The Instigator
Jlconservative
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Secular Progressive movement will destroy this country

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
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: 3/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,445 times Debate No: 3183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (12)

 

Jlconservative

Pro

I hope that who ever take this argument is ready for a debate. I have debated to many morons on this website who have no idea what they are talking about and simple copy/paste information from google. Do not take this debate lightly I am profound on this topic and will win. Please someone who is educated and is a passionate member of the SP movement lets go.

That is my opening argument I will save my info for later on.
Yraelz

Con

Okay. I don't have much to say on this at the moment as I don't have any particular case to attack. However I'll classify this as a slippery slope fallacy until my opponent posts his case, as I cannot see the link between secular society and destruction.

I stand open for the Pro's case.
Debate Round No. 1
Jlconservative

Pro

Lets define the term "Secular Progressive" before we do anything which is fairly simple it just takes a trip to Mr. Webster

SECULAR= 1. PERTAINING TO WORLDLY THINGS OR TO THINGS NOT REGARDED AS SACRED; TEMPORAL. 2. NOT RELATING TO OR CONCERNED WITH RELIGION (OPPOSED TO SACRED). 3. CONCERNED WITH NON-RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS; SECULAR SCHOOLS.

PROGRESSIVE= 1. ADVOCATING PROGRESS OR REFORM, ESP. IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL MATTERS. 2. EMPLOYING OR ADVOCATING MORE LIBERAL IDEAS, NEW METHOD, ETC. A PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY. 3. GOING FORWARD OR ONWARD; PASSING SUCCESSIVELY FROM ONE STAGE TO THE NEXT. 4. CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING IN EXTENT OR SEVERITY AS A DISEASE.

A Secularist is "Carnal In Nature." In other words, that person is lead by his fleshly needs. A Secularist does not believe in God. In fact, these people feel that they "Are God." Secularists are responsible for the mess our country is in today. For example, the expulsion of God from our schools. The rejection of God at Christmas. Are you listening ACLU? The dismantling of the word family as we know it. The Secularists with the help of secular courts in this country, are tearing our families apart.

The homosexual community falls under the rubric of Secularism. Those who support abortion are Secularists. Homosexuals with the help of a Secular court in Massachusetts opened the door to"Legal" homosexual marriages. Residents of the state of Massachusetts can marry those of the same gender. This is secularism at its worst. I say this because worst case scenario finds gay marriages being the law of the land. If that takes place, what happens to the proliferation of the human race? Two men "Can Not Make A Child." "Two Women Can Not Make A Child." I don't care how intoxicated man becomes with his power, he can not defy the biological will of God.

As Webster notes, a Secularist's desires are temporal. In other words, it is not long before his fleshly body "Cries Out For Something Else, Even More Decadent." There "Is No Satisfying The Secular Body."

A Secularist is undisciplined. A Secularist is a danger to our society. He is a danger because he can not say "NO" to his body when it begins to lust for something new.

A society that is based on a Secular paradigm is doomed to be devoured by its own lustful greed. Look at history, and you will find that mighty empires have fallen because of Secularism. When God is omitted, man is bound to perish. The founders forwarned us of this day. Sadly, we have not listened.

The term "Progressive" is not a bad word altogether. It took Progressives like Dr. King to change the Jim Crow south. What about Brown vs. The Board Of Education.?" The subsequent Supreme Court ruling against defacto school segregation, was certainly Progressive; and an excellent ruling. When Truman integrated the Armed Forces, that was a "Progressive" call. When society as a whole benefits from a Progressive change,, we are all better for it. However, you can not place pro-abortionists and homosexuals in the camp of "Progressives." Doing this, simply skews the word. These people are simply "Secularists."

Tell me, what is "Progressive" about killing a child at full term? What is "Progressive" about taking God out of our schools? What is "Progressive" about the homosexual agenda? What is "Progressive" about telling people they don't have to work, let the government pay them each month? What is "Progressive" about encouraging young girls to become pregnant? What is "Progressive" about the filthy music that comes across our airwaves these days? What is "Progressive" about the disrespect that we see in our society today? What is so "Progressive" about looking at the "Crack Of A Young Man's Butt" because his pants sag to the ground?

Our country is going to hell in a hand-basket. What we do not need are people going on the air each night giving aid and comfort to the opposition by mis-using the term, "Secular Progressives"; which speaks to diabolical social change.

The term Secular Progressives sounds benign. But, it is a cancer, left un-checked, these dangeous people will destroy each and everyone of us.
Yraelz

Con

Alright for starters I would ask that we stick with the second definition presented under secular while excluding the "(opposed to sacred)". Being opposed to the sacred is not a necessary requirement of secular.

Secondly, I am fine with the definitions of progressive.

Thus I begin my arguments.

My opponent in his first paragraph lays down about 6 different points that I need to attack.

1. -A secularist is a person lead by his/her fleshy needs.- This isn't necessarily true at all. Lets take Friedrich Nietzsche as an amazing example. He believed that believing in a god unfocused one from believing in the earth. He felt that the secular people of his day were essentially trading heaven for earth. Thus Nietzsche felt that religion desecrated the earth in someway. This view had little to do with his fleshy needs.

2. -Secularists feel that they are god- This case would be supported by Nietzsche but not by many other secularists such as myself. I believe myself to be an intelligent creator capable of creating my own purpose in life. This does not somehow make me any less moral than a religious person.

3. -Secularists are responsible for the mess our country is in today- Last I checked the largest mess we were in was stemming from a minor problem we were having in Iraq that happened to be draining multiple billions of dollars from our economy. Last I checked George Bush was a christrian and I'm rather certain he is responsible for our country being in Iraq. So my question to my opponent would be, "What mess are you referring to?" P.s 9/11 was reportedly caused by non-secular terrorists. =)

4. -Expulsion of god from our schools- No, you could probably not attribute this to secularists, or not entirely anyways. This could mainly be attributed to different religious branches and their inability to agree on exactly what religious texts should be taught in school. Though even so, my opponent should probably explain exactly how this links to this country being destroyed.

5. -The rejection of god at Christmas- Christmas started out as a pagan holiday, in fact my opponents catholic god has nothing to do with Christmas as Jesus' birthday is never mentioned in the new testament. Once again my opponent needs to show me how this destroys the country.

6. -The dismantling of the word family- I ask my opponent to explain this one to me and then explain how it is destroying our country.

This leads me to my opponents second paragraph where I also have multiple points.

1. -The homosexual community falls under secularism- Nope definitely not true. I have met many homosexuals who were either christian or other religions. To say that they are no because they do not follow one teaching of the bible is to say that every time someone sins they are no longer christian.

2. -People who support abortion are secular- Or just women's rights supporters. The bible doesn't seem to give a great deal of rights to women. Though I fail to see how abortions are destroying our country, last time I check population was definitely on a projected increase.

3. -Homosexuals can have legal marriage in Massachusetts- Yep, this is true. Please point me to where this happens to be destroying our country.

4. -Worst case scenario finds gay marriage being the law of the land- Uh... no. Gay marriage is being granted on the premise that everyone has equal rights, not on the premise that gay's should take over.

5. -Two men or two women cannot make a baby together- Great, but a very small percentage of the population is gay. So unless someone develops a -turn you gay- gun sometime soon and starts blasting people with it, we are fine. Also I'll submit the argument that being gay is not a choice. Last time I checked I could not choose my sexual preference, to say that gay people can is to grant them superhuman powers. Unfeasible.

6. -Man cannot defy the biological will of god- I don't have a comment as far as defying the biological will of god goes, but I can tell you that creating artificial sperm will be a possibility in the near future.

Paragraph 3:

"As Webster notes, a Secularist's desires are temporal. In other words, it is not long before his fleshly body "Cries Out For Something Else, Even More Decadent." There "Is No Satisfying The Secular Body.""

1. This has absolutely nothing to do with being secular or religious. I've met a great deal of people from both who were not satisfied with the status quo. However I argue that religion does this more, religion (christian) holds the idea that we can graduate this earth to heaven. If this is not crying out for something more, I'm not sure what is.

Paragraph 4:

"A Secularist is undisciplined. A Secularist is a danger to our society. He is a danger because he can not say "NO" to his body when it begins to lust for something new."

1. A secularist is a disciplined as he wants to be. I can make as many morals for myself as I would like, in fact I contend that I have more morals and better morals than the average christrian and stick to them quite a bit better.

2. A secularist can be a danger to our society, but no more so than a christian. Lets not forget the dark ages, the crusades were pretty thrilling....

3. My opponent will have to explain the lust argument to me....

Paragraph 5:

1. -A society based on secularism is doomed- Uh huh.....

2. -There have been many examples of this in the past- Like...? Brief history note, the great Roman empire broke up after converting to christianity, not before.

3. -When God is omitted, man is bound to perish.- First off this makes no sense what-so-ever unless a god just enjoys killing his own creations. Secondly, I beg my opponent prove that god exists then we can argue this one.

4. -Our forefathers warned us of this.- Which is why they put the freedom of religion in the constitution and separation of church and state.

Paragraph 6:

1. -However, you can not place pro-abortionists and homosexuals in the camp of "Progressives." Doing this, simply skews the word. These people are simply "Secularists."- This defeats the entire point of my opponents argument, he is advocating that the secular progressive movement will destroy this country yet he just split up the two and said that they are distinct....

Paragraph 7:

1. -What is so "Progressive" about looking at the "Crack Of A Young Man's Butt" because his pants sag to the ground?- Prove the young man is secular, I contest that the young man is a biproduct of his parents beliefs.

Paragraph 8:

1. -Our country is going to hell in a hand-basket.- Opinion, has no bearing in debate.

Paragraph 9:

1. -The term Secular Progressives sounds benign. But, it is a cancer, left un-checked, these dangeous people will destroy each and everyone of us.- This is empirically denied throughout history. On the other hand I can list a great deal of examples in which religious persons have destroyed millions of other people. Doo dee doo

Open for rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Jlconservative

Pro

Thanks for taking this debate Yraelz I will begin by answering your long list of questions.

1. "Lets take Friedrich Nietzsche as an amazing example. He believed that believing in a god unfocused one from believing in the earth. He felt that the secular people of his day were essentially trading heaven for earth. Thus Nietzsche felt that religion desecrated the earth in someway. This view had little to do with his fleshy needs."

Rebuttal : Number one terrible example for this debate, in general perhaps but first of all he a German this debate is over the Secular Progressive Movement(2008) in The United States of America. Mr. Nietzshe (1844-1900) is far from the ( I am going to abbreviate Secular Progressive from now on if you don't mind) SP'S of today. Also his repudiation of the Christian faith is based around 18th and a little 19th century Christianity not common 2008 Christianity. Also it seems to me your picking a needle out of a hay stack here any different examples besides a 18th century German philosopher?

2. "-Secularists feel that they are god- This case would be supported by Nietzsche but not by many other secularists such as myself. I believe myself to be an intelligent creator capable of creating my own purpose in life. This does not somehow make me any less moral than a religious person."

Rebuttal: Actually it dose I am afraid, lets use a little thing I call common sense. On one hand you have the traditional Christian/Jewish family held together by strong morals (Ten Commandments) and faith ( Let us not forget the Christian faith can be summed up in one quote: "Love your Neighbor as your self") Then you have an Atheist/Evolutionist survival of the fittest, not only no God but no faith in anything except one shot take advantage of it. I think its easy to see that a SP would have far less morals than a Christian.

3. "-The rejection of god at Christmas- Christmas started out as a pagan holiday, in fact my opponents catholic god has nothing to do with Christmas as Jesus' birthday is never mentioned in the new testament. Once again my opponent needs to show me how this destroys the country."

Rebuttal: Of course it did so did Easter this point is clearly foolish, are people who flock to church on Easter morning on Christmas night celebrating pagan rituals? no of course not our society has changed these Holidays into a entirely different purpose. Also of course this one thing will destroy the country but it has an a large negative effect on the foundation of the American Family.

4. "-The homosexual community falls under secularism- Nope definitely not true. I have met many homosexuals who were either Christian or other religions.

Rebuttal: Well you are abundantly wrong here my friend, the bible clearly states that homosexuals are against the teachings of Christ any homosexual that says they are a Christian and "God made me who I am" are horrifyingly misinterpreting the bible. "

5. "To say that they are not because they do not follow one teaching of the bible is to say that every time someone sins they are no longer Christian."

Rebuttal: Sorry to tell you but your wrong, anyone who lives day to day in sin regardless of what it is will not make it to the Kingdom of Heaven. Homosexuals live every single day in sin and unless they repent and remain so will not make it to heaven I am afraid.

6. "Also I'll submit the argument that being gay is not a choice. Last time I checked I could not choose my sexual preference, to say that gay people can is to grant them superhuman powers. Unfeasible."

Rebuttal: Well I will have to revoke your submittal

http://www.thebible.net... website entirely busting with ex-homosexuals sharing and helping one another.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com...
Same deal not Christian related

http://www.denverpost.com...
News article about a man who turned heterosexual

I ask my opponent submitting the argument they cannot change, then how is this possible?

7. A secularist is a disciplined as he wants to be. I can make as many morals for myself as I would like.

Rebuttal: Ok, I ask my opponent to define Secular morals? where did a secular get morals? as an SP evolutionist how did man king create morals? what binds them together? Also sure you can TAKE morals from religion and use them but what keeps you from deciding to revoke them? I know for me its a belief in God what is it for you? a belief in survival of the fittest?

8. "-There have been many examples of this in the past- Like...? Brief history note, the great Roman empire broke up after converting to Christianity, not before."

Rebuttal: haha well I would advise against using history lessons to out-wit someone who holds a Doctorate in Ancient History. Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus was the Roman Emperor who inherited a crumbling kingdom during his Catholic reign he established a period of Roman mercantile which brought a long period of financial and military security. Constantine reined in 306 to say the fall of the Empire is due to Christianity is foolish.

9. "-However, you can not place pro-abortionists and homosexuals in the camp of "Progressives." Doing this, simply skews the word. These people are simply "Secularists."- This defeats the entire point of my opponents argument, he is advocating that the secular progressive movement will destroy this country yet he just split up the two and said that they are distinct...."

Rebuttal: Hence the point of defining Secular Progressive in the beginning which you so arrogantly spewed at this simply means the term SP is a stupid one. They belong in the same group not apart.

10. "-Our country is going to hell in a hand-basket.- Opinion, has no bearing in debate."

Rebuttal: Opinions mean everything in a debate, what do you think we are debating over genius?

11. "-The term Secular Progressives sounds benign. But, it is a cancer, left un-checked, these dangerous people will destroy each and everyone of us.- This is empirically denied throughout history. On the other hand I can list a great deal of examples in which religious persons have destroyed millions of other people."

Rebuttal: Of course you can, again I advise against using history against a Professor. Let me point out that there has never been a country based on the ideals of the United States of America. We have been threw turmoil that would have split other Empires in two and yet here we stand today. Why? because of strong faith and family values(Great Depression) take that away God literally knows where we will end up.

My opponent has strong opinions much like I do, it is my belief that the culture war being fought on our soil is a loosing one for people like me "Traditionalists" a knew breed of America is coming out members of society like my opponent.

People who do not value faith or morals people who live under the theory of evolution "survival of the fittest" people who teach our children that abominable sexual acts are natural and should be accepted.

People who believe that any discrimination be it justifiable or not is unacceptable, even the discrimination against Islamic fascists or homosexual deviants is wrong. (Quote Nancy Poloski a known SP "From all accounts we know of Islam is a peaceful and loving religion") mmmmm tell that to the 9/11 victims.

People who demoralize morals and faith the two things that have bound this country together and brought light in the darkest of times.
Yraelz

Con

Well, I will respond to each of my opponents 11 points and then point out exactly what my opponent has conceded to me or declined to respond to.

1. My opponent argues that Friedrich Nietzsche is not a legitimate example because he was of 200 years ago and we are speaking of the here and now. For a moment I nearly bought this argument until I realized that we were speaking of secularism here and unless I missed where secularism has drastically changed in the last 200 years then Nietzsche, as an atheist, still does very much apply. Nietzsche is a rather fine example of an atheist, being one of the more well known atheist philosophers.

In this argument my opponent was attempting to prove that secular people are those obsessed fleshy needs. Nietzsche being an atheist, and atheism in turn being a philosophy that has not changed drastically over time, is a fine example that disproves this idea. But pacify my opponent I include a wiki link to notable atheists of all time http://en.wikipedia.org... . I would like to note that while some of these people were not the best, others were responsible for creating great medicines and scientific break throughs. Thus the idea that secular people are based on fleshy needs is rather inaccurate.

2. On this second point my opponent argues that the good christian family has greater morals than that of the atheist/evolutionist (seculars). This leads me to offer many subpoints.

a. Many christians have accepted the concept of evolution as not being mutually exclusive from that of intelligent design.

b. The founding fathers were in part secular as they adopted the idea of separation of church and state. They were also christrian, in part.

c. Despite those two obvious faults in my opponent argument we have the primary one. I contest that a christrian family has its morals, such as the commandments, but this does not mean that they dutifully follow them. On the other hand an atheist must decide upon his/her own way to live, and is more apt to follow such morals because they are of his/her own creation. A part of him/her perhaps. For example I can gaurantee I almost always follow my own moral code, but when I look around I do not see christians always following theirs.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. " - Mohandas Gandhi

Though I have promised my opponent a debate on this issue, so perhaps we shall see.

3. My opponent argues that rejection of Christmas, despite is origins in paganism, hurts the common family. However this can be seen as fallacious through the fact that we would have already seen this impact before the christian association with Christmas. The fact that we did not before, means that we do not now. My opponent also fails to elaborate on how this hurts a family, and I equally fail to see the link. To myself personally Christmas is a time of family love, collaborated with giving gifts to help demonstrate a caring or unselfishness. While it does commonly put my family in debt I can see that as the only way in which it hurts my family.

4. Arguing that homosexuality is against the bible, my opponent attempts to convey the point that homosexuals cannot be christians. This is simply not true, if the bible stopped everyone from being a christian who broke even one tenant of the bible then no one would be a christian. I contest that most everyone has broken at least some tenant of the bible in someway. This links with the 5th point.

5. My opponent argues that everybody has the original sin therefor going against the bible is okay. This completely refutes his homosexual argument. By the way I agree with this point.

6. From here my opponent argues that being gay is not a choice, he offers me three sources.

a. http://www.thebible.net... This site simply shows a few instances where the bible says the homosexuality is wrong in some way. It goes on to advocate that change is possible yet gives no facts or data.

b. http://www.lonelyplanet.com... This is a forum. And while the first entry does say that the guy has changed from homosexual to heterosexual the third entry goes on to say that it is impossible. Neither of these however count as conclusive evidence and I will show why in situation c.

c. http://www.denverpost.com... First off this entire article is reportedly what the guy's friend heard him say. Secondly there is a substantial reason for this man, Haggard, to say that he has reformed. As that would be the only way he could be accepted by the community in which he dedicated many years of his life to, ever again. Once again I conclude that this article offers no scientific facts or data.

I would also like to point out that my opponent made no attack on my line of reasoning.

7. An argument over whether secularists can have morals or not. Cross apply all my points from number 2. I stop myself from revoking my morals, as this would be a crime unto myself. However my morals can be studied over time and changed to become better. This is a benefit the christian does not have.

8. My point that christianity didn't help the roman empire still stands. My opponent provided no counter points of times where secular nations have fallen.

9. I'm not sure where my opponent stands on this issue. Second round he decides that progressives and secularists are not the same thing, which defeats the point of his resolution. Third round he states, "They belong in the same group not apart." So I suppose I will just disregard his statements from second round. Either way I have nothing to argue.

10. My opponents point here is that our country is going to hell in a hand basket. He offers no analysis of this point and simply backs it up by stating, "Opinions mean everything in a debate, what do you think we are debating over genius?" Thus I have nothing else to say on this point.

11. Haha, this is actually funny, something I didn't realize on my first reading of this debate. My opponent urges not once but twice that I should not cross a history major. Yet both times he does not actually bring up a single historical fact to counter my argument. This is quite simply because there aren't any examples of purely secular nations that have fallen because of their secularness. Whereas there are examples many examples of christians killing many people throughout history. The crusades fits in nicely with this topic. My opponent also states that,

"We have been threw turmoil that would have split other Empires in two and yet here we stand today."

Yet there is literally no proof for this statement what-so-ever. Also the best example of our country staying together in times of turmoil would be the civil war. Which is war going directly against my opponent summary of christian morals being, "Love your Neighbor as your self".

Thus I point out points that my opponent has conceded me.

Paragraph 1, points: 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Paragraph 2, points: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Paragraph 3: The entire thing.

Paragraph 4 points: 2, and 3.

Paragraph 5 points: 1, 3, and 4.

Paragraph 7: The entire thing.

Thus my opponent has conceded that the largest problems facing America today are biproducts of christian ideas, not the least of which include the war in Iraq. But this is entirely irrelevant in contrast with my opponent (important!) FAILURE TO SHOW HOW THE SECULAR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT WILL DESTROY THIS COUNTRY. I questioned this throughout his original 9 paragraph and he never answered. So even if my voters feel that homosexuality, abortion, and atheism are all horrible there is no link between them and destruction of this country.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Et Tu. Well, you can't even say that because my appeals are logical.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
If you think so, then it is so.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
I'd argue strongly that fiscal conservatism is great, however social 'conservatism' is generally wrong. Suggesting that gay marriage and removing god from public schools is causing the somewhat minor rise in single parents (~10% since 1980) is entirely unsubstantiated.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Duco, I doubt it, I have been alive long enough to see it happen and know the cause, the only things that have changed politically with regard to the family unit in the last 30 years is the celebration of a single parent as being virtuous, the rise of the gay marriage agenda, and removing all references to god from schools. The effects are quite obvious.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
You could be wrong too, sad.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I agree that religion can help keep families together and even benefit society. But I also feel that religion can detriment society. It seems to be purely based on how people decide to interpret what their religion means.

Religion teaches many important concepts in my opinion. I feel that many of the concepts should be followed but not purely on a religious level.

By which I mean that I often see people following religious concepts in a blind way. I feel it is important to understand these concepts for oneself and attempt to understand what benefit they have on society.

For example without the idea of monogamous marriage women would be treated unfairly. Men would simply have the ability to impregnate a woman and then move on to another woman. This would in turn detract from the womans financial assets by ideally 50% in order to support her child (the now disappeared man being the other 50%). Such action would doubtlessly hurt each child that this happened to.

I look around and I see many people saying that monogamous marriage is a good thing, but simply because god taught them so. Many people don't seem to understand why monogamous marriage is a good thing outside of "god says so". I feel this is wrong (you may disagree).

Anyways, back on topic. I think the abandonment by some of religion has lead to the problems you list. But at the same time I feel that it is each of their faults for not understanding the concepts behind the religion which they abandoned.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Yes Duco you could be very wrong. The number of children born out of wedlock has sky rocketed in the last 30 years due to attacks on religion and marriage and the mindset that liberals have that these two fundamental institutions have nothing to do with keeping a cohesive society and the family unit together.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Sadolite- that comment applies mostly to economic policy as far as I interpret it, not social policy. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hmmm, I think that might have something to do with the progressive character of new generations. For example teenagers commonly like the new age music, however in their 40's the music is considered old age. In other words I don't think the issues a person supports change as much as they move out of the progressive spectrum to be replaced by more progressive issues.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I re-evaluated my value system quite often through my twenties and thirties, now I'm in my forties going on fifty and I have been able to see what political policies have done both good and bad to society, that is why I went from a bleeding heart liberal to staunch conservative over the last 30 years. I don't know who said it but it makes sense to me now, but I thought it was stupid 20 years ago.

"Conservative at 20 no heart, liberal at 40 no brain"

This is just an opinion on my part.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by miraquesuave 8 years ago
miraquesuave
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 Lenfent 8 years ago
Lenfent
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 marge 8 years ago
marge
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 piffy 8 years ago
piffy
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
JlconservativeYraelzTied
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