The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Values of the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 99453
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I am starting to question the values that the Republican party stands for and would like someone to convince me that the Republican party has better values and more positive impact on society then the Democratic party. I am starting to question if people political position can be changed at all. And for that reason I am more interested to here If anyone got "changed" during this debate at all. Please Comment.


What is better for our society... republican values or democratic values? With all of the strife we see on television today, it would be easy to say that republican values should be flushed down the toilet since that is what is creating all of this strife to begin with. Yet the results of the presidential election seem to paint a different picture of what the people want. After all, we heard more about what direction this country would go so incredibly much in the past 12 months from both parties, you'd think the public made an informed decision on this matter. Yet, here we are asking ourselves this very question. It is my view that republican values more closely adhere to the values of the founders of this great country, therefore it is these values that are going to have the most positive impact on our society.

When examining the democratic values, we see a common thread running through them all: the overriding feeling of paternalism. In other words, the government will take care of you. 1) They will ensure the heath and safety of all of it's citizens. We saw that effort with Obamacare. It stripped a person of their right to not have health insurance, forcing them to purchase a plan, which drove costs up on a vast majority of the population. 2) They will provide quality and affordable education. We see this with common core. Forcing states and local districts to adhere to the "federal standards" or else be stripped of federal funding. At the same time, we have seen relatively no improvement in test scores.1 3) They will combat climate change. We see this with increased regulations that, in turn, increase costs that trickle down to basic necessities like groceries, even though a large part of the scientific community questions the validity of climate science regarding man-made climate change. After all, we have seen the e-mails that state a desire from top-level climate scientists to manipulate data in support of their claims.2 4) They will create good paying jobs. This translates to an increased minimum wage and more union jobs where employers are forced to pay higher wages, thus stripping the individual liberties of an employer. 5) They will create "economic fairness." This is in the form of increased taxation, as a percentage of income, to wealthier individuals. It matters not how hard one works to improve oneself to improve their own economic position. It only matters what the income level is and how it's "not fair" that someone else, no matter how hard they worked to get to that point, could make a lot of money compared to the other person. All of these values give government the power over the individuals. Government is "Big Daddy" taking care of it's children.

Republicans don't believe in a "Big Daddy." Republican values promote the sanctity and liberty of the individual. By doing this, individuals can flourish. There is nothing to hold them back. Just because you're poor now, it doesn't mean that you can't work hard or come up with a great idea, then climb the economic ladder. Let's examine the values of republicans. 1) They believe in small government. This allows the people to have more of a say in how they are governed, and, in turn, how they are taxed. 2) They believe in a federalist government. This is where less power is given to the federal government and more power is allotted to the state and local governments. This allows for a more economical use of tax dollars. According to our constitution, the federal government only has a few responsibilities, and the tenth amendment dictates that the rest is "reserved to the States". 3) They are fiscal conservatives. This is diminished taxation and government spending. Put the people's money back in their pocket and not only will they be able to take care of themselves, but they will take care of each other. 4) They are for a strong national defense. This is one of the main purposes of a federal government. We must protect our borders and fight against tyrannical governments that threaten our existence. 5) They are for individual liberties and responsibility. Government preserves the freedom of the people, while people are responsible for preserving order. By allowing the people to take care of themselves, they empower them in all aspects of their lives, thus becoming great citizens. 6) Finally, they promote tolerance, inclusiveness, and optimism. I fully understand that the media doesn't characterize the republicans as such, but they are wrong. Of course there are some that don't show these characteristics, but those are the minority. Republicans are the party that abolished slavery. Republicans are the party that championed several civil rights bills in the 1960's. It is also the republicans who didn't march in the streets for months in opposition to the will of the people following a presidential election. It is not republicans who stripped the rights of other Americans to travel on roads or enter an airport by forming a chain in protest of an executive order they disagree with. Republicans are tolerant, inclusive, and optimistic that this country will return to the roots of it's founding.

It is republican values that empower the individual and promote the positive feeling of self-reliance. It is republican values that allow individuals to climb the economic ladder, should they choose to do so. It is republican values that keeps a federal government in check, not overstepping it's authority which negatively impacts the vast majority of society. It is republican values that will produce a temporary safety net for people in need, while at the same time keeping it temporary so that the individual will get back on their feet to take care of themselves. It is republican values that will keep a country together for generations to come.


1. "Reports show small gains after common core.", 3/25/2015
2. "Climategate 2.0: New e-mails rock the global warming debate.", 11/23/2011.


"2016 Democratic Party Platform"; 7/1/2016.

"WSUCR: Basic Republican Principles";; 1/31/2017.
Debate Round No. 1


A couple clarifications for the readers... My opponent and I agreed (via text) that the first round he will just post "I accept the debate" as I didn't make any statements in that round and it was used as an invite to introduce the topic. With that said my opponent has agreed not to use 1 of the 3 rounds just like I didn't use the first round, in order to keep it equal and fair. We also have agreed to post our arguments only after our first posts, so we can both respond to the opponent's argument statements, so it doesn't matter who posts first or second. I thank my opponent for that. Now let's begin :).

Is it possible to change someone's opinion on a topic that defines who they are?
The likely answer to this question later" In my argument I am targeting the party not Trump alone, because I believe parties are more important and influential than individuals" Parties can exist without individuals, but individuals can't exist without a party in a country with a voting system. Also parties have the ability to change people's minds, believes and values. This is not opinion this is a fact. In a fascist country you "grow" fascists, in a democratic country you "grow" democrats, in a communist country you "grow" communists. And they all have been "educated", aka brain washed to fallow the system. The average westerner has been thought/programmed to think that communist countries are evil. This originates from the cold war. The ideology has been turned into propaganda... "All people in such a country are brain washed by their government, otherwise they would revolt". But the reality is that this is a real example of the power of an ideology and that in order for an ideology (democracy, communism, fascism) to thrive it must put all other alternatives down. Why else would you chose it, if another one is better? At least that's what history teaches us" Believe it or not Chinese people are just as happy with the so called tyrannical government they have. Because they are brain washed? Or because we are brain washed to think otherwise? This is a debate on its own indeed. But it does go to show that everyone has a different perception based on their experience and the information they have been given/fed. For that reason, I don't believe that this debate will change anyone's opinion no matter how convincing I am or my opponent is. This is the real sad part that I am starting to realize. We are all victims of our own believes and of our own ideologies. We tend to seek information that confirms those believes and they only get reinforced, not changed" Never the less, here is my attempt :)"

I will begin with 3 topics"

Financial responsibility, prosperity and common wealth
When it comes prosperity, growth, productivity and wealth, the republican run states are scraping the bottom. To put things in clear perspective I will use the most common parameter for measuring human wealth and the success of any state (or country) - GDP per capita.

2 out of the top 10 states by GDP per capita are Republican states. Those 2 states that made it in the top are Alaska and Wyoming, and they make it in the top 10 only because they happen to be the 51st and 49th least populated state, which can throw off the measurement for states that are heavily relaying on natural resources. 10 out of the worst 10 GDP per capita states are Republican states!
If this is not a proof for how backwards republican financial policies are, and that while on theory they may sound good, the actual results are the proof of their failure.

The Republican party ideology of deregulation, couldn't be more wrong and fresh than ever. The real reasons of the housing crash of 2008, were irresponsible and greedy banks giving loans to anyone without proper background check. The republican party is against big government and business restrictions. But this is what caused the housing crash, a system without any regulation is just too easy to be exploited by the smart and greedy businesses. Housing crashes, unmanaged oil spills, derailed trains, factories emitting high level of pollutions, overhunted species, defective and dangerous consumer products, food companies stuffing anything in the food that is not yet proven that is bad for you, those are the results from the actions of the much softer pitch that the Republican party calls "deregulation". And yes republicans now want to remove the Dod-Frank rule that prevents banks from doing what they were doing before 2008. How could any of this be good for anyone except for the person that is directly benefiting from cutting corners in order to make bigger profits?

Nationalism and Military
While not a policy, the Republican party always has been a strong pro nationalism party. Every country needs a good dose of nationalism, however extreme nationalism, has proven to turn into bad things especially when it is Integral Nationalism. Examples for Integral nationalism are Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. I know many are discarding this similarity with the Republican nominee Trump. But the facts speak for themselves, everything else is opinion. Integral Nationalism is distinguished with the fallowing trends - anti-individualism (Trump holding a baby and calling it a "future worker"), radical extremism (just about everything Trump is doing is radical and extreme!), and aggressive-expansionist militarism (I hope "Rebuilding our deprived military" rings a bell. But what may not ring a bell is that US military currently spends more money than the next 10 countries combined, and has been doing so for years. And when you add to the fact that 7 of those are our allies, it is only fair to ask the question what we are rebuilding the military for? His strong desires to rebuild manufacturing aligns closer to this purpose than jobs for people, considering his track record of screwing everyone that has worked for him). I know this shifts more to Trump, but the truth is the hard-core republicans tend to align with this type of goals themselves - anti-liberal, America first, strong military, extreme nationalism. So, de facto Trump can only exist in a party that aligns with those core values, which unquestionably is the republican party. After highlighting what appears to be as obvious similarities it is only worth mentioning what integral nationalism regimes have done to humanity - they have destroyed themselves and all surrounding them! This is certainly one way to put the entire republican party to rest if those things materialize. read about the Risorgimento and Integral Nationalism.

I want to go back to rebuilding the military again and reinforce what is rather very obvious but perhaps not to everyone" Here is the latest statistic on world military spending.
What the above chart doesn't show is the compounded difference of spending this kind of money for years! The US military is so big already that it is being compared not to individual countries, but to the rest of the world combined, without our allies. That's how uneven and massive the US military is! So, if we are already that big, why would Trump say that it is deprived and that it needs to be rebuilt? Why would he want to back out of our allies if he is really concerned about the security of the country? If there is not a single country or even allied countries that can stand against you, what are we rebuilding for? Is it possible that his goals do not align with our allies - peaceful dominance vs. militaristic invasions? Is it possible that his goals align closer with someone like Putin who has done exactly that? While the questions may be viewed as somewhat farfetched, history speaks for itself. There has never been such large military buildup without invasion. And let's see how farfetched are the fallowing questions" Do you believe that Trump will do ANYTHING to defend his ego? Do you believe that he is capable of bulling other countries? Do you believe that putting the largest military the world has ever seen in his hands is a safe bet? All of the above questions are rather rythorical, since we have seen enough to say that he indeed is capable of all of the speculations mentioned above. There is really no other logical explanation for his actions than preparation for military invasions. The question with two possible outcomes is "Will anyone be able to stop him?". There shouldn't be a question of what he is trying to rebuild the largest military for, when even the next 10 largest militaries don't stand a chance.


My opponent talks about the fact that republican run states perform the worst, therefore the republican financial policies are "backwards" and the democrat financial policies must be better. He uses a single tool, GDP per capita, as the basis for an entire economic evaluation for his proposal. First I will say that comparing states and their economic status doesn't necessarily equate to how well a party runs a state. There are other factors at play that can skew results. What if a drought hit a midwest state that relies upon farming? Obviously the results would be skewed. I will, however, go ahead and take a look at the top 10 states of 2015. I won't, however, use simply one indicator. When using the same metric as Business Insider, one sees that numerous factors are involved with assessing the economic health of a state. To assess it properly, seven metrics are used: 1) unemployment, 2) percent change in non-farm payroll jobs, 3) GDP per capita, 4) GDP growth, 5) change in housing prices, 6) average weekly wage, and 7) change in average weekly wage. When using these seven metrics, the top 10 states were, in order, Washington, Washington DC, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Nevada, South Dakota, Florida, and California. Now we have to define what is a republican state versus a democrat state. The only way to truly define that would be if the governorship and the entire state legislature is the same party. Otherwise, it is a split. If there is any split whatsoever, that means that there is going to be a true mix of policies, making the result of that state's economic status undetermined for our purposes. Thus we must throw out those findings. On this list of ten states (including DC), four of the states are split: Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Two of the states are democrat: Washington DC and California. Four of the states are republican: Utah, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Florida. It seems to me that the number of republican states outweighs the democrat states by a 4-2 margin. This makes me think that maybe the republican financial policies aren't that backward after all.

When looking at federal fiscal policies and which party system works better, it becomes incredibly hard to truly say because of the high number of variables which affect the economy, but Reagan and Obama had somewhat similar economic circumstances. The two presidents had opposing tactics at dealing with their situations, however. Obama immediately went to work with the democrat-filled congress to pass the single-handed largest tax and entitlement program the nation has ever seen: the Affordable Care Act (it is also the most ironic name ever given!). He then allowed the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 to expire, thus increasing taxes. He also thought it best to print more money, also called "qualitative easing." Reagan dealt with his situation by cutting taxes across the board to every single American citizen. By doing this, everyone will have more money in their pockets, which they can invest more in themselves or in other businesses. This creates a trickle-down economy where not only do businesses make more money, thus putting more money into the tax coffers for the government, but it employs more people. The more people who are employed, the better they feel about themselves, which translates into being good citizens. Now let's look at what happened in each scenario. The facts don't lie. 1) Long-term unemployment (longer than 6 months... and compared to total unemployment) was 18% under Reagan during the recovery and 45% under Obama during the recovery; 2) It took only 6 months for recovery under Reagan's policies compared to 3 years under Obama's policies. This is yet another reason why I would take a republican fiscal policy over a democrat policy any day of the week! This isn't even taking into account the democrat tactic of redistribution of wealth. Psychologically, it is well-known that when you do things for yourself, you feel better about yourself. When you are just given something without having to work for it, you don't appreciate it as much nor do you really feel good about it. By having policies that empower individuals, you create good citizens. Good citizens make for a good society, which is what this whole debate is about.

My opponent brought up the issue of deregulation. Republicans are NOT for a system without regulation. The problem we run in to is OVER-regulation. There are certain standards that can be agreed upon, which then should become the baseline. Next my opponent brought up Dodd-Frank and insinuated that repealing that would only help the "greedy banks." He says that the banks created the housing crash of 2008 by giving loans to anyone. Here is the history. In 1992, Barney Frank lobbied for increasing the number of loans to low income people. After all, being a disciple of the great democrat FDR, owning a home should be a "right". So in 1993, the legislation made it through a full democrat congress and was signed by the democrat Bill Clinton. This legislation MANDATED that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two government-backed entities who hold the vast majority of mortgages in the country) give a full 30% of its loans to people at or below the median income line. Then in 2000, right before he left office, Bill Clinton increased that percentage from 30% to 50%. Then in 2007, George W. Bush, going against the republican party, sided with the congressional democrat majority and upped it to 55%. Again, the government MANDATED that 55% of ALL mortgages were to be given to people at or below the median income line. The only way to do this and make it affordable was to offer a "subprime", or low quality, loan. In 2007, 70% of ALL subprime loans were with the government-backed Fannie and Freddie. Less than 30% of these loans were actually held by banks! Again, it was the democrat's legislation that FORCED banks to give these low quality loans that created the housing crash. It was NOT the fault of the banks, as they were only doing what they were told to do by the government. But what is Dodd-Frank? Dodd-Frank is the legislation that aimed to stop the insanity that Barney Frank helped start in the first place. It went too far. It stopped the subprime loan business, which is about the only thing good about this legislation. The 2,200 page document contains regulation after regulation. The effects of these regulations, 1) increases consumer costs by outlawing certain bank fees, which resulted in the end of free checking for low-end (i.e. working class) clients; 2) increased centralized banking because it drowned the "little guy" banks. The huge bank corporations could easily withstand the extra costs to keep up with that 2,200 page document, but the little community banks couldn't, and many closed because of this; 3) community banks would lend to people that they would shop with at the grocery store or meet at the park with the kids. In other words, these small banks knew who they would lend to, which also made people more accountable for paying back the small bank. The default rate for these banks was minimal compared to the big bank corporations. But instead, when these small banks went out of business, the people migrated to the big banks. This is the effect of Dodd-Frank: it made the big bank corporations even bigger and stronger, and made our cities and towns worse.

My opponent brought up the military and President Trump. He compares Trump to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, but one must take a step that isn't there for that. Who were Mussolini and Hitler prior to being their countries' leader? They were military men. Military men with conquest on their minds. Who was Trump prior to becoming president? He was a real estate investment tycoon. A businessman. I'd say there is a slight difference there. It is this difference that tells me that we are NOT dealing with another Mussolini or Hitler. This now leads in to my opponent claiming that Trump's desire for a military "build-up" must mean that Trump is preparing to invade. But is Trump's statement of wanting to re-build the military really about preparing for invasion? First, the history. Obama signed orders to have a natural draw-down of Army numbers by not recruiting more troops, thus diminishing the force to 450,000 by 2018. This, combined with the diminished military spending on ships, submarines, and other military equipment, has dated our military force. Independent national defense experts now state that our Army has become "smaller, older, and weaker." They go on to state that one-third of the Army is at "unacceptable" readiness. With Russia, Iran, China, and ISIS being threats to our national security, it would only make sense to improve our position. As for Trump, he has stated that he wants to "re-build" the military. It should be obvious that it is in these areas that have been highlighted. He has also publicly stated that he wants to see deployment times diminished for the troops in order to give them more time with their families. The only way to do this would be to add to the number of troops overall. Instead of drawing down the numbers, he wants to boost the numbers by 60,000. Increased numbers of troops equates to decreased deployment times. It is that simple. With the threats out there to our national security, the best possible scenario is peace through deterrance. Yes, we do indeed have the largest military in the world. We need to keep it that way. Peace through deterrance!

Debate Round No. 2


As I am reading my opponent comments I am starting to realize that our topic is almost unlimited, because every other statement can be a debate on its own. I suppose we must continue"
"Yet the results of the presidential election seem to paint a different picture of what the people want." Mostly Wrong! The System failed the people, the people did show what they wanted" Clinton had more than 3 million votes than Trump. The system is more than 200 years old, just to put it in perspective... It was created during times when the general population couldn't get access easily to mail and newspapers as they were just getting established, forget about radio and television. It has built in distortion where one person doesn't equal to one actual vote. For example it takes hundreds of individuals from California to even out with the voting power of one person from Arizona.
It makes no sense why a free country for equal rights has built-in disproportion of the voting power of individuals based on where they live" Forgive me, the equal rights came in much later" 133 years later" that explains it"

Great speech, empty words"
My opponent says "It is my view that republican values more closely adhere to the values of the founders of this great country, therefore it is these values that are going to have the most positive impact on our society." Dear readers this is the definition of allegation. A statement offered as a justification with little or no proof.

Ahhh, Healthcare, what a wonderful topic :)
My opponent says "It stripped a person of their right to not have health insurance, forcing them to purchase a plan, which drove costs up on a vast majority of the population." How is this so called "right" any different of the "right" not to save for Social Security, not to purchase Car Insurance, not to purchase house insurance? All of those "rights" have been taken from us, because they are not "rights", they are common sense. A city can't have the "right" not to provide police or fire protection. Because those are events that when not managed they destroy the institution/body. If there is no law enforcement, the city will be destroyed, if there is no fire department, the city will be burned down. The city can't afford to have the "right" to choose if it should pay for it or not, its common sense and it happens in every city. The same exact way, a human can't have the "right" for something that it is a question of "when" not a question of "if" that they will need. If they do not contribute to the system, their total contribution over life will never cover their own expenses when they need that healthcare. This is no different than saying I don't need Social Security, but then at the age of 60 you change your mind and you want it because now you need it. You can't possibly contribute enough for all of your expenses that are about to happen after the age of 60, when you changed your mind and decide that it is time to buy a health insurance. Your health insurance by not buying one previously will be like "all out of pocket", it won't be insurance. It will be more like $20-50k a year on average. This is really simple math and logic that anyone should be able to make sense out of. It is my opponent proposal to have the "right" to not buy health insurance that it is what can destroy an entire nation, when everyone gets in line to be served for something they had the "right" not to pay for the last 40 years. The only reason USA is at its current healthcare mess today is because republicans refuse to make sense out of the above facts. And sadly the problem only becomes worst as the time goes and people do not pay today what one day they WILL take. Not "if" they need healthcare, "when" they need it! And if the arguments goes to "But how did humanity survived without health insurance for thousands of years? The answer is, barely. Just in 1900 the world average life expectancy was 31, at 1950 was 48, today it is 71.5 Can you believe that? Only a hundred years ago, probably the majority of the readers of this debate should be dead.
There are several factors to the contribution of this explosion of life expectancy, but without a doubt the most significant is the Introduction of varies Universal Health Care systems throughout the world in the early 1900. Simple infections could be treated, simple health care was available.
Even today from statistical standpoint, where universal healthcare is not available countries have lower life expectancy.
United States, the leader of the world in just about any field is next to countries like Taiwan, Bahram, Panama, and Costa Rica! This is not a coincidence!

Global warming
Like I said, every paragraph is a debate on its own" I will try to keep it short with links with proof and how it is measured. There are plenty of statistical facts and evidence of the global warming. There is really no argument there as far as I am concerned, perhaps there maybe argument if it is human caused.

The 10th Amendment"
My opponent says: "According to our constitution, the federal government only has a few responsibilities, and the tenth amendment dictates that the rest is "reserved to the States". Yes, I understand the importance of rules and structures. But how could anything from 200 years ago, have the same "weight". Back than USA was 1/5th of today's size with only 13 states. With the industrial and modern ages, many new problems were created that didn't exist 200 years ago and yes of course they couldn't possibly think of them as much as republicans are always trying to fit them in that timeframe. The last 200 years have changed life more than the previous 10000 years combined. Why would anyone in 1779 want to have the rules from the middle ages. They didn't, they understood how na"ve that is and wrote new once. But we don't seem to have the capacity to understand how that works, even two ages later"

Low-Income loans didn't cause the financial crisis.
National Bureau of Economic Research provides no support for such claims. As many republicans want to point the finger to. The majority of defaulted loans were from the middle and upper class, not from the lower income.
"While there was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during this time period, the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence in the paper suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people."

The extinct species called - the tolerant, inclusive and optimistic Republican
My opponent says: "Republicans are tolerant, inclusive, and optimistic. This one made me burst in laugh" Are we still talking about the same republicans? Those that will threaten you with their gun if you appear to be gay or muslim. That example voids out tolerant and inclusive right off the bet. Optimistic" interesting, am I the only one seeing that republican speeches are always the once with dark clouds over their heads, praying on peoples fear and that the world is about to end, and you are not save. We need nukes and lots of them, big walls, lots of ammo and plenty of emergency food in that personally built bunker. I am sorry but this is the republican base, that's not a few, and that's not tolerant, inclusive or optimistic people. No matter what angle I try to look at it, republicans are exactly the opposite. In fact that brings me to my final words.

It is clear that the party is not just a political choice, the party represents ideologies that define the people. Are you pro peace or pro guns/military. Are you pro society or pro individuals? Are you pro workers or pro corporations? Are you pro inclusiveness no matter of your religion, race, believes, or nationality or are you pro walls and barriers. Are you pro deregulation or pro limit of the harm that the most powerful people and corporations can do to anyone? You can't have both, its one or the other! If I could attempt to summarize the entire debate and the republican party vs the democratic party in one question and one word defining the people fallowing the given party. It will have to be:
Are you selfish or are you giving? Don't blame me, I didn't come up with the definition"

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:

Thank you for the opportunity to debate and certainly even greater thank you to the readers if they could manage to read through all this :).


Like my opponent, I am starting to question as well. I am questioning how the division in the country became so great. I am questioning how democrats view republicans, as a whole, as radicals, since that seems to be the tone. I am questioning why political figures have become so polarizing. I am questioning why the media continues to stoke the fires of emotions within people (oh, that's for another debate). While my opponent is questioning republican values, after living under a democrat president for 8 years, who started his stay in office with a filibuster-proof congress and passed practically anything and everything a democrat could want, I question democrat values as they affect the general population. Thank you to anyone for reading a lively debate on this topic.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.