The Instigator
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
100 Points
The Contender
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
68 Points

"Liberals thinks that everyone should have the same."

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,971 times Debate No: 3041
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (48)

 

Danielle

Con

I took that quote from a comment you made on another debate.

My argument is that liberals don't necessarily want everyone to have the "same" per se (lifestyle), but rather the same RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITIES.

I also disagree with your follow-up comment on that debate as well, when you said that they (liberals) used the words "equality" and "fairness" because they want things to be the 'same.'

Equal doesn't always equal same. For instance, in terms of the economy, a progressive tax is favorable to a liberal position because it puts an EQUAL percentage of taxation on the buyer, even if the *amount* of that percentage differs.

The word fairness is also not a synonym for same. An example would be a system of hieracrhies at a place of employment. Say I have worked at a company for 5 years; you have worked in the same position at that company for 4 years. We both have equal amount of credentials/results, and you have the same production rate as I do. We both want the same holiday off, but only one of us can have it. In all FAIRNESS, most people would say that *I* should get that day off because I have worked at the company for longer than you have. So that would be a FAIR result, even if our personal outcomes were not the SAME result(result: I got the day off and you didn't).

I could provide other examples, but for now I'm interested in what you have to say.
sadolite

Pro

Here is the latest glaring example of liberalism trying to make everyone the "same" because something doesn't seem "fair"

http://www.nytimes.com...

The above link will take you to an article about the school lunch and breakfast programs subsidised by the federal govt'. In this article you will read that liberal gov't officials think it is unfair that children who receive gov't subsidies don't get the same food as those who pay for their food because they think it's unfair that the other children who pay for their food go through a different line than those who don't. The kids who pay for their food have more choices and can buy food that they want. But the kids who have their lunches subsidised by the gov't have to eat what is given to them. This is not "fair" it might make the child feel bad about his or her self. Liberals don't want other people to know who is taking money from the gov't and who isn't. Why? because it's not fair, everyone should be equal. Solutions to this horrendous problem include; Instituting a debit card system so that no one will know if you are paying or not at a huge expense to the school districts. Having the gov't pay for every single child's lunch regardless of the ability to pay. Only a liberal would think to make something cost twice as much as it already does because it might make some one feel bad because they are being subsidized by the Gov't. What is the point of parents if the Gov't is going to take care of your children from cradle to grave. That is the point, complete and total reliance on the gov't, that is what liberals want and that is what they strive for. Total control by gov't.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Con

First, I would like to point out that the basis of your argument revolved around one example, and that example had to do with cafeteria lunch. Personally, I understand where these "liberal government officials" are coming from; however, I don't agree with their proposed suggestions... So what? The topic of debate isn't whether or not children in school should get free lunch. It's whether or not liberalism is synonomous with the word same. As previously mentioned, I believe that liberals aren't fighting for things to be the "same" but rather that things be more fair. So again, I disagree with the idea of the example at hand but that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Getting back to the topic of debate... Sameness. A particular statement you made was completely false. You noted, "That is the point, complete and total reliance on the gov't, that is what liberals want and that is what they strive for. Total control by gov't." First of all, again - this has nothing to do with liberals wanting everything to be the 'same.' But again, I disagree with what you have written. What you are describing is a form of communism. Liberalism does NOT equal communism. Communism is an economic ideology; liberalism a political ideology. Communism gives power to a certain few people and takes away individual rights and personal freedoms (choices) of citizens. Liberalism advocates openess and tries to give rights to ALL citizens - not just the rich and powerful. The reason your example was invalid was because it reflected a communist view: same-ness. Whereas I feel that a liberal view is more about CHOICE. I believe that the current system is a liberal one. It provides an alternative to children who cannot afford lunch meals, however, they have the choice of whether or not they want to utilize it. Personally I'm not interested in them trying to be "cool" or whatever ~ if they're hungry, they'll eat.

Anyway, another question you posed was, "What is the point of parents if the Gov't is going to take care of your children from cradle to grave?" I agree. Which is why I - along with liberals - feel that the government should not have the right to a) decide who gets married because of their sexual preference -- b) keep marijuana illegal even while alcohol is legal -- c) decide whether or not a mother should be allowed to have an abortion. I feel that the latter issue (and in fact the others) should be a personal choice based on morality or "good parenting" etc -- not the government.
sadolite

Pro

In your last rebuttal you are not happy with the number of examples I provided, who are you to decide how I will debate this subject. All you have done thus far is state your opinion on the subject. Your opinion just like mine is worthless. I have to provide evidence that what I say about liberals is true. The link I provided showed to the very last detail exactly what I said about liberals. The article provided was not submitted to debate school lunches, it was submitted to demonstrate how liberals want to make everybody the "same" in schools because they think it is unfair for other students to know that some of the other students are taking money from the govt' to pay for their lunch, they would further suggest making students who pay for their lunch to be forced to buy a Govt' lunch against their will in order to buy something else that they would prefer instead or even further completely remove the right period and force everyone to eat the "same" govt' subsidized lunches.
My example is not invalid because you validate it by agreeing that the Govt' officials are "Liberals" and that you can "understand where they are coming from" Everything in this article is about making everyone the "same" regardless of their ability to pay . They are not the same but the liberal govt' officials want to pretend that they are by trying to eliminate the differences that would make them different I.E. take away the right to buy or provide your own lunch so everyone has to eat the "same" thing. And believe me if they could do it they would or they wouldn't even suggest it. The article also infers that having the Govt' pay for the lunches is virtuous and that people who pay for their lunches are somehow going to hurt the feelings of those who don't and thereby are insensitive towards the ones who get subsidized by the Govt'. You also stated that my example is invalid because it is a communist view and not a liberal one, Let me remind you that Liberal Govt' officials said this and you agree with where they are coming from but don't' like their solutions, maybe you should consider whether or not you are a liberal, because this is the solution according to the Liberal Govt' Officials in this article.
I would ask you, what "Rights and Opportunities" do rich people exercise that poor people or even middle class people can't exercise?
Homosexuals' rights are not being violated according to the law. You seem to think they are because they can't marry the same sex. Well you are wrong. I am a heterosexual male and I am not allowed to marry another heterosexual or homosexual man under the law. A homosexual man is not allowed to marry a heterosexual man or homosexual man. The same is true for women. But if a homosexual man wants' to marry either a heterosexual or homosexual women he has that right. The same goes for a woman marring a heterosexual or homosexual man. Liberals want to pretend that homosexual same sex marriages are the same as heterosexual opposite sex marriages. Same sex marriages will never have to contend with raising children because it is impossible for them to conceive children naturally. Liberals want to downgrade the meaning of marriage so they can make homosexual marriages the "same" as heterosexual marriages. They are not the same and to say they are defies nature and logic. Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals do when it comes to marriage. Marijuana vs. alcohol? I don't see any rights being violated here. No one is denied the right to drink alcohol when they reach the legal drinking age and marijuana is illegal to all. I find that most liberals are for abortion but against the death penalty. Let's see, kill the unborn innocent, save the convicted murder, absolutely defies logic in my mind.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Con

I wasn't happy with your example for several reasons.

First, it only portrays one instance of a "liberal agenda" when in fact being a liberal is NOT about wanting everyone to have the same. There are other, more prevalent aspects to the liberal ideology, including: a woman's right to choose, and wanting to end the war in Iraq. What do either of those liberal beliefs have to do with things being the SAME?

Second, I never said that the so-called government officials were liberals - you did. I specifically put "liberal government officials" in quotations in my response to signify that I didn't necesarilly agree that these "government officials" were actually liberal. That is an assumption YOU made, because nowhere in the article did it say that the people making those claims were liberal. And THAT'S why your example is invalid. Because it is based on your assumption and not factual evidence.

Also, making everyone have the same school lunch is NOT part of the liberal agenda. That is the opinion of the select few (reminder: we don't know which political party they even affiliate with). Likewise, Ron Paul who is a registered Republican feels that we should bring the troops home from Iraq. Is it fair to say that REPUBLICANS want to bring the troops home just because Ron Paul does? No. And that's why you can't say it is a liberal stance to make everyone have equal school lunches or whatever. It is completely irrelevant.

The fact remains that there are a few kinds of liberalism: political, economical and social/cultural (Social and cultural are different, but I'm combining them for the sake of brevity in this debate). Political liberalism refers to liberals opposing society's institutions showing favor to those of a higher social or economic class. Economic liberalism "supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible" (Source: Wikipedia). And cultural liberalism supports the notion that individuals should have the right to carry out whichever lifestyle they choose, and oppose government regulation of what they consider private matters, such as their sex life, birth control, certain drugs (i.e. marijuana), alcohol, literature, etc. So again, I pose the question: what do these beliefs have to do with wanting things to be the SAME? Fighting unwarranted censorship, for instance, has nothing to do with treating people a certain way... except, ya know, giving them the right to read whatever literature they choose.

You mentioned that homosexuals want to "downgrade" the meaning of marriage because they cannot pro-create naturally. Does that mean that infertile women and men should not be allowed to marry? Are you implying that any marriage consisting of people who do not wish or are not able to conceive children should not exist? Even if that is your ridiculously ignorant belief, it probably has more to do with your religious affiliation than anything else... because in this country, you cannot stop a man and a woman from marrying even if they cannot naturally conceive chilren. So why should that be a basis for banning homosexual same-sex marriage?

You seem to be all high and mighty when talking about what - in your opinion - defies logic. However I find it completely illogical that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, despite the fact that alcohol is consistently proven to be more harmful than marijuana. Not to mention all of the other factors/inconsistencies (I won't get into them because marijuana vs. alcohol is not the topic of this debate).

So, to re-cap:

- I ripped your "example" to shreds by pointing out the fact that you have no basis for your argument regarding the news article, because no school or nutritional official (what you call "government officials") were cited as being liberal or having a liberal agenda

- You went into a tirade about marijuana vs. alcohol, however, that has nothing to do with wanting people to be and have the same.

- You asked a really dumb question of "What rights and opportunities do rich people exercise that the poor people or even middle class people can't exercise?" Uhh... certainly you are not suggesting that poor people have the same OPPORTUNITIES as rich people. Because that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. People are supposed to have the same RIGHTS, but not opportunities. Rich people have the opportunity to go on vacation. Poor people have that right, but they may not have the opportunity (financial means). Also, apparently we disagree on what "rights" people should have, i.e. my position that homosexual same-sex marriage should be a fundamental right guaranteed by law.

- You failed to answer how liberal thinking regarding censorship, a woman's right to choose and pulling out of Iraq has anything to do with same-ness.

Bottom line: I support my statement that liberals feel that everyone should have the same rights (and that the term rights be expanded to those previously excluded from laws; It is not uncommon for the Constitution and other statutes to be re-written as society evolves and opinions change, i.e. the inclusion of women and African Americans being given the right to vote, when black people were previously considered 3/5 of a person). I also think that liberals support certain important institutions being universal, and not having crucial things such as health insurance not be available to the lower class. You don't see liberals saying that everyone should own a yacht or dress in Versace clothing. But you will hear them fighting for basic needs.
sadolite

Pro

It is the Govt that keeps poor people poor. How does government keep people poor? First, low-income people pay various taxes, even if the personal income tax isn't one of them. They pay payroll tax to support bankrupt Social Security and Medicare. They pay sales taxes, property taxes (through their rent), and gasoline taxes. Many taxes are built into the prices of products. The government's fiscal burden is heavy, and it's a burden that low-income people are less able to cope with than wealthier people. Second, the government does many things that make the cost of living higher than it would otherwise be. Tariffs and quotas on imports raise the price of necessities: shoes, clothing, food, and more. Third, government occupational licensing is a devastating against low-income people: Licensing makes the number of practitioners of many occupations artificially low, raising the price of needed services. Obviously that harms low-income people more than others. Moreover, licensing raises the cost, and often makes it impossible, for low-income people to enter certain occupations. Someone who is talented at cutting and styling hair may have to pay thousands of dollars to achieve the paper qualifications necessary to become eligible for a license. That barrier can be prohibitive for many low-income people. In the early 20th century a poor person in New York could become a taxi driver by obtaining a cheap used car. Today that is impossible. Taxi licenses, the number of which is limited by government, cost a fortune. Fourth, government has steadily eroded the value of the dollar through control of the monetary system. Because of inflation, money buys less today that it would if the monetary system had it not been in the hands of the state. What required a dime to buy in 1947 requires a dollar today. Who is hurt most by inflation? Poorer people. Fifth, the minimum-wage prices low-skilled workers out of the labor market. Some lose their jobs; others never get hired; still others are required to do more work to justify the increased pay. Organized labor knows that some workers are locked out, which is why it wants an increase — it cuts down on the competition. Government is and has long been the enemy of low-income people. The next time you hear Liberal Democrats shed tears for the downtrodden, remember that they refuse to give up the power that keeps those folks poor and dependent on them. You mentioned the term "Economic Liberalism" This is an excerpt from the source you gave from wikipedia" Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation." In order to achieve all of these things the government would have to tax people so heavily from the poor to the rich that everyone essentially would work for the govt so it could pay for all the things you believe in, this is called communism. You are for the ideology today that is for bigger govt and regulation with no end in site and don't' get me started on how Liberal Dem's are going to tax us to death and lower our standard of living under the disguise of global warming, Conservative republicans have been saying this for years, they are for less govt' less taxes and less govt' interference. Liberals say they want to help the poor but they do nothing to remove the barriers that keep them their. Today's liberal is all about wealth redistribution under the current system of taxation and regulations. all this will do is lower everyone to the lowest common level and making everyone essentially the "SAME" (Communism)
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
That is a really depressing paradigm to vote on....
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Lwerd you win this debate by proxy. I didn't read but one word- Sadolite- and knew that your arguments were better than his. It's just common sense...
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Typical commentary from a liberal, personal insults, It is my political view point and if you don't' like it, to friken bad. And obviously if your view point isn't accepted by everyone they are ignorant. I don't think your view point is ignorant just extremely ineffective at preventing the crimes we have discussed. And by the way you are a bleeding heart Liberal who thinks Govt is the solution to everything. Buts that's my opinion, on the other hand you fail to state your accusations against conservatives as an opinion in typical liberal fashion.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Sadolite, you are the most ignorant person i have encountered in a long time. Read a book will ya!? The other end of the spectrum HAS been used. When the death penalty was used like probation is used today, people still robbed, cheated, killed and did every other imaginable horror to each other. What you are describing is called fascism. I always had an inkling that conservatives were fascists in disguise..the Bush administration is by definition a fascist regime, and so are you.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
It is illogical to think any kind of reform based on compassion will work, because that is what is in place now and it has failed miseably, so lets try the other end of the spectrum.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
So then the logical solution would be to make a better reform system right? Get that number lower and lower.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Compared to the number of children that are molested every year? No.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
The 10% - 25% of people who are actually helped are not worth it?
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
The recitivism rate for child molesters is 75% to 90% after their short stay on average of 2 yrs in prison. all of those released went throuh so called rehabilitation. And reform, what's that? reform what? The sentencing process needs to be reformed to carry out punishments more quickly.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Plus, what about reform? Or rehabilitation?
48 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
DaniellesadoliteTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's example was irrelevant as he never proves that the government officials he claimed were liberal were actually liberal. This loses sources as well because he misrepresented his source by distorting its content. The rest of his argument was a complete strawman of the liberal position which Con adequately refuted.
Vote Placed by MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
DaniellesadoliteTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
DaniellesadoliteTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
DaniellesadoliteTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
DaniellesadoliteTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
DaniellesadoliteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
DaniellesadoliteTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
DaniellesadoliteTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rmorgan01 8 years ago
rmorgan01
DaniellesadoliteTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
DaniellesadoliteTied
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