Liberals are ruining America
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept the challenge, but since Pro/ATF is making the positive claim, well a claim in general about Liberals and what they do, the burden of proof if on him/her. That goes for all the claims made in his/her opening statement.
As a Liberal, a classical liberal at that, I'll be defending any claim made against liberals and what we stand for. However, between that of a classical liberal, social liberal, and what is known as "Modern Liberalism", the principles of all three almost always include, civil liberties, equality, and liberty -not going into the economical and views on government. Not standing up for civil liberties is against liberalism in just about every incarnation that has been wrought.
One common argument against liberals is that we are "politically correct" -henceforth known as PC-, which is arguably... No, it is against Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech, or FoS, is a civil liberty and its very purpose is to allow people to say things that will or might offend you. It should be cleared, there are plenty of conservative republicans and neoconservatives who are just as politically correct. They just are lacking in self awareness of it. There has been many cases where the right, people on it at least, proclaimed in a bellowing cry not to speak against God, to remove a beer bottle's brand name that said "Sweet Baby Jesus" on it, and other issues where they show their PC'ness when it comes to their archaic religion. They are also against anyone speaking against veterans, like me who openly says they deserve no respect for simply being in the military and must earn it, like everyone else. There is a good number who are against freedom of expression, as seen by people crying because the young generation walks and steps on flags and demands they not do it. 
Most liberals do not support banning guns or "taking your guns away". This is a silly, and childish notion wrought by people and groups like the NRA who fear their little sex toy being removed from their hands because they fear the Government taking over. Ironically, the ones who cry about that the most also say no to big government while voting to use the big government to get their way, invading other nations, and love the funneling of tax dollars to build the most powerful military... A force that can be turned against the people. Most liberals views are extremely broad, but most just want a clear, common sensed system to prevent people like Dylan, the man who shot up the church, or the Columbine boys from getting guns. There are people who identify as Liberals who say guns should be banned, but the number is scarce, and by definition, they wouldn't be a liberal because they're against one of the most well known civil liberty rights. To claim they all, or most, or just say "liberals" in a very broad way would be like me relying on a few asinine conservatives and saying conservatives all want to go to war and kill people simply for their faith while they beat up Sikhs, because they're too ignorant of the religions of the world.
Classical Liberal - Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom. 
Social Liberal - Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education. 
Modern Liberalism - Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It combines liberal ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy. 
Liberal (Politics) - Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. 
Civil Liberty -
"Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:
- See more at: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...
"Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. 
As we can all see, a liberal would have to agree and believe in civil liberties, else they wouldn't be a liberal. And sure, I can hear some screaming "no true Scotsman" at the top of their lungs, however, would you be a Christian if you didn't believe in Jesus and his resurrection? What about a Conservative who doesn't agree to the basic notion of tradition? Would you still be a conservative? No, you wouldn't. It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is you call someone out as not being what they claim because they don't follow what that label actually means. You're not something if you actually do not follow what that word mean. And calling yourself one doesn't mean you are. Because of this, claiming "liberals are X" when they do not actually follow liberal principles is to attack people who are not actually liberals.
With that, I end my opening statement and leave my opponent to respond. After, I will respond to his rhetoric and later end with a closing statement. Thank you.
NOTE: I will also try to use charts and other picture based data and graphs, but I've always had issues trying to get them to work (as with one of my debates trying to use the evolutionary tree chart with the list of species we are all related too).
R1: The Liberal Agenda is Full of Listed Liberties That Are Going To Be Taken Away
This just isn't true. First off, this statement and idea denotes that we liberals all think alike, as if we were some hive mind. We're not, and there's a huge war going on between these pseudo-liberals and actual liberals. Some of the big names calling out this pseudo-liberals is Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, etc. Even then, we do not all agree. The views held by every liberal on gun control alone is vastly broad in what it should be,let alone some conspiratorial agenda. 
R2: The Fairness Doctrine is a Document That Let's The Democrats Go Through and Stop Our Conversations on Things They Dislike
Once more, this is just not true. The closest to this would be modern day third wave Feminism and the SJW's, or Social Justice Warriors, who think we should stop certain speeches. I disagree with them, but their reason for it is understandable. Most just want people to feel safe not not be offended. That isn't a crime. And in defense of them against this insanely formed rhetoric, the very "rights" you hold dear, that Constitution is just a flimsy piece of paper created by a bunch of ignorant racists. They were not some all knowing group of Gods, and their creation should not be seen as a "set in stone" piece of work. It will eventually be a document that will need to be replaced. Be it fifty year or two-hundred thousand years. It's not the best piece ever to be created and will be, it's just the first secular document to form a Democratic republic. But even now, we're not even a democratic republic, we're a plutocracy.
So to demonize these SJW's because "they go against the rights formed by this nation" is just a stupid argument. I'm not arguing against SJW's being wrong because "the fathers formed the best nation in the world, and Freedom of Speech must be kept untouched", I argue against them because they don't understand why Freedom of Speech is important, nor what it actually means. They also neglect that having a purely free and secular nation by the people is the best system we should be running by in our current time. The rights we created, like FoS, is as I've already said above. 
R3: They Want To Take Our Guns!
This is just factually wrong. Yes, there are some who say we should just ban guns, while citing Aussie and the European nations. But the majority of liberals? No, they do not. That's like saying conservatives are racists because of the few who are, that therefor there is some conspiracy that the conservative agenda is trying to kick Muslims and Mexicans out and next blacks because they want a white nation with slaves again. It's absolutely a nonsensical statement and belief. Not argument in this manner should be taken seriously by anyone.
If you want to have a gun because you think a terrorist might attack, which is less likely to happen to kill you than a shark will, or car accident, or health issues, all of which most Americans do not take nearly as seriously, then go ahead. You want it because you fear the Government might "come for you, your guns, and take over as a tyrannical power"? Fine, but that;'s almost never going to happen. If you feel that will happen or can, you best make sure the funding to police and the military is the lowest and patrol the streets yourself. If you support funding cops, cops getting all that surplus gear used for war, having a strong military, then you have no room to complain and you're basing your fear in delusions not grounded in reality.
It's as stupid as saying you're pro-life and fight against abortion and Planned Parenthood and how "life is sacred" and "it's potential life" yet show callous disregard for life in other nations because of wars, careless charity for the poor, and nothing to help the African nations by building an actual economy, and all the homeless people. The moment the child's born, you wont care about it. And people who are pro-life and are Christians fail to see their God is the biggest abortionist of them all. 
R4: A Bunch of Cries About God
This wont take long. It's not like I need a lot of time to explain the nonsensical aspect of this argument. First off, you believe in a God and Christianity? Cool I don't care. Keep it to yourself. Second, it's an absolutely idiotic religion and is nothing more than a disgusting blood cult with disregard for human life and all forms of rationality. Don't believe me? Turn to the very first book. If you think it is literally history, you're not only ignorant of science and reality, but you believe that the world can be formless and a void yet not be a void and have form at the same time. That there can be light yet no light. That the sky is literally water that God split, making one the ocean and the other the sky. You also believe in talking snakes. 
If you think it's just a message, not meant to be taken literally, then you have a story about God and his evil plan to keep people ignorant. That knowledge is bad. Don't believe me? Who lied in it? Not the serpent. The serpent was the honest one. Because of him and Eve and later Adam, we gained knowledge and self awareness, shedding the shell of ignorance. If I was there, and I knew the outcome, I'd eat the damn people every time while flipping God off. That tree and apple represents knowledge. Not eating it represents cowardice, ignorance, blindness, stupidity, foolishness, asininity, and to willingly subject yourself to be that of a slave to a tyrannical monster who wants nothing more than to take pleasure in your suffering while hearing you say it, while you remain his abject slave. We will challenge your belief. Don't like it, stay in the basement. 
I think I said all I needed to about your arguments.
2) The United States Constitution - The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech
3) The Bible - The Book of Genesis 6:9 - 9:17 (Noah's Flood)
4) The Bible - The Book of Genesis - The Creation of the Earth
5) The Bible - The Book of Genesis - The Garden of Eden & The Tree of Knowledge
ATF forfeited this round.
As I've said, I explained the different types of liberals and how a liberal should be. And what my opponent tried to assert was not liberals, but someone else who calls themselves liberals. That his accusations were fallacious in nature. I hope this leads to those of the right to better understand the left in a better view. I will close now and say, vote con, as there's honestly nothing left to say. I wont waste my time on a closing argument where my opponent didn't have one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.