The Instigator
MRAAJ
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
buildingapologetics
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Liberalism Or Conversativism: The Future

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: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 315 times Debate No: 106111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

MRAAJ

Pro

I'm a liberal in a Conservative household, so i can understand both sides. On one hand liberalism tackles social injustices, whereas innovation and business thrives under conservatism. For arguments sake, i will defend Liberalism and challenge anyone pro conservatism, in relation to how said theories can benefit us going forward.
buildingapologetics

Con

I am assuming this round is simply acceptance, so I will wait to explain my arguments. I would consider myself far right, bordering on libertarian. I am conservative both fiscally and socially, so I should be qualified to defend the conservative perspective, although I do not speak for all conservatives.

I generally believe conservatism is both a more moral system, and a more practical solution fiscally and socially. In order to give you a platform to debate, I will list some of my beliefs.
Extremely small government
No subsidies for businesses
Reduced (but not eliminated) welfare
Low taxes (both corporate and individual; for rich and poor people)
Reduced regulations
No redistribution of wealth
Privatization of education
Privatization of healthcare
No government scholarships
Free speech
Possession, concealed carry, and open carry of guns (including assault rifles)
Freedom for business (up to and including the abominable freedom to refuse service for any reason)
No abortions
End of gay marriage (by getting government out of marriage entirely)
End of "social justice"
Equality of opportunity for all people regardless of race, religion, gender, or orientation
A secure boarder (including, but not limited to a wall or fence)

Feel free to pick any of the above topics to tear apart or we could additionally talk about the underlying themes of conservatism vs liberalism such as freedom of opportunity vs freedom of outcome, or a small government vs a large one. Also, when you defend your position, please elaborate on how liberal you are.
Debate Round No. 1
MRAAJ

Pro

Here I present to you my political propositions, and why I believe that centre left politics (see comments section) is better than conservative right (far right in your case) wing views (for humanity). I will begin by discussing said beliefs, and at the same time I will interlink some of the categories you have suggested. Not all, I'd run out of space.

Need for Change:
Left: Radical change, without implementation, act now the world is a mess
Right: Slow gradual change, with implementation, because the world is fine as it is.

Economy: globalisation should benefit humans rather than corporations, as most corps don't invest in local communities (multiplier effect). Rarely do you find a successful business that has a clean, clear cut Corporate Social Responsibility , perhaps Shell being the exception I know of. Liberals understand the environmental aspect of running business, but at the same time are aware that ignoring it would be more profitable for the company. I feel conservatives, well the ones I know, are solely success oriented, with little compassion for community or the environment.

Regarding Patriotism: I care about family , friends/colleagues, and the effects I have of others, what my country does, whether right /wrong, is none of my business. Only fools rush to take sides.

Equality:

1a) Gender: Liberals like me believe humans are delicate-fragile individuals, much like any other animal. Connies are pro gender role (women-home, men-work) however if you look at stats we are now finding out that woman are highly intelligent, whereas men are subject to ego and competition. Most far right wingers from Nazis and Fascists believe in superiority over other segments of society, which brings me up to this next point....

1b) Racism: It is proven that racists all of kinds, especially far right ones have a hardwired fear of accepting other aspects of society. When the typical connie says "all these immigrants are coming here and taking our jobs", they are not considering the effects of an improved trade relation with said country, eg UK_Poland., not forgetting the increased income from travel booms. Immigrants work, racists bark. Similarly religious folk have deep insecurities, they hold their holy texts dear to them, not recognising the state of the world around them.

1c) Sexuality) In terms of society, its hard to deny humans are civilised animals, and not robots. Open sexuality is seen in many animals, eg giraffes. The things we do in life are based on energy spikes (similar to the theory of Chakra), sexuality is an energy, some express it different to others. Much like racism, those in power fear people will gain peace in the community, many right-wingers are raised to be homophobic, this isn't their fault, its like if i was raised hate grapes, i'd never touch it unless overcame said fear. In a way. The only thing keeping me unbiased is that open sexuality will result in more stds.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Economic Expense Distribution: We need to focus on education and health care, rather than counter-terrorism. Connies argue that if we don't counter terrorists, we wouldn't have an infrastructure. What i'm saying is reduce the funds, and reimburse it in to relevant sectors, as the health care is in dire straits. Privatising it would help those who can afford it, therefore improving services for them. However, remaining public suits the common man, but that would mean poorer services, a combo of both is best. Exact same case for education, in these cases quantity trumps quality if lives are involved.
I can relate to this, my primary school and uni were both public, but high school and college were private, so I have witnessed both aspects.

I agree lower taxes, but they should solely be reinvested into public-community services.
Tax has been distributed pretty unfairly. However, Businesses need heavy regulations otherwise they'd take liberties, see my point on csrs. However, since i do have a degree in Business Management, and am I aware that sometimes its financially better to exploit potential (cheap labour, landfill etc), not saying its morally acceptable, just best for business.

Welfare/Benefits: Although people do take advantage of it, many people with disabilities, anxieties, and injuries rely on it just to survive. Not everyone is raised with a go-get it work ethic. Connies are taught that you need to work for a living, and that's why most are against the benefit system. Likewise, many argue tramps choose to be tramps, see above. At the end of the day, Conservatism is similar to the law of the jungle, meaning the weak will fail, simply due to a lack of resources, whereas Centre Left believes in resource distribution and at the same time financial independence. I know leftwing socialism doesn't work, there'd be no drive and ambition.

I'm pro-abortion, it is solely up to the mother based on her condition (she may have prior birthing difficulties, may be unfit, unable to support, live in a high drug rate area, could've been raped). Connies argue that is murder, but i don't think a foetus will care, as mentioned on a separate debate.

Lastly for now, border security: i've witness it first hand, since 9/11 officers show bias against people of colour, again due to fear. Border security is only beneficial for drug smuggling control.
buildingapologetics

Con

Starting off, I just want to thank you for being civilized and polite in your reply. After my other debate, this is a refreshing change. I suppose I would like to address the social issues before the economic ones. But first, I will provide some background on conservatism that I believe is important.

I think your view of conservatism is largely correct: "Slow gradual change, with implementation, because the world is fine as it is." In this case, conservatives believe in a slow change in morality and in government. We are firm believers that the past contains golden gems of success that we should implement in order to be successful ourselves. One of these golden gems is the Judeo-Christian system that has made our nation possible. In fact, without such a religious people I doubt our nation would have survived to this day. I also believe conservatism becomes inconsistent (along with many other things) if a Biblical worldview is removed (even though there are many secular conservatives). This is why atheists and secularists are more likely to be socialists and communists.

Out of this worldview, there is another precious gem that emerges: liberty. Conservatives value the principle of liberty above nearly all other values. We should have as much liberty as possible until it conflicts with the liberty of another. Since conservatism is based on a Biblical worldview in which we are discouraged from forming idols, we are opposed to making government larger than is necessary. Not only does this always crush our liberty, but it also makes us reliant upon it instead of God and ourselves. Thus, large government is both a practical and a moral issue. Of course, because of this, conservatives believe in the importance of personal responsibility, meaning we suffer the consequences of our own bad decisions. Such is just, and such is moral.

On the other hand, we believe private institutions should provide most of the support for those who truly tried but failed. There certainly should be a safety net, and we would prefer not to take the government's net. This is because privatization is always more efficient, and turning to the government unavoidably diminishes our liberty and our personal responsibility. Liberty and freedom should be more important than comfort or safety. This is why Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Since conservatives believe in personal responsibility, we believe, if a person is unwilling to work, that person should starve. If a person is willing to work but cannot provide, we should then step in.

Lastly, because conservatism is based on a Biblical worldview, we believe that we have certain inalienable rights that are given to us by God, not the government. The government is not he source of our rights, nor does it have the power or authority to give us new rights. It is the government's sole job to protect these rights that we already have, no more, no less. When the government stops protecting our God-given rights, it has lost its sole reason for existing and must be destroyed. Under this worldview, all rights are things that we already have; things that the government cannot take away. This includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to bare arms, etc. Because rights are given to us by the government, the government does not need to provide us with guns in order for us to have the right to bare them. This also means healthcare cannot be considered a right; a right cannot be provided by the government, only by God. If we did call healthcare a right, that would simply mean the government should not prevent us from buying healthcare ourselves. It is not the duty of the government to do anything other than secure our rights, it doesn't need to be large at all.

Obviously, while much of the above is debatable, much of it also depends on a Biblical worldview and other presuppositions. For example, if someone believes safety is more important than freedom, there wouldn't be much of a bridge for us to debate that fact. Now, because that foundation has been laid, my desire is for all who are reading to truly understand where I am coming from when I apply conservative principles to specific issues raised by my opponent.

Gender:
Since conservatives have a Biblical worldview, we generally believe in two sexes and two genders that absolutely cannot be changed. Fortunately for us, this point can be shown without any appeals to religion. "Liberals like me believe humans are delicate-fragile individuals" Yes, this is a major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives value personal responsibility and truth above the fragility of others. This does not mean that we should be rude or try to offend people, but we do not compromise the truth, even if it may offend someone. This is why conservatives are inherently opposed to the SJW agenda which is fueled by being offended. We also believe gender roles are both practical and the natural way of life for most men and women. Obviously with societal or governmental pressures, this natural state might not occur, so we should remove those pressures. Society nor government should encourage or discourage gender roles. This way, people can have the liberty to decide for themselves.

Nazism:
"Most far right wingers from Nazis and Fascists believe in superiority over other segments of society, which brings me up to this next point...."
Nazis and Fascists have always been far left, not far right. Nazism is just a leap away from communism which is extremely far left. Fascists throughout history have always been leftists. Just look at Antifa. While they call themselves anti-fascists, they are fascist themselves, which is why they are an official terrorist organization. Antifa is opposed to everything conservatives stand for because fascism and Nazism are opposed to every single one of the conservative values that I outlined. They are both leftist, pro government, against freedom, secular, and against liberty. Superiority of some people over others is not a conservative principle since conservatives have a Biblical worldview. All people are regarded as equally valuable under the eyes of God. On the other hand, under a liberal, secular worldview, what justification do you have for the equality of all people?

Racism:
"It is proven that racists all of kinds, especially far right ones have a hardwired fear of accepting other aspects of society." I will admit that those of the alt-right are on the "right" (not as in correct) side as opposed to Nazis who are leftists. On the other hand, they are not conservatives because they also do not value the principles I outlined above. Most are against the constitution, against God's word, and against liberty. They may be right-wing, but they are not conservative.

"Similarly religious folk have deep insecurities, they hold their holy texts dear to them, not recognising the state of the world around them." And those religious texts that you dismiss are the only things that have made a nation like this possible. If you want to remove them, you are going to cause a lot of blood and misery in the death of the values that make our country great.

Sexuality:
Our high view of liberty means people should be allowed to express their sexuality in any way (unless it harms others). Of course, as conservatives, we believe the modern sexual attitude is extremely destructive and unwise. It will lead to the breakdown of our families and the breakdown of societies. This is why the state of the family is the single biggest predictor of national prosperity. I can't speak for all, but most conservatives are not afraid of gay people. We simply don't believe it is conducive to a successful society. We also don't believe it is the government's job to be in the marriage business in the first place.

I am at the character limit, so I will address...
Debate Round No. 2
MRAAJ

Pro

Hello all, I will now discuss your argument, and expand on what I have written in the comments section. I'll start by refuting the points I disagree most with, before going on to relate common ground.

Firstly, you state Conservatism is based on a biblical worldview, and that conservatism looks to the past to rebuilt. We are all aware of how "history repeats itself", however that in itself goes against progress, specifically social progress. Simply put, life in biblical times were very different to how life is now. Being more specific, you state a minimal government restricts personal freedom and liberty, whereas I pointed out too much liberty leads to destruction, again very few business respect the environment and have do not have efficient CSR plans. If it wasn't for government legalisation and regulation, the US and UK would be so polluted, much like how China is now. The number one aim for a business is money, not the environment. Workers rights would definitely be violated. Furthermore, you state the governments' role is not to give us new rights, how can we moved forward if rights are not adjusted to shifts with trends and progressive needs? This includes healthcare, to deny a poor man health care is just morally wrong. Although as mentioned, I'm not pro large gov, because that does go against freedom of speech.

Social class gap: Conservatives feel that the unemployed are lazy, whereas the unemployed feel resources are distributed unfairly. As mentioned in the comments, it truly is difficult to work if the odds are stacked against you, again factors include:
-Lack of Resources, Community Services and Facilities
-Racial/Sexual Discrimination
-Mental/Physical Health issues
-Live in an area of high drug-crime rate.

Gender roles: By denying woman a place in industries, we are forfeiting massive potential, for several reasons, especially the fact that:
-Woman have tact, they are smarter, whereas men are prone to ego and arrogance, and woman know how to counter it.

Religion:
I said: "Similarly religious folk have deep insecurities, they hold their holy texts dear to them, not recognising the state of the world around them."
You said: "And those religious texts that you dismiss are the only things that have made a nation like this possible. If you want to remove them, you are going to cause a lot of blood and misery in the death of the values that make our country great".

I'll say: What about the genocide of the native Indians for example, did not make your country great? Religion is suspect to personal perception, in no way should it dictate how a nation should run, but unfortunately it does. Again religion and social progress are going in opposite directions. In other words, religion thrives on violence, countries are established via violence, eg see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On your debate style: You have good points, although its very repetitive, and lacking content, a lot of your argument is based on biblical foundations, something inaccessible to an ethnic minor. I would have liked you to discuss CSR and the environment, as I want to know how right wingers view the environment.

Common Ground:
From a chaos viewpoint, slow change with implementation is definitely better than radical change without implementation, however leftists like me choose to focus on the negatives of the world instead of built our own lives, so therefore in our eyes, radical change is necessary. In other words, I feel some liberals like myself bark more than we act, whereas conservatives act first, excluding those who are active volunteers. Again, I'm pro Personal responsibility, but again visit the comments section to revisit what I wrote about the limitations- (pros/cons) of Personal Responsibility.
buildingapologetics

Con

I want to clarify something that may not have been clear from my original post. I do not wish to establish my religion, nor do I want it to have any privileged status in government. I simply want to take the important principles from the Bible because they are moral, and they work. Secularists or those of other religions will not be left out in the cold since everyone will benefit from conservative principles.

"Simply put, life in biblical times were very different to how life is now." I agree with you that we should not in fact model our societies off of the societies in the Bible. Instead, we should model our societies based on the principles in the Bible. Principles such as freedom, liberty, and equality will not change based on time.

"whereas I pointed out too much liberty leads to destruction" In context, you are talking about the destruction of the environment. I have several points on this topic.
1) Liberty is more important than the environment. This is obviously a presupposition. If you have different values, there is little I could do to change your mind.
2) Liberty and the environment can both be protected. A bad environment inevitably hurts the people who live in it. Therefore, the government does have a legitimate warrant to step in and prevent needless pollution such as dumping sludge into rivers.
3) The free market is the best way to protect the environment. It is highly debatable whether CSR programs are actually effective, but the free market will find the solution. Why? I am studying engineering, and I know first hand that efficiency is extremely important to businesses. They will spend millions of dollars just to increase their efficiency by less than a percent. They do this because better efficiency means less cost, but it also has the positive side effect of helping the environment. Therefore, a free market will be the biggest innovator in clean technology.
4) Conservatives want to protect the environment. The same Bible that fuels conservatism also tells us to be good stewards of the earth. We are commanded not to destroy it. When this is applied to society, we are on board with protecting the environment.
5) As you mention, China, a country that is extremely leftist, is destroying the environment. This is because, when leaders gain too much power, concern for the environment falls away just as concern for human rights. Countries that are socialist or communist tend to hurt the environment more than capitalist countries. If we want to save the environment, we should move right, not left.

"Social class gap"
I do realize the factors that make it more difficult for people to succeed, but conservatism is the only view that actually has solutions to the problems you mentioned.
- A free market is the best way to make people wealthier and more able to succeed as will be argued below. Also, history has shown over and over again that when the government steps in to help people, individuals do less to help their neighbors. When governments step back, individuals will naturally step in and help those who are truly in need: https://www.forbes.com...
- Racial/ Sexual discrimination is best solved by the free market. Capitalism is colorblind. Capitalists would be stupid to hire a less skilled white person over a black person or to not sell to a black person. Racism means they lose money. While some fringe business owners might do so, they would be swept under a tide of colorblind businessmen who only see the color green.
- As mentioned, people with mental/physical health issues would be best cared for without a welfare state.
- High crime/drug areas are best cured by a wealthier society. Such a society is best created by conservatism as will be shown below.
- Lastly, even if you have all of the above disadvantages, you can still succeed in a conservative society. That's the beauty of conservatism; it doesn't matter what disadvantages you may have had, you can still succeed. If you grow up poor in America, you only need to do three things, and you will be nearly guaranteed success. 1) Graduate high school. 2) Get a job. 3) Wait until you are married to have children. If you do these things, you will not be permanently poor in America: https://www.brookings.edu...

Progress:
Progress naturally assumes going to a superior state over time. Of course, this assumes there is such a superior. When leftists speak of progress, they often convolute different types of progress. Different types of progress are moral, governmental, technological, and societal.

1) Moral Progress: This assumes that there is some perfect standard of morality to which we are getting closer and closer. If our morality is truly progressing, we must have some standard of morality. Such a standard can only be found on a Biblical (or at least theistic) worldview, thus conservatism is the best method for moral progress.

2) Governmental Progress: Governmental progress also assumes a perfect government that we are attempting to reach. Conservatives believe we are getting further and further away from this ideal government as it gets larger. Think about it. Since America's government has increased, the school systems are collapsing, we are going into debt, inflation is taking over, regulation is restricting freedom, spending is out of control, and people are less and less satisfied with the state of Washington. In order to truly progress, we must move back in time to a limited, controlled government.

3) Technological Progress: Conservatism is the best system for innovation. Under this system, people and businesses are driven by money and competition to constantly innovate and create new products that we like to use. Nearly all of the revolutionary technologies that we love came because of capitalism: smartphones, computers, lights, electricity, air conditioning, refrigerators, cars, trains, and even literature. This is why in terms of culture, America has a huge impact on the world stage. Even clean energy and renewable resources are technologies that will be innovated by Capitalists.

4) Societal Progress. By this, I mean an increase in well-being. Capitalism is the best system for this type of progress because it is the best system for technological progress. Our lives are better today, not because of the government, but because of the amazing technology we have. We live longer because of better medical treatments, and we are more prosperous since we have the amazing technologies that we use every day. In fact, the only problems capitalist countries have are as a result of overabundance and success, not lack of it. An example of this is the obesity epidemic. This is why Capitalist countries today are much wealthier: http://www.aei.org...

Leftist countries always fail:
I would like to end my response by examining history to choose the correct view.
Germany: After WWI, communists contributed to running Germany into the ground. Out of their desperation, they made the leftist (although not a liberal) Adolf Hitler to power. After he took power, millions were killed until he was finally defeated. Germany was not alone since nearly all of the Axis powers during WWII were leftist.
Soviet Union: The Soviet Union had been under communist control for decades, and Russia still is. Countless dictators including Joseph Stalin have murdered millions of individuals under this system until its eventual collapse.
Due to space, I will not go into more detail. Other failed leftist nations include Venezuela, Cuba, Japan, Italy, Chile, Estonia, China, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc....
https://history.state.gov...
http://isj.org.uk...

We should be running from leftism.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by buildingapologetics 3 weeks ago
buildingapologetics
@MRAAJ It was truly a pleasure to debate you. I thank you for your courtesy and your well-reasoned arguments. What is important is that we each represented our points of view well. I would agree that I am slightly biased. I am the first to admit that, but I do believe what I said was accurate. I do believe Saudi Arabia is conservative religiously, but they are not conservative politically in the same sense that I am. They reject most of the principles that I believe define conservatism. Plus I didn't have enough characters to address it if I had wanted to.

I agree that you displayed more emotion, but your arguments had well-reasoned arguments. While I disagree with your position, I respect it. God bless you, and may the most convincing arguments win.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 weeks ago
MRAAJ
Well @buildinapologetics, this has been a good debate with both sides sharing their experiences, in relation to their political alignment. If there were to be a criticism, I'd say you were slightly bias, example you listed left countries that fail l, but you didn't address right countries that violate human rights, such as KSA. Conversely , i feel that approached this debate with emotion, where as you remained literal, ie you stated principle over emotion. Moreover, again because of my family, had i been any more left wing, this argument could have easily exploded

Nonetheless, we'll let commenters and voters decide who had the most convincing argument.
Best of Luck, and much respect for how confident you are in your beliefs.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 weeks ago
MRAAJ
Ok fair enough, i think thats were things get murky in terms of socio-cultural divide between classes. Those who grow up in poverty know its not easy to break the cycle, especially considering factors such as lack of resources, minorities being rejected opportunities to race, lack of community services, etc. Not that its not possible to be successful, there are just more obstacles, again especially if one is situated in a high crime-drug area. Conversely, i understand workers do a have legitimate hatred for those in unemployment*.There's prob a stigma attached. Anyway here's why i can relate (justification) :my maternal family earned much less than my paternal family.

*= It is statically proven people with years of work are naturally more fiscal - conservative. So in summary, Its a societal issue. More on that tomorrow.
Posted by buildingapologetics 3 weeks ago
buildingapologetics
@MRAAJ Examples include: liberty, freedom, intrinsic value, equality of value, equality of opportunity, self reliance, personal responsibility, work ethic, basic common decency, honesty, integrity, limited government.

I understand how you feel, and why some people obviously have different circumstances. I believe nearly everything is a choice. If you grow up in poverty, you can choose not to end up in poverty. If you grow up miserable, you can choose to lift yourself up. When given hard circumstances, we may rise or fall, but the choice is up to us. Conservatism naturally tells people that they are capable of more and that they don't have to settle where they are.

Also, I don't know that I will be able to address all of your points in 8,000 characters, so if there is something you particularly want me to address, mention it in your post.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 weeks ago
MRAAJ
Ok, do you have examples is what i meant?

Also i agree with the principle of Personal Responsibility, but again its a trait not everyone is aware of. For example people raised with tough love are naturally going to be self reliant. In my case i suffered emotional neglected as a child, and I am naturally disobedient because of that, PRes is something that takes years of experience, dedication and self awareness for people at a disadvantage, whether emotional, physical, or in poverty. Again because everyone else in my family are conservative, i can relate to your opinions. I'm busy today, so tomorrow in the main post I will tackle the things i disagree with you on, eg minimal gov, as you didn't really discuss CSR, since businesses can damage the environment with regulation.
Posted by buildingapologetics 3 weeks ago
buildingapologetics
@MRAAJ Well the golden gems as I called them are not necessarily national. They are simply the foundational principles of conservatism that are derived from the Bible. You are correct in saying that much of my argument is Biblically based because that is the origin of conservatism. Also my point was not that riots would break down if it was attacked; my point was that, in the absence of this worldview, the world would collapse into chaos. I do, however, believe it will be a slow process.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 weeks ago
MRAAJ
Hello @building apologetics, you have some good points. However could you elaborate by what you mean by national golden gems? , because again I'm not from the US. A common theme in your argument is biblical based, and you are correct re riots and violence would break out if people spoke out against it. However il tackle these points in my next main post
Posted by Surgeon 3 weeks ago
Surgeon
@jreslan

You could have saved a lot of space and time and simply said, that no you do not have a moral standard, and it is merely your personal relative opinion that Republicans are less moral. What you can assert without reference to a standard can equally be dismissed.

It is hardly worth getting out a balance sheet of moral debit and credits of candidates from both parties now is it? If you favour left wing policies and socialization of the economy, then you should be able to create a moral case for it. But you cannot, not only because this has never been done by the Left, but because it can"t be done, given its implicit relativism. You have no idea what is moral or not. You just want to waive your hand at things you personally don"t find moral, hardly an impressive grounding.
Posted by jreslan 3 weeks ago
jreslan
@MRAAJ
I would like to hear your second argument as soon as possible please
Posted by jreslan 3 weeks ago
jreslan
Sorry I meant allegations and jumping to conclusions**
And his friend King Salman of Saudi Arabia**
Thanks again....
No votes have been placed for this debate.