The Instigator
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Republicans don't deserve to be elected

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Rayze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,624 times Debate No: 27126
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

elvroin_vonn_trazem

Pro

(side note: I'm working two jobs and seldom have time for this site --so, a one-round debate; not to mention it is kind of late in the political season, to really get into a long debate.)

A friend of mine wrote the following poem; the few misspellings are deliberate, and fall under the category of "poetic license" to make the rhyme scheme work.
However, I've added the supporting references, for this Debate.
Have fun!

Republicandidates
by Kamalu Pangalan

Republicandidates are politicking right and right;
too bad their policies will cause an economic blight.
They only want to grow their personal financial might,
and think that all the rest of us deserve a horrid plight.

With wonderf'ly straight faces do they promote "trickle down" --
they'll greedily take almost all; the trickle's for each town. ((1))
A record surplus they turned red before bin Laden struck, ((2))
and mid-class dreams were drowned as popped home values sank to muck. ((3))

Their "golden rule" tells them to lever Money into Law, ((4))
and ev'ry fool who helps them do it makes them laugh, "Ha-hah!"
"Oh, we have lots of money and it is a shame you don't,
but vote for us and once again we will make sure you won't." ((5))

"We'll raise your tax and lower ou-urs, just because we can,
and selling thousand-dollar hammers helps our long-range plan ((6))
to transfer wealth from you to us until you are bereft,
a Constitutional technique for legalizing theft!" ((7))

Republicandidates are masters of hypocrisy;
they rig the votes while claiming to support democracy. ((8))
The proof is in their opposition to a paper trail; ((9))
a rigged "black box" can't be refuted -- go ahead and wail! ((10))

They also spout the lie that human life is valu'ble; ((11))
while claiming that abortion is so very terrible,
they fight the funds for Welfare, Health Care, and the Lowest Wage -- ((12-14))
not matching Mouths with Money ranks below the fairness gauge! ((15))

And yet they have another goal, to raise pollution flow; ((16))
to poison human life just makes them richer, don't you know! ((17))
"We'll use that loot to make more jobs," they say with practiced ease; ((18))
it's true, they do -- except those jobs are born far overseas! ((19))

And next not least are goods and raw materials they prize,
"Deregulate!" is just a plot to things monopolize. ((20))
Despite how History reveals they caused enormous strife, ((21))
again they would show how they fail to value human life!

Republicandidate pass Hitler spouting lies so big ((22))
that if you swallowed all of them you'd bloat up like a pig.
Let's start with claim the Earth's too huge for mankind to affect; ((23))
a long list of extinctions link ecologies we've wrecked! ((24))

They also say resources are so vast they won't run out, ((25))
yet oil's at peak and copper is a growing point of doubt. ((26-27))
The proof the Earth is limited is not so hard to spot;
just see the picture Sagan took -- the world's a pale blue dot! ((28))

How stupid are the claims that global warming's not our fault?
When ozone levels fell did chlorocarbon making halt; ((29))
half-million times as much of cee-oh-two we've dumped to sky; ((30))
to say it can't affect a thing is telling big-as* lie! ((31))

In future we will need all brains if we our Civ will save, ((32))
yet they want your kids to obey, not think on causes grave. ((33))
Their own sons learn at private schools a master's new world brave ((34-35))
--and minds of women? Make each to her body's womb a slave! ((36))

(A couple links have been modified slightly near the start to prevent mangling)

((1)) http://www.theatlantic.com...

((2)) http://www.centeronbudget.org...

((3)) http://www.americanprogress.org...

((4)) htt.../wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_'He_who_has_the_gold_makes_the_rules'_mean

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...

((5)) http://www.foxbusiness.com...

((6)) http://www.dailyhome.com...

((7)) http://www.thisnation.com...

((8)) http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.cbsnews.com...

((9)) http://archive.truthout.org...

((10)) http://blackboxvoting.org...

((11)) http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...

((12)) http://elinoremehrens.blogspot.com...

((13)) http://www.samefacts.com...

((14)) http://www.addictinginfo.org... (#18 on list)

((15)) http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com...

((16)) http://www.planetdebate.com...

((17)) http://thinkprogress.org...

((18)) http://thinkprogress.org...

((19)) http://thegavel.democraticleader.house.gov...

((20)) http://www.californiaprogressreport.com...

((21)) http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa...

((22)) http://en.wikipedia.org...

((23)) http://redstateconservative.blogspot.com...

((24)) http://ncep.amnh.org...

((25)) http://timeguide.wordpress.com...

((26)) http://ourfiniteworld.com...

((27)) http://www.bloomberg.com...

((28)) http:/...w.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

((29)) http://books.google.com...

((30)) http://www.smashwords.com...

((31)) http://en.wikipedia.org...

((32)) http://freethoughtblogs.com...

((33)) http://www.washingtonpost.com...

((34)) http://www.edweek.org...

((35)) http://en.wikipedia.org...

((36)) http://news.yahoo.com...
Rayze

Con

According to Plagiarism.org My opponent has committed: "The Resourceful Citer"
The writer properly cites all sources, paraphrasing and using quotations appropriately. The catch? The paper contains almost no original work! It is sometimes difficult to spot this form of plagiarism because it looks like any other well-researched document."(1)

Although I could win on the plagiarism argument, let me tell you why Republicans still deserve a chance.
Might seem like nonsense but totally factual. Most sites cited by my opponent is blatant propaganda, which is unfortunate, but if I were to look up similar propaganda type sources then I would win. However such a victory would be a bitter one as I would have to compromise my neutral attitudes of the Republican party, Democratic party, and the fringe Libertarian party. In addition It has been time consuming reading my opponent's sources most of which are false, read his friend's works which is inappropriate for debate considering that the entire piece is riddled with propaganda, and rhetorical fallacies, but I digress. On the other hand the poem is entertaining as a fringe political satire. Oh and since I'm pressed for time the argument might seem incoherent but bear with me.

Well my opponent's main argument condemning the economic policies of Republicans bashing them as fascists, total hypocrites, fight welfare healthcare and lowest wage, let corporations strip away workers rights.

Well the mantra of deregulation started with Reagonomics, which was a heavily criticized policy by many moderates before it was implemented. Some of the moderates such as George H.W. Bush even went to calling it voodoo economics. However when it worked, it became the economic mantra of the Republicans although slightly changed with each Republican politician like the deregulation portion. (2)

Now you think republicans don't deserve to be elected, but that's just your opinion. I'm not debating propaganda just the facts. Since there are little facts presented by my opponent for his case I might as well just cite history as an example of why its fair to say that they still deserve to be elected.

Now look at history the Republican party has produced 18 American presidents out of 44 beginning with Abraham Lincoln. Democrats on the other hand produced 14 presidents starting with Andrew Jackson.
4 presidents were Democratic-republicans starting with Thomas Jefferson.
Another 4 presidents were Whigs beginning with William Harrison.
1 was a Federalist (John Adams).
1 also had no party affiliation (George Washington).(3)

Historically these Republican Presidents literally derail my opponents argument(4):
Abraham ("Honest" Abe) Lincoln [Note Honest];
Abolished Slavery in the US with the 13th amendment. Vindicated Democracy, held the union together, refuted the Social contract principle as well as nullification, and is considered one of the greatest Presidents of the US.

Ulysses S. Grant;
US General who beat Gen. Lee ending the Civil War. As president he fought against and destroyed the first Ku Klux Klan even though his administration was riddled with corruption. Reshaped the Republican party in the south, and presided over Reconstruction providing suffrage for Colored folks. However, His reconstruction policies were systematically dismantled by the Democrats who came back to power and removed suffrage for colored folks with the Jim Crow Laws.

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt;
Brought progressive reforms to the Nation trying to pass his Square deal. He aggressively attacked bad trusts improved the middle class and encouraged the conservationist movement.

Dwight D. Eisenhower;
Created the Departments of health, education, and welfare. Expanded Social Security and authorized the Interstate Highway system.

Ronald Reagan
Fixed the economy from a worse recession than the current recession, through his trickle down policies.
He is also credited with negotiating an end to the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev. It was noted that his economic policies contributed heavily to the Clinton Surplus.

Now each president refutes my opponent's argument through their accomplishments and policies.

Abraham Lincoln and Grant refute the argument of Republicans being fascists as no fascist would defend democracy.
Also why would they free the colored folks or grant them suffrage if they were fascists? Ever thought of that considering that most fascists exterminated those they considered a lesser race?

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt refutes,
/they fight the funds for Welfare, Health Care, and the Lowest Wage
not matching Mouths with Money ranks below the fairness gauge!/
Eisenhower practically created the departments of Welfare, Health, and education. Roosevelt destroyed many corporate monopolies instituting economic reform.

Roosevelt also refutes /They also say resources are so vast they won't run out,
yet oil's at peak and copper is a growing point of doubt.
The proof the Earth is limited is not so hard to spot;
just see the picture Sagan took -- the world's a pale blue dot!

How stupid are the claims that global warming's not our fault?
When ozone levels fell did chlorocarbon making halt;
half-million times as much of cee-oh-two we've dumped to sky;
to say it can't affect a thing is telling big-as* lie!/
Now Roosevelt was a prominent conservationist creating many national parks and prevented many forests from being exploited by man.

Ronald Reagan, refutes, /"Deregulate!" is just a plot to things monopolize.
Despite how History reveals they caused enormous strife,
again they would show how they fail to value human life!/
His economic policies helped the US economy's expansion and helped the Clinton surplus.

Abortion that's a simple issue that should have been resolved with Roe v. Wade unless the fringe wants evangelical support.

(1) http://www.plagiarism.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.mademan.com...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
A one-round Debate of course has the disadvantage that the first poster can't predict what tack the second will take. However Rayze might at least have read the comments, and seen the one where I stated I had full permission to use that poem here. So, an alternative to a claim of "plagiarism" is "two people constructed the first part of this Debate, but only one of them had an account at debate.org".

Next, just because Rayze claims that something is propaganda, that does not mean it is actually propaganda. Note that no evidence was provided to support that claim.

Then there is the fact the Republicans of today are not promoting all the same policies of many of the historical Republicans that Rayze described. And only Republicans of today are running for office.

Well, the Debate is over, but it would be nice if voters would notice how Rayze focussed on the glories of the early days of the GOP, instead of the very different present.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
clearly I don't so why don't you set up the debate so you can teach me.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
@ax123man, no, you still don't get it. A number of the links I posted contain far more stuff than just the part I needed as supporting evidence for something in the text of the poem. The Sagan video is actually more of an audio than a video; the main picture, with Earth occupying a single pixel, is a "still" image. And ONLY that image is needed, nothing more from the whole video, to prove that Republicans are OBVIOUSLY lying, when they claim the Earth has unlimited capacity for [fill in blank]. Do you or don't you know what the word "unlimited" means???
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
@elvroin
So, if I back away from something far enough so that it fits into a pixel on a computer screen, that proves it's limited. Righhhhhht. Got it.

I didn't miss Sagan's point. I simply pointed out that it isn't an argument, it's an appeal to emotion. If you'd like, I'd be happy to expound more on this in a real debate. Your resolution could be something like "This Carl Sagan video is a valid argument against Republicans"
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
@ax123man, you have missed the point, regarding how that video connects with the text of the poem.
The faulty claim is basically that the Earth is unlimited, in what it can provide for humans, or what humans can extract from it. The fact that the Earth doesn't fill the whole image in that space-photo (it only fills 1 pixel!), is proof that the Earth is indeed VERY LIMITED. Very simple! And most other lies of Republicans can almost-as-easily shown to be lies. Else there would have been far fewer references associated with the poem.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
@elvroin
Ok, but the video has no evidence. It's just an appeal to emotion. Neither does it mention partisan politics. It's no argument at all.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
No, the Sagan video is a superb argument against one thing: the Republican/Conservative lie (though widely thought to be true in the 1800s) that the world has endless ability to provide resources and/or absorb pollution. They are stupidly promoting political policies that are fundamentally based on a thing that was thoroughly disproved in the 20th Century.

So, each one of those reference links is associated with a particular point made in the poem, and it is always EVIDENCE evidence that distinguishes mere propaganda from actuality. In this case the totality of evidence reveals Republican candidates to be unworthy of being elected.

Note that even if everyone accepted that conclusion, it would not automatically prove that Democrats deserve to be elected. That is a whole different Debate from this one!
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
The Sagan video is your best argument against Republicans? I like this poem because just about every stanza is a debate I'd like to do.

@elvroin, Do you really believe all this stuff? A little unusual for a libertarian.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
OK, I apologize, I admit I forgot to think about connecting the poem to the title of this Debate. On the other hand, I thought it would be obvious, that Republican policies are SO flawed, and even obviously flawed when the relevant evidence is considered (example: see the two lines of poem, and the link, tagged with #28), that anyone who didn't directly benefit would have to be a moron to want people in office to make Laws based on such faulty views. In other words, the title is a logical consequence of the main text, PROVIDED that text can be backed up by evidence.

In defense against a claim of plagiarism, first of all I had full permission to post that poem, and second, it actually took far longer than I expected to find all those links with appropriate supporting evidence. And keep in mind that many a patent "for originality" comes from combining things that are well-known!
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
It is highly entertaining. I like the poem.
So far, I still try to understand why GOP is against abortion... What has Paul Ryan said during the campaign made no sense whatsoever. Besides, their math does not add up either...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
elvroin_vonn_trazemRayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Brilliant. I believe we call this an "execution".
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
elvroin_vonn_trazemRayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I hear plagiarism.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
elvroin_vonn_trazemRayzeTied
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: Plagiarism...although a very strange type
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
elvroin_vonn_trazemRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con actualy gave evidense vs. Pros poem