The Instigator
Novan_Leon
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
ComradeJon1
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,434 times Debate No: 2733
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (13)

 

Novan_Leon

Pro

All key Liberal positions on issues seek to absolve people of personal responsibility, with a powerful central government being the key tool by which this is accomplished. The Liberal stance on the following issues is as such:

* Increased welfare benefits: less responsibility in the areas of hard work, career decisions, ethical work behavior, etc.
* Increased social security benefits: less responsibility to save and manage your money for retirement.
* Universal health care: less responsibility to save and manage your money or abstain from potentially harmful activities such as smoking or stunt-car driving.
* Universal education: less responsibility to raise your children or take an active role in their education
* Pro-abortion: less responsibility to manage your sexual activities, take the appropriate contraceptives, give birth, raise children, and potentially everything else that comes with being a parent.
* Anti-death penalty: less responsibility for committing murder, rape or other vile offenses. Note: in addition to being predominately against the death penalty, liberals also tend to favor lighter sentences for the whole gamut of criminal offenses, including increasing the age limit where you can prosecute someone as an adult.

I challenge anyone to bring up a key Liberal position that does NOT decrease personal responsibility in that respective area. In contrast, key conservative positions place increased personal responsibility on the individual.
ComradeJon1

Con

First ill go down your points

Increased welfare benefits:
-So were holding children and people unable to work, responsible for their own being if we dont have increased welfare? Welfare, no matter how much it increases, is not exactly a glamorous lifestyle and you can make way more doing anytihng from working at mcDs to picking trash. Besides that, it mainly goes to families with children and to the edlerly who cant work.

Increased social security benefits:
-Saving money isnt an option for many. If we dont give social security benefits, most people will be either working until the day they die, or, if they cant work before that day, live on the streets.

Universal health care:
-Stunt car driving? what in gods name are you talking about. Government sponsered health care is for the UNINSURED not the evil kennivels. Refer to the other two points above

Universal education:
-Of course, less education = smarter kids. Im sure the family that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage has plenty of time to come home and teach their children how to read write and do math. What world are you living in?

Pro-abortion:
-First of all, what the hell is "pro-abortion"? Do you think liberals go out, get pregnant and have an abortion, jsut for fun? I tihnk you mean "pro-choice" which only says abortion isnt legally impeedable by the federal government. Im not personally a fan of the act and if i were ever involved in a situation where abortion was an issue with a girlfriend/wife/sister/friend ect., i would definatley be opposed, but i cant push that opinion of federal law. No body has that right, (in my opinion).

Anti-death penalty:
-So instead of making the legal system take charge and try and rehabilitate and isolate, its more "responsible" to just kill the guy and move on?

Liberal positions makeing accountability:

Corperate Morality
-Keeps Corperations accountable for the wages of their employees, thier effect of the enviornment and monopolization of the market.

Anti-War
-Makes govt responsible rather than our brave soldiers.

Your argument is completely ridiculous
Debate Round No. 1
Novan_Leon

Pro

Let me address each of the individual points first, then I'll summarize:

-----------------------------------------
YOU:
Increased welfare benefits:
-So were holding children and people unable to work, responsible for their own being if we dont have increased welfare? Welfare, no matter how much it increases, is not exactly a glamorous lifestyle and you can make way more doing anytihng from working at mcDs to picking trash. Besides that, it mainly goes to families with children and to the edlerly who cant work.

ME:
We are removing our responsibility to give to charity, support our parents, friends and fellow human beings who need it and placing it with a mandated program administered by the government. Welfare is just one method of decreasing the personal responsibility of the individual and placing it on the government. Do you disagree?

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Increased social security benefits:
-Saving money isnt an option for many. If we dont give social security benefits, most people will be either working until the day they die, or, if they cant work before that day, live on the streets.

ME:
Why isn't saving an option for many? People are already paying increased taxes for social security, why not let them keep more of thier money and let them save it responsibly?

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Universal health care:
-Stunt car driving? what in gods name are you talking about. Government sponsered health care is for the UNINSURED not the evil kennivels. Refer to the other two points above

ME:
Those advocating universal health care often cite European health care as an example. The ultimate goal of Liberals everywhere is universal health care for everyone, not just the uninsured.

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Universal education:
-Of course, less education = smarter kids. Im sure the family that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage has plenty of time to come home and teach their children how to read write and do math. What world are you living in?

ME:
People pay taxes and business pay taxes, a large portion of which goes to education. The more taxes that businesses pay, the less they are able to pay thier employess, and the more taxes people pay the less money they have to spend so what they do get paid goes less far. Personally I pay almost 30% out of my paycheck for income tax alone. Imagine if everyone instantly began making 30% more than they do now? Do you think paying for education would be a problem? (and we're just talking about income taxes).

All of this aside, you seem to be conceding my point that universal education decreases personal responsibility.

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Pro-abortion:
-First of all, what the hell is "pro-abortion"? Do you think liberals go out, get pregnant and have an abortion, jsut for fun? I tihnk you mean "pro-choice" which only says abortion isnt legally impeedable by the federal government. Im not personally a fan of the act and if i were ever involved in a situation where abortion was an issue with a girlfriend/wife/sister/friend ect., i would definatley be opposed, but i cant push that opinion of federal law. No body has that right, (in my opinion).

ME:
By default a woman doesn't have a choice except not to get pregnant. The benefits of medical technology and trained doctors ALLOWS the woman to have an abortion. How can something that is a privledge and not a right NOT be legally impeedable by the federal government? At the very least this should be left up to the states to decide. This is beside the point though.

I do think that people go out and have sex for the fun of it, and when they realize they got pregnant due to thier own irresponsibility, they get an abortion. Regardless of how you feel, the end result is less responsibility for the individual.

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Anti-death penalty:
-So instead of making the legal system take charge and try and rehabilitate and isolate, its more "responsible" to just kill the guy and move on?

ME:
So now the responsibility for the murderous behavior isn't on the murderer, it's on the government to rehabilitate/isolate/take care of him? You're proving my point.

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Corperate Morality
-Keeps Corperations accountable for the wages of their employees, thier effect of the enviornment and monopolization of the market.

ME:
As opposed to the people forming unions and taking pre-emptive action (such as leaving the corporation or boycotting thier product or service) to facilitate this change on thier own?

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Anti-War
-Makes govt responsible rather than our brave soldiers.

ME:
Are you claiming anti-war as a key Liberal position? Can you clarify? Do you mean anti-war as in pacifist or anti-war as in you don't like war? (who does?)

War and the protection of the people is one of the governments core responsibilities, and is the primary reason behind it's creation, and hence the responsibility falls to the government and the military (including the soldiers) both. It is the people's responsibility to elect responsible politicians with a focus on protecting our country. Not going to war requires far less responsibility than making the decision to go to war.

-----------------------------------------

YOU:
Your argument is completely ridiculous

ME:
So far you've pretty much conceded my position on all these issues. Your argument seems to be with my stance on each of these issues, not with the fact that the liberal positions all decrease the personal responsibility of the individual.

-----------------------------------------

I think your arguments are all a little misplaced. The main question of the debate is whether or not "Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility", and I explained how the liberal stance on each key liberal issue decreases the personal responsibility of the individual. You may disagree with my stance on these issues but I don't see how you can disagree with the topic of this debate. As a matter of fact, you seem indirectly admit it in your arguments.

Who's to say that decreasing personal responsibility is bad in the first place? If what I'm saying is true and this is what Liberalism seeks, and you're a Liberal, be proud of your position and explain why reducing personal responsibility is a good thing.

Your arguments seem very kneejerk.
ComradeJon1

Con

First off, ill appologize for being curt and angry in the first round. I only saw a very short and seemingly ignorant opening and figured it was just stupid liberal bashing. I by no means meant to be rude. No matter:

We are removing our responsibility to give to charity, support our parents, friends and fellow human beings who need it and placing it with a mandated program administered by the government. Welfare is just one method of decreasing the personal responsibility of the individual and placing it on the government. Do you disagree?
-your logic is quite blurry. i, personally, donate to charity when i have a feasible amount of money to do it with. Not to say im an embodiment of liberalism, but i still support welfare, simply, because no matter how much i individually contribute, there will never be enough chairty to fix those issues that welfare takes care of. Im sure the general concensous of liberals would agree. besides that fact, it doesnt absolve you of responsibility becuase youre paying for it trough your taxes.

Why isn't saving an option for many? People are already paying increased taxes for social security, why not let them keep more of thier money and let them save it responsibly?
-the people that reap the biggest benefit are people who dont have adequate money saved because they dont make much and therefore, dont pay very much in taxes. you (im guessing since you seem to own a computer) and I will probably never see much of that money under the ideal "liberal" social security plan. all the same, the point is by no means to absolve repsonsibility, but to help out those who need it. tell me how ignoring those people is more repsonsible.

Those advocating universal health care often cite European health care as an example. The ultimate goal of Liberals everywhere is universal health care for everyone, not just the uninsured.
-That first sentance is circumventing logic. there are many "european" examples from all out healthcare (i.e. France) to almost all out (i.e. UK) to only for the poor (i.e. italy) to only for the poor (i.e. norway). So to say that liberals point to europe is misconstrued. AGAIN, the purpose, whether you agree or not with the logic, is to help those who need it, not absolve repsonsibility.

People pay taxes and business pay taxes, a large portion of which goes to education. The more taxes that businesses pay, the less they are able to pay thier employess, and the more taxes people pay the less money they have to spend so what they do get paid goes less far. Personally I pay almost 30% out of my paycheck for income tax alone. Imagine if everyone instantly began making 30% more than they do now? Do you think paying for education would be a problem? (and we're just talking about income taxes).
-So we should foresake education so that their potential future employers can pay them a dollar more? And yes, it would be a problem. Some people, even with 100% of thier checks (which youll agree is unrealistic) still cant pay for their kids education along with everytihng else. Your argument has turned from liberalism is absolving repsonsibility to survival of the fittest.

By default a woman doesn't have a choice except not to get pregnant. The benefits of medical technology and trained doctors ALLOWS the woman to have an abortion. How can something that is a privledge and not a right NOT be legally impeedable by the federal government? At the very least this should be left up to the states to decide. This is beside the point though.
I do think that people go out and have sex for the fun of it, and when they realize they got pregnant due to thier own irresponsibility, they get an abortion. Regardless of how you feel, the end result is less responsibility for the individual.
-freeodm to make choices is a right, not a privledge. And even if you want to assume it is, what gives the government, or you or I for that matter, the right to deny someone thier privliges because we disagree with the morality?
I agree that people can be irresponsible, but its not the liberal position to advocate a lakc of responsibility, but rather, the freedom and responsibility to make your own choices.

So now the responsibility for the murderous behavior isn't on the murderer, it's on the government to rehabilitate/isolate/take care of him? You're proving my point.
-You make it sound like going to high security prison for life is some kind of resort. the government takes on the role of rehabilitator/isolater/care giver when it builds prisons in the first place. Under lockes social contract, for the government to have the universal right to lock up prisoners, it has to do its part to take care of them. the purpose of prison is not punishment, its exactly what i said: rehabilitation and isolation when the former is not possible

As opposed to the people forming unions and taking pre-emptive action (such as leaving the corporation or boycotting thier product or service) to facilitate this change on thier own?
-Unionizing is a HUGE part of liberal ideology. The purpose of opposing the corperation is to change legislation for the betterment of the future workers who then wont have to deal with the same issue.

Are you claiming anti-war as a key Liberal position? Can you clarify? Do you mean anti-war as in pacifist or anti-war as in you don't like war? (who does?)
War and the protection of the people is one of the governments core responsibilities, and is the primary reason behind it's creation, and hence the responsibility falls to the government and the military (including the soldiers) both. It is the people's responsibility to elect responsible politicians with a focus on protecting our country. Not going to war requires far less responsibility than making the decision to go to war.
-You dont have to play dumb. Its pretty well accepted that conservatism favors war mroe often than liberalism. And youre half right: PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE is a key governent function under any circumstance. That includes non-war functions (see above this argument). Liberalism bacsk defensive war, not offensive. This puts responsiblity on the government to take care of its own political issues. Never has there been a war between countries, only between governments. The people are merely an entitiy to be used by the government. Theyre brave and i love them, but there place is not to die for political reasons.

Who's to say that decreasing personal responsibility is bad in the first place? If what I'm saying is true and this is what Liberalism seeks, and you're a Liberal, be proud of your position and explain why reducing personal responsibility is a good thing.
-If you feel that way, fine, but my bliefs are what they are because I believe its what is best for society. Youre topic was "Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility" and i by no means am seeking to do that. I believe most, if not all, liberals would agree.
Debate Round No. 2
Novan_Leon

Pro

YOU:
First off, ill appologize for being curt and angry in the first round. I only saw a very short and seemingly ignorant opening and figured it was just stupid liberal bashing. I by no means meant to be rude. No matter:

MY REPLY:
No worries. No offense taken.

------------------------------------------
Welfare

I assume you realize that all the money that goes into welfare comes from taxation, right? The government doesn't do anything but redistribute money taken from the people. With that logic, there's no way you can say that welfare from the government would be financially more substantial than the charity provided by NPO's and the average citizen.

I think you underestimate the power of charity. The number of Non-Profit Organizations that exist to support the poor and needy is massive, and so is thier contribution to society. Without the burden of taxes on the average citizen, thier impact would only improve.

Regardless, when the government says, "Just give us your money and we'll handle the rest", the obligation to give to charity is removed. You don't have a choice, the government is forcing it on you. All you're required to do is give your earnings to the government and they'll handle the rest. You don't get a say in the matter, hence less responsibility.

------------------------------------------
Social Security/Retirement

Besides the fact that social security is completely broke, let us not forget that for every dollar that is placed in social security, a dollar is taken from the individual who's trying to save, as well as you or I who most likely pay this individuals salary. Ending the social security farce and letting people keep more of thier money (both the person saving, and thier employer, allowing for a higher salary) would force them to take responsibility for thier own retirement, whether it be to start a planned savings account or acquire the services of the private sector to manage thier retirement. Again, what Liberalism asks us to do is give our money to the government and trust that they will take care of everything else, hence, less responsibility.

------------------------------------------
Universal Health Care

No matter what kind of health care you're refering to, your logic seems to be that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and eachother adequately, and since government is able IS able to take care of people adequately, we should give over responsibility for taking care of societies needs to the government. This is essentially lessening the responsibility of the individual.

------------------------------------------
Universal Education

Wherever there's a gap, someone steps up and fills it. Take away free public education and give everyone reduced taxes and a pay increase. Almost immediately private sector businesses will step in and begin providing k-12 education. Competition will ensure that prices stay competetive. In addition, the reduced taxes and additional income would help increase affordability. Some states may choose to maintain thier own tax supported public education system, others may let the private sector fill this gap, whichever system works the best will eventually be adopted by the other states. This is called federalism. By the government taking the reigns and managing the education system (isn't that a conflict of interest?), none of these opportunities for evolving education beyond the failing system that we have today exists. All we have a responsibility to do is hand our money over to the government and trust them to do the rest.

------------------------------------------
Abortion

The freedom to make choices is a right, the ability to have those choiced acted upon is not. I design software, you may decide you want my software (your choice) but that doesn't mean you have a right to purchase it. Making choices is not a responsibility and alone means absolutely nothing, dealing with the consequences of our actions is a responsibility. By espousing the fact that abortion is a right, Liberalism is essentially telling people that they have a right NOT to suffer the consequences of thier irresponsibility if they don't want to.

------------------------------------------
Death Penalty/Prison

So why should I fear stealing/killing/raping and going to prison if they're just going to take care of me and fix me up? No need to worry about being a responsible member of society if the consequences for doing otherwise are relatively minor, some might even say, beneficial. I think you're the one making prison sound like an advanced therapy center. Let me assure you, prison is a punishment, rehabilitation is the hopeful result but hardly the norm. Lessening the punishment for crimes you commmit is decreasing the responsibility of the individual to suffer the consequences of his actions.

------------------------------------------
Corporate Morality/Unions

Unions were originally created to organize the efforts of the employees to petition the corporation for change, organize strikes, create social awareness, bring pressure on the company from outside sources such as the press, prompt legislative action, etc. The increased politicization of unions has turned them into not much more than a Liberal lobby who's primary interest is increased government control over private corporations, instead of letting the private sector, and private citizens manage thier own destiny. Again, the result is less responsibility (and less freedom) for the individial and for the business.

------------------------------------------
War

This is off topic, but, it sounds like you're saying that Liberals are, for the most part, isolationists when it comes to national defense. If that's true, why then did a majority of the legislative branch vote for the War in Iraq? If all wars are between governments, what kind of war you think DOES warrant soldiers dying to fight?

------------------------------------------

YOU:
-If you feel that way, fine, but my bliefs are what they are because I believe its what is best for society. Youre topic was "Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility" and i by no means am seeking to do that. I believe most, if not all, liberals would agree.

MY REPLY:
Your positions would say otherwise. If every position that Liberals hold decreases the personal responsibility, and freedom, of the individual, it certainly means that decreasing personal responsibility is either the goal or a stepping stone to the goal.

Now, I will be honest and admit that it may very well be that most Liberals have nothing but good intentions. Free education, health care and retirement all might sound very good at first glance. It could be that most Liberals don't even realize that removing responsibility from the individual and placing it on the government is a KEY component of the transfer of power from people to government. The less responsibility that people have, the more they depend on others such as the federal government to take responsibility. It's possible that Liberals don't realize this. They may never get that far in thier thinking.

What Liberals don't realize is that with less responsibility comes less freedom and fewer choices. This misplaced faith in an all powerful central government and belief that people aren't responsible enough to care for themselves is a hallmark of Liberalism (name one thing, other than national defense, that the federal government does well, much less better than anyone else?).

Lastly, all this talk of doing things for the "greater good of society" gives me the willies. Do you have any idea how many tyrants and failures used the cause of "the greater good" as license to take away the freedom of the individual? What is it that causes Liberals/Socialists/Communists alike to believe that a government has greater capability to provide and care for our needs than you or I?
ComradeJon1

Con

Welfare:

First off, you assume that every penny that the government uses would automatically go to welfare sytle chrity were there to be no welfare tax. Beyond that, many charitable ocntributions go to places like church or city projects. The closest thing to a substantial welfare is money that goes overseas to places like africa, ect. A non-welfare system doesnt work unless you pool all the charity given (again, assuming that youd get the same amount) and distribute it to the causes that it currently goes to. In that circumstance, youre doing the same tihng the government does. Welfare doenst seek to absolve responsibility to give charity, it just takes charity in a more uniform fashion

SS:

This is basically the same issue. Not everyone can save thier money, no matter how many dollars they dont give for social security of others. If youve been working all your life at a factory and make just enough to get the absolute necesities for your family, you dont have enough to save a substantial amount. You assume that a company with more money will pay its employees more, so this hypothetical doenst exist, but that would only be true if you substaintially raised the minimum wage which you also claim is another liberal ploy to resolve responsibility (see corperate morality). Your train of thought is circular in this sense.

Healthcare:

My assumption is that when you give an insurence company the freedom to charge at will, they will. And becuase of that, not everyone will ever be able to afford healthcare.

Education:

To keep from repetition, ill just say the last three answer this.

All four of the preceeding points are examples of times where the government is given more repsonsibility to take care of its people and the people who can afford these great institutions (SS, healthcare, what have you) are given, not absolved of, the responsibilities to take care of those who dont have them.

Abortion:

If you want to sell your software and i want to buy it, that is both of our rights. Its not like abortion doctors are acting agianst thier own will, they believe abortion to be ok. So your example doesnt really make sense. And liberalism doesnt say that, it only says that I, an individual, am not at liberty to infringe upon your rights. Abortions dont happen the way you seem to paint them. Sure, some are irresponsible, but in total its a last resort and often a very emotionally taxing process. Its not actually an easy way out for most.

Death Penalty:

Again, you make prison sound like a vacation resort. Besides that, it shouldnt be our aim to punish but to isolate those who are commited criminals. I agree its not the norm to be able to rehabilitate. I believe sentances shouldnt be based upon serverity of crime but on advancment in rehabilitation. A burgler who has shown no reason to believe that he will ever be a repsonsible member of society shouldnt simply be held for the time that the law predetermined, but rather, isolated so that he never harms again. This makes law take an active role rather than a beuricratic one.

Corperations:

In your logical reasoning, the goal of the union should be to be heard but make no change. Being someone who has a good amount of knowledge of corperate abuse on the people, i can say that corperations, in general, have proven that they arent responsible on there own. That puts responsibility on the people, not the corperation, which in many cases cant handle that responsibility.

War:

Isolationism and pacifism are absolutely two completely different things. The entire legislative branch voted for Iraq (when it was maj. republican i might add) because of circumstances and lies. but as you say, thats off topic. My point is only to say that liberalism asks for diplomacy and non-violent action where as declaring war on weaker nations is often the easy way out.

Youre completely confusing wanting to help society with authoritarianism. The line you draw is beyond hazy. I see your logic, but youre assuming that a completely illogical, government free system will solve all of our problems. Asking for a more involved, more responsible, more civicaly minded government is not seeking to absolve people of their responsibilities, but rather, put responsibility on the government.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
For your information, the order in which power should be is the following:

1. The people, let the private sector and the common citizen maintain as much responsibility as possible, giving the average citizen as much freedom and power to make decisions in their own lives as possible, AS POSSIBLE.

2. For the very few things that the individual citizens are just unable to handle, give these responsibilities to the state governments.

3. Finally, for the very VERY few things that the state governments can't handle, give these responsibilities to the federal government. This should be a last resort only.
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
Absolutely not.

I don't see where I said that providing social security encourages less responsibility to save and manage your money, I said it REQUIRES less responsibility. This isn't even debatable.

Although the contender can disagree with my implied position on these issues, the fact that the liberal position requires less responsibility is a fact. The fact that Liberalism seeks less responsibility for the individual is a necessary part of the process of transferring power from the individual to a central government. Can anyone disagree that a powerful central government is major requirement of Liberal ideology?

The contender pretty much conceded the entire debate in his last sentence. When you put responsibility on the government, you're removing responsibility from the individual.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
Saying that providing Social Security encourages less responsibility to save and manage your money for retirement is down on all fours with saying that selling homeowner's insurance encourages less responsibility with matches leading to more burned-down houses.
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
Docta... you're not helping your side very much.
Posted by DoctaFunk 9 years ago
DoctaFunk
I seek to absolve Novan_Leon's mother of her sexual frustration. Oh wait, I already did.

But I can't help to absolve her shame and humilation at producing the shame that is her son, Novan_Leon. That one speaks for itself. As do conservinazis everywhere.
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
How am I denying what "the Liberal platform seeks"? I'm just trying to get Liberals to admit what they seek.

My goal is to get Liberals to admit what they believe first, then we can debate whether it's a good idea or not. The problem is, most Liberals have a hard time admitting what they really believe. Most Liberal talk about believing in stuff that is fluffy and shallow, like, "I believe in the woman's right to choose", or "I believe people shouldn't have to struggle for a living wage". What they don't talk about are their core beliefs.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
"Who's to say that decreasing personal responsibility is bad in the first place? If what I'm saying is true and this is what Liberalism seeks, and you're a Liberal, be proud of your position and explain why reducing personal responsibility is a good thing."

Makes the topic a bit silly doesn't it? It's like debating is water wet. Debating the reduction of personal responsibility is by far more interesting a topic of debate than is water wet wouldn't you say?
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Mmm weak. Not your fault really... but you can't win this argument. The liberal platform does seek to absolve people of personal responsibility ... just as the conservative platform seeks to make people personally responsible for everything, even if it's at the expense of the greater good of society. Its pointless to deny what the liberal platform seeks, but hey... best of luck anyway.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bones 9 years ago
bones
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Garibovic7 9 years ago
Garibovic7
Novan_LeonComradeJon1Tied
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