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

Liberals have more compassion than conservatives.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 6/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 77008
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




My reasons: Liberals support contraceptive rights, healthcare rights, make an exception for the health of the mother, support education rights, children's rights, worker's rights, and so on. Liberals also support the right of terminal patients to die with dignity. Liberals support cannabis rights, and adoption reform, gay and bisexual rights, and so on.


Liberals are barbaric and bully small business owners. Liberals, hate the guy who wants his family to live a comfortable lifestyle. Liberals claim to help the poor and those that struggle by creating government programs such as universal healthcare and food stamps at the expense of small business owners. small businesses can hardly balance their checkbooks and meet their families basic needs because of the consistent and annoying taxes they have to pay. Liberals claim to help the worker by raising minimum wage. Well, I can tell you that worker will not feel helped when he is layed off because the business can no longer afford to pay the increased wages and salaries. Plus, a minimum wage job is only temporary. Do you know anyone who is about to retire who spent their 40 year career flipping burgers at McDonalds for minimum wage? If you do, then that person does not want a higher paying job bad enough to work hard and go the extra mile to get promoted. Also, if there is someone out there that tries to raise a family on minimum wage then there is something seriously psychologically wrong with that person and needs help. Liberals demonize corporations like wal-mart, making them seem like slimy monsters with three heads and horns when in fact they are people as Mitt Romney stated. Wal-Mart alone employs 1.4 Million Americans, giving them a means to support themselves and their families while helping the overall economy grow and flourish, making a large contribution to society. And that is just one corporation. Then liberals do the same thing to the big banks which actually fund those corporations, helping to create jobs and causing the economy to grow and expand. So, liberals are actually demonizing every American worker in a sense. Also, when referring to abortion, the mother chose to engage in a physical activity where a possible consequence is pregnancy and if the mother became pregnant, well then she must now face the consequences. A baby's heart starts beating 18 days after conception, but sometimes stops beating after the baby is brutally and barbarically murdered and mutilated before being thrown away as a result of a procedure liberals favor. Where is the compassion in that? It is not fair to the baby, that baby that was murdered could have gone on to make a significant contribution to society someday but now can't. And yes, liberals do favor contraceptives, as do the majority of conservatives like myself, because we don't want to murder babies.
Debate Round No. 1


It is the conservatives who are barbaric because they refuse to help the poor. Every time a liberal politician wants to help the poor, conservatives scream "not my wallet" ad neuseum. Conservatives oppose the right of same sex couples to get married. Conservatives want to tell wmen what contraception they may use (Hobby Lobby, aka Snobby Lobby), conservatives whine about free speech while censoring those that disagree. 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. Conservatives oppose the fairness doctrine which promises fair and balanced media coverage, Conservatives think it is okay for parents to hit their kids. Conservatives oppose the right of workers to a fair work environment including but nbot limited to fair psy. Conservatives are all for gun control for black people,. 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,. Conservatives start wars for bull**** reasons. Conservatives oppose education rights. Conservatives oppose healthcare rights. I only agree with conservatives on one thjing: I think sex changes are wrong. All of my other beliefs are liberal. All of this is what is barbaric. I will choose the side that serves thepoor and disabled, not the rich.


My opponent appears to think that when conservatives go home they laugh in an evil manner and plot their next move to make the poor or some other group of society suffer. This is completely opposite from the truth. No psychologically sane conservative wants any member of society to suffer, in fact conservatives want to help everyone just as much as liberals do.

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 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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 [3].

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 [4]. 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?

Debate Round No. 2


Liberals are the ones who provide social welfare for the poor. Liberals are the one ho support gay rights. Liberals are the ones who support the rights of children. Liberals oppose torture. Liberals oppose war,. Liberals oppose the death penalty.


My opponent claims that "liberals are the ones who provide welfare for the poor". I will now once again reiterate my main point on this issue as I did in Round 2. Yes, liberals do tend to make more socioeconomic policies that tend to make social welfare programs which have the intent of redistributing wealth to the poor from the middle and upper social classes. Sure it sounds nice mailing a poor person a check each month, but does that necessarily show compassion? I will agree that we need a social safety net without a doubt because even successful people lose their jobs sometimes and need help to get back on track. This safety net should be designed to catch you when you fall, not to capture you and hold you captive. The conservative economic agenda shows compassion not by what it necessarily does directly but by what it does indirectly: create an economic environment that makes it easier and possible to find a well paying jobs with rising incomes. Jobs that would be able to provide the poor with incomes so that they wouldn't need welfare at all. Yes, conservatives do want to get rid of the food stamps program entirely but not by cutting a single dime from the program but by helping the 47 million people who depend on the program to reach a level of self sustainability so they don't need government assistance to survive. That shows more compassion than to pump billions of dollars more each year into social welfare programs, which liberals seem to want to do. Creating more social welfare programs will lead to more debt, which will cause income tax levels to rise, leading to an economy that grows slower and slower which puts millions of people at risk of losing their jobs if the inefficient debt burden economy were to crash. Now where is the compassion in that consequence?

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.
Debate Round No. 3


Every time that liberals want to help the poor and disabled, conservatives repeat "not my wallet" ad neuseoumn.


My opponent has decided to close his/her argument by repeating the statement: "Every time that liberals want to help the poor and disabled, conservatives repeat "not my wallet" ad neuseoumn." which my opponent made before and which I addressed in Round 2 and 3.

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.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Teaparty1 3 years ago
Maimonides highest level of charity is enabling the poor to be self-reliant. We should keep this in mind as the goal when configuring welfare programs.
Posted by doomswatter 3 years ago
Wow, 174 days of voting left. Haha, I'll come back to this one in a few months.
Posted by tricias33 3 years ago
Compassion, as any emotion, is expressed in different ways to varying degrees by most people based on those circumstances that personal experience has enabled them to identify with. To expect large numbers of individuals to feel and express compassion on equal levels is simply unrealistic. People who are constantly attempting to use others' sense, or lack thereof, compassion as a tool to influence, shame or straight out manipulate are damaging society as a whole by creating mistrust in that emotion.

That's not to say we should not be compassionate toward our fellow man; however, acting upon those feelings has its own pros and cons. Of course, our compassions lead us to want to help others but at what point does help become absolute dependency? Where is the balance between the two? Showing compassion towards those in need should "help" not "handicap."

Do Liberals have more compassion than Conservatives? Perhaps they do, or perhaps in making a competition out of human compassion for the purpose of creating a powerbase built on the dependencies developed as a consequence of their compassion they have compromised the sincerity of their original intentions.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
By your logic no issue is liberal or conservative because some people disagree with it from either side, which invalidates your entire argument. I could easily say that conservatives *can* support national healthcare and all the other rights you mentioned, thus proving that no full side supports certain issues and that they aren't politically divided.
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 3 years ago
Democrats For Life of America would disagree. Liberals can be prolife, and conservatives can be prochoice. Abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
They don't have compassion for
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
Compassion is the wrong word. I have great compassion for poor people and others, but my positions are not based on government assistance
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 3 years ago
I respect your honesty, but you sound like a moderate. I respect moderates for being balanced.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
I doubt you'll get many people who disagree with that. Hell I'm a conservative and I agree with you. I just think they let their compassion get in the way of reason, which is actually counterproductive to their aims.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years 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: 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.