function, and he claimed a polished version within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights as in “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In other words, and to generalize for all life from a single cell to humans, life’s Unalienable Rights is “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans”). In conclusion life’s Unalienable Rights is part of the Laws of Nature, been here before humans, therefore, it is a Conservative element throughout the symphony of life.

Relative to Conservatism, Pro's argument continues the typical negative dance-around on overused talking-points. Pro even covers talking-points related to “gun rights” when he stated, “Take gun rights, Jefferson said many times in multiple newspapers that the 2nd should be overlooked and could be changed every 20 years based on the current times.”

Please supply a reference to the above quote. Con did a search and found the “20 years” phrase in the following letter from Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, November 13, 1787 is the quoted sentence:

They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.”

According to the footnote on about the above quoted sentence states the following, “This sentence has possibly been misquoted as "every generation needs a new revolution.”

I would advise Pro, in any debate, when quoting someone, please supply a reference! A quote followed by a reference establishes a link to an unchanging historical event. Such linkage “Conserves” continuity in an argument.

According to the following statement in the Declaration of Independence, it would seem Jefferson was more Conservative than some liberal “20 years” cycle:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Relative to the Second Amendment argument, the US Constitution has the prevision to change or remove the Second Amendment via the Amendment process. Our founding Fathers gave us that process, therefore, we have the infrastructure to make a Second Amendment change. Change not based on “multiple newspaper” articles, but the relationship the voting citizens have with their elected representatives, or at least, that is how it once was. Under today's progressive “living constitution,” it would seem the lobbyist, via crony-corporatism, have the final say.

Pro went on to say, “Also you speak of the invisible government or 4th branch. I totally am for the destruction of these agencies and think there is no room for them anywhere anytime and the reason why liberals are not kicking and screaming is because our president is a democrat.”

If Pro, and all the other progressives, “Conservatively” embrace the US Constitution, then there will be no “invisible government or 4th branch.” This “invisible government” is the result of the progressive liberal “living constitution,” the legacy of Woodrow Wilson's dynasty (the leading father of modern liberal progressivism).

The US Constitution is close to perfection. Its focus was built around the Conservative working function of all life, via Jefferson's polished interpretation of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” no more, no less. Where the states had the freedom to experiment with their “invisible government,” while the people vote with their feet to embrace the best state on the evolution to utopia.

To make this work, the US Constitution had checks and balances to discourage the powerbroker's greed, in DC, in the prevention of a centralized oligarch. But thanks to the progressive liberal “living constitution,” a centralized oligarch now plays music for the states to dance to.

Con supports change in a Conservative way that moves slowly to test social feedback at the state level. At the federal level, laws and Amendments only happen through Congress, not the President, nor the Courts; that is the way the US Constitution was designed to work.

Under the US Constitution, progressive freedom blossoms in 50 independent different states, rather than, from one tyrannical centralized oligarch, relative to some mastermind's perception of progressivism.
Debate Round No. 3


Con doesn't realize that conservatism does not really have a good side, here's why.
Thou Shall Not Kill is a commandment given to us by God. Not a conservative value especially when almost all conservatives support the death penalty and that is disgusting. Then you speak of conservative properties that existed before humans, number one that is not really what this debate is about and two it doesn't make any real logical sense. We are arguing about ideologies not evolutionary systems. Then you go into a humanitarian laws and definite properties about life but still this is number one off topic and number 2 don't really care about universal humanitarian properties trying to tie it to conservatism.

No that I rebutted your points I will talk some common sense of just why conservatives are crazy, they believe that Obama is from Africa, they think Obama is in cahoots with the three south American countries. They believe that the president is causing stalemate but really it is the congress. When Dems owned all the houses for a sad short period of time they got the G.I. Bill reformed, some immigration reform, Student Loan reform, finished S.T.A.R.T. with Russia, had cash for clunkers that really helped out a lot of Americans, they also repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell program that was very prejudice to gay Americans wanting to die for their country. When congress was taken nothing has happened, STALEMATE.
Conservatives support the death penalty, shame shame. They also feel the need to have control on if you want to risk your life and remove a fetus in your body that may be mutated from incest, or just emotionally unbearable from a rape. You conservatives are the last to hop on any great program, some are finally waking up from the Obamacare kool-aid and a little bit of you guys are starting to realize that global warming is actually happening. Conservatives are not on board with marijuana legalization a safe natural plant that causes no harm to body or to surrounding and is a great cash crop. But support bigger clips in pistols and the amount of guns you can have which guns you know they cause no harm right?
Almost every issue besides Israel you're wrong, and you call yourselves the WWJD Ideology. Jesus would be turning in his grave if he had a grave if He knew what you were supporting. Also tax the churches Jesus had no problem with that:
"Give what is Caesar's to Caesar and give what is God's to God!"

And please don't get me started on Reaganomics. It doesn't trickle down boys. Look times were great immediately back then because he spent more that any other, created no long term job growth and put us in long term debt that Clinton thank God fixed somewhat and then Bush you know.

All liberal minded people want is a better future and not to get richer. Conservatives pull in dumb people to think they are bettering them but really just using them to protect themselves and have capitals grow. I won't bash capitalism today that is another debate. Liberalism has many tents but all are better than any conservative value sect. You conservatives stick to the past and never want to change but change makes history and almost always for the better. If you are a rich tycoon and the current policies protect you from taxes and employee rights are close to none of course you be a conservative, whats not to love about it, you get richer and richer and the stupid workers are never getting better off. GOP = Greedy Old People

Please don't be one the wrong side of great historical figures, history, or moral issues. I think I make my assumption a reality,


It would seem Pro is debating Leftwing-Ideology > Rightwing-Ideology not Liberalism or Conservatism.

Conservatism is not an “ideology” but found in all civil societies having different cultural ideologies. Conservatism, includes neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleo-conservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), libertarianism (emphasis on individualism having small limited government), and compassionate conservatism (conservatism with lipstick and a heart).

Progressive Liberalism is an “ideology” having its roots from Social Darwinism, where big centralized government solves social, economic, etc problems embracing statism.

Con needs not address Pro's arguments relative to some extreme rightwing rhetoric.

Since Pro is a professed Liberal, implies Pro is open minded. Con would recommend Pro to see the newly released movie “America” and read the following books:

In closing, Con would like to thank Pro for a learning experience relative to Pro's perception on Conservatism. I could only hope, Pro will one day see the importance of Conservatism throughout nature, for humans and their social systems are a product of the physical Laws of Nature. And finally, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life” having ample “Liberty” (aka money), in the moral pursuit of “Happiness,” and looking forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
Thank you con and yes we will debate again.
Posted by StevenJD 2 years ago
I personally am a left leaning moderate. I am fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. I support the current tax rate and am a supporter of guns rights unless the person planning on purchasing a firearm has a mental illness or has committed a felony. I support many aspects of obama care but I think it should have been planned out more. I am pro choice even though I morally disagree with it i believe it is not my or the governments right to tell people what to do with their body. That gos for
Drugs too. No party defines my exact political views so I refer to myself as an independent. My favorite presidents include Clinton, reagan, jefferson, lincoln, and JFK.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
Con, I do agree with you about Over>Under TP, lol
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
10,000 characters
Posted by GKChesterton 2 years ago
What is the character limit for the debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.