The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
visionsofdylan
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The Democrats scare me.

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: 1/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,059 times Debate No: 2080
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

The topic isn't my actual position. But, my argument is that the Democratic candidates have to much oratory power, which makes their terribly frightening positions seem acceptable, even great.

For instance, in the MLK debate, Edwards proposed withholding paychecks to ensure mandatory healthcare. This was met by thunderous appluase. Clinton has been running on the fact that she wants to run the country and be the strongest executive leader in recent memory. Don't these ideas fly in the face of our constitution? Where did personal liberty go? Watching this debate, the Democrats message was essentially "We don't trust you to control your own life, so we will just take care of everything for you." How can this be met with thunderous applause? I submit that the Democrats are such could speakers, they have persuaded voters to support them, under the guise that they are looking out for their best interest.

I recognize that people identify with the Democrats on issues like the war. But, on several issues their message is as I stated above. They dress up their socialist positions with dutiful American rhetoric. For example, Edwards uses terms like "universal mandate" to mean "force everyone". Clinton uses elaborate terms like "create government revenue" to say "raise taxes" without being that direct.

In short, I think the Democratic candidates excellent speaking ability and political play allows them to sway voters who would otherwise disagree with their big government agenda.
visionsofdylan

Con

You might feel that these Democrats running are just sugar coating socialist ideas and feeding the American public this, and if they are, so be it( I'll discuss that later) but you cannot fear these candidates because I am afraid to tell you, we have lived through the worst. If you have not been afraid of the Nazis, sorry, excuse me, the Neo-cons running the country in the last 7 years, then I applaud you. They have taken away civil liberties through the Patriot Act and other bills. He has gone to war that only benefited his own agenda. The economy is going into recession. We need change and we need it fast. That leads me to socialism. I am not saying we become a socialist country, but look at England. Or France. What the Democrat nominees are saying is how it goes in these countries and right now, 35.9 million live in poverty in the US. 15 percent. In the richest country in the world!? In England, 6 percent live below the poverty line and in England 11 percent. In Sweden, 5 percent and in Germany 6 percent. There is something wrong and if poverty can be slowed down by shrinking the gap between the rich and poor, let it be so.
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

I'm not defending Bush. He isn't a conservative. he ran on the smaller government agenda and we had the opposite. I don't like him as a president, with the exception of a few issues.

That said, the Democrats are doing just that. You admit they are big government socialists. The only response is that this is OK.

My simple response is HOW? Its OK to take America's fate out of the hands of its citizens? Its OK for the government to defy the constitution and empower itself to astronomical levels?

I agree that we ahve major issues and that other countries are outcompeting us. But does this mean we need to fork over control of all our private sectors that have gotten us to the top? We are struggling, but big government only complicates things. Do you honestly trust the government more than yourself? I thought this whole socialism, one wealth concept died in the early 90's. The Democrats are carrying the torch though. They are able to get voters through their fantastic speaking abilities. I listen to Obama speak on CSPAN and would be dooped if I didn't know any better.

You don't argue my point at all. You just seem to be OK with it, which, as an American citizen having his liberties stripped away, I can't see how you do. You honestly want higher taxes and garnished wages?

You can't label a party based on one crappy president. The values still hold. The things that the democrats stand for are against our consitutional principles. A weak president and a strong legislature, not a powerful executor you commands authority. If the Democrats were even mediocre speakers and campaigners, there proposals would be laughed at. But, because they can cover up the radical nature of their platform, the common voter gets dooped into thinking they are the party of the people.
visionsofdylan

Con

visionsofdylan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

So, the common voter gets campaigned to death into thinking that the socialist platform that most Democrats, especially tihs batch of candidates, supports is a good one.

You merely argue that their platform is good and don't refute the fact that their oratory abilities doop people into voting for an agenda that they wouldn't otherwise support.

Capitalism and the American citizen are what got us to the top. Now that we are struggling, do you think it is OK to abandon the very principles that got us here? Some of the stands that Edwards and the rest take are treading in dangerous territory. If the Democrats and their media would let voters open their eyes, they would be in for a big suprise.
visionsofdylan

Con

visionsofdylan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
Again, you are stating the topic as the argument. My argument is different. Read it, then comment.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
No. By the topic you very well could argue that. And as that is the topic, nobody could argue against it. If you really are scared of democrats then you win.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
If you read the args, I'm not arguing whether or not they scare me. You should read the debate before submitting your superficial opinion.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
For a big government agenda the Democrats have had the smallest governments of the last 50 years. It's the Republicans who claim to want small government and start surveillance programs, wars, and balloon government spending are the problem. Democrats who promise to offer social programs and mostly fail to deliver are the problem.

That said, nobody can prove that Democrats do scare you. This reminds of the debate "I hate Kant" -- which was only lost because the pro actually said he didn't hate Kant.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
wingnut2280visionsofdylanTied
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 visionsofdylan 9 years ago
visionsofdylan
wingnut2280visionsofdylanTied
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 righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
wingnut2280visionsofdylanTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
wingnut2280visionsofdylanTied
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 MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
wingnut2280visionsofdylanTied
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 Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
wingnut2280visionsofdylanTied
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