The Instigator
Relevant
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Muted
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The Republicans must move away from their social values to win elections

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 5 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 27190
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Relevant

Pro

I will be arguing that the Republicans in the US government must drop their social conservative stances in order to win future elections.

I will debating Muted in this first round of the Beginner's tournament.

First round is for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
Relevant

Pro

Now that the US elections have passed, many Republicans are torn by which direction to take the party, if any at all. Some are saying that the reason that Mitt Romney lost was that he went too far towards the middle. Glenn Beck, for one, refuses to admit "defeat" on social conservatism and implies that if Romney would have stuck with strict social conservative values, especially traditional marriage and abortion, then more evangelicals would have come out to vote.

While this may be true, a few more evangelical voters would not have made much of a difference. The fact of the matter is that the Republicans are losing more and more young, minority, and women voters. This is a problem that Republicans must face. By becoming even more extreme on Christian values, even more voters will be isolated until only old, white men would consider themselves Republicans.

62% of Independents and 70% of American between 18 and 44 believe that gay couples should be either allowed to marry or form a civil union[1]. That is a statistic that cannot be ignored.

I doesn't even need to be a change of beliefs. The GOP has always been the party for smaller government and less regulation. Why, then, do they feel the need to impose regulations on gay marriage and abortion? They need to effectively ignore the issues when presented the question and show that their personal beliefs do not automatically mean that they are for imposing laws for or against such acts. The government should not have a say in such issues.

This is also true with religion. The number of Americans affiliating themselves with no religion is on the rise, while those affiliating themselves with Protestant beliefs are on the decline[2]. From my own views from peers on Facebook and comments on blogs, videos, etc, even just hearing "God" in a political speech makes them cringe. I would consider myself a Christian, but even for me, it's getting tiresome hearing Christianity referenced so much in politics.

If the Republicans change their tone, stop talking about God, abortion, and gay marriage, they will isolate much fewer voters and will be able to pick up more Independents and young voters.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com...
Muted

Con

I will not refute your arguments in this round. Rather, I will present my own arguments. First, a look at the numbers. I will focus on the Presidential election.
All information from http://en.wikipedia.org...
The voter turnout was 57.5%-60% of eligible voters. The total number of votes was 123090566. If we look at the total number of votes possible, 205150943 (if we consider the voter turnout to be 60%), it is clear that that amount of voters could have voted for Romney.
The difference in total votes is 3815404. This is only a difference of >4 million. However, more than 200 million voters did not vote. What does this tell us? Simply that people are not voting. Why? We don"t know for sure, but a laziness to vote is a plausible factor.
In percentages, Obama won by 50.7% of votes cast, but only 30.9% of total possible votes!
Now let"s go into the states. Obama won by two states and DC. That is a mere 50.9% of the states.
Now we will get into electoral votes. Obama won 332 electoral of 538 total. This translated to percentages is 61.7%.

Isn"t this inane? A person wins only slightly above half the votes cast, and one third of total votes possible, but has ten points more electoral votes than votes cast!

These numbers show clearly that the U.S. electoral system is broke. Not the Republican Party.

Moving on to the Republican party itself. Why did it lose? Well, I doubt it was because of the policies proposed. After all, these same policies are what gave the Republicans a majority in the house. I would propose that it is due to the personality of the candidate himself that is the problem. Obama has public oratory skills which Romney does not have.

That is all I have to say for now. So in conclusion, I would like to say that the U.S. electoral system allows for Obama to win by a very small popular votes margin but by a large electoral votes margin. This is no indicator of the failure of the republican social policies, but it is a sure indicator of the failure of the ability of the candidate to connect with the current generation.

With that, I turn it over to you to refute my ideas before I refute yours.
Debate Round No. 2
Relevant

Pro

As you stated, this is an issue of voter turnout. If there was one amazing candidate, an Abraham Lincoln, for example, the voter turnout would have been much greater. Many voters thought of this election as being the lesser of two evils, and they didn't really have a good option. That is the reason for the low turnout.

To alleviate this, both sides need better candidates. I guess this would provoke the question of the definition of "better" in regards to a candidate. For simplicity's sake, I will say that a better candidate is one that appeals to the views of a large majority of voters. American voters are tired of hearing about God, don't want politicians regulating their bodies, and don't want to prevent gay couples from being married.

This is why Republicans and Independents, especially the younger ones, are not coming out to vote. The Democrats' economic policies are devastating, and the Republicans' social views are against what they believe in. So the question is: Would the Republicans lose more votes than they'd gain by abandoning their views on abortion, traditional marriage, and strong religious ties? Mitt Romney was right in the middle of abandoning the social views and being very strict towards them. This was the worst spot to be in, because he lost both the evangelicals and the independents. Either way, the Republicans need to pick and stick to a side. Because of the views of younger voters, going further to the right on social issues will lose more new voters as they come to voting age.

I believe you are arguing that since the election was pretty close, the Republican party doesn't need to change, but just need a more likable candidate. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but looking at the long term, Republicans will be less and less likable as they will continue to be painted as the party that doesn't care about women, gays, the poor, etc.
Muted

Con

I realize I need not refute your arguments in the opening round because anything of worth has been repeated.
So. Onto the arguments. You assert emphatically that "...American voters are tired of hearing about God, don't want politicians regulating their bodies, and don't want to prevent gay couples from being married..."
Can you give unbiased references to this. The opinions of a few people notwithstanding, this has never been corroborated and is actually opposed to the actual statistics. For example, [1] 46% of Americans believe in creationism. This is an increase of 2% over thirty years. Hardly getting tired of hearing about God. The others are logical extrapolation of the data, since that is what creationists believe.
It is thus evident that the assertion regarding tiredness of rhetoric is absolutely false.

I agree with you that better candidates are needed. However, I find the possibility of new good candidates are very few and far between considering the statistics. The statistics shows that Americans generally have an IQ below the normal average [2]. The possibility of getting a higher IQ person is not as high as in other countries.
I view better candidates as those having a higher IQ. It is thus not as likely to get a better candidate.

Furthermore, if the Republican Party shifts their social ideology to fit the liberal ideology, almost 46% of americans would stop voting for them and either cease voting or vote for the libertarians (Which is about the best they can get).

If the Republican pick the liberal side, they would be right in the heart of the Democratic Party"s bastion. This would be destructive to the very core of the Republicans.

Should Republicans abandon their social values because of some strong criticism from their opponents? I think not. Here"s why. Abandoning their values with such criticism only goes to show that Republicans have no backbone. Who is going to vote for a spineless party?

At the very end, I will address the issue of Abraham Lincoln. Despite his hero status in the present, Lincoln did not win the election by an outright majority. [3] Of course, since this was an election with four running, one have to admit the possibility of having a lower majority win. So, from [3], we can clearly see that Lincoln only won by about 40% of all votes cast. His closest rival won by ~30%.
It is not worth looking at the election for his second term [4].

From all these information, it is clear that my first arguments stand. This is because if the republicans abandoned their current ideology, they would lose a vast percentage of their current votes, which they would have to try to regain by entering into solidly held democratic ground.

Now back to you. For now.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
2. http://www.abytheliberal.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Relevant

Pro

Relevant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Relevant 4 years ago
Relevant
Con was very off topic during the whole debate. Barely even touched the subject at all. Many semantics and arguments that had nothing to do with the topic, such as mentioning the number of votes that Lincoln got, which was way off topic.

I kept trying to pull the debate back on topic, but con kept trying to deviate from it. Con needs to work on arguing the topic and not whatever he feels like.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
In R1, Pro laid out his case, which I understood to be:

-GOP Social conservationism has become extreme
-Most voters are moderate
-Therefore, the social conservationism of the GOP is counterproductive
(If the Republicans change their tone, stop talking about God, abortion, and gay marriage, they will isolate much fewer voters and will be able to pick up more Independents and young voters)

This argument was paired against this, presented by Con:

-The election was close
-Problems in the electoral system could also account for election losses, and may or may not play a larger role than the GOP Social Conservatism
-Therefore, other factors must be excluded before Pro's argument can be seen as definitive

In the debate, it was pointed out that the closeness of the recent election begs the question: "would alienating social conservatives lose the GOP more votes than they might gain in moderate voters? If so, then abandoning the Cons. stances might harm more than help, by undermining the GOP base. (So the question is: Would the Republicans lose more votes than they'd gain by abandoning their views on abortion, traditional marriage, and strong religious ties? Pro, R2)

Pro explains that many voters are repulsed by an inordinate focus on "God, abortion, and gay marriage," which I think is probably true, but Con responds by pointing out that this is not true of the GOP base: "46% of Americans believe in creationism. This is an increase of 2% over thirty years. Hardly getting tired of hearing about God. The others are logical extrapolation of the data, since that is what creationists believe." To me, this argument seems reasonable, even without looking at the references provided in support of the claim.

Con then commits a fallacy:

"... if the Republican Party shifts their social ideology to fit the liberal ideology, almost 46% of americans would stop voting for them and either cease voting or vote for the libertarians (Which is about the best they
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
(Continued)

Pro was not arguing that the GOP should become liberal, only that the party should be less extreme in it's social conservatism. "It doesn't even need to be a change of beliefs. The GOP has always been the party for smaller government and less regulation. Why, then, do they feel the need to impose regulations on gay marriage and abortion?"

Therefore, the assertion that Pro was arguing that the GOP should adopt liberal policies was a strawman.

I awarded "convincing arguments" and conduct to Con - the FF sealed my decision. S&G were awarded to Pro, due to the smaller number of errors.

My take on the presented arguments is that, although many voters are alienated by the social conservationism of the GOP, not all are. The social conservatives that make up the GOP base may be critical for electoral success, and the loss of moderates can possibly be offset by changes in election law.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
That's fine. Next time maybe. :D More experience would be beneficial to both of us.
Posted by Relevant 4 years ago
Relevant
Oh damn it. It's Thanksgiving! Lol
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I do hope relevant does not forfeit.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
i forgot to factor in the +1 million lib. Votes. That would make the percentage win for Obama even smaller. It's good as it is, however...
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con's negating the resolution in an unusual way. I'm interested in how this will work out.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
i'll respond tomirrow, because my Saturday is not used for debating and I have three other responces to take care of first. Thxs
Posted by Relevant 4 years ago
Relevant
Sorry it took so long, Muted. I'll be able to respond faster now that the weekend is here!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by truthseeker613 4 years ago
truthseeker613
RelevantMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: F.F. S&G: While De Fool may be right that Con wasn't perfect, Pro wasn't either; R1: "I will debating Muted in this first round of the Beginner's tournament. " End of R2 - "I doesn't even need to be a change of beliefs. " The only errors con made were a) Not capitalizing America 1 time. & b) using " instead of ' hardly a reason to give the point to Pro. For the time being I'll leave it tied. MCA: F.F. MRS: I'm not sure. So in the meantime I'll leave it tied.
Vote Placed by ThomasJefferson 4 years ago
ThomasJefferson
RelevantMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
RelevantMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a good case that the shift away from conservative social values could lead to a greater loss in conservative votes than those picked up among moderates. Also, FF
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
RelevantMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
RelevantMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF. Although republicans do not oppose evolution--I'm extreme right and endorse evolution. However many conservatives and people do oppose the theory. Most right wing candidates (my favorite, Santorum) endorse a creationist or semi creationist view point (either denying the theory or supporting teaching both). Muted showed the increasing support for creationism may influence voters to vote republican. Con also bites republicans changing social views would destroy their base. Evangelicals may vote fir other third parties if republicans push a radical change. Con also showed the social issues couldn't have hurt them too much, Romney got almost as many votes as Obama, Obama being an incumbent means he has an advantage anyway. (A side not--not influencing my vote--the military votes were not counted). Overall, Con wins, and the FF didnt help pro.