Liberals have more compassion than conservatives.
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent stated this: "It is the conservatives who are barbaric because they refuse to help the poor." Conservatives want to help the poor but in a different manner. A wise proverb says, "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." It appears that liberals simply "give a man a fish". What I mean by this is that Liberals make policies that tend to redistribute the wealth from the middle and upper socioeconomic classes to the lower socioeconomic class. Conservative economic policies, however, strive to "teach a man how to fish" by creating an economic environment that makes it easier for businesses to create jobs. In this society...in this world... you can't have a better life without a job. If we cut back on coroporate tax and other taxes that affect businesses in order to create jobs. And like I said before, we can't raise the minimum wage to ridiculously high amounts . Ultimately, business owners are greedy to a sense. That is good. That means they want to create more wealth for themselves, but they can't do that unless they can expand their businesses and thereby sell more goods and services. They can't so that without hiring more people. People who are unemployed and need a better income to sustain themselves and their families. If that occurs then in a sense the poor will be able to sustain themselves without the need for the government to send them a check in the mail each month. Thus, conservatives want to create a free market capilisitic enterprise economy that is not strained by government intervention and taxation, this will allow more jobs to be created, jobs which can be filled by the poor and thus give them the opportunity to not be poor anymore in the long term . So which shows more compassion: keeping a poor person poor by keeping them dependent on government assistance to survive, or putting them on a path of self sustainability that allows them to move into the middle class and beyond in the long term future?
Another one of my opponents points are: "Conservatives oppose the right of same sex couples to get married." The issue of same-sex marriage isn't really much of a Conservative vs. liberal issue anymore. Studies show that the majority of Republicans today actually support same-sex marriage and young Republicans overwhelmingly support it. Yes, far more liberals do support same-sex marriage than conservatives but there are also many people who identify themselves as liberal but also oppose same-sex marriage .
My opponent stated: "conservatives whine about free speech while censoring those that disagree", however, I can't seem to find any evidence of this and think that this may be something my opponent made up.
My opponent also said: "On CreateDebate, the conservative Republican owner refused to ban two people who slandered me, called me a rapist, one of which told me that I deserve to be raped, yet I am the one who was banned, while they stray." This does not mean at all that conservatives in general are not compassionate. There are liberals out there that are just as vulgar and disgusting.
"Conservatives oppose the fairness doctrine which promises fair and balanced media coverage" The Fairness doctrine goes against everything the first amendment stands for. It allowed the the government to dictate to the "free" press on how to cover news stories. It has been a while since it has been repealed and many news networks such as CNN, Al Jazeera, and countless online news sources provide unbiased news coverage without being told to do so by the government. Plus with advanced satellite technology and the internet, the really does not need to be a fear anymore of biased news sources and media to overrun limited airwaves as the internet and satellites have created a virtual infinite amount of airwaves to broadcast from . Doesn't it show more compassion when broadcasters are able to say and broadcast what they want to an audience that chooses to listen to them that could have very well and easily chosen a different broadcaster to listen to and attain news information than if the government forced nd dictated the "free" press on how to broadcast news information?
"Conservatives think it is okay for parents to hit their kids" Once again, this can't be generalised to the entire conservative population as just as many liberals hit their kids as well.
"A black woman named Marissa tried to use the stand your ground law, and now she is serving 25 years all because she defended herself when her husband threatened her. "
Can you please provide a link to this news story?
"Conservatives are all for gun control for black people"
"Conservatives start wars for bull**** reasons. Conservatives oppose education rights."
"Conservatives oppose healthcare rights."
I can not find any evidence that supports any of these notions. Can you please provide me with some?
My opponent stated again that "liberals are the ones who support gay rights". I addressed this in round 2 as well and used an objective quantitative survey which shows that you can't generalize this issue to the entire conservative population anymore. The proportion of the conservative population that opposes gay marriage is shrinking rapidly and is already a minority. Conservatives overall do support gay marriage. It is only a small group of ultra religious conservatives that do not.
My opponent also stated that "liberals are the ones who support the rights of children." And conservatives don't support children's rights? Unless my opponent can provide additional support or evidence to this statement, it is completely flawed. And if my opponent is trying to refer to a statement he/she made earlier about conservatives hitting children then that is also completely flawed because liberals also hit children. Many Hispanic and black parents tend to spank their children yet they identify themselves to be liberal.
My opponent's claim that liberals oppose torture is vague and needs to be elaborated upon. What torture? Torturing prisoners of war? Torturing people in general? If my opponent is referring to the torture of prisoners of war I respond with this: Torturing prisoners of war, especially captured terrorists, is a necessity and a clear example of showing compassion. Let's say we captured a terrorist that knows when and where a huge terrorist attack will occur in the future which has the potential to kill thousands of innocent people, similar to a 9-11 scale terrorist attack. The CIA knows this attack is planned and will happen soon but they don't know any further information, yet now they have captured a guy that knows every detail about it, but he refuses to talk. So the only way to get the information out of him is to torture him. Eventually he will break and disclose the information that the government can use to stop the attack from happening. So once again I ask you: what shows compassion, torturing a prisoner and saving thousands of innocent lives or letting the prisoner live the good life in his cell then going home one evening to see thousands of people dead when you turn on the TV?
My opponent also says that liberals oppose war but in reality, unless you are an ISIS member or Kim Jong Un, who actually supports war? No one really wants war. No one is in favor of war. So I don't really understand what my opponent means by this statement and I don't understand how it shows that liberals show more compassion then liberals. If my opponent thinks that conservatives start wars then I beg the contrary. Woodrow Wilson, a liberal, declared war on Germany in 1917 and led America into the second deadliest war in human history. Franklin Roosevelt, another liberal, declared war on Japan which caused Germany to declare war on America, ultimately leading America into the deadliest war man has ever seen. Truman, also a liberal, ordered not one but two atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan. John F Kennedy, yet another liberal, attempted to invade Cuba for no real reason. Lyndon B Johnson, another liberal, supported the vietnam war. So this is yet another flawed statement.
I would also like to let my opponent know that I would still like to see the evidence and news sources he/she has that shows that conservatives favor gun control just for black people and about that black woman who tried to use stand your ground laws. I would also like to see how conservatives oppose healthcare rights.
I would like to close my argument by restating my main notion that there there really is not much proof that "Liberals have more compassion than conservatives". My opponent raised several compelling points by arguing a moral standpoint by making claims such us: Conservatives don't want to help the poor, Conservatives are racist and homophobic, and Conservatives support war. However, my opponent did not provide much support for these statements and simply ignored requests that I made for my opponent to disclose the evidence which he/she has supporting these claims. In most cases that my opponent used to articulate his/her argument, I was able to show that it can be very well argued in the other direction and what you see as not showing compassion may seem to someone else as showing compassion from a different point of view. Also the direct implications of some conservative policies may not show as much compassion as the direct consequences of some liberal policies may show, but the indirect side affects such as low unemployment and flourishing economy with successful businesses shows much more compassion because the overall population of society benefits from this result in the long term including the poor, middle class, and wealthy. My opponent also tried to argue that conservatives always start wars for no reasons however I was able to point out several significant liberal US presidents who supported war. I thus hereby conclude my argument and fully endorse all statements and content which I posted throughout the duration of this debate. I urge everyone to vote for con for better conduct, compelling arguments, and well supported objective sources.
I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity of allowing me to participate in a debate with him/her. It was a great experience and I enjoyed the interesting discussion we had very much. Thank you to all the spectators for your time and consideration, I hope you had just as much pleasure following the debate as I did participating in it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Ok, the beginning of this debate isn't even worth commenting about. It was just both sides going back and forth insulting the other ideology. However in Con's second round entry, he does a pretty good job explaining that liberals do not have "more compassion" than conservatives, by showing how conservatives believe in helping people too, but just in different ways. Examples of this are when he showed gay marriage is accepted by a lot of young republicans, and is no longer a party vs. party issue. He also showed how conservatives believe in teaching people to earn for themselves. This was the only important point in the debate, because it's the only one addressing the differences in the two parties. Pro only kept talking about everything liberals supported, but never bothered to refute this one fundamental point made by Con.
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.