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

Progressives are a danger to the United States, freedom, and liberty.

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  
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: 1/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 98804
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)




Thesis. Progressives are a danger to the United States of America, freedom itself, and individual liberty.

I believe progressive ideology is terrible for our society. Your argument is not against capitalism or other systems, but to defend progressive ideology.
Round 1. Acceptance.


I accept this challenge and will be arguing against your thesis as stated above. I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1


The strain between people of differing political views has been raised to a head like a festering pimple, and some are left wondering if its about to pop. How did we get to this point? Who really has our best interests in mind? Can anyone save America, or is improving America even the real goal? I will attempt to shed light into a current danger facing our society, and, with logic in hand, hope to navigate a plethora of unfortunate ideas, which has created such a divide in this nation. The first step to fixing a problem, is to recognize there is one, and regaining our unity as an American people, may very literally become impossible for failure to address certain harmful methods, enemies of our great nation will use against us.

In our current state, nearly half the population sees the other half as a threat to their vision for the country, and through this division, we have achieved a newfound level of discord, which not only weakens our faith in each other, but opens us to very real external threats. We have become a nation weakened from the inside, and until we are able to recognize the cause of our cancer, we will not be able to move forward together. Its my hope that through debate, leftist ideals will be exposed, and through that truth, unity can begin, as unity of individuals is at times, the only way to ensure a healthy nation.
I will hold to it, that modern progressive ideals are, in fact intentionally damaging to America, and originally stem from German left wing cultural Marxism, as described in the book, "The Devils Pleasure Palace, The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West", by Michael Walsh.
Furthermore, that these ideals once seated in parts of our government, are used as we speak, to launch attacks on family, sexes, our economy, racial equality, faith, and anything else which can divide us as a people.
Additionally, Globalist interests, have seized advantage of this weakness in our leadership using donations. Through Mass scale funding of grass roots movements, as well as donations to media outlets such as CNN, the New York times, and others.
We see the results of these tactics played out around us in the form of speech control, as perpetuated by political correctness, and the lefts creation of ideas such as, white privilege, micro-aggression's, and third wave feminism. Healthy psychology, as described by Johnathan Heights, (Professor of Phychology, NYU) should not be to teach people to focus on small, or incidental slights, such as micro aggression's, but rather, teaches, if you have a chain of thoughts that makes you depressed, the psychologist recommends breaking those chains of thoughts, and determine rather that person meant to offend you. Think, if its something worth getting upset about, like a rational adult. The purpose of bad psychology, such as microaggressions, is actually to train students minds to focus on those aggression's, and relabel the person as an aggressor in their mind. This type of idea spread through society, will have its obvious results, of creating division, while breeding a mentality that concedes that the more they are offended, the more they can be compensated.

Individually, these things may seem unconnected in day to day life, a news story about four people beating a mentally handicapped defenseless man in Chicago, simply because he was white, seemingly has no correlation to the racial issues at the University of Missouri. Just as the push for the veting of massive numbers of Muslim refugees seems to have no correlation to illegal immigration policy concerning our southern border. Until that is, you look at the funding. But why would rich globalists control hundreds and hundreds of grass roots organizations here in America? Here is a massive list of just some of the organizations funded by George Soros here in our country. Notice, every single one is based around some bias liberal ideal currently being pushed by mainstream media such as CNN. In which any dissenters are aggressed against, often being immediately framed as being racist, misogynist, or otherwise defaming term, simply for being in disagreement concerning policy, even that which concerns the national safety of citizens.
Through progressive leadership we have empowered a child support system, which is legally allowed to garnish 65% of a mans wages, remove his rights to travel upon the very roads he pays taxes on, and even imprison him, for being late on his child support, while women win 94% of all family court cases in the nation, and are incentivized as single mothers with housing and food assistance, as well as schooling, and legal assistance. In an environment where men are castrated as providers, and women are gifted by the state, we develop problems. Problems like 72% of black households in America being fatherless. Interestingly enough, according to Texas Department of Corrections 1992 assessment of prisoners, 85% of all youths sitting in prisons were from fatherless homes. And According to the Center for Disease Control, 85% of all children which exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. Where do the policies governing these corrupt systems originate from? People like Hillary Clinton, considered by her followers to be a champion when it comes to fighting for women"s rights. Indeed, this is one area where no one can really doubt her authenticity. And then again, we see a woman who received her political ideals from Saul Alkinsky, a teacher of the left wing cultural Marxism described earlier, and auhor of the 1971 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. And yet again, we also see funding fromt he man, George Soros, in the form of a 25 million dollar donation to the Clinton foundation.

At this point, I think it would be a nonpoint to ask why. Why would a multi billionaire who broke the bank of England, and established political coups in several countries via similar grass roots organizations, while using his money to crash their economies, including Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, and Russia.. why would he care about the United States. We already know, hes written books about it. For instance, In his book, "Soros on Soros," he says: "I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply." Also "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States," he wrote in The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror.

This man, who openly writes about his disdane for America and funds over 3/4 of the pro Muslim agenda groups in the USA, is the same man who, along with Saudi Arabia, donated well over 25 million dollars to the Clinton foundation, Clinton, being a key player of the current administrations actions in the middle east and Syria, which led to the creation of terrorist groups such as Isis, which spread to 30 countries, and destabilized the middle east, leading to the current refugee crisis, which his dollars support.

Progressives are brain washed by these gloablaist funded grass roots organizations to to believe in concepts such as
global warming. A subject which grabbed the hearts of Americans by storm when they saw Al Gores Ice samples, which correlated a now debunked conclusion of the relationship of Co2 in the atmosphere, to the warming of the earth. Attempting to pass a carbon tax onto the citizens forcing them to pay for their "carbon footprint" When it was later concluded that the increase in Co2 followed an increase in the earths temperature, rather than preceding it, due to the oceans slow warming, and frothing up more gas, they simply kept with the movement, as it had created such a following, and was identified as an effective emotional tool to use against the people. Despite multiple measurement problems trying to prove global warming, the idea was clung to having to change its buzzword from global warming, to climate change, as the temperature of the earth was found to have actually been dropping.
Is it any wonder there are so many conflicting reports on the causes of climate change, when all scientific research is funded by a government, who refuses funding and blackballs scientists with differing opinions, despite compelling research to the contrary? In other words, if I want to be paid as a scientist, and I have to conduct research supporting their theories to receive pay, because of the aggression towards other viewpoints, then what am I going to do? People who dont follow the mainstream viewpoints on global warming are accused of not caring about the planet, and otherwise demonized. And still, despite all this, there has never been a study done to my knowledge which states exactly how much Co2 would be damaging to the earth. According to studies, at times the earth has had much higher levels of Co2, as the planet naturally enters phases which are hotter or cooler long before the invent of modern agriculture, or industry. The ultimate realization being, that even if we could pass American regulations for climate change, to make any difference, all major nations would also have to participate to a drastic level, once again, a movement which ultimate goal is the mental manipulation of its followers, into believing in the superiority of a Globalist controlled planet. Once again, fueled by many grass roots organizations owned by guess who, George Soros.

Progressives also attempt to destroy free speech, accusing others of fake news, even as they pass Measures such as the recent "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" In which google and fb will have their material sifted through by 3rd party organizations owned by Soros himself, to decide which information is credible, and which should be eliminated. Censorship at its finest, and risen from outrage that their evil deeds were exposed in alternative media sources, such as wiki links.


To win this debate, I must demonstrate that progressivism does not constitute a danger to 1) the United States of America, 2) freedom, and 3) individual liberty. Seeing as my opponent has not provided a definition for progressivism, liberty, or freedom, I shall undertake to do so. My opponent has also not specified a format for rounds 2 and 3 of this debate. In the interest of fairness, I will make my case for progressivism in this round and reserve my response to my opponent's statements for round 3.

The concept of freedom can be said to have two qualities: positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the freedom for something. Negative freedom is the freedom from something. Insofar as I can demonstrate that the Progressive Movement expands what people are free to do and what they are free from, I will have effectively shown that the Progressive Movement does not constitute a danger to freedom [1].

Liberty is very similar to freedom but has a slightly different connotation. It includes the power of choice, freedom from tyranny, the ability to enjoy rights and privileges, and certainly the right to expect one's rights not to be infringed upon [2]. This is the standard which I shall use to demonstrate that the Progressive Movement is not, in fact, a danger to liberty.

The American Progressive Movement has a long history dating back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Early progressives hailed from a variety of ideological backgrounds and the movement arose in response to the economic and social problems of rapid industrialization. Specifically, progressives sought to combat poverty, class warfare, racism, violence, and widespread political corruption. Progressives sought to wrest the government from the control of large corporate interests and secure a greater voice for the people in government affairs. Through this endeavor, progressives sought, and still seek, to align government action with the interests of the masses. Progressives are responsible for ending child labor, gaining universal suffrage for women and minorities, expanding protections for workers through labor unions and political advocacy, anti-trust legislation preventing corporate monopolies from choking out competition in the marketplace, and electoral reforms that removed the power of party bosses to unilaterally select party candidates and required an open primary to democratically select the candidate instead [3]. Historically, we can see that the Progressive Movement can be said to have worked for the empowerment of the people, the expanding of freedoms to elect government officials and operate in competitive marketplaces while simultaneously expanding freedom from oppression. Further, liberty is maximized as one important quality of liberty includes the ability to enjoy one's rights and privileges. If a man is denied an education and impoverished, is he truly free? Can he advocate his case to his political representatives? Will they listen to an incoherent case from an uneducated and poor man? By empowering the individual and ensuring access to basic levels of education and resources, the Progressive Movement has expanded, not diminished, the liberty of society.

In the modern context, the Progressive Movement has certainly changed but still adheres to the basic tenants provided by their historical forbearers. At this point, it is important to note that "progressive" is not merely another word for "liberal." Liberalism implies a set of ideals based upon the social contract, positive and negative freedoms, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity [4]. Progressivism, on the other hand, is a methodology of problem-solving. Progressivism is an experimental approach to solving societal ills using data, research, and science in a pragmatic manner. This pragmatism allows progressives to take a critical approach to problem solving and to change course when necessary. This movement recognizes that the world is dynamic and solutions must change as the nature of the problems they aim to address change as well. Modern progressivism is mostly found within the larger framework of liberalism as those with liberal values have most often chosen this path. As such, modern progressivism uses the progressive methodology in accordance with many liberal values [5].

Contemporary progressives have often found themselves to be at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Primary held this year in which Bernie Sanders offered a competitive challenge to Hillary Clinton, who is often regarded as an exemplar of the mainstream of the Democratic party, illuminated the stark contrast between the establishment-oriented and progressive elements of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders was overwhelmingly perceived to be the more progressive candidate and would have been the first choice of progressives [6]. Progressivism is therefore a unique aspect of the Democratic Party and it is useful at this point to turn to an organization which espouses the views of this progressive element of the party for information regarding that for which progressives stand.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is one such organization and in a document entitled "The Progressive Promise: Fairness for All," they list several of the most pressing issues to contemporary progressives. Some of these issues include: upholding the right to universal healthcare access at affordable costs, preserving Social Security benefits, increased infrastructure spending, protecting the right to organize, fighting against the intrusion of government surveillance upon the private matters of United States citizens, protecting voting rights and fighting against discrimination, seeking universal disarmament of nuclear weapons and increased efforts to engender international cooperation for nuclear non-proliferation, protecting the environment, and transitioning to renewal energy sources as a means to obtain energy security and independence [7]. I will now demonstrate several of the ways through which these goals not only fail to present a danger to freedom, liberty, and the United States of America, but, in fact, contribute to the preservation of each of them. Through increasing spending on infrastructure, American citizens will enjoy the benefits of increased availability and quality of public goods. The roads, railways, power supplies, etc. provided for public use grant Americans the freedom and opportunity to enjoy the benefits of national commerce and interstate trade and the freedom of movement within the United States. It is estimated that there are thousands of communities in the United States with greater lead levels in their water than was found in Flint, MI [8]. Addressing this through upgraded infrastructure would grant Americans in those communities the freedom to obtain access to clean water and give their children the freedom to grow up without developmental issues. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine a better example of providing for the safety of the United States than to advocate for the removal of toxins from the drinking water of Americans. Protecting voting rights and combating discrimination is a clear example of expanding the liberties of Americans from the tyranny of others. The freedom to vote for political representatives is one which Americans of all walks of life have long held to be of crucial importance, for how can freedom exist in an undemocratic nation? Perhaps no single example illustrates better that progressives fight for the continuance of the United States of America than the push for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. As long as they remain upon the face of this Earth, nuclear weapons represent a dire threat to all of humanity. The consequences of a nuclear war are well-understood to be uniquely disastrous. Fighting to rid the world of nuclear weapons and to prevent the spread of these weapons to hostile international actors in no way constitutes a danger to the United States, quite the opposite.

Finally, climate change, as much as some may wish it were not so, is a dire threat to this world and to the security of the United States of America [9]. Should sea levels rise, millions will be forced from their homes and the ensuing refugee crisis will make the present one seem of no moment [10]. Furthermore, increased famine and drought will necessary resources to become scarce which will, in turn, lead to the increased incidence of war to compete for these scarce resources. International terrorism can only be expected to increase in the face of world-wide instability while the capacity of states to combat it will be decreased [11]. Clearly, the Progressive Movement"s commitment to prevent climate change from worsening strengthens the ability of Americans to enjoy freedom and liberty and provides for the preservation of the United States of America.

3. and
6. and
Debate Round No. 2


You state that to win this debate you must demonstrate that it does not constitute a danger to the United States, freedom, or individual liberty, yet fail to address any of the obviously dangerous issues I discussed, which are issues to the country here in the now. The Argument is not, rather or not Progressives in the past were beneficial to the development of a more civil system, but rather or not progressives of the NOW, are dangerous to America. We cant have this argument, because youll say Bush, Ill say Woodrow Wilson. You'll say the New deal, Ill say emancipation of slaves, and so on and so forth. The danger of progressives to America in the past, has no bearing on the danger of progressives in the present. Also, many of those points can be successfully argued against as not being ideals solely owned or perpetuated by progressives. You even go on to state, that traditional democrats of the past are, in fact different from new progressives, and that their ideology is not rigid, but does in fact evolve, further making the case that progessivism of the past, is unrelated to the progressivism we witness today. My argument here is made more solid by your own comments, when you state things such as, "In the modern context, the Progressive Movement has certainly changed.." and "Contemporary progressives have often found themselves to be at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party." Which would mean, you are in fact trying to give credit to modern progressives for achievements of more traditional Democrats of the past.
You mention things like "The Progressive Promise: Fairness for All," which includes things such as protecting voting rights and fighting against discrimination. I would argue that this is again an attempt to demonize others, with the implied meaning, being that progressives are the only ones who care about these types of issues, which is not the case. These are stated issues most of society cares about greatly. Outlining issues which concern everyone in America, and trying to label them as "progressive" issues, is merey a way to make others seem less caring, and, a tactic which actually spawns more issues. For instance, if a minority believes progressives are the only ones who care about discrimination, he may view other parties as his enemy, possibly even believing they support racism. In this way many minorities are duped into supporting progressive policies which actually harm their own demographic, as demonstrated when I showed the realtionship of fatherless homes in black communities to fatherless prisoners. The progressive ideas blame all inequity in society on things such as institutionalized racism, rather than acknowledge the possibility of other factors, and, this is perpetuated by mainstream media, which is currently generating a wider and wider divide between people in this country.
One needs only watch the news to see how wide the racial divide has become in this country under the last 8 years of progressive leadership. I believe this is intentional, which makes it even more underhanded.

Climate change. I already outlined my views concerning the reasons for the push toward climate change, none of which you have addressed, simply. Your evidence of climate change does not address that from its inception the original data was incorrectly construed and a carbon tax was attempted to be instated due to this false correlation of data. An attempt to fleece the public based off a lie, or a mistake. The question does however arise, that if this agenda for a new tax on individuals is still a goal. When viewed individually, this topic would have more credit, but, I correlated its end vision of globalist regime control, with many other globalist funded movements in America. The combined efforts of many grass roots organizations began not by Americans but by foreign interests, paired with funding to individuals in government from the same sources, which, openly state their disdane for our country, is problematic, and very concerning. In essence, if the corruption and globalists interests were not involved, it would lend much more credibility to an issue which may or may not be in need of serious inquiry. Simply, if you get your funding from an enemy, why should we assume your intentions are good?

If someone says, I am here to help you. Yet their financial backers say, I want to destroy your economy, someone would be a fool to believe the conviction of trying to help.


It seems that there has been some confusion. Because no structure was given for the format of rounds 2 and 3, I opted to make my case for progressivism without reference to your statements in round 2. Had I rebutted your statements of round two while making my case, then I would have had two opportunities to provide rebuttals to your remarks, as I would have still had round 3 available to me, while you would only have one opportunity to provide rebuttals to my statements. This is what I meant when I said "In the interest of fairness, I will make my case for progressivism in this round and reserve my response to my opponent's statements for round 3." As you still only had the single opportunity to reply to my round 2, I will now proceed to respond to your statements in round 2 without further regard to your arguments in round 3.

You begin by discussing how American political discourse seems to have become increasingly polarized. Political polarization has increased, but only for the politically involved. There are multiple factors contributing to the perception of extreme political polarization including the increased availability of media sources and the subsequent ability of media markets to generate supply for niche consumers, the ability for the politically disinclined to avoid political information through the greater variety of alternatives available in today"s media landscape, and the greater level of sorting that has occurred among members of political parties [1]. Among the politically involved, however, polarization has significantly increased though politically active individuals have historically been much more likely to take extreme stances on both the right and the left. Furthermore, the politically involved have much greater influence over politics and an even greater influence over the political narratives that exist in the media and elsewhere. This influence is compounded by the greater availability of non-political media for the politically disinclined, and often much more moderate, Americans to consume in lieu of political media. This has led to greater disengagement and non-participation among politically disinterested (most) Americans. It can therefore be concluded that political polarization of such an extreme nature as my opponent has described does not exist among ordinary Americans. Therefore, progressives cannot be said to be destabilizing and endangering America by creating an atmosphere of near-universal polarization as such an environment cannot be said to exist. The environment that does exist is one of increased apathy by moderate Americans and growing polarization among a small subset of politically active Americans.

My opponent has stated that liberal ideals are "intentionally harming America" and has furthermore asserted that they stem from "German left wing Marxism." The author of the source my opponent provided graduated from a music school and spent much of his career as a classical music critic so I am therefore inclined to remain skeptical of his assertions until I can see upon what grounds they rest. I am not able to view this source without purchasing the book and it was incumbent upon my opponent to describe how the author's claim that liberalism stemmed from German left-wing Marxism. This would seem to be a very unique subset of liberalism indeed as liberalism is a broad and diverse philosophical school of thought stemming from such diverse philosophers and social scientists as John Locke, Montesquieu, John Keynes, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. Without providing proof to support the author"s fantastical claims that there exists a Marxist strain of liberalism that furthermore intends to harm America, for reasons unknown or not provided, this claim cannot stand.

My opponent has repeatedly failed to provide evidence for his assertions as I will now demonstrate. "Furthermore, that these ideals once seated in parts of our government, are used as we speak, to"" There is no evidence provided that these ideals are, in fact, seated in parts of our government. "Through Mass scale funding of grass roots movements, as well as donations to media outlets such as CNN, the New York times, and others." My opponent has provided one source which is a website, which exhibits an extreme right-wing bias, that claims to provide a list of organizations that have received donations from George Soros though the amounts of this funding or the source of this information was not provided. His assertion that CNN and The New York Times have received donations from these "globalists" is without any evidence whatsoever. "The purpose of bad psychology, such as microaggressions, is"" Here my opponent claims a purposive nature to this "bad psychology" without providing a single reason as to how he can claim to understand the intent of the alleged perpetuators of this phenomenon. Without proving intent, my opponent"s claim that there is a "bad psychology" being purposefully practiced upon the American people must be dismissed. My opponent claims that political correctness, microagressions, third wave feminism, and white privilege are elements of this bad psychology by describing them as "focusing on small, or incidental slights." Is the fact that black people face longer prison sentences than white people for the same crime an incidental slight [2]? How about the fact the transgender Americans, particularly those of color, are murdered at a rate of ". Which third wave feminism aims to address [3]? My opponent has claimed that none of these groups have any serious issues and are, in essence, just making problems for the sake of it. This is clearly not the case and my opponent"s assertion that these are elements of bad psychology cannot stand. My opponent asserts that there exists some connection between "seemingly unrelated events" that becomes evident when one examines the funding. My opponent provides the aforementioned list of George Soros beneficiaries without demonstrating how this alleged funding caused the events to occur or how these events are linked to the beneficiaries. This vague claim of association cannot stand without evidence. My opponent claims "every single one" of the organizations on the list espouses a liberal ideal pushed by CNN. My opponent has not provided proof that CNN exhibits such a bias. One independent group which monitors media bias judged the CNN has a "Left-Center" bias [4]. This is quite a far cry from the "German left-wing Marxism" that my opponent claims is behind the sources allegedly controlling CNN. The basis for my opponent"s assertion is that non-affiliated groups receive money from George Soros, who, I might add, my opponent has not proven is a proponent of this "globalist" ideology, and my opponent asserts that CNN supports the same causes as these groups and therefore CNN is also controlled. To say that this is a logical leap would be a gross understatement. Correlation does not equal causation and the correlation doesn't even exist regardless. To my opponent's claim that CNN "aggresses against" dissenters on its program and immediately resorts to accusations of bigotry, I ask that he provide even a single instance. I'll accept it in the comments.

"Through progressive leadership we have empowered a child support system..." Once again, my opponent does not feel the need to actually demonstrate how progressives are responsible for this. Legal intervention in the collection of child support began under Gerald Ford, a Republican [5]. Without evidence at least supporting a causal role of progressive influence and child support legislation, this claim must be dismissed and the resulting arguments that rest upon it become groundless by definition. I will go ahead and point out, however, that my opponents claim that child support legislation has created problems of fatherless homes is patently ridiculous. How can child support lead to fatherless homes when the home must first become fatherless before child support is collected? In reference to Hillary Clinton, my opponent states "...we see a woman who received her political ideals from Saul Alkinsky..." My opponent has asserted this and, given that this is a claim of fact, it is incumbent upon my opponent to establish its veracity. Since no such standard has been met, this claim must also be discarded.

"When it was later concluded that the increase in Co2 followed an increase in the earths temperature, rather than preceding it, due to the oceans slow warming, and frothing up more gas..." This has been established by climate scientists already. Warming causes the oceans to release additional CO2, as my opponent has said, but the CO2 released also contributes to further warming with leads to more CO2 to be released from the oceans [6]. This does not actually constitute evidence against climate change as this has been addressed by climate scientists already. "...the temperature of the earth was found to have actually been dropping." Surface temperatures can exhibit temporary cooling patterns but the surface is not the only part of the planet. The atmosphere has a large capacity to absorb heat as do the oceans and, when one examines the entire heat content of the planet, the earth is still heating up [7]. '...a movement which ultimate goal is the mental manipulation of its followers, into believing in the superiority of a Globalist controlled planet." My opponent has once again claimed to divine intent without bothering to provide a shred of evidence.


Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
xxmanguyxx, you're welcome to your opinion. I still think it's more than a little absurd that the only reason you've given for why I'm biased is that my profile shows that I lean left personally. You're so certain that there's some mass effort to disenfranchise people of your political persuasion that you're accusing me of it with no evidence. Rather than viewing those forums where Mharman is being told by every member who responds to him, even some who are generally antagonistic about vote moderation and me personally, that his votes didn't meet the standards. You would likely consider that to be part of some larger insidious scheme against you, though that places this in conspiracy territory.
Posted by xxmanguyxx 1 year ago
This debate was a sham. My opponents vote was not tampered with, mine was taken away. Now my record is smudged due to a bias judge tampering with votes, I dont even consider it a loss. I pointed out that capitalist slave claimed to be tied in opinion for voting purposes yet in his profile claims to be socialist, as even reflected in his name, but his vote was not removed. Then after I complain, people like dsjpk5 come out of the shadows having not even seen the removed vote, to agree with the bias moderator. Its rich. Marman who voted for me, even complained in forum that his voting was tampered with, no resolution. This is why we have trump, people are tired of the lefts games. They ran a known criminal for prez after she backstabbed her own party and promoted Debbie Schultz for her misdeed directly afterward, but despite this and numerous criminal activities brought to light refuse to see it as a danger to the nation, even writing papers giving credit to progressives for the deeds of old school democrats. It reminds me of stolen valor stories when people claim to be military in an attempt to be praised. Despite all this, evil wins when its power is affirmed by authority, as you can see evidenced by this debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Whiteflame and I disagree politically, but I think he's an excellent moderator. The vote removed by him was lacking. It didn't meet the standards that the rules require, so he wisely removed it. I agree that the voting standards are a little too strict, but they're what we have, so we have to keep them in mind while crafting an rfd.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Dang keyboard, that should be "anarcho-syndicalist"
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Also, I'd like to note that leftists don't always get along. So, while, yes I am a leftist myself, I wouldn't get along with progressives. For example, in revolutionary catalonia in the Spanish Civil war, Marxists tried to overthrow the anarcho-sycnidalist government. Then, in the Russian Civil war, Leninists/Bolsheviks took out the Mahknovists(free territory of Ukraine) which was an anarcho-communist society.

So, just because I'm a leftist, doesn't mean I'm biased in this specific instance. I actually despise majority of the American left. There's evidence of that in this debate of mine, where I argued that American liberals are also the enemies of the working class:

So, if anything, when talking about this debate, I would have had a bias AGAINST progressives.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Also, as you can see in one of the other votes, someone awarded me 3 points just because they were countering the 3 points they awarded to my opponent. No one reported that, but I'm not sure if it would have been deleted since vote comments weren't needed.

I'm actually surprised whiteflame deleted that vote when I reported it. I was worried it would not be deleted because I didn't used to require vote comments back then(that should be evidence that I used to hate the moderation system). In that instance, I thank whiteflame for doing their job.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
xxmanguyxx: I was once frustrated with the moderation decisions. In fact, I was just in the boat with you, where I used to have a lot of my votes removed(since then, I've learned about the requirements for RFD and I adjusted my vote comments accordingly, and my votes are basically never deleted now). However, there was one time that a troll voted on one of my debates, and awarded 7 points, for no other reason than I "triggered" them. Looking at that objectively, is it fair that someone can award 7 points to someone just because I "triggered" them? You can see that for yourself here, for the vote in question:
Do you honestly think 7 points should be awarded to my opponent in that debate because I triggered that person?

Once this happened, I changed my mind completely on the vote moderation. Votes should have good reason to back them up. This is a debating website that prides itself on making sure people's arguments are looked at fairly. Also, as for your point that I'm clearly a socialist and would be biased in my voting decision, this would be true to an extent, but everyone has a bias one way or another. Where the bias shouldn't be is in the RFD, if there is bias in what I said in my RFD, you can report it and whiteflame may remove it if he deems it that it's against the guidelines for RFD on this site.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
Also if you would like a more detailed vote on this hit me up, I'll read the whole thing at work.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
Mangu, you can't honestly tell me that Marman vote indicated in the slightest he had read and understood this debate, can you? I can see you are angry that a vote in your favor was removed, but to flame at the moderator and say that he was biased for removing it is just a bit silly. Marmans vote clearly didn't indicate he read the debate. Your right that capitalists vote isn't the best either (especially the source juicing point). You could probably report that and make a case of how the vote should be removed and probably win. But at face value it does provide more context to having read the debate than the one that went in your favor. Cheers man, be happy. Whiteflame is a good guy, he is not out to get conservatives. I feel he is pretty objective in these cases and would even go to bat for you if you reported a bad vote.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
The part where you reported whiteflame made me laugh so hard I spit out my drink! xD
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Note: More RFD will be in comments, some of it will be here Arguments go to con because majority of pro's arguments were unsubstantiated, as they provided no sources for most of them. Examples of this include claiming George Soros caused the breakdown of the Bank of England, how Progressive leadership lead to a child support society, they didn't provide any sources for the statistics they used so they could be making those up, and they didn't support their claim that progressives are brainwashed to believe in global climate change. Con, on the otherhand, provided supporting evidence for their claims that progressive ideals, such as universal healthcare, increased infrastructure spending, protecting the right to organize, etc and explained how these items protect freedom and liberty. Con gets the more reliable sources, as one of pro's only sources was one which exhibits right-wing bias, and not a scientific study, which could lead to misinterpretation of facts.