The Republicans are generally bad people.
Debate Rounds (4)
First off, anybody who would like to oppose the motion feel free.
To clarify, this debate is arguing whether or not people who agree with the policies put forward by Senator Mitt Romney are morally bad people.
The propositions argument is based on 3 main points.
Mitt Romney is very Homophobic.
Mitt Romney is very Sexist.
Mitt Romney would run America like a company and give all the power to the rich man.
I don't think I need to go into details. The opposition cannot argue that he is not homophobic or sexist, or that he is a conservative maniac.
For the record I am British, not American so forgive me if I cannot analyse the election, I didn't really follow it.
He has not evidenced his propositions that Romney is homophobic, sexist, or that he would "run America like a company and give all the power to the rich man."
I will wait until the opponent fulfills his burden of proof, even minimally.
TheMolestacher forfeited this round.
Awaiting your response in the next round. :)
1, Mitt Romney, all through high school he was a homophobic bully. There's been lots of debate over whether Mitt Romney's teenager years as a bully are fair game, but what I find interesting is that it shows a pattern of homophobia over many years. So it's documented that in the 60s Romney was an avowed homophobe; in 2006, Governor Romney threatened to end funding for a commission that battled suicides in gay and lesbian teenagers; in 2008, Romney secretly donated to Proposition 8; and, in 2012, the resignation of Richard Grenell. Even Romney's apologies over Grenell and his bullying days have been tepid and noncommittal.
2: 29 states in the USA currently allow people to be fired from jobs simply because of their sexual orientation. Coincidentally, those states, on large, are the states that voted for the Republican party. 30 states currently with hold the right to deny people housing based on their sexual orientation. Again, on large, these states voted for Mitt Romney.
3: I am sure you will use the argument that he only pretends to be homophobic to gain the Homo-phobic vote. Personally I don't think this is true, but take this analogy. It does not matter if somebody punches you in the nose because they really hate you, or they punch you in the nose to impress the people who really hate you, either way, you still have a broken nose. So the point is that even if he is pretending, I think that a non-bigot who credits from homo-phobia and uses it to help himself gain control of the world's most powerful nation, is slightly worse than a real ignorant bigot.
4: This is a genuine quote "Some gays are actually having children born to them,' he declared. "It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.'
Ok so now the sexism thing(gy)
1: Romney is firmly Pro-life, now I'm not saying all pro-lifers are sexist, homophobic, selfish, view changing republicans like Romney, but under the policies he would introduce, even women who were raped and impregnated cannot have abortions, to "protect the sanctity of life" of a rape born, in-animate, embryonic extension of the mother. Now I am not going to debate about abortion here, but these policies are extremely sexist.
2: Mitt Romney would not sign the Equal Pay Legislation.
Mitt Romney would run the country like a business.
1: I can't support this one as strongly because, like I say, I did not watch the election ( I'm British) but take this example. Mitt Romney once criticized Hillary Clinton because she had no experience running a business, so could not run the country. Any of the voters who did watch the election will know what I am talking about.
1. Let us assume that Romney bullied gay students in high school.
a) The assumption that a homophobic outlook is characteristic of a bad person has not been proven
b) If someone did something bad once in their life, it does not necessarily mean that the person is bad, holistically.
c) Most importantly, Romney is an example of a Republican, and it was not proven that his actions represent a general rule for all Republicans. Jeffrey Dahmer was homosexual, and he was a serial killer; that does not mean that homosexuals are generally serial killers.
2. I agree with the point that many of the states whose majorities voted for Romney tended to not favor anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation. But it certainly isn't bad; in fact, I would argue that anti-discrimination laws themselves are bad.
a) It is against a business' interest to not hire people solely based on characteristics not related to job efficiency. The business that refuses to hire a high-work efficiency homosexual individual and replaces him/her with a low-work efficiency individual will lose in the competition when it is facing businesses that would take the homosexual individual (and most would, out of self-interest.)
Therefore, businesses should have the right to not hire people for whatever reason they would like--and if the reasons are not pragmatic, then the ultimate loser is the business, who will lose to its competition.
3. Why is Mitt Romney homophobic? Because he made fun of homosexuals as a high school student? And why is homophobia bad? (And he apologized for it, anyway, so how can we say that he still holds the same views? ) I know my opponent doesn't have another round to answer these questions, but unless they are answered, the argument is hollow and pointless.
And most importantly, even if Romney is homophobic, why does that prove that all Republicans are bad? People who vote for Romney did not have to vote for him, because he is homophobic...
4. This is a controversial issue. Numerous studies suggest that heterosexual parenting is far healthier than homosexual parenting. And numerous studies say the opposite. Making it black-and-white and labeling a stance "good" or "bad" is shallow and does not reflect the true controversy of the matter.
1. Pro-life advocates not sexist. Their aim is to protect the child's right to life, not to take away rights from women. If I am angry with my friend, the law states that I cannot murder him... The purpose of that is not to infringe on my right to act against people whom I am angry again; rather, the purpose is to protect the life of my friend.
This is not completely germane to the debate, but this "rape-born, in-animate, embryonic extension of the mother" nonsense needs to be responded to.
Rape-born: The child is not guilty of rape; the man who raped the child's mother is. Why should the child be punished? If your father steals money, you will not be charged for it, in a just society.
Inanimate: This is not true. The embryo is constantly developing and works toward the goal of producing fully functioning parts that will be used throughout the rest of the person's lifespan after birth.
Embryonic extension: This is a separate human being, not an "extention." It has its own genetic programming (DNA) and is developing independent parts that would not be functioning for the mother, but rather the being that rests inside her.
Pro-choice advocates always use silly semantic arguments to make their points, trying to dehumanize an embryo. Obviously, when logic comes into the picture, these arguments never prevail.
2. On the matter of equal pay for women:
a) Women work fewer hours and go on maternity leave. This accounts for the salary "gap" that feminists keep harking about. 
b) Why, in theory, is unequal pay bad? In a free market, it certainly isn't.
1. The opponent believes that Romney would run the country like a business, whatever that means. Business skills can come in handy, but treating a country like a business is impossible, since they are two completely distinct entities... And how can you prove that running a country like a business is bad? And why does this necessarily have to imply that voters for Romney "generally" agree that the company should be run like a business?
The opponent's argument do not really affirm the resolution at all. When voting for conduct, note the forfeit in the prior round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a pretty good job of convincing me that Romney is not a cool cat, but that's not enough to prove that republicans in general are bad. Pro also loses conduct for his ff.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.