The Instigator
Randomknowledge
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
Kierkegaard
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points

President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

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: 1/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,950 times Debate No: 2243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (30)

 

Randomknowledge

Con

While I am completely and utterly against Our Current president, I am not against his (few) supporters. Whenever someone is picked out of the crowd as being someone who Supports the President, they are pinpointed by the non-bush supporters and are just about turned into mincemeat. There is a legal right to have whatever beliefs you want, and these non-bush extremeists are not following these guidelines. They harrass them, they yell at them and give them a hard time because of waht they believe in.

Do we make fun of hindu's on the street becuase of their religion?

Do we make racially insensitive comments to others on the street?

So we walk into an Asian restaurant and start calling names?

These are not exactly examples of supporters, but they are examples of doing the right thing in terms of making fun.

We as americans are destined to make fun of the opposing team, the others. Its in all the media, all the hype. There are even ESPN commercials that showcase a man jumping out of a moving car because his blind date was of a different sports preference. I will not use up all of my resources now.

thank you and good luck to my challenger.
Kierkegaard

Pro

I think the biggest point that I should probably bring out first is simply that there really isn't much conflict, and definitely not to the levels of abuse that you're describing, between Bush and non-Bush supporters. Part of this is simply becuse if there's a disagreement between two different parties, a conflict of some sort is inevitable. This is the same thing with Bush supporters, although the fact is is that there isn't enough Bush supporters to spur a conflict or any type of conflict of great power or media attention-getting.

Also, I wasn't aware that agreeing with Bush's acts was considered a specific religion or race. I was under the impression that agreeing with anyone's political views and/or acts was just your opinion, and not your religion or race. I could be wrong, though.

As Americans, we're destined to bring out the bad parts of anyone, especially political candidtates, to make them look worse in the eyes of the general voter. However, if someone knew the facts and did research themselves, they'd know for themselves the upsides and downsides of anyone, and it's these negative comments that spur this interest to know more about any given person. Without some of these harsh statements, no matter how harsh, America could be even blinder than what we are today. And the truth is that anyone who took the time and effort to look into what he's done, they'd realize how much of an--excuse my language--dumbass he is. People who refuse to do so should be treated badly for being a blind voter, a blind follower, and better yet, they should be convinced to find out more information before blindly giving money and kind words to a person such as George W. Bush.

Also, I'm fairly sure that the ESPN commercial you talked about was being humorous, and thus so not being actually serious about what happened. I'm skeptical if you use a humorous commercial as evidence..

Your welcome, and thanks. I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Randomknowledge

Con

I would like to say thank you for responding to my open debate. Best of luck.

I am here for the purpose of debating, and the information I presented about the turmoil and verbal harrasment given to Bush supporters is very real. I concur that as americans we are destined to bring out the worst in people, and this is something that our country is known for. In political circles, the united states is a body that is recognized as having poor political substance, and the president is in charge of this. Thus having said this, I want to point out the topic of this debate.

I am debating that president bush supporters should nto be treated badly. You did not address why they should be treated badly, so you did not properly adress the debate topic.

Here is something from a wesite by or about bill O'Reilly.

"I feel sorry for Bush-supporters. Just like Kerry, he isn't giving them anything, just tossing some people red meat on gay marriage. And unless they're rich, they can't tell me that's their biggest problem."

The bottom line is people feel bad for bush supporters. 'nuff said.
Kierkegaard

Pro

Of course. Same to you as well.

If it's as real as you say, I'd love some examples of said teasing or bashing. I honestly haven't seen much of this.

How is the president in charge of defining political substance? He has absolutely no power or authority over anything of the sort.

I am and was fully aware of what the topic is, I may just have worded my arguments so that they were hard to understand, which I'm genuinely sorry for. I did, however, fully address why they should be treated how they are.

Read this over a few times so you better understand it. "As Americans, we're destined to bring out the bad parts of anyone, especially political candidtates, to make them look worse in the eyes of the general voter. However, if someone knew the facts and did research themselves, they'd know for themselves the upsides and downsides of anyone, and it's these negative comments that spur this interest to know more about any given person. Without some of these harsh statements, no matter how harsh, America could be even blinder than what we are today. And the truth is that anyone who took the time and effort to look into what he's done, they'd realize how much of an--excuse my language--dumbass he is. People who refuse to do so should be treated badly for being a blind voter, a blind follower, and better yet, they should be convinced to find out more information before blindly giving money and kind words to a person such as George W. Bush."

I honestly don't know how to make "people who refuse to do so should be treated badly for being a blind voter, a blind follower, and better yet, they should be convinced to find out more information before blindly giving money and kind words to a person such as George W. Bush." any clearer than what it already is...

In response to the Bill O'Reilly thing, I'd like to say three things.

1. Bill O'Reilly supports Bush, and thus is a Bush supporter. The quote you used was partially used out of context since he was just describing how creepily similar (in his eyes, which are blind to the obvious). The red meat thing and the other things one could normally qualify as being insulting were simply his normal language.

2. Here's a video clip of him defending Bush: http://video.aol.com...

3. I hardly think that Bill O'Reilly is a valid person to prove your point. He makes fun of just about everyone if they have a hint of not agreeing with him on any point whatsoever. We're debating whether or not people should make fun of Bush supporters, not any supporters of political candidates or people who hold office in general.

Bush supporters feel sorry for themselves.
Debate Round No. 2
Randomknowledge

Con

Hello, again Kierkegaard. Thank you for clarifying that passage about the actual mistreatment of nush supporters because of their political preference. I want to show you some reference to the fact that this bashing actually happens. I will only paste a snippet but I will provide the link. Here it goes, from Political Poseur: pretending to be a Republican in Blue California.
By Richard Rushfield

and "W." button, I first stop at Silverlake's ´┐Żber-cafe, the Coffee Table. "The Table," as it is known, is the daytime HQ for the area's writing community—the bed-headed brigades of aspiring indie auteurs who hunch over their laptops, whispering pitches back and forth like state secrets. I stand in line for a soda; my T-shirt first makes contact with the locals as the server, a rather prim-looking Asian-American man, double-takes at my unabashedly partisan display, his smile freezing into a look I can only describe as bracing for me to pull out an assault weapon and open fire. I order, pay, and walk with my Diet Coke through the restaurant, taking a seat on the patio that puts me and my garb on prominent display for the 20 or so patrons. A wave of distressed glances ripples in my direction, but I remain unmolested. Yet as I finish my soda, two hipsters saunter past. One of them, untucked shirt hanging over his jeans, gapes at my shirt and mutters, "As*hole," only slightly under his breath.

There is much more to read and prove but i do not want to take up too much space or time, as many people vote based on length.

http://www.slate.com...

Thank you and I know i only proved one thing but I believe that this was an important thing to prove.

I await your rebuttal.
Kierkegaard

Pro

Ah, no problem at all. Happy to clarify.

In absolutely no way is this seriously bashing George W. Bush OR his supporters. There's only one part of the whole article that could even lightly be considered to be insulting, and that's not even the paragraph that you quoted. The vast majority of the writing is simply making fun of overly right or left people in general. If you'll notice, there's a section making fun of right people and another section making fun of left people.

I mean, the paragraph you quoted is even helping my argument, since it's making fun of liberal democrats, none of which support Bush. I'd also like to point out that 395 words make fun of conservative republicans whereas 966 words jest at liberal democrats, and not the other way around. That's about 2.5 times as much jesting, there. Anyone unbelieving of this (including Randomknowledge) should read through the whole article, and a few times if they don't fully understand the humor intended, and the equality between the jesting.

That's my other point on the link you gave me. Like I said, the only part that could possibly be considered making fun of Bush supporters would be the last two sentences. This is hardly bashing supporters in any way, shape or form, and if anything it's simply making an empty joke.

Thanks for the debate, I had a great time.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Dennis Kucinich for President in 2012.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
I'm just wondering where the line should be drawn.
Posted by FiredUpRepublican 9 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
How can you compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler? Is it just to look cool or fit in? Hitler manipulated and killed his own in his country and worked to take over the world. Hitler was an absolute psychopath.

Just vote for Hilary or Obama the "Delegating Candidates". Hammas, al Qaeda, and those Iranians are very stable, intelligent, and respectable people who should be negotiated with like our noble diplomats and dignataries around the world.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Is it ok to bash Hitler's supporters?
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
Though I highly advocate fair treatment to anyone with different viewpoints, it may be beneficial to American society and the planet as a whole, if those who believe what their televisions and newspapers tell them to believe are ridiculed to a degree. If they could be encouraged to unplug and think about the issues for themselves, then they might decrease the power of the control tools that are used to keep our people in the dark.

F*ck the man, vote Ron Paul.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
Yes, right on the ball c-mach. I supported Richardson as well.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
lolll johincle
the same happened to me
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
I was excited to debate u but i realized that i agreed w/ u so sorry
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Even though I have not supported George W. Bush since the second term, you're right on the ball. Too bad Bill Richardson dropped out. I really liked him.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 cliffsofdover 9 years ago
cliffsofdover
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 towinistosucced 9 years ago
towinistosucced
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 
Vote Placed by mynameisjonas 9 years ago
mynameisjonas
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 yahoodeler 9 years ago
yahoodeler
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 
Vote Placed by workersaregoinghome 9 years ago
workersaregoinghome
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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 
Vote Placed by batman_is_dumb 9 years ago
batman_is_dumb
RandomknowledgeKierkegaardTied
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