The Instigator
gransta
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
wonderwoman
Con (against)
Winning
97 Points

Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 11/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,971 times Debate No: 9918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (16)

 

gransta

Pro

Liberalism is a political party that is against all american idealogy and is destroying america as a whole

1) It is making our country look lazy and ignorant for simply GIVING our citizens money without representation

2) It is against every thing that the founding father based the country off of

3) Liberalism will eventually ruin our country, further worsening the economy because you are spending money on people that don't benefit society.
(the only exception is for people that have mental/physical disabilities)

Thank you!
wonderwoman

Con

liberlism does not exist.

liberalism however does exist.

My opponent states that liberalism is a political party against all the American Ideals and is destroying America as a whole.

I would like to point out that my opponent is wrong. Liberalism is A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice
(http://www.answers.com...)
Liberalism is not a party but an ideal or believe.

He states that it is "making the country look lazy and ignorant for simply GIVING our citizens money without representation."

However, there is a House of Representatives elected by the people. There is a senate elected by the people and a president elected by the people. He may say there is no representation but there clearly is. If you have a problem with the way your being represented and the things going on call your representative. To make such a claim that there is no representation is preposterous.

His second point is that is "against everthing the founding father based the country off of"

I would like to point out there was more than one father of this the U.S. Thus the founding fathers not father.

"Liberalism will eventually ruin the country."

Liberalism is an ideal or politcal theory. It cannot be active without an actor. It would be an individual who believes in such things that would actually ruin the country if it were to actually be that way.

My Points

1) here is a link of many things that liberalism has accounted for. (http://zeppscommentaries.com...) I would say that woman's suffrage, public education, the family medical leave act, the GI bill, and Bank Deposit insurance have all benefited American society. In sum, Liberalism fights for equality, rights, and liberties, and allows for changes to occur.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
gransta

Pro

Thank you for responding
----------------------------------------
I would like to start of by apologizing for making a spelling error in the resolution and my opponet was caught up in that, I would like to get past that and look at the real issues:

Defenses:
1) opponent states that: " If you have a problem with the way your being represented and the things going on call your representative" this is an issue that this country has, we first need to reconize the fact that liberalism is a horrible "idealogy" which was defined by opponent. It is a belief that MUST be fixed in order to better America

2) My opponent did recognize the fact that I left a "s" off of fathers and I do apologize for that, beside that she did not attack that argument, so it still stands.

3) She says that liberalism is an idea that can't be displayed without an actor, thank you for agreeing with me, we need to recognize that liberalism is an illegitimate measure of political science and must act now. And yes, it is ruining the country, we are in debt partially because of the use of liberalism in congress (acorn)

Attacks:

all of those examples were also supported by conservative-republican individuals.........look at the bad things that liberalism as done: http://www.acorn.org... that is the source of the problems we face today

thank you
wonderwoman

Con

His defenses are weak. My opponent says that it needs to be fixed in order to better America, yet he fails to show us how or why it would even remotely benefit America.

There is more than one founding father and so the assumption of it is against the founding father is wrong. However, if it was not allowed it would violate the 1st amendment rights. (http://www.usconstitution.net...)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Being a Liberal or preaching or believing in liberalism is freedom of expression. Our founding fathers were very much against not allowing us to express ourselves after coming out of the tyranny of British Rule. Thus, the negatives point is negated.

Acorn is not a liberal Group
Acorn, is however a group that has been criticized as much by Democrats as anyone. It has been slandered as a "liberal " group without anything to support it. The only thing that could possibly link the two are that they have been more supportive of government subsidies for housing for the poor than Republicans. The fact that Acorn was caught not applying the kind of standards Republicans routinely dont apply to things like going to war or spying on American citizens doesn't mean Acorn somehow reflects liberal philosophy. So, to say such thing without evidence is a invalid claim.

My only points are still unrefuted. I will now review them.

Public Education is a liberal ideal. Public schools as the iberals teach us, are part of the foundation of democracy. Without the socialization in which every child partakes of the democratic culture of the public schools we would divide into warring classes and subcultures.

Woman's Suffrage has created a significantly higher voter turnout rate and has allowed democracy to thrive. 68 percent of white women voted in the last election. 69 percent of Black women voted in the election. Where as only 61 percent of black men and 64 percent of white men voted. (http://www.baystatebanner.com...) Without the liberal idea of equal liberties women would not have been able to contribute to voting at all and it would have hurt the politcal process as it would not reflect a true majority of the people.

I want to point out that he conceded the idea that liberalism in and of itself is not dangerous because it is merely a belief or idea. and that is when ideas or beliefs are acted on that they may become dangerous.
"She says that liberalism is an idea that can't be displayed without an actor, thank you for agreeing with me, we need to recognize that liberalism is an illegitimate measure of political science and must act now"

Thank you and vote pro
Debate Round No. 2
gransta

Pro

My Opponent is still stuck on the spelling error I made when I was writing father"s"...you can vote for her on spelling and grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attacks:
She says: "My only points are still unrefuted. I will now review them." those were not said in the rebuttal, so you can't review them if this is the first time you have said them.
1) I am completely appalled at the fact that she believes that public education is a liberal ideal-----Public schools in the United States are administered mainly at the state level-----she says public education is an ideal, no because and ideal is a belief and public education is a thing.
2) Again women's suffrage was supported by republican's also

Defenses:
1) She said: "I want to point out that he conceded the idea that liberalism in and of itself is not dangerous because it is merely a belief or idea. and that is when ideas or beliefs are acted on that they may become dangerous." it is dangerous and it is destroying our country

2) Acorn is a liberal program...I don't think she read the "about" section that I provided in the link

3) Yes I did misspell father"s" she has not attacked that argument aside from the fact that I left off an "s"

4) Liberals are DESTROYING parts of the Constitution (ex: gun rights, health care, and cap n trade)

I have CLEARLY won the round because:
a. all the attacks on my arguments were unsuccessful
b. the attacks I made on her case were successful
c. aside from some minor spelling errors I made more compelling arguments
wonderwoman

Con

I would like to attack his points

His first point
If it is being acted on and it then become dangerous and it can only be destroying something if there is actor. Ideas themselves cannot act without an actor he conceded this. It is a invalid defense for his case.

His second point. Acorn is not a liberal program. Surely, just because they have been slandered as liberals does not make them liberals. http://www.examiner.com... The article shown from CNN supports my claim and destorys his.

His third point
I realize this and I DID attack that claim. I used the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

His fourth point. He claims that liberals are destroying parts of the constitution, yet he fails to show how. He names some but has no reasoning or data or support for his empty claims.

My case areas

To vote pro is a violation of freedom of expression or American's 1st amendment rights because if liberalism is outawed your ability to be a free thinking individual is taken away. America was founded by free thinking individuals escaping the British rule of only 1 church 1 god 1 belief system.

He attacks my public education ideal by saying that republicans also supported it and the same with his suffrage claim. There can be liberal leaning republicans and there has been. Also, just because it is supported by another viewpoint as well does not make the claim that it is a liberal ideal/idea invalid.

As I showed he says it is destroying the foundation and basis of America. Through my 1st amendment argument that was ot even touched upon we can see the liberalism or the belief that liberties, the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority is EXACTLY what is the foundation of American society.

Vote Neg
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chicagovigilante 5 years ago
chicagovigilante
Liberalism encompasses more than one political ideology. The Pro should note that modern-day laissez-faire economics traces its roots in the liberal tradition, as does democratic socialism (two entirely different ideologies).
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
"Liberalism is a political party"

Epic Fail. Liberalism was a movement that began in the eighteenth century. Not a political party.
Posted by FallofEmpire888 5 years ago
FallofEmpire888
"Gransta" falls onto the ideological state.
Posted by Nails 5 years ago
Nails
Conduct to PRO
-CON made fun of PROs spelling. I can read. I realize what he meant by 'liberlism' and 'founding father' and there's no need to attack him on it.
-There were a lot of comments from CON along the lines of 'his arguments are bad' and 'his defenses are weak.' I think you can disprove his points without criticizing them so often.

The rest were to CON
It's sort of obvious why
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro is completely wrong. Liberalism is NOT a political party. It is a religion based upon the revelations of its numerous anointed prophets. Arguments to Con.
Posted by wonderwoman 5 years ago
wonderwoman
That is VERY true strikeeagle but I wasn't giving much to work with was I?
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 5 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
First off apart from the apparent ridiculousness of this debate and the weakness of each side one in particular *cough* gransta *cough* I would also like to point out their is a diffrence between classical liberalism and modern liberalism which is that classical liberalism was believed in by the founding fathers and is embodied most closely in libertarian free market ideals
(see political compass quiz on google)
whereas Modern Liberalism is baiscally embodied in the progressive movement and ideologies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
if any one wants to argue the merits and detriments of liberalism and the fact that it is a bad idea I will be glad to accept their challenges
Posted by tmhustler 5 years ago
tmhustler
RFD
c=tie
s&g=tie
arg= con pro did not prove the resolution
s= con con had the only relevant sources
Posted by kukupser 5 years ago
kukupser
I'm pretty sure liberalism is a founding principal in the US. There are four basic assumptions of liberalism:
1) Consent of the Governed
2) Limited Government
3) Equality of Right
4) Personal Freedom

The Declaration of Independence was written by the founding fathers of the US (Thomas Jefferson, primarily, but others as well) and the Liberal principles listed above are shown in the declaration. Consent of the Governed is expressed through the statement "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government." The "Limited Government" part of Liberal theory is also in this statement. When the Declaration says that its citizens have the right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness, it is advocating personal freedom. Also, the declaration applies to all American citizens, and therefore there is an equality of right.

So how can liberalism be "against every thing that the founding father based the country off of"? I would say that you are contradicting yourself...
Posted by TyJ 5 years ago
TyJ
This is so stupid... Seriously Grant?
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dbj10 3 years ago
dbj10
granstawonderwomanTied
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 200machao 3 years ago
200machao
granstawonderwomanTied
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 Awed 4 years ago
Awed
granstawonderwomanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Enriquez 5 years ago
Enriquez
granstawonderwomanTied
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 chicagovigilante 5 years ago
chicagovigilante
granstawonderwomanTied
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 tnoodles 5 years ago
tnoodles
granstawonderwomanTied
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 Nails 5 years ago
Nails
granstawonderwomanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 5 years ago
tBoonePickens
granstawonderwomanTied
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 Amute 5 years ago
Amute
granstawonderwomanTied
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 mcc1789 5 years ago
mcc1789
granstawonderwomanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06