The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Socially, the republican party is superior.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 32800
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




This debate will be unrestricted. Only talk about social issues though.
Guns can be included here.
You may begin in round one.


I will accept the debate and I tank my opponent for opening such a rich discussion. Since you asked the debate to begin in the first round, here I come.

To begin with, there are many social issues the Republican Party has a stand on. What some movements within the GOP believe in is irrelevant in this debate, and I believe we are talking about "mainstream" Republican. If I understand them well, here are the positions of the GOP Establishment:
* Follow the Second Amendment and fight for unrestricted gun ownership
* Secure the border, support deportation of illegal immigrants, and keep citizenship hard to receive
* Keep drugs illegal and keep fighting the War on Drugs
* Define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, oppose gay marriage
* Fight for a "pro-life" agenda (against abortions)
* Promote alternative education techniques, including charter and virtual schools

I think I listed most of them and I cannot think of another social position most Republicans agree with. If my opponent has another issue in mind, he should add it to the list as well.

Now, another point should be clarified. You claim that the "Republican Party is superior." But superior to whom? There are dozens of political parties in the United States, from the New Hampshire Liberty Party and the Green Libertarian Nazi Party (GLNP) to the Constitution Party, the Independent Party, the GOP, and the Democratic Party. I am personally a registered Libertarian.

So I am assuming that you claim the GOP to be the "superior" to all of these parties, including the Libertarian Party.

Finally, another point I'd like to underline is your use of the word "superior". What I actually think is that the GOP's social positions are the closest to your personal values. Superior is a subjective term, what you should have used is "The Republican Party's social positions would bring the best results to America."

Now, for my own beliefs. I am a strong Second Amendment activist. (In fact, I believe people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons as long as it doesn't violate your neighbor's property rights.) I am also a strong opponent of the current education system that is transforming kids into machines, while wasting taxpayer money.

Where I must disagree with you, and where I think the debate should go, is on the War on Drugs, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.

As I've established some clarity for the debate, I invite my opponent to challenge me on why he disagrees with my positions, which I will state right now.

* Drug policy: End the drug prohibition and free all criminals convicted of drug-related charges;

* Gay marriage: While the federal government has no role in the matter, all governments should get out of the very concept of marriage and let voluntary contracts be formed, even if it means homosexuality, poligamy, etc., and let the parties call the contract a "marriage" if they wish so;

* Immigration: Privatize border lands, let private landowners decide whether to have a wall or not, and operate an open border policy to welcome all immigrants coming to America. Let each state decide on the rules to become a citizen. End the costly and inhumane process of deportation;

* Abortion: This is a very complicated matter and whether we believe in abortion or not is not the question. The ultimate answer would rely on a mix of property rights analysis, contract law, and common law systems. But from a policy point of view, the federal government should end all involvement in the question (including funding) and let states decide how to deal with abortions (thus, I favor repealing Roe v. Wade).
Debate Round No. 1


I was actually talking about democrats. However, I can argue against libertarians.
1. Though I am republican, I am not completely mainstream and do have more conservative views.

1. I agree with the drug policy.
2. Immigration is not good for America. For one, these immigrants that you do not propose deporting use government services and do not pay taxes to sustain them. They also take jobs away from some American(Though many may disagree, I support cutting welfare to encourage people to get jobs).
3. I am for the outlaw of abortion. Though a mother may not want a baby, the baby should still have a chance. Even in cases of rape. The only exception is if the mother's life is in danger.
4. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays cannot achieve marriage because the union would not be between a man and a woman. As long as the nation calls it marriage, gays cannot have it.
5. As far as education goes, I believe that many republicans that I live near support the simplification of education and cutting the budget down.
For now, I will rest.


So we have established that both of us agree on gun policy, education, and drugs. But what we agree on isn't what's up for debate. We are actually debating whether the GOP has the best social positions, not what Pro believes in.

So if we look at those social issues that are dominating the GOP, both the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party agree on a few topics, including education and gun rights. Where the Libertarians and Republicans separate is in the questions of drug policy, marriage, immigration, and abortion.

But you have already admitted that the Libertarian Party's position on drug policy (legalization) is better than the GOP's.

To summarize, assuming we are talking about the 6 social issues, you agree with the Libertarian Party 3/6, and with the GOP 5/6 times. So let's rather talk about those issues we still disagree on.

As I've said, abortion is a very complex issue. I personally think it ought to be legal if the action of removing the fetus from the womb itself won't kill the baby (there are abortion techniques involving dismembering, which is simply wrong and should always be illegal, for instance.) But I am still shaky on the matter and even hardcore anarcho-libertarians don't even know where to truly stand on the issue.

But there is one fact that we should all be clear about. Because it is such a complicated matter, it should not be decided by a group of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate abortions. In fact, even if you considered abortion to be murder, I should remind you that the federal government does not issue rules on murder cases, and these crimes all rely on the state level.

Because the Libertarian Party believes in following the Constitution and preventing the growth of federal power, it wants to leave each state issue their own policy on abortion. It advocates an end to the Roe v. Wade policy (which prevents states from prohibiting first-term abortion), just like it doesn't want to see an anti-abortion bill in Congress, because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But the Republican Party is different. The GOP does not want to follow the Constitution and instead wants to ban all abortions altogether across the country. Such a measure would be a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which authorizes only states to address abortion.

You see, the question isn't about whether we want to legalize abortion or not (even though many Libertarians are pro-choice). The question is whether the federal government has the right to take over the question and violate states' rights. The Libertarian Party says NO, but the GOP says YES.

Gay Marriage
There again, Libertarians think it should be a state issue, rather than a federal one. But on the state level, Libertarians want to "privatize" marriage. In other words, we want the government to be out of the marriage business altogether. We see marriage as a contract, an agreement between different individuals wanting to live together in a formalized relationship. We see no room for government there.

So in a Libertarian dreamworld, we would prefer churches, neighborhood associations, casinoes to take care of the marriage problem. In fact, it is probable that in some places where religious groups are more present, gay marriage would be prohibited altogether.

The difference is that we don't want the government to be involved in the question. It can only force the issue one way or another. If it has the power to make gay marriage illegal, it will also have the power to make gay marriage mandatory and force certain communities to accept gay marriage, which is something that we wouldn't want to see in some areas.

Furthermore, there again, there is no constitutional authorization for the federal government to be anyhow involved in the question, and should remain a state and local issue. Bu the GOP wants to nationalize the gay marriage problem, while Libertarians and conservatives want to leave the issue to states and communities.

In a few words, Libertarians believe in small government even with immigration. They want to end restrictions on immigration, as we believe it is a human right to live wherever we want to live, as long as we're not harming anyone. If an immigrant can afford to rent an apartment or buy a house in America, he or she should not have to spend hundreds of dollars and years waiting through immigration lines.

But we also agree that if we shall have such a policy of "open borders", it should come with an end to the welfare of all immigrants (which you agreed with earlier). No immigrant should be given any welfare and they should only be given the incentive to work within their communities.

As for the borders, we believe we should privatize all the lands on the border, from deserts to rivers. Private landowners would then decide what to do with security, border enforcement, fence activities, etc.

The GOP, on the other hand, wants to make immigration harder,issue more deportations, seal the borders.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2


The purpose behind this debate originally is whether the beliefs of the republican party are the best. It was not supposed to be about government intervention, instead it was supposed to be a battle between the social issues America was faced with. Guns, Gays, Abortion, Immigration, etc..
Marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not support gay relationships, but if, they want to be united for taxes or something, they could file it on their taxes or other paperwork. Not marriage, just a union.
The borders should be secured because illegals do not pay taxes. You never addressed this but it cannot really be addressed because it is true. All illegals should not be given any benefits which we agree with.
We, mostly my logic, want to defend our borders to keep the population lower, and stop ethnic blending. I support not having ethnically diverse regions because these regions always create social rifts. I do not believe it is a melting pot; instead it is like Italian salad dressing. All the seasonings fall to the bottom while all the oil goes to the top. They are in the same bottle, but separate from each other. In this case, a social rift forms.
In my opinion, as well as many Republicans, a fetus is a baby as soon as the sperm and egg come together. A baby is a person. While an individual egg may not become a person, a fertilized egg will. Abortion should be illegal, use protection or do not have sex if you do not want children. But once the egg is fertilized, have the child and put them up for adoption or raise them yourself. Give them a chance.
"If at any time we can save a child's life, we should do so," Barack Obama(ironically the most pro abortion president America has ever seen).

Though my beliefs may not have the same reasoning as many republicans, I still believe what the republicans do, just have different reasoning.
I have shown why the Republicans are superior by stating reasoning behind my views. I have met my BOP.


Indeed, we established that there were some social issues in which the Libertarian Party and the GOP agreed on. I am talking about education and gun rights. Moreover, the reader should remember that Pro did agree that the GOP's views on the Drug War were wrong and drugs should be legalized, which is a Libertarian Party viewpoint.

But Pro "disagreed" on immigration, same-sex marriage, and abortion. Yet, to be fair, he never addressed the abortion and same-sex marriage issues. Pro stated his opinion, which is that abortion should be illegal and only heterosexual marriage should be allowed. The Libertarian point of view is one of decentralization (state and local issues, not federal ones). The Libertarian Party is not a pro-choice or pro-life party, it simply wants to get the FEDERAL government out of the issues. But the GOP wants to nationalize these problems and Pro failed to state why this view is favorable.

Now, when it comes to immigration. You said that i never addressed the fact that immigrants paid no taxes. First of all, this is't true. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, and, of course, the most important one for the American system, the inflation tax. Also, I must say that the Libertarian party will always fight against giving welfare, or attracting immigrants with welfare.

But it is true we support open borders. Of course, we want to secure the border. But how? Not by sending thousands of unconstitutional armed guards to the border. But rather by legalizing drugs (which is the main reason why borders are dangerous to begin with), and by privatizing the border lands, so that landowners will, more efficiently, control the flow of movement (landowners could make passers pay fees, restricting the amount of people coming in, or establishing strong security there.)

But if an immigrant comes to the country without harming anyone's life or property, then the immigrant should be able to stay, work, and live in the United States forever, without having to file some bureaucratic papers and without having to pay thousands of dollars to become naturalized.

You want America to be less ethnically blended. It's your right to want that. But it is not your right to prohibit people from moving across the globe. As human beings, we have always traveled, and never was this a bad thing. We believe in a world where people live in the area that represents their values the most, where anyone can live in the United States if they can afford to on their own. Again, if an immigrant buys a property in the country, IT IS NOT your right to confiscate the property. If a homeowner decides to rent his house or apartment to an immigrant, it is not your right to cancel the contract and expel the immigrant. In the same way, the federal government does not have the right to do so.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LotusNG 4 years ago
Con destroyed pro, I'm sorry to say... I was hoping for a more fun debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Geeki's votebomb
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did no present his case well enough in my opinion.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro completely failed in proving his case and instead used only his opinions on why the republican party is superior in social policy. Con dismantled pro's arguments very well and won the debate with ease