The Instigator
wrichcirw
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The GOP Rests on Ideologically Shaky Ground

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,390 times Debate No: 33783
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (101)
Votes (6)

 

wrichcirw

Pro

Welcome to this debate.

I issued this challenge to my buddy, my friend, my pal, DanT, because in one of our more invigorating discussions, I had an ephiphany. The nature of this ephiphany was, you guessed it, semantical, so I figured, who better to test the semantics of my argument than our esteemed local expert, DanT himself.


Resolution:

The GOP Rests on Ideologically Shaky Ground



Definitions:

GOP - Grand Ol' Party, the Republican Party
Ideologically Shaky Ground - Uncertain ideas/principles

Essentially, a less flowery wording of the resolution is that "I find just cause to question the Republican Party's ideological foundation".



Background:

Here I will outline what I percieve to be a broad consensus of exactly what constitutes the current ideology of the Republican Party, i.e. modern conservatism.
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com...

[modern] Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

I know this may not be precise...it is easier to see how this contrasts with modern liberalism:

[modern] Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

This background is not set in stone...it is merely to offer an agreed-upon reference point in order to give this debate a focal point of discussion.



Rules:

Round #1, acceptance only
Rounds #2,3 arguments
Round #4, closing, no new arguments/sources

4,000 character rounds
4 rounds

This is a NO VOTING debate. I ask that any and all participants refrain from actually scoring this debate...feel free to leave comments pertaining to the quality of the debate and anything you may find noteworthy. The aim of this NO VOTING debate is to eliminate the tendency of people getting invested in their vote, which tends to encourage needless politicking for votes, and restricts the quality of feedback due to fear of having their vote challenged/questioned.

By eliminating the scoring, the focus of discussion then becomes the actual ideas of the debate, rather than whether or not someone's RFD conformed to this or that. The idea is that after the formal debate is done, a less formal debate involving the audience would commence, one that would hopefully involve more constructive feedback than just attempting to persuade voters to change votes. This would also allow for some flexibility for PRO/CON to concede arguments that he/she may agree with, but run contrary to his/her position (after the debate is over, of course).

DanT

Con

I accept this debte. We both agree on the merits of a no vote debate, and I look forward to the debate. While Pro might choose to argue semantics, I will instead base my arguements on the history of the GOP.

Debate Round No. 1
wrichcirw

Pro

I thank DanT for accepting this debate and look forward to a civilized and well-reasoned debate.


Arguments


Everyone is a Liberal

http://www.ncpa.org...

The history of liberalism draws back to the Enlightenment of the 17th century. Most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, would find that this "classical liberalism" is pervasive in today's society:

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty...People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature...The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

Interestingly enough, this definition of "classical liberal" fits very well with the definition of "modern conservative", i.e. GOP ideology, I linked in round #1, with an emphasis on limited government, individual rights (civil liberties), and economic liberty (free markets).

---

Even more interesting is how a "classical liberal" departs from modern liberalism:

Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties...By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.

The main point of departure is economic liberty; what the NCPA is describing here in modern liberalism is socialism, i.e. government control over the economy. However, in all other respects, the classical liberal and the modern liberal also have much in common.

---

Such "liberal" usage of "liberal" and "conservative" becomes confusing in the current political environment, where liberals are typically seen as diametrically opposed to conservatives. However, in reality, modern conservatives are actually diametrically opposed to socialists. Modern conservatives are actually quite liberal in their beliefs.

---

So why this debate?

I contend that classical liberalism is the middle ground, the true moderate belief - after all, self-proclaimed modern liberals AND modern conservatives share these beliefs. However, the GOP cedes this middle ground every time they demonize "liberals".

Like it or not, we live in a sound-byte culture. Politicians usually get 10 seconds of airtime, if they're lucky, to make a statement that will make the nightly news. In those 10 seconds, everyone demonizes socialism, no question it's a dirty word in the US. However, the GOP goes a step further and demonizes liberalism, too.

Hillary Clinton "lamented that the word 'in the last 30, 40 years' has been 'turned up on its head' and 'made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government.'" Hillary has positioned herself as a moderate here, a classical liberal.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

This is what I deem to be the GOP's "ideologically shaky ground". Republicans are liberals too, just not socialists. Every time they demonize liberalism, they demonize the very foundations upon which this country was founded. This is semantics, yes, but with such limited air time, such short sentiments are all that typically get aired. It brings about confusion as to exactly what is the GOP position, and cedes the middle ground (classical liberalism) to Democrats like Hillary. All Republicans are left with is defense, abortion, guns, and religion, hardly an all-encompassing, viable strategy going forward.
DanT

Con


History of the Republican Party


The first 2 parties in the United States were Jefferson’s Republican Party and Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Federalist Party was Federalist only in name, as they were more in favor of creating a unitary state.


The core tenants of the two parties were as follows;


Federalist: Centralization, Oligarchism, & Nationalism


Republican: Localization, Republicanism, & Classic Liberalism


By 1828 the Federalist Party was completely absorbed by the Republican Party. (1)





During the 1824 Presidential election, the Republican Party was split between two candidates; John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson. Those who supported Adams was called “Adam’s men”, and those who supported Jackson were called “Jackson’s men” or “Jack A**es”.


After the election, Adam’s Men became the National Republican Party, and Jackson’s Men became the Democratic Party.


The core tenants of the two parties were as follows;


National Republican: Centralization, Nationalism & Republicanism


Democratic: Localization, Classic Liberalism, & Democracy (2)



The National Republican Party was short lived, and was soon replaced by the Whig Party. The Whig Party was comprised of Conservatives and National Republicans. The main platform of the Whig Party was Congressional rather than Presidential dominance. (3)


Shortly before the civil war a faction of Whigs broke off and formed the Republican Party, named after the National Republican Party; the tenants were basically the same as the National Republican Party. (4)


Throughout its history, one thing has remained the same. Republicans have favored Republicanism. Today the Republican Party and Democratic Party serve as coalition parties, comprised of various ideologies. The defining factor between the two parties is that the Democrats favor Democracy or loose constitutionalism, while Republicans favor Republicanism or strict constitutionalism.



The Modern Republican Party tends to attract libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives are attracted to the Republican Party because they want to maintain the status quo of the constitution. Libertarians are attracted to the Republican Party because they favor limited government.




What is a republic?



A republic is a government, where the people hold sovereignty over the state, and the state is governed by rule of law.


Like a republic, the people hold sovereignty over democratic governments. The difference between a democracy and a republic is rule of law; instead of rule of law, democracies are restricted by majority rule.



Classic Liberalism vs Conservatism & Progressives


Classic Liberalism is a form of Libertarianism. Liberalism is synonymous with individualism. Conservatism is synonymous with traditionalism aka reactionary policies, while progressivism is synonymous with reformism aka radical policies.


Conservatism can be split into two categories; Liberal Conservatives like Robert Peel, and Traditional Conservatives like Benjamin Disraeli. (5)


Progressivism can be split into two categories; Social Liberals like John Russell and Populists like Teddy Roosevelt.


In America the term “Liberalism” is often used interchangeably with “Progressivism”, but not all progressives are liberals; only Social Liberals are Liberal Progressives. Modern American Conservatives are usually closer to Liberal Conservatism than they are to Traditional Conservatism.




Although Liberalism has become more popular in the modern era, it does not mean everyone is liberal. There are still nationalists, socialists, populists, and traditional conservatives who would not fall into the liberal category.


I’m not sure where Pro was heading with his argument about liberalism.



1.) http://www.history.com...


2.) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


3.) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


4.) http://www.history.com...


5.) books.google.com/books?isbn=8177648683


Debate Round No. 2
wrichcirw

Pro

Rebuttal

R1) While interesting, I move to dismiss CON's history lesson and charts.

- Do we need to know whether or not the GOP was formerly the Whig party, or that it changed ideologies in the past? No.

- What does a chart with impenetrable terms like "democratism" and "monarchal constitution" have to do with this debate?



R2) CON asserts:

"The Modern Republican Party tends to attract libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives are attracted to the Republican Party because they want to maintain the status quo of the constitution. Libertarians are attracted to the Republican Party because they favor limited government."

This fully conforms to the reasoning I laid out in round #2. "Status quo of the constitution" and "limited government" are cornerstones of classical liberalism. Republicans are liberals.



R3) CON makes a false distinction to reach a preposterous conclusion:

The defining factor between the two parties is that the Democrats favor Democracy or loose constitutionalism, while Republicans favor Republicanism or strict constitutionalism...The difference between a democracy and a republic is rule of law; instead of rule of law, democracies are restricted by majority rule.

- In order to substantiate this, CON will have to demonstrate that Democrats in Congress do NOT create laws, and instead cater to mob rule.

- CON will also have to demonstrate that Republicans do NOT favor majority rule, that the laws that Republican congresspersons pass are NOT products of the majority vote in Congress.


CON's assertions here are absolutely absurd. It lessens his credibility in regards to any discussion regarding the Democrats and the GOP. I move to ignore CON's framework, and to simply stick with what I've provided in round #2.



R4) CON makes an inaccurate assertion:

Classic Liberalism is a form of Libertarianism.

This seems minor but the point is significant. Libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism, not the other way around. Libertarianism is firmly grounded in the traditions of classical liberalism, like free markets, limited government, and freedoms of speech and religion - traditional American values.

Libertarians, modern conservatives, and modern liberals all share common ideologies found in classical liberalism, i.e. traditional American values. - All Americans are liberals.



R5) CON's main credible point of contention with my round #2 presentation is that

"Although Liberalism has become more popular in the modern era, it does not mean everyone is liberal. There are still nationalists, socialists, populists, and traditional conservatives who would not fall into the liberal category."

First of all, Liberalism has been popular in American since its inception. Liberalism = traditional American values.

I agree with CON that anyone can divide anything into more specific parts. Maybe there is no Democratic Party, and no Republican party, but rather factions within each party that vie for ideological control.

However, I find that such analysis obfuscates the matter at hand, which is to find common ground between the two parties and America at large.

My main point in round #2 dealt with moderates - American liberals - which share common values with both Republicans and Democrats. For the GOP to develop a firm foundation with the American public, they would have to appeal to these moderates, and not the myopic groups that CON presents in his case.


Summary

A picture is worth 1,000 words:



The Statue of Liberty is one of the most recognizable symbols of classical liberalism in the world. Its message transcends party distinctions. It is a symbol of traditional American values, values both Democrats and Republicans share.

Whenever the GOP demonizes "liberalism", they inadvertently demonize principles upon which this country was founded. The GOP needs to focus more on demonizing socialism, not liberalism; otherwise they are on ideologically shaky ground. The Democrats simply do not have this problem, and thus claim the moderate vote.
DanT

Con


History of the Republican Party


Because Pro could not refute the history of the Republican Party he moved to dismiss it. Movement denied.


The Republican Party’s core ideologies have not changed; they still promote the sovereignty of the people, and rule of law. What have changed are their policies, and their views regarding the relation between the states and the federal government.


Pro claims that the terms used in my charts are “impenetrable”, when in actuality the terms are pretty cut and dry.


I will clarify the terms so he may better understand the context;


(n) Collectivism (the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.)


(n) Individualism (a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.)


(n) Left Wing (the section of a political party or system advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform.)


(n) Right Wing (the section of a political party or system opposing political or social reform)


[1]


These 4 ideologies are comprised into 2 axes; sociopolitical and sociocultural. One’s position in regards to these 2 axes determines their ideologies regarding the policy of the state, the sovereignty over the state, and the sovereignty of the state. One can have a collectivist State policy, while advocating individualist sovereignty; the 3 categories are mutual exclusive, but they still have some influence on the motives behind the other 2 ideologies. For example; France is a Unitary Republic. A unitary state is collectivist, but a Republic is individualist.


The Democratic Party favors a loose left wing constitution, while Republicans favor a strong Right Wing Constitution. When the Civil War broke out many New Englanders requested Lincoln issue an executive order to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln knew this was unconstitutional, so he replied with the following analogy;


“How many legs would a calf have if you call the leg a tail? Four; Calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg” [2]


The later proclamation, near the end of the war, did not free all the slaves, but rather it freed the slaves under military’s jurisdiction.


Limited government


Pro misunderstands my argument about Republicans. Republicans favor a strong constitution, when it comes to sovereignty over the state. Conservatives favor policies that maintain the status quo; that is why modern republicans are attracted to a strict constitution. Republicanism and conservatism is not the same thing, as conservatives can also be Democrats.


Rule of Law vs Majority Rule


Pro misunderstands rule of law and majority rule. Rule of Law means that no-one is above the law, not even the government. Hence the government is ruled/restricted by the law. In contrast Majority rule means that government is restricted only by the whims of the majority. If the government is ruled by majority rule, the only limits on potential laws are reelection, or a majority vote to pass the bill into law. [1]


Pro has completely misrepresented my arguments. He is using semantics to construct straw men, rather than addressing my arguments in context.


Libertarianism & Classic Liberalism


There are two forms of Libertarianism; Anarchism (left wing libertarianism), and Classic Liberalism (Right Wing Libertarianism). In order for Libertarianism to be a subcategory of Classic Liberalism, there would need to be more subcategories. The category Pro falsely refers to as “classic liberalism” is actually the much broader “liberalism” category.




Fallacy of composition


Pro claims that because Liberal Conservatives and Social Liberals have some classic liberal values, that all conservatives and all progressives are classic liberals; this claim is completely fallacious.


Coalition Parties



The Republican Party favors republicanism, while the Democratic Party favors democracy. The two parties are coalition Parties, similar to the Court Party and Country Party of the 18th century.



1. Oxford Dictionary


2. books.google.com/books?id=yYTQAAAAMAAJ


Debate Round No. 3
wrichcirw

Pro

Rebuttal

R6) I ask the audience when elaborating CON's "case" to ask themselves one question: What does ANY of CON's argument have to do with the resolution? CON has yet to actually argue this debate, and it is now closing statements.

I do not refute CON's history lesson. Rather I wonder what it has to do with the resolution. What does Lincoln's stance on slavery have to do with modern GOP ideology? CON is wasting his time, my time, and the audience's time by stating a laundry list of historical detail that has no direct pertinence to the resolution.



R7) CON's paragraph on "limited government" is so convoluted that he confuses himself. He utilizes the terms "conservative" and "Republican" interchangeably:

"Conservatives favor policies that maintain the status quo; that is why modern republicans are attracted to a strict constitution."

...only to conclude that

"Republicanism and conservatism is not the same thing".

I am disappointed that we are not debating the resolution. CON is having trouble with simple sentence structure, to say nothing about forwarding a case.



R8) CON continually confuses "rule of law" and "majority rule" in his framework. In America, as in most democratic societies, the rule of law is established via majority rule - majorities in the legislature create laws. Dismiss CON's arguments, as they are strawmen irrelevant to this debate. Both Republicans and Democrats adhere to rule of law via majority rule.



R9) Again, I move to dismiss CON's graphics, this time on liberalism. There is no factual basis for his arbitrary delineations. Without any sort of justification or substantiation, they are worthless.

To contrast, I have explained how libertarianism is a product of classical liberalism, and how in general, modern conservatism very much closely resembles classical liberalist ideals. Due to our sound-byte culture, I shorten "classical liberalism" to simply "liberalism" and thus conclude that the unifying ideology in America is indeed liberalism.



R10) CON's distinction:

"The Republican Party favors republicanism, while the Democratic Party favors democracy."

...sounds like something a 3rd grader made up. Without his "rule of law" and "majority rule" obfuscations, there's not much left other than 3rd grade reasoning.

I have outlined this with some care and detail - the Republican party represents modern conservatives, who favor classical liberal policies like limited government, free markets, and freedoms of speech.

The Democratic party represents modern liberals, who also favor classical liberal policies like freedom of speech. However, modern liberals deviate from classical liberalism in that they advocate MORE government, i.e. socialism.


Conclusion

All Americans are liberals due to shared beliefs stemming from classical liberalism, which is synonymous with traditional American values like freedom of speech and religion, separation of powers leading to limited government, and a market-based economy. This is the true middle ground in American politics - most of America believes in this general liberal framework, Republican or Democrat. The Statue of Liberty is symbolic of this shared liberal belief.

Modern conservatives, i.e. the GOP, hold these liberal beliefs very closely. Modern liberals, i.e. the Democrats, hold them as well, but deviate in that they advocate a socialist approach to governance.

The GOP goes too far in denouncing the Democrats. Instead of denouncing only the socialist element of Democratic policy, they denounce the liberalist element as well.

By doing so, GOP ideology rests upon shaky ground, and they lose the vote of moderates. Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who champion liberalism while decrying socialism (keep in mind that public health care is bipartisan), thus claim this moderate ground, putting the GOP on the defensive.

CON didn't engage with this synopsis in the entire debate, so it stands as it is.

Thank you for reading this debate, and I hope it becomes a constructive experience for all involved.
DanT

Con


History of the Republican Party


I have already addressed what the history has to do with the resolution. If Pro would read my entire arguments, his questions would be answered. Pro has chosen to dismiss my arguments, rather than address them; if he would actually bother to read them, he would not have so many questions.


Limited Government


Pro’s only rebuttal to my argument was a typo. The typo was a result of contracting 4 sentences into 1, in order to get under the character limit.


Ad Hominem Attacks


Pro has the BOP in this debate, yet he seems more focused with attacking me than he is in affirming the resolution.


Rule of Law & Majority Rule


Majority Rule is not the same thing as a majority vote. Once again, Majority rule means the only limitations on government is the majority. Rule of Law is not the same as having laws; rule of law means the government is subject to legal restrictions. The constitution is an example of rule of law; if the constitution says you cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, than rule of law dictates that all infringements on that right is unconstitutional. Democrats believe the constitution is “subject to the times”, as they believe the in majority rule rather than rule of law.


My Graphs


I gave justification for my graphs in my arguments, yet pro decided to focus on the graphs.


Republicans favor Republicanism


When parties name their party, they usually choose a name that represents the core beliefs of their party. The Libertarian Party advocates Liberty, the Conservative Party advocates maintaining the status quo, the progressive party advocates reform, the German Workers Party advocated National Syndicalism, the Labour Party advocates worker’s rights, the Federalist Party advocated a stronger federal government, the Anti-Masonic Party was against free masonry, and the Nullifier Party supported nullification.


Coalition Parties


Pro has completely dropped this argument. Republicans and Democrats are like the Court and Country Parties of the 18th century. The Court Party believed the Government should serve the interests of the King and Parliament, while the Country Party believed government should serve the interests of its citizens. The Court and Country Party were both comprised of Whigs and Tories, but Tories tended to favor the Court Party and Whigs tended to favor the Country Party. Tories believed Parliament should be subordinate to the King, while Whigs believed the King should be subordinate to Parliament.


Likewise the Republican Party and Democratic Party are both comprised of Progressives and Conservatives, but Conservatives tend to favor the Republicans and Progressives tend to favor the Democrats. The Republican Party is a coalition party, uniting people with conflicting policy ideologies with a common constitutional ideology.



Conclusion


Pro has failed to affirm the resolution. He has barely refuted my arguments, relying mostly on petty attacks. Pro’s only argument was the unfounded assertion that conservatives are classic liberals. This was a complete stretch, as I have pointed out.


The Republican Party is a coalition party. They unite various conflicting ideologies, such as conservatives, progressives, classic liberals, and nationalists, with republican principles. Republicans advocate strict constitutionalism, rule of law, and the sovereignty of the people over the government. The ideologies of the Republican party is not based on the policy of the state, it is based on the sovereignty over the state.


Debate Round No. 4
101 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
It's funny, because on one of my debates I used a truth table, and for weeks after people were asking me to draw up truth tables for my arguments.

haha, that's the extent of formal logic here, not the most widely used practice on DDO :D
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Good catch on the logic, btw, lol. It's been a while since I've had to deal formally with math and logic, so that was an eye-opener for me :o
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
"The reason why this conflict exists is because we live in a sound-byte culture.
No one talks about "classical liberalism", they only talk about "liberalism", or "traditional American values". These terms get mixed up to no end, so the only thing that comes out of the GOP is that "liberalism is bad", and traditional American values are good. Well, traditional American values are essentially classical liberalism in a nutshell, and classical liberalism can be shortened to liberalism, and from here stems the ideological shaky ground - liberalism is the GOP core position, yet "liberalism is bad".
This was the whole point behind the Hillary Clinton quote I posted in round #2."

Yes, this definitely sum up the resolution - the conservative's crusade of turning "liberal" into a dirty word has pretty much destroyed middle ground, and in turn, the credibility of the party.
In other word, the GOP simply assert that A = NOT B and A = NOT C, while in fact, A = C.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Actually, let me change this:

The GOP simply does not identify with liberalism to any extent, therefore

Given
A = C
A =/= B
C =/= B
B =/= C

The GOP position would then be

A =/= C
A =/= B
B = C, since the GOP repeatedly labels the Dems liberals.

This position is contradictory to the givens. This innate contradiction places the GOP ideology on shaky ground.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Ok, your logic is sound. I take back the part on transitivity.

In which case, after looking at my arguments, I would say the GOP does not infer this by transitivity, but by brute force.

The GOP simply does not identify with liberalism to any extent, therefore

Given
A = C
A =/= B
C =/= B
B =/= C

The GOP position would then be

A =/= B
B =/= C
A =/= C

This position is contradictory to the givens. This innate contradiction places the GOP ideology on shaky ground.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
It is weird since transitive does not apply to simple inequality =/=
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.mathwords.com...

If A=4, B=6, C=4, we have A=/=B, and B=/=C, yet A=C.

I completely understand your resolution, I just trying to find out if the logic is sound or not :/
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
The reason why this conflict exists is because we live in a sound-byte culture.

No one talks about "classical liberalism", they only talk about "liberalism", or "traditional American values". These terms get mixed up to no end, so the only thing that comes out of the GOP is that "liberalism is bad", and traditional American values are good. Well, traditional American values are essentially classical liberalism in a nutshell, and classical liberalism can be shortened to liberalism, and from here stems the ideological shaky ground - liberalism is the GOP core position, yet "liberalism is bad".

This was the whole point behind the Hillary Clinton quote I posted in round #2.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@hereiam2005

"Well,
Suppose that A = C, and A is NOT B, then C is NOT B, and thus B is NOT C.
So A is NOT B and B is NOT C is compatible with A = C .... is it not?"

---

Your statement here boils down to:

A = C
A =/= B
C =/= B
B =/= C

So,

A =/= B
B =/= C

...and then you ask whether or not this is compatible with A = C.

My answer: By transitive, no, it is not compatible. A =/= C, therefore that this conflict exists in GOP ideology puts it on shaky ground.

---

"In other word,
A =/= B,
B =/= C,
cannot infer that A =/= C"

The point being is that it must infer A =/= C. Yet we know that A = C. This is a contradiction, and thus puts the GOP on ideologically shaky ground.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
In other word,
A =/= B,
B =/= C,
cannot infer that A =/= C
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
Well,

Suppose that A = C, and A is NOT B, then C is NOT B, and thus B is NOT C.

So A is NOT B and B is NOT C is compatible with A = C .... is it not?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
wrichcirwDanTTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Nobody loses... Sounds a lot like modern day Liberalism.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
wrichcirwDanTTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Hey lol, no need for an RFD :D everyone is a winner!
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
wrichcirwDanTTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Yay, such a relief not to vote! It does make reading less stressful. Haha DanT, love your work. I'm not American, so I didn't understand a word of it, bless you. Especially that chart of liberalism, classic liberalism and libertarianism, it's like, wtf? But see, if I was voting, I'd have to read it through about six times to make some sense of it. I'll write more stuff in the comments.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
wrichcirwDanTTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Although there's to be no voting, I would still argue that Con does himself a disservice by not really arguing from the definitions agreed upon. Cons entire argument was based off of ideological consistency of Republicans (which pro could have easily refuted) but the debate was about "ideologically shaky ground" defined as "uncertain ideas/principles". Republicans demonizing their own philosophy is a good enough example of confused principles in my book.
Vote Placed by twocupcakes 3 years ago
twocupcakes
wrichcirwDanTTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I found the topic of this debate to be interesting. I was not a fan of the "history of parties and ideology" arguments. With parties changing ideas and society changing I think history is not that relevant and needed not be such a major talking point. I think history is good to show that the GOP has gotten more and more and more extreme now.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
tmar19652
wrichcirwDanTTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: They said no voting, so I had to do it.