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

Liberalism is Good for America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 84292
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)




Liberalism is good for America

R1-Acceptance only
R5-No New Arguments


Good-Better for America as a whole (Progressing America)

BOP is on both debaters (I will prove why it is good and my opponent will prove why its not)

Happy to Debate


Liberalism isn't good for America, rather it promotes racial hatred.Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred. It's amazing how much we still hear about Nazis and the KKK, even though they're both marginalized, nearly powerless groups of misfits and losers. On the other hand, how marginalized are the hatemongers on the Left? MEChA is allowed in public schools, Al Sharpton is on TV every night, and Democratic congressmen are still willing to appear on stage with Louis Farrakhan.

But that's no surprise because promoting racial strife at every opportunity is an actual Democratic campaign strategy. Almost the entire message of the Democratic Party to large swathes of the electorate is, "Everybody who doesn't look like you hates you except us." There are plenty of liberals who have jobs almost solely because they're willing to incessantly shout "racism" to help the Democratic Party. We even have groups of professional grievance mongers like CAIR, La Raza, and the New Black Panther Party that work incessantly to stir up race hatred because it's good for fund raising and gives them a reason to justify their existence. If the Nazi Party or the KKK had tried to come up with a system to keep people hating each other based on skin color, they couldn't have ever created anything as effective as the one liberals have now implemented.
Debate Round No. 1


The debate is about LIberalism sir

Democrats do not neccesarily coincide with liberalism

For all you know I agree with everything you just said.

The debate is about liberalism. Not race baiters or certain people in the Democratic party. Please try to stick to the topic at hand.

Liberalism is the progression of society. It advances the rights of every individual in a society. For example women. Women did not have the right to vote but in the 1920's liberals fought and they got the right to vote.

Same thing with blacks and homosexuals being able to marry whoever they want to marry.

Lets move onto economics now:

Right-wing economics do not work. Trickle-Down economics failed

However lets look at Nordic Capitalism (Left wing Capitlaism). The government takes care of everyone and no one suffers.

Trickle-Down led to the lower wages for workers and greater income diversity between the rich and the poor

Just look at these photos:

More proof that Trickle-Down economics fails.

However Nordic Capitalism has sustained Northern Europe for decades


Here are five ways liberalism hurts the economy: Liberals have a lot of perverse incentives to keep as many Americans poor as possible and they respond to those incentives in a big way.

1) Overuse Of Welfare Programs: Americans are a generous people and most of us are fine with having a safety net that helps people who get down on their luck. The problem with liberals is that they do everything humanly possible to turn that safety net into a hammock. They oppose limiting the amount of time people can be on the programs along with drug testing and work requirements. Obviously, encouraging people to get comfortable on the dole is bad for the country, but it"s even worse for the people involved. It"s one thing to get in a tough spot, take assistance for a few months, and then get back on your feet. But, spending years or even decades on the dole? It"s a trap that will make you dependent on the government while utterly ruining you as a human being. "

2) Supporting Illegal Immigrants Instead Of American Workers:While there are certainly Republicans who"ve been paid off by the business lobby to support illegal immigration, Democrats almost across the board are in favor of allowing as many illegal immigrants as possible into the country. If illegals were primarily taking jobs as reporters, college professors, and lawyers, liberals would ferociously oppose illegal immigration. But, since they"re taking jobs that would otherwise go to poor Americans, liberals don"t care. " Few policies would do more to put poor Americans back to work than getting rid of the foreigners who are breaking the law and cheating the system in order to steal their jobs away.

3) Fighting FOR Criminals, Not Victims: It"s a disgrace that there are Americans who can"t let their kids play in the yard out of fear of drug dealers on the corner, drive by shootings, and roaming gangs. Crime makes it harder to raise your kids, decreases property values, and stops people from moving freely around their neighborhoods. Rich and middle class Americans generally don"t have big problems with crime because they don"t have liberals "helping" them and so, they simply won"t tolerate it. So, it"s the poor Americans saddled with liberal "helpers" who suffer the most because of crime. Yet, liberals seem to spend all of their time worrying about THE CRIMINALS, not the people they"re robbing, raping, and murdering". It"s not the gang bangers, drug dealers, and cop killers who deserve sympathy from liberals; it"s the people they"re victimizing. If only liberals could understand that.

4) Fighting To Keep Poor Americans Out Of Good Schools: Liberals have fought hard to keep poor Americans in lousy, failing schools. It certainly doesn"t have to be that way. It was George W. Bush who greatly expanded access to charter schools via No Child Left Behind, a policy that has in practice mostly benefitted poor Americans. Furthermore, it"s conservatives who support school vouchers that would enable poor Americans to send their kids to many of the same elite, private schools rich Americans choose today. On the other hand, liberals want poor kids trapped in failing schools because giving them the option to flee would take money out of the pockets of their teachers" union allies. " That"s why If you"re a poor American with a kid stuck in a terrible school system, the biggest hindrance you have to getting your child a better education is the American Left.

5) Killing Job Opportunities For The Poor: Ronald Reagan was spot-on when he said, "The best social program is a productive job for anyone who"s willing to work." Yet, liberals work incessantly to make it harder for poor Americans to find jobs. As the CBO confirmed, Barack Obama"s proposal to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would cost 500,000 jobs. In D.C. big box stores like Wal-Mart were targeted with a new law that would force the companies to pay 50% above the minimum wage. As a result, Wal-Mart decided not to build six stores in an area which cost thousands of people much needed jobs. Because of Barack Obama"s liberal policies, there areactually a million less Americans working today than there were the day he took office even though our nation"s population has grown by almost six million people. Since the poor have less experience and fewer job skills, Obama"s job-killing policies are tougher on them than any other group of Americans. We need to do everything possible to make it easier and more likely that businesses will hire poor Americans, not set up even more policies that keep them from getting jobs.
Debate Round No. 2


Okay so lets rebut your claims

1) Welfare is used as a way to help poor people live. The income of a welfare recipient in California is 584 dollars a month. And this is a LIBERAL state. So lets calculate that

584 times 12 is 7004

So the annual income for a welfare recipient in California is 7004 dollars. In southern states welfare is probably even lower thanks to Republicans trying to butcher it. So if you think you can live a lavish life style off of 7004 dollars or less in Southern States go ahead!

But hey why not look at more facts

80 of welfare recipients are children. Hmmm not so pro-life by cutting welfare funding then.

Illegal Immigration:

The question is not keep borders open or not. Its about closing them after or before we've solved the problem

It currently takes 15 years or even more in order to come to this country from Central America unless your really rich. We are letting people suffer to the Cartels and we don't care enough to help them.

Secondly illegal immigrants take jobs that no one else will. Its not like their is a job shortage. People can take jobs when they want. There are many Americans who are too sick to work and too disabled to work. Its not like illegal's are "stealing" jobs from those people.

Also illegal immigration helps strengthen the economy. They often get paid less then the minimum wage and still pay taxes


Liberals do not fight FOR criminals

They want to rehabialitate them. If you think getting 18 years for 4 ounces of weed is fair then you need to get reality check. I have yet to hear an real life example of a liberal (a credible one) fighting for a criminal's right rape someone

Liberals keeping poor americans out of school? Your example of this is hilarious. You cite the Parrelsole act (Which allows vouchers for kids to go to private schools) but you fail to understand that the basis of this was to allow segregation to continue in schools. Yup that's true. George Bush passing the No Child Left Behind was not Conservative it was liberal. Just because the president was right wing doesn't mean everything he does is right wing

Killing Job Oppurtunities........ You cited Ronald Reagan for this...... Ronald Reagan unemployment went from 7.5 to 10.8 thanks to his economic policies of trickle down. What your sources fail to cover was that if the government helps out the small business which he proposed no jobs would be lost.

Its like defending sweatshops.

"If we don't keep sweatshops and raise minimum wage to 1 dollar an hour then we will lose jobs"


Change is difficult

Vote Pro



Liberals believe in the ideal, not the real world:

Liberals hate the idea of profit.
Without profit, there is no reason to have and run a business.
Without profit, there is no reason to hire any workers.
Liberals want to tax away profits from companies.
Taxes are not paid out of profit. They are paid out of operating expenses.
Raising taxes does not reduce profit, because taxes are paid from operating expenses.
Because all competing companies are affected likewise, increasing taxes increases the price of the product.
The consumer pays for the liberal attempt to tax profit.
If the public won't pay the higher prices, the business leaves the country or goes out of business.
Liberals think taxing businesses won't hurt consumers.
Because all companies in competition are taxed alike, increasing taxes increases the price of the product.
Liberals don't seem to understand that all business taxes are paid by the workers who buy the products.
They think they are taxing the rich, but the poor who have to buy the products really pay those business taxes.
The money the customer pays for the product is the only source available to pay business taxes.
The consumer pays all business taxes in the prices of the products those businesses sell.
Liberals raise taxes to try to get more money for government.
The economy runs on the after-taxes portion of personal income.
Raising taxes reduces the after-taxes portion of personal income.
Raising taxes reduces the total size of the economy.
Reducing the size of the economy reduces the personal income that is taxed.
Thus, raising taxes reduces revenue.
Liberals create huge social programs.
Huge social programs require more tax revenue.
Raising tax rates enough to fund the social program reduces the total size of the economy.
Reducing the size of the economy reduces the personal income that is taxed.
The higher taxes hurt the poor more than the social program helps them.
The economy cannot support huge social programs.
Liberals try to give the poor more with the minimum wage.
Raising the minimum wage requires employers to find ways to pay the higher wage.
Contrary to liberal beliefs, most companies do not have any "extra" money available to pay it.
The company must choose to reduce the work force, reduce the quality of the product, or increase the price of the product.
If every company raises product prices, the poor are unable to afford any more than they could before.
The only real effect of the increase in the minimum wage is inflation. It does not really help the poor.
Liberals try to give the poor more with socialized medical insurance.
They want to make everyone buy medical insurance, and then subsidize those who can't afford it.
Contrary to liberal beliefs, health insurance is the main reason health care costs are so high.
Health insurance encourages waste, because "insurance will cover it."
Health insurance is the disease, not the cure. So what do liberals choose to fix health care???.
There is nothing in the Obama plan that prevents excessive charges.
Because Congress added coverages for unnecessary medicine for egalitarian reasons, the premiums will be in the neighborhood of $2000 per month.
The burdens on the economy of the Obama plan will destroy most jobs.
If allowed to become a reality, the Obama plan will cause a permanent depression.
Liberals fund sports, the arts, entertainment, and recreation to try to expand the economy.
The activities that expand the economy produce useful goods for sale on the open market.
Liberals believe that works of art and entertainment have the same economic powers that useful items (such as tools) have.
Most works of art are not useful for any economic purpose.
The acts of throwing, catching, running with, or kicking a football are not useful for any economic purpose.
Entertainment is not useful for any economic purpose.
Recreation is not useful for any economic purpose.
Although the creators of these works got money for creating them, the works themselves do not create any productive wealth.
None of these activities creates a useful product for sale on the open market. They do nothing that can expand the economy.
The creation or purchase of art or entertainment destroys economic wealth, because it is not useful for anything productive.
The wealth goes into the art or entertainment, and is never seen again.
All government funding for these items contracts the economy, instead of expanding it.
Liberals believe in Keynesian Economics.
Keynesian Economics is a model a system where government can supposedly conjure wealth out of nothing.
Work is not important to Keynesian Economics.
Keynesian Economics says government must spend as much money as possible.
The problem is that it has never worked yet.
Work is the major source of wealth, but many liberals want to eliminate it. They want time to pursue knowledge and the arts.
Keynesian Economics is a false model of the economy, because it does not include work as the major source of wealth.
Liberals like Keynesian Economics, because it gives them an excuse to tax and spend.
Liberals don't understand the economy.
They believe in Keynesian Economics.
Liberals believe government can conjure wealth out of nothing.
Liberals believe that work is not important, except as a source of income.
Liberals believe that works of art and entertainment have the same economic powers that useful items (such as tools) have.
Liberals believe that business taxes don't tax the consumers.
Liberals believe that the minimum wage actually helps the poor.
None of these are true.
Liberals believe that redistributing all of the wealth evenly would make everyone wealthy.
They believe that all people could be wealthy if the wealth were shared evenly.
But most of the wealth in the world is transitory, appearing when products are produced, and destroyed when products are consumed.
This transitory wealth can not be redistributed.
From the wealth that could be redistributed, each person would get about $2500 - once. That's hardly a wealthy sum.
Their ideas about redistributing wealth are wrong.
Liberals cite the ancient Greek civilization as the ideal civilization.
They cite the ancient Greek civilization as an example of the perfect utopia.
The ancient Greeks had time to pursue knowledge and the arts.
The Greek civilization they idolize ran on slave labor. The workers didn't get paid.
The southern US had such a utopia for the upper class before the Civil War.
So the utopia the Liberals want can not exist today.
Liberals have the ultimate goal of a government-created utopia.
They want a world where nobody has to work.
Liberals want time to pursue knowledge and the arts.
Liberals want government to take care of them and give them money to buy things.
This stupid planet can't feed any human population without work being done.
Without work, there is no food.
Without work, there are no products to buy.
Government has no power to create wealth. Only work creates wealth.
Redistributing wealth does not make all people wealthy. It destroys places of employment.
The only way to a utopia is the Christian afterlife. But Liberals hate the Christian religion, so they won't ever see it.
Debate Round No. 3


Your assumption that liberals hate profit is misleading

Liberals don't hate profit. Nobody does except Communists and Fascists. The extremes on BOTH sides.

Liberals don't want to tax all the profits from companies. That's just wrong. They just want to make sure they are paying their fair share so the bulk of the taxes does not fall on the middle class

The government can, like it has done in the past, regulate prices. There's a reason all the oil companies don't get together and just hike prices up. The government sets price ceilings so that no company can wrong the consumer. However with a smaller government companies can wrong the consumer again. So conservatism would, in the end, wrong the consumer.

Liberals do not want to tax small businesses. President Obama already showed that in his debate with Mccain where he said he would tax small businesses.

When a company is taxed and raises their prices consumers can go to small businesses and buy products this will encourage businesses not to hike up prices and again the government can regulate these said prices using price ceiling definition.

Now onto healthcare

Obama care has already saved millions of lives and billions of dollars (

And again right wing economics like Trickle Down destroy jobs

Reagan unemployment- 7.5 to 10.8

Obama unemployment-6.3 to 4.7

If that doesn't show why Obama isn't destroying jobs then I don't know what will

Oh wait..........

Again proves that Obama is creating jobs (4.5 million in private sector)

Also I don't understand why you think Liberals hate Christianity.

I used to be a Christian and I was just as liberal

In fact Jesus himself would probably be a liberal.


How Obama has failed as president: He didn"t heal our racial divisions.

The first thing people expected of Obama, the whole reason his presidency was already hailed as "historic" on Inauguration Day 2009, before he had taken a single official act, is because voters thought that the first black president would help America put the ugly history of racially divisive politics behind us.

But from his earliest stumbling efforts"anyone remember the "Beer Summit"?"Obama has proven alternately uninterested and ham-handed in dealing with this signature issue. What he has mostly contributed has been to rush in and pre-judge racially charged cases, like the shooting of Trayvon Martin or the questionable police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, before the defendants get their day in court. When you pre-judge someone on the basis of race, isn"t there a word for that?

So as the recent race riots in Ferguson confirm, Obama has not served as some kind of magical bridge who would promote mutual understanding between whites and blacks. Instead, he has done more to inflame the tensions in these cases than to defuse them.

Our expectations of Obama were overblown from the beginning, but he worked pretty hard to overblow them. Certainly, when voters chose him, they were hoping for the opposite of an unscrupulous race-hustler like Al Sharpton. There was even a joke about Obama sending Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on missions to non-existent countries just to get them as far away from his campaign as possible. Now, Sharpton is being described as Obama"s "go-to man on race," with a White House source gushing to The Politico that "There"s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down."

For those of us who remember Obama"s previous go-to man on that subject"the Reverend Jeremiah Wright"it"s not surprising. But it"s not what most people thought they were voting for.

2. The stimulus didn"t stimulate.

President Obama was elected in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and his first big act in office was to sign a gargantuan package of "stimulus" spending"financed entirely with debt"that was supposed to jump-start the economy. Congress voted for hundreds of billion of dollars for "shovel-ready projects" which Obama later discovered don"t exist, and the money disappeared without a trace.

How many "recovery summers" have there been in which growth and employment was finally supposed to take off"only to peter out again? (Hint: the first one was in 2010.)

In how many other recoveries has labor force participation"the percentage of people actually working"declined? In what other recovery have poor people emerged deeper in debt than they were at the beginning?

Yes, the economy was in crisis when President Obama took office. But he has presided over the slowest, weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression"and by a good margin.

3. Financial reform didn"t reform.

But surely, Obama saw to it that we would never repeat the problems that led to the financial crisis and the recession in the first place, right? Except that the Dodd-Frank financial reforms didn"t really reform anything. They created a couple thousand pages of new legislation and many, many more new executive-branch regulations, which have helped to muddle the rules rather than clarify them. But these regulations have never really resolved any of the pre-crisis problems.

The old system in which a handful of giant financial institutions were considered "too big to fail" and thus could depend on the rest of us to bail them out? That system is alive and well.

4. ObamaCare is a boondoggle.

The disastrous launch of ObamaCare was a reminder of everything that"s wrong with big government. It turns out that when we warned health insurance would be run as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles, we were too optimistic. And no one was ever held accountable for that fiasco.

When ObamaCare was passed, we were assured that it would provide insurance for 32 million people who didn"t have any coverage. Four years later, it looks like ObamaCare has covered far fewer new people, between 10% and 20% of what was promised, and about half of those were through an expansion of Medicaid"a burden that will eventually bankrupt the states"rather than through ObamaCare"s insurance exchanges.

Most of the people buying insurance through the exchanges are those who were kicked out of their previous health insurance plans by new regulations. It turns out that if we liked our health insurance, we couldn"t keep it. For some of us, this will be bad. For others, it"s much worse.

You"re still going to hear a lot of commentators on the left arguing that the law is a great success"if you agree to move the goalposts and ignore all the broken promises. But the American people aren"t buying it.

5. Obama failed to reform immigration.

He spent all of his political capital, and then some, on the failed stimulus and the ObamaCare boondoggle, leaving nothing for immigration reform. Having failed to get anything through Congress, he floated a dubious plan to enact amnesty through a unilateral executive authority that he doesn"t have. Then he dropped the idea.

Instead, he has simply failed to enforce the immigration laws, contributing to a crisis on our southern border.

The result: he has managed to enrage the right, the left, and the middle. He hasn"t cracked down on illegal immigration, he hasn"t legalized it, and he hasn"t forged any kind of compromise or consensus on the issue. Nobody is happy and nothing has been accomplished.

6. He withdrew prematurely from Iraq.

Obama was so eager to not be George W. Bush that he pulled all of our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, then totally ignored the country, even as a terrorist threat re-established itself there. For most of this year, he foolishly downplayed the rise of the Islamic State. Even as Kurds and the Iraqi government issued increasingly panicked warnings, and the Islamic State took over more and more territory, he let the problem get worse for months without bothering to interrupt his golf schedule.

A few weeks ago, he admitted to having no strategy for dealing with the Islamic State. Last week, he hastily assembled one, but it"s looking like it might be unrealistic and lacks international support.

Bush went into Iraq with multiple UN resolutions, congressional approval, a broad "coalition of the willing," and (as it turned out) the resolve to use whatever means were necessary to prevent a terrorist state from establishing itself there. Obama is going back into Iraq with none of that. So I guess he really isn"t anything like George W. Bush.

Who could have guessed that he would be the one to suffer by that comparison?

7. He blew the Arab Spring.

When a series of uprisings overthrew dictators across the Middle East, Obama failed to adopt any meaningful policy or to turn the situation to our advantage. He dithered for so long on Egypt that all of the factions there hate him, and most of Egypt"s liberals concluded that he was secretly backing the Muslim Brotherhood. The result is that Egypt went right back to where it was before, except this time the military dictatorship regards America as a useless and irrelevant ally.

Meanwhile, the two places where we could have taken advantage of the Arab Spring to get rid of truly nasty dictators who have been hostile to our interests for decades"Libya and Syria"ended in disaster. In Libya, the killing of our ambassador in Benghazi was just the beginning of a slow collapse into chaos and civil war. In Syria, three years of administration dithering allowed the rise of ISIS, which then spilled over into Iraq.

And let"s not forget about 2009, when Iranians poured out onto the street to oppose their own brutal, theocratic, terror-sponsoring regime"and Obama sat back passively because he preferred to cut a diplomatic deal with the ayatollahs.

8. Obama ignored the threat of a resurgent Russian dictatorship.

During a debate with Mitt Romney in 2012, Obama dismissed Romney"s suggestion that Russia might be a threat to American interests, sneering, "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Now it"s looking more like the 1970s are calling, with an aggressive Russian dictatorship invading its neighbors, leaving our European allies feeling exposed and unsure whether they can really count on support from the US and NATO. Poland"s foreign minister has been overheard complaining about"how shall I put this politely?"his country"s unrequited love for America.

The president"s response to Russian aggression has been to impose a few more sanctions, make a speech in Estonia, and otherwise ignore the crisis and hope it goes away.

9. He didn"t shut down Guantanamo, keep the NSA from spying, or rein in the drones.

I know people who sincerely believe that all of these are good policies and who will defend them vigorously if asked. Barack Obama is not one of those people. Yet all of these policies have been pursued during his presidency, on his authority.

President Obama came into office having loudly condemned many of the Bush administration"s measures against terrorism. Then he continued them. You can call this hypocrisy or you can call it subversion. But President Obama has achieved a unique combination: managing to morally discredit America"s anti-terrorism policies without actually ending them.

10. He has made America irrelevant.

You will notice that most of Obama"s failures result, not from taking a bold stand, but from taking no stand and just letting events drift. Certainly, in a lot of these cases, Obama has given speeches or press conference to announce his enlightened intentions"then done nothing to plan for how to actually achieve his goals.

But if he is irrelevant, that makes America irrelevant. We can look at the Arab Spring, at Ukraine, and at Iraq, but let"s add one more example. For most of his presidency, Obama has declared his intention to "pivot to Asia," extricating himself from the Middle East and focusing on bolstering our Pacific allies to peacefully manage the rise of China. It"s pretty widely acknowledged that he never managed to do it, letting the Asia pivot die of neglect.

This may fit with the quasi-isolationist mood that has taken hold in America in recent years, but it is yet another case where Obama promised something very different. He campaigned on the promise that America would be more respected in the world after the Bush years"not that we would be considered a useless ally and an ineffectual opponent.

I don"t know if you could come up with a more comprehensive list of presidential failures, encompassing foreign policy and domestic policy, economics, race, and immigration. And I"m sure I left a lot of things off this list, not least of which is the targeting of Obama"s political opponents by a corrupt IRS, which continues to announce the oh-so-mysterious loss of potentially incriminating data by its employees.

Combine all of this with his frequent vacations and golf outings and his fascination with the trappings of pop-culture celebrity, and you get the impression that Obama has checked out of the presidency and lost interest in the responsibility he is neither willing nor able to shoulder.

Obama was originally elected on the basis of celebrity, on vague slogans about "hope and change," on a sense of self-congratulatory smugness about how progressive and enlightened we would all be if we voted for him. He was re-elected on all of that, plus the smearing of his political opposition as racists and mean rich white guys.

If the result is an utter failure of leadership, maybe there are a few lessons we ought to learn for the next presidential election.
Debate Round No. 4


Sorry was sleeping but you made some outrageous claims.

Firstly you conceded all my points I made in the 4th round

Since this is the last round I will just rebut your claims. Oh wait. You didn't make any claims about liberalism. You made them on Obama.

Again this is a debate about LIBERALISM. Failures of a Democratic President have nothing to do with anything

This is not a debate about Obama.

You were on track on the 2nd and 3rd but R1 and now R4 is talking about the failures of Obama.

Conduct points will be taken away. We were talking about age old Philosophical question of Is Liberalism/Conservatism good? That's all


Ok, to conclude my arguement here are 10 reasons why liberalism is bad. Vote con!

Here are the 10 reasons: Liberalism lacks respect and in many cases opposes the most basic of human rights: life. This one is by far the biggest reason liberalism is bad for America. The rest are in no particular order.

2. Liberalism seeks to weaken our national sovereignty.

3. Liberals originated the movement toward political correctness.

4. Liberals are for a weak military, or at least their actions say that they are.

5. To call themselves "people of tolerance", liberals are some of the most intolerant people on earth.

6. Along the same lines as the tolerance issue, liberals are tolerant of all religions except for Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

7. Liberals started the current environmental/animal rights/go-green efforts which are not as much about sensible protective measures for the earth and its creatures, but about punishing humans for imposing themselves on the earth and its creatures.

8. Liberals like high taxes. They think they can spend your money more wisely than you can, especially if you"re "wealthy".

9. Liberals are largely anti-capitalism. They tax and regulate businesses so much that many are discouraged from trying to go into business for themselves.

10. Liberals meddle in the private affairs of individuals, businesses, states and localities, and others via big-government.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: bballcrook21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to realize that the Democratic party is liberal, and it's a safe to assume that most Democrats are liberal. Pro ignores most of Con's statements, with the argument that not all Democrats are liberal. Nonetheless, Pro then turns the debate and talks about Republican presidents, which are a direct contradiction - the debate is not about Republicans, it's about conservatism. Let's move onto arguments- Con presented a whole variety of modern day phenomena that liberals have perpetrated, while Pro just referred to Trickle - Down Economics, which is an older conservative theory. He very poorly explained trickle-down, with just a overarching dichotomy, that money doesn't trickle down. Pro then justifies left-wing economics by looking at Nordic nations, which does not relate to a debate about the United States. The points that Con argued for were well explained and supported. Overall, mediocre debate, I expected more. I give arguments to Con, since Pro didn't explain anything

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD is sufficient, analyzing specific arguments made by both sides.

Note: Contrary to the report, voters are not required to award any points they do not wish to report.
Posted by bballcrook21 10 months ago
How was this debate exhausting? You barely wrote anything.

You can do a 2 part debate with me if you'd like, as in we debate about economics, and then we debate about social issues.

By economics, I do not mean Socialism vs Trickle down, I mean Free market vs government planning/intervention.
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
After this hell no. This was exhausting

I need to make a more specific debate. Generalized debate is extremely exhausting
Posted by bballcrook21 10 months ago
@Reformist challenge me to this same debate.
Posted by bballcrook21 10 months ago
Doubt it. His sources were "mythopedia" and "upworthy" as his sources. None of these have any credibility. I can only assume that all of his "facts" were pulled out of his behind and smacked onto the debate platform.
Posted by Alexhawkins998 10 months ago
Based on the information Reformist gave, was it that accurate?
Posted by bballcrook21 10 months ago
@AlexHawkins998 Not sure. I want to be finished as well, so I can read the whole thing and then vote. Plus I want to challenge Reformist to the same debate, except the difficulty will be upped since I will be writing a lot more.
Posted by Alexhawkins998 10 months ago
Where is reformist? I want to get this debate finished
Posted by bballcrook21 10 months ago
Con just owned Round 5.
Posted by Alexhawkins998 10 months ago
Can we move on please?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 10 months ago
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: Pro fails to realize that the Democratic party is liberal, and it's a safe to assume that most Democrats are liberal. Pro ignores most of Con's statements, with the argument that not all Democrats are liberal. Nonetheless, Pro then turns the debate and talks about Republican presidents, which are a direct contradiction - the debate is not about Republicans, it's about conservatism. Let's move onto arguments- Con presented a whole variety of modern day phenomena that liberals have perpetrated, while Pro just referred to Trickle - Down Economics, which is an older conservative theory. He very poorly explained trickle-down, with just a overarching dichotomy, that money doesn't trickle down. Pro then justifies left-wing economics by looking at Nordic nations, which does not relate to a debate about the United States. The points that Con argued for were well explained and supported. Overall, mediocre debate, I expected more. I give arguments to Con, since Pro didn't explain anything