The Instigator
Mrs.lynch
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Liberals tend to place emotion over logic more than other political identities

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,482 times Debate No: 40289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Mrs.lynch

Pro

You asked, me to challenge you to a debate, so here it is.
TheHitchslap

Con

This is a typical stereotype the right-wing political machine tries to dress up anyone and everyone who identifies as a democrat.

I accept your challenge as per agreement both in the comments and in the forums.

For those unfamiliar, this is a grudge match between me and Lynch due to some seriously mis-lead accusations she posted in the forums found here: http://www.debate.org...
standard DDO rules apply (due to you not specifying in the first round)

emotion shall be defined as: a subjective, conscious experience characterized primarily by psychophysiological expressions, biological reactions, and mental states.

logic shall be defined as: the use of valid reasoning in some activity.

Seeing as this is (to me at least) an outlandish claim, my opponent thus has BOP, and she shall go first.

Let's go!
Debate Round No. 1
Mrs.lynch

Pro

In almost all social and political issues ever debated between conservatives and liberals, Liberals (IE Democrats), have almost always been known to take too much emotion into their arguments. So much that it clouds their judgement, and often makes them mis-lead. This debate is about proving how this is true.

Let's take a look at Gay Rights, primarily. Liberals are so primarily against discrimination, that they often fail to understand the being against gay rights, doesn't actually mean are discriminating anyone. There is more that goes into it, considering morals, theism, and other things that liberals don't take into account. Because of this, liberals are often mis-lead into thinking gay rights should be socially accepted, when logically, they shouldn't.

Almost every other issue concerning freedom of choice in abortion debates, gun right debates, and death penalty debates, etc, commonly dis-reguard choice for both sides, and only focus on the side that suites them. This is the most common proof that liberals are blinded by their emotion in many debates.

I will wait for my opponent to continue the arguments.
TheHitchslap

Con

My Opponent Commits a Bare Assertion Fallacy

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this debate also requires proof of the claims made. My opponent simply has not offered proof to conclude objectively that in fact democrats (or liberals) are more "emotional" than conservatives. As such, her simplistic opinions --thou she is entitled to them .. and I know how much Republicans HATE entitlements -- they are just that; her opinions and nothing more.

If that is the case, due to her having BOP, I have already won before this has even started. Nothing she had submitted is in line with any facts, just a stereotype against the left more than anything.

Concerning The Major Issues Today

Conservatives are more known for being ideological. More-so than liberals. For example, the recent Obamacare issues online illustrate my point. Under Bush for a comparison, Medicaid part D came into effect, which was more unpopular with the populace, and was even less successful than Obamacare online. Instead of claiming that Republicans are stupid, liberals tried to assist as many people to register for it as possible, knowing how much of an essential role it plays.
[http://www.politifact.com...] Instead my opponent is trying to make you believe that this is somehow more emotionally ran than logical. I have to ask the audience, how is it logical to complain someone is being an idiot, instead of helping them? If it isn't, then in this situation one must conclude that liberals were in fact more logical as a result. Otherwise, you'd have to argue that whining --which is asking for pity in an annoying way -- is more logical than trying to help people with their needs .. which does not make sense.

My opponent points briefly to gay marriage, abortions, gun rights, and capital punishment. Interesting ...

before I get on to these issues, I want to very briefly remind you how to test if a piece of evidence is legit. It requires two things to be satisfied; 1) expert opinion, and 2) general agreement in the field. This is not always the case (for instance Meta-analysis may show otherwise) but for the sake of argument for today we will say it must meet these two issues.

Gay marriage, abortions, and capital punishments have liberals in the upper-hand position; psychologists, criminologists, and biologists generally agree with the liberal platform ... that is, pro gay-marriage, pro-choice, and denounce CP. Practically every single psychological organization argue in support of gay marriage (see video), most criminologists agree that CP does not work (http://www.amnestyusa.org...) and finally, that abortions has resulted in much safer procedures as a result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

In fact my opponent complains that liberals limit choices ... this does not make any sense.
How is being gay a choice? And even if it was, is not allowing them to get married somehow enabling them to have a choice? That cannot be if gay marriage is illegal, they simply would not have that available to them. Even if this logic did follow, my opponent would be pro gay marriage, because legalizing same sex marriage would enable gays to have choices. Same thing with abortions; which allows women to have a choice to give birth or not, and finally, if anything limits the choice of someone, CP is certainly it. A judge determines if he will kill you or not.. how is this a choice?

Finally, gun debates; while there is a lack of consensus on this issue, the best researched papers normally conclude some kind of gun regulation works, and that those contesting their effectiveness are constructed to show nothing anyways. Australia is a great case of gun control working, same as Canada, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc...
http://www.politifact.com...

If anyone's showing emotion here .. it's my opponent, being emotional about how much she hates liberals. Unlike our side (the liberals) Clinton said it best: "Nobodies right all the time, and even a broken watch is right twice a day!"

My Opponent Has Proved Nothing

Final Thought Experiment: if my opponents claims were true, it would mean in academia that the general body of academics would lean conservative. This is because in academia, appeals to emotion or fear are not allowed. However ...

Most professors actually vote liberal, because our side is far less ideological, and in line with objective facts. This is because most conservatives do not pursue more education but rather go to the private sector for future careers, translating into a more intelligent party, and one in line with more objective facts in most fields as shown here: http://rationalwiki.org... and here: http://www.thestar.com...

I hereby ask the audience to consider giving me S&G points, as my opponent made several mistakes, to the point of being difficult to read at times, and sources, as my opponent uses none. Thank you.

I shall send this back over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Mrs.lynch

Pro

Mrs.lynch forfeited this round.
TheHitchslap

Con

My opponent forefits in light of objective evidence showing that she is indeed wrong. As such this should count as a concession to my arguments.

Therefore, I ask to have a 7 point win:
arguments to me for her forefit, S&G due to her neumerous mistakes, conduct due to her forefits and ad homs, and finally, sources to me because she failed to use any.


Thank you folks!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
What saddens me about a debate like this is that PRO gives a bad name to conservatives, which I consider myself to be one of a moderate variety.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO: "...liberals are often mis-lead into thinking gay rights should be socially accepted, when logically, they shouldn't."

PRO does not explain this logic, and so her assertion is baseless.

2) CON: "How is being gay a choice? And even if it was, is not allowing them to get married somehow enabling them to have a choice? "

lol, this one statement by itself demonstrates most of PRO's stance as "illogical".

3) CON: "If anyone's showing emotion here .. it's my opponent, being emotional about how much she hates liberals."

Admittedly I had this bias before this debate began.

4) CON: "S&G due to her neumerous mistakes"

Run a spellchecker, bud.

---

CONCLUSION

Not much of a debate. PRO did not have much of a position, forfeited one round in a three round debate, and did not source. CON's case was substantial in comparison. Arguments, conduct, and sources CON. S&G to PRO.
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
.......later that year ...
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
First of all, I have. She has BOP. So technically, all I have to do is refute and I've already won
Second of all. I'm not catering my arguments to you. Suck.it.up
Thirdly, she challenged me on the notion due to a forum issue, not the other way around. I took it because the resolution is heavily against her.
Finally, let her use this as an example. All I have to do is simply point out her subjective opinions is not objective facts.
Dudestop. You need to listen to your own name. I'm putting an arrogant woman in her place. Don't defend her. It's obvious you have no idea what's going on.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Funny how you think you've won when no points have been made. in fact, she didn't even put up a round yet and you have managed to turn me from your side to hers. Why?
Reasons: She put a comment down saying liberals are guided by there emotions. Instead of ignoring it, you decide to argue with her. You couldn't just leave it alone, but instead challenged her to a debate with you. This helps her point. If you guided your decisions with logic, you would away looked at the comment and assumed she was simply trolling (Which she may have been) and moved on. Not wasting your time in a childish, opinionated debate.
I realize that this does not PROVE her point. But she merely needed to provide an example, which you did for her.
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
Yeah... she's got none.

I've already won this before it's even gotten started.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
objectivity

Objectivity

OBJECTIVITY
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
This is an extremely difficult premise to defend. Pro can only make inferences about the reasons for why liberals make decisions from what she observes.

Basically, it's her opinion about the motivations of others, that cannot be properly be verified empirically beyond conjecture.

Not only that, but her conduct thus far definitely will incur a negative vote, with statements like this.

"Sad and pathetic, but I don't really expect much more from a liberal. All talk, but when it comes down to it, they can never defend their points with real logic."

This is just my opinion... but this statement appears to be dripping with a certain emotion that will certainly cloud your objectivity in this debate. And that emotion appears to be anger.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman
Posted by Ayyuba 3 years ago
Ayyuba
I am sorry, Hitch. I am not a conservative at all. Can we talk privately?
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
Excuse me, your appeal to moderation is annoying. Don't like this debate? Don't comment.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Mrs.lynchTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. For all of her bravado, PRO was rather vacuous in an actual debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Mrs.lynchTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave a lot of evidence (pro gave none), which pro chose to leave entirely uncontested. Plus the forfeited round... This was a no brainer.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Mrs.lynchTheHitchslapTied
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 got Hitchslapped
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Mrs.lynchTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff