The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
80 Points

The conservative view point should be labled as hate speech to eliminate it for ever.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,127 times Debate No: 9102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (16)

 

sadolite

Pro

It is said almost every where I look and goes unchallenged. Conservatives don't care about people. They "hate" the poor they "hate" little children and want to deny them medical care. They "hate" the elderly and also want to deny them medical care. They hate the entire middle class and want to deny them a living wage. Who don't conservatives "hate" ? Oh ya, big corporations, they don't hate them. That's even worse. To not hate big business may as well make you Hitler.
In order for my opponent to win this debate he will have to show liberals defending a conservative in any of the above. If he or she can not then conservatives are just "hate" speech criminals and all of their ideas are designed to oppress and stifle free choice and freedom of any kind. Their ideas are to discriminate and leave out entire demographics.
It is time to eradicate once and for all the conservative view point that clogs up the political process that prevents the gov't from doing what it wants to in the name of the general welfare for all of the people. Conservatives don't want people to take help from the govt. How can anyone not want a hand out from the govt. Only a conservative would even think such a thing. It is the govts responsibility to make sure everyone has what they need and want.
The last election was a mandate. Govt knows what is best for everyone, why else would so many people vote for someone who ran on that premise. Conservatism is just getting in the way and preventing govt from doing what it needs to do to take care of everyone.
It is time to eliminate the "hate" speech dinosaur called conservative speech.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Alright, I haven't gotten my hands dirty in a while, so I figured I would step into a debate. Should be an interesting 4 rounds. Good luck, sadolite.

1. If con doesn't show liberals defending a conservative, then conservatives hate everyone and want to oppress the entire population.

a. This is a completely ridiculous burden my opponent is trying to set for me; a liberal is very unlikely to defend a conservative, just due to differing ideologies; so, my opponent is essentially asking me to do the impossible; I would propose a viable alternative to myself: instead of having to find a liberal defending a conservative in any of these absurd situations, I'm simply going to negate my opponent's claim that the entire conservative stance is hateful and should be eliminated.

1. Conservatives "hate" the poor, small children, the elderly, the middle class, and are all equivalent to Hitler.

a. This general statement that my opponent makes is libelous, fallacious, and is, in and of itself, hate speech; it's obviously libelous to some extent by trying to discredit all conservatives, and, as my opponent himself states, he's aiming for the eradication of conservatism as a whole.

b. This is fallacious, because he's essentially saying that any group who doesn't support liberal ideology is a hate group, when we ourselves know this not to be true; for example: parents don't always buy their kids everything they want, for example, every new toy or video game that catches the child's eye; by my opponent's logic, this means that the parents hate their children; obviously, this is fallacious.

c. This is also, ironically, hate speech; he's trying to paint a picture of all conservatives as child-hating, elitist, Hitler-esque "haters"; he is being deliberately offensive, and providing this outrageous, unwarranted, extremely hateful claim, and I'd really request you to vote against my opponent's hypocrisy.

2. Conservatism is designed to oppress the masses, use discrimination, and stifle freedom.

a. That's a completely unwarranted claim.

b. Conservatism seeks to uphold traditional values and norms; this includes the Constitution and Bill of Rights; therefore, conservatism obviously isn't looking to stifle freedom; I can agree that (thankfully) they don't advocate absolute freedom, but, to my knowledge, neither do liberals.

c. Saying that we ought to be able to fight the higher class, businesses, etc. is just high-profile discrimination on your part; it doesn't matter what class one belongs to: discrimination isn't limited to the lower and middle classes.

3. Conservatism should be erased so that everyone can get free government handouts.

a. Refer back to my spoiled child example; a parent, for example, is not going to spend money every time a child wants something; in the same way, the government can't spend money on its citizens every time they don't feel like paying for something.

b. Handouts are going to encourage unemployment and indigence, as people will be far more willing to live off of a government check every month than to go out and actually maintain a steady job.

c. The national debt is nearly 11.6 trillion dollars [http://www.brillig.com...]; increase the amount of free government handouts is going to increase the strain on EVERY class of taxpayer, and will only send our debt even higher than it already is.

d. The last big surge of handouts and social programs like my opponent is proposing was called the New Deal, instituted by FDR during the Great Depression; however, the New Deal was considered a failure, as it did not bring us out of the depression; we still had high levels of unemployment, and a tremendous national debt (as we have now) [http://mises.org...]; it took WWII to get us out of that depression, not government handouts.

4. Government knows what's best, and that's why people voted for Obama.

a. Another unwarranted claim.

b. If government knew what was best, we wouldn't have such a large international debt, and be involved in multiple wars; humans are far from perfect, so it's unlikely they'll have the answer in every situation; this certainly doesn't invalidate conservatism.

c. Many people could have voted for Obama because he orates well, because he promised change, because he's got charisma, because they're uniformed [http://macsmind.com...], or even because he's black (95% of blacks voted for Obama) [http://wiki.answers.com...]; what I do know is, more than a few people probably didn't vote for him because of his policies.

*Bonus Argument*

My opponent is advocating the elimination of conservatism overall, and I see a big problem.

Our first Amendment gives people the right to free speech, so long as it causes no harm; as far as I can tell, there aren't many conservatives preaching the stoning of gays or the lynching of blacks these days; so, that generally means that conservatives aren't preaching hate and violence, which generally means that their speech is protected; it's ironic, considering that my opponent is most likely liberal (his profile doesn't specify), meaning that he would ideally believe in protecting freedoms, but yet he advocates essentially robbing half of America of their right to free speech and expression.

I have a lot more to say on this issue, but I figured that I would keep it to the basics for Round 1; I look forward to hearing more of my opponent's interesting position.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

My opponent says it is "impossible" to defend the "absurd". There is no possible way to find anyone that would defend accusations such as the ones I have put forward. My opponent states himself that the examples are absurd but makes no attempt to even try to find a single prominent liberal in govt that would also say it is absurd to make such accusations. If it is impossible then it must be true. It should be easy to disprove something absurd.

Now an endless litany of accusations against conservative speech and thought that all goes unchallenged. So it must be true.

http://www.alternet.org...

http://www.prospect.org...

http://www.freezerbox.com...

http://www.grist.org...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://liberapedia.wikia.com...

http://www.mydd.com...

http://www.feministing.com...

http://www.appletreeblog.com...

http://psyact.org...

http://www.preemptivekarma.com...

http://www.ryansager.com...

"This general statement that my opponent makes is libelous, fallacious, and is, in and of itself, hate speech; it's obviously libelous to some extent by trying to discredit all conservatives, and, as my opponent himself states, he's aiming for the eradication of conservatism as a whole."

If any of the sources I provided were liable or untrue would there not be law sits filed? All of the previous sources clearly insinuate hate on the part of conservatives and all back me up. All are unchallenged. Conservatives hate everyone and everything how many sources do you need, I can supply thousands more.

My opponents rants about the debt and other such things are irrelevant to the debate. Conservatives hate and their speech is hate and their political positions are all based on hate. The resolution stands my opponent can't find anyone to defend even what he calls "absurd" therefore it must not be. Conservatives invented the word "hate" as far as I can tell from all of my sources.
Cody_Franklin

Con

I believe that sadolite is, sadly, misconstruing my last post; the absurdity of which I speak is twofold:

a. It's absurd for my opponent to ask me to find a liberal who defends conservative ideology; this situation is, by nature, self-contradicting, and probably impossible; thus, my opponent can't ask this of me.

b. I'm also saying it's absurd to claim that, because conservatives don't support hand outs, that they hate children, the elderly, etc. and are denying them health care, which is highly fallacious; as I said before, people need an opportunity to work for their benefits (for example, the elderly working and putting in for their pension or 401K, or parents working to support themselves and their children); anything more would be, as I stated previously, encouraging unemployment and indigence.

He provides us next with several unbiased links, such as 'Liberapedia', and tells us that, because a lot of people are accusing Conservatives of hate, that this must be a true claim, because these accusations go unchallenged; it would seem to me that my opponent's logic is stuffed to the brim with fallacies today.

a. The Negative Proof Fallacy

My opponent makes the claim that because these accusations haven't been challenged (and thus, have not been proven false), that these accusations must be true; as we can see, just because nobody has supposedly challenged these allegations does not mean that they ought to be accepted as fact; they are accusations, and nothing more.

b. The Ad Populum Fallacy

This really speaks for itself; he's saying that because a LOT of people have accused conservatives of hate speech, these accusations must be true; of course, the fallacy in this is, as I said, self-demonstrating.

To answer my opponent's question, it's very difficult for suits to be filed against such a multitude of accusers, especially by the entire conservative movement. Oh, and folks, this is an appeal to probability here: He's basically telling us, because they could file a lawsuit, that they WILL file a lawsuit; obviously a fallacious claim. And, look back to before; simply because law suits are not filed does not make these claims true.

Honestly, if you want to want to buy my opponent's claims that blogs, 'encyclopedias' and biased websites prove that conservatives are bound up in hate, I guess I can provide a few of my own 'proving' that the hate actually rests with the liberals. Example:

http://jimunro.blogspot.com...

In fact, just google the phrase "liberal hate" and you'll come up with plenty of things.

So, my opponent claims that many of my arguments are 'irrelevant', but if that's the case, then the multitude of arguments he's dropped are also irrelevant; so, my opponent has to make a choice at this point; keep his arguments and respond to mine, or essentially drop his entire case; the ball is in your court, sadolite.

A few example arguments of my opponent's that he has dropped:

1. Conservative views on government handouts

2. Any group who doesn't agree with liberal ideas is a hate group.

3. Conservatives hate children, the elderly, the middle class, and are equivalent to Hitler.

4. The government knows whats best, and conservatism is getting in the way of government takeover of everything.

A few examples of my arguments that he has dropped:

1. My opponent is being very hypocritical in accusing conservatives of hate speech, while in the same breath comparing conservatives to Hitler, and declaring that these people must be eliminated.

2. The parent-child scenario: Just because a parent doesn't give the child everything he/she wants does not mean that the parent hates the child; same with government; conservatives don't support a lot of handouts, but that doesn't mean they hate America.

3. My bonus argument about the 1st Amendment, and how, if conservatives were preaching hate and violence at the public level, the speech would most likely be legally disallowed; also, more of my opponent's hypocrisy shows up, since, while liberalism generally emphasizes freedom and tolerance, my opponent has been preaching the kind of 'hate and eradication' talk that he's been accusing conservatives of.

So, in the end, besides a few out-of-context quotes, biased sources (from liberal sites like Liberapedia and Feministing), and a couple of less-than-appropriate jokes about Obama and a group of firefighters, there's very little hate being promoted by the conservative community. Again, saving a few arguments for the endgame, I'll again step down and let my opponent have the soapbox.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

"It's absurd for my opponent to ask me to find a liberal who defends conservative ideology;"

The resolution is quite clear in this debate and I have clearly stated what should be a very simple way to win the debate. I listed only three examples of what conservatives are constantly accused of over and over again in the news media, countless Internet sites and any other form of media outlet. Show me a liberal defending a conservative saying that conservatives don't "hate" little children,old people or the middle class. My opponent wishes to change the rules to fit his argument.

"It's absurd for my opponent to ask me to find a liberal who defends conservative ideology"

I didn't ask my opponent to defend conservative ideology. I asked him to show me a liberal defending a conservative being accused of "hate" and that any possible ideas about the young the old and the middle class are not based on "hate".

Is it just as impossible to find a conservative defending a liberal?

Here is a link to a conservative that I think most on this site would be considered a prominent conservative defending a liberal being accused of racism and hate.

http://edgycater.blogspot.com...

My opponent says my sources are merely biased sources and need not be addressed. He simply states that just because they say what they say does not make them true. He makes no attempt what so ever to even discredit a single one with some alternate source showing it to be false, Just his word will do I suppose

My opponent says that because suits are not filed that it doesn't make it true. He gives no source, just his word again.

And last but not least he completely switches the tables and tries to turn it into a "liberals hate debate" Not at all related to the resolution.
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. Liberals defending conservatives

a. Yes; I agree that the resolution is clear; the resolution clearly does not AT ALL imply that I must find a liberal defending a conservative; this is simply a burden that my opponent is trying to unreasonably assign to me, and I've previously proven that this is a burden that I in no way must meet. Honestly, if it's liberals accusing conservatives of "hating" children, the elderly, and the middle class, it's highly unlikely that any liberal is going to challenge these accusations, and even less likely because these allegations are coming from his/her own movement.

b. My opponent has still failed to explain away his fallacious logic, and has failed to prove how disagreeing with liberal ideas is equivalent to hate; this, as I explained earlier (and keep in mind that my opponent never addressed it), is actually very contradictory of my opponent to claim that conservatives are hateful, yet has packed his position full of hateful rhetoric over the elimination of the entire conservative movement; it would seem that my opponent himself is filled with hate, not conservatism.

2. Conservatives have defended liberals.

a. Let's take a look at this blog: Yes, this conservative, Bill O'Reilly, absolutely is defending a liberal accused of racism and hate; yet, let's take a deeper look into my opponent's source: The title of the article is "Bill O'Reilly Defends Barbara Boxer and Proves He Doesn't Understand Liberal Racism"; the entire article is definitely anti-left, and declares that O'Reilly's defense puts him on the "margins of the conservative movement"; so, according to my opponent's source, this conservative was an idiot for defending the accused liberal.

3. The sources

a. My opponent misconstrues my argument yet again; recall what I said in Round 2: Not that the sources are wrong 'just because'; my opponent made the claim that, because the sources were unchallenged, and because there were a lot of accusations, that this must make his claim true; I pointed out both of the fallacies inherent with this kind of argumentation (the negative proof and ad populum fallacies, respectively); so, my opponent is essentially attacking a straw man at this point (yet another fallacy), as opposed to actually explaining why his argument is based on sound logic; obviously, he cannot explain this away, because this argument is NOT based on sound logic.

b. I did provide one such example source to show that numerous accusations aren't necessarily to be taken as truth. If you want a more complete list of sources, beyond me telling you to google "liberal hate", then I will provide a few:

http://jimunro.blogspot.com...
http://www.boston.com...
http://www.boston.com...
http://mensnewsdaily.com...
http://www.conservapedia.com...

b. As we can see, plenty of sources, including the ones my opponent presented, obviously have a liberal bias, which explains why they take out-of-context quotes, pokes at the opposing party, and light-hearted humor as "conservative hate speech", just as the sources I've provided (like Conservapedia, for example) will have a bit of a right-wing bias to them; conservatives are not quite so hateful as my opponent would have you believe; the credibility of the sources is diminished by the fact that this is merely a tradition of political mudslinging; both sides, obviously, will try to discredit the enemy as much as possible by finding any little quote that can be taken against them, and using that to full advantage; you can see this kind of mudslinging just by turning on CNN, or FOX, or MSNBC, or perhaps the Colbert Report or the Daily Show.

4. Lawsuits

a. My opponent once again beats around the bush here, and he doesn't respond to my argument that he is merely making an appeal to probability by saying that, because they could file lawsuits, that they inevitably will; he also disregards the logical warrant I've presented: Because the comments are often directed at the entire conservative movement by such a large number of individuals, filing such a tremendous number of lawsuits would be expensive, time-consuming, and overall, exhausting; so, to file all these lawsuits would be very difficult indeed, which could be one explanation for the lack thereof; another explanation can be taken from before; liberals accuse conservatives of hate speech, racism, etc. just as much as conservatives accuse liberals; it all goes back to the political mudslinging that everyone in the political spectrum resorts to in order to get ahead.

5. The idea of a "liberal hate" debate

a. I'm not at all turning this into a "liberal hate" debate as my opponent would claim; again, he is merely attacking a straw man here. What I'm saying is that, there are accusations on both sides, and most of that, as I've repeated on many occasions, is just political mudslinging.

b. My opponent also misconstrues one of the key arguments - his hypocrisy; as I've said, my opponents likes to accuse conservatism of preaching hate and violence, but as I have shown through logical construction, and he has completely dropped, he is guilty of the very thing of which he is accusing conservatives, and I have postulated that it might be he, not conservatives, who is filled with hate in today's round, as evidenced by his posts containing extreme anti-right rhetoric.

Also again, note the many dropped arguments. I do not wish to list them again, but the list remains constant from Round 2, as my opponent has chosen to drop them completely.

With only Round 4 remaining, I have little else to say, now that my opponent's multitude of fallacies has been exposed, many of his opening arguments are dropped, and the new arguments that pop up have been refuted for the time being. I believe that by this point, the voters have probably already decided who to vote for; but, perhaps the tables will be turned one way or the other, so I'll stand down for my opponent one final time.
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

"liberal defending a conservative; this is simply a burden that my opponent is trying to unreasonably assign to me"

Why is it so incredibly hard and so absurd to find a single liberal defending a conservative? Surly there must be one example out there. If not, then conservatives must be truly evil and hateful people. If there is not a single liberal of prominence in politics or the news media willing to stand up and say that conservatives don't "hate" children, old people and the middle class.

I did point out one example, but as my opponent stated, the writer of the article threw the defender, Bill O'Reilly under the bus for doing so. Now that has to be the epitome of hate for a conservative to throw another conservative under the bus like that.

"My opponent has still failed to explain away his fallacious logic, and has failed to prove how disagreeing with liberal ideas is equivalent to hate"

Did I not post a litany of sources explaining this? All are the opposite of a liberal point of view and all describe that opposite point of view as "hateful" All go unchallenged not only by liberals but the news media also. One would think the news media would say something to the affect like: Now wait a minute Mr or Mrs. so and so, don't you think that your description of the opposing point of view is just a bit out of line? Nope, I have never heard it, not ever. I have searched and searched I can't find a single video clip or news article even coming close to it. Certainly the news media would call someone out if it were not true. That is their job, to inform people and give both sides of the story in context and that is what they do. Scene no attempt is made, it has got to pretty much true that conservatives are driven by "hate".

" It would seem that my opponent himself is filled with hate, not conservatism."

EEH I am defending liberalism not conservatism. Has not all of the information I have provided pretty damning proof of the level of hatred that exists in the conservative movement? I am not hating anything I am pointing out where it all comes from, the conservative movement. Why would it be hateful for me to want to eliminate a source of hate. That would seem virtuous to me, not hateful.

Logic dictates that if an accusation goes unchallenged it must be true. As I stated earlier, none of the major news media outlets have been able to disprove the accusations. It would have to be a conspiracy between all of the big three or four networks to not even challenge these accusations. We all know there is no conspiracy or attempt to hide or cover up anything. They are all pretty much fair and balanced for the most part. These are very serious accusations, how could they possibly go unchallenged. The accusations made in the sources I provided would be big news.

"b. I did provide one such example source to show that numerous accusations aren't necessarily to be taken as truth. If you want a more complete list of sources, beyond me telling you to google "liberal hate", then I will provide a few:"

Liberals are almost always called out when accused of hate. Liberals can not stand hateful speech or thought and discredit anyone in their movement when accused of hate speech or hateful ideas. The only reason A conservative would also take the side of a liberal accused of hate is to try and paint liberals as hateful to hide and direct attention away from themselves. But again this isn't about liberals it is about conservatives and their hate speech and hateful ideas. Just like a conservative my opponent tries to shift the focus away from conservatives and put it on the liberals. By showing a few scatted but "challenged" accusations.

The fist source in his last round about Sara Palin has been challenged and proven false by the news media countless times. http://www.cbsnews.com...

The second source about liberals comparing George Bush to Hitler has also been challenged.
http://www.liveleak.com...

The third source is a testament to the news media doing what is suppose to do condemning hate speech by conservatives. This site tries to say that liberals are never called out on what they say. One is a Nazi accusation and I have already shown that this has been challenged. The other accusations are from a unknown talk show host who no longer affiliated with NPR.

The forth source: Who is Bob Newman and who if anyone gets news from this guy. This is a rant about emails that can't be proven or substantiated in any way.

The fifth source is a conservative website that tries in vain to paint liberals as the haters ,again most all of the accusations have been challenged by the news media.

I have successfully given sources showing accusations by liberals being challenged. The news media is not so biased that it would just totally ignore all of the sources that I have provided. My opponent has made no attempt to even discredit a single source. Probably because he can't find any, I have looked and can't find a single news source discrediting any of the accusations I have listed. Mabey my opponent will have more luck if he even bothers to look.

It is clear that I have given ample proof that liberals are challenged and excoriated and condemned when hate speech is used and so are conservatives. The difference is conservatives are haters and their ideas are based on hate. The accusations must be true because they go unchallenged and no one wants to touch conservative ideas with a ten foot pole to even be connected with the hate that is the conservative movement.

Vote pro.
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. My opponent just repeats his question again: Why is it so incredibly hard?

a. I've tried to explain this to my opponent in nearly every round, but let me simplify it even more: the statement itself should prove why; liberals and conservatives have extremely different agendas and ideologies, on different sides of the political spectrum; thus, to find a liberal sincerely defending the actions of a conservative (as opposed to making accusations, as my opponent has already shown liberals to be prone to) is an absurd thing to ask of me. The odd thing is, my opponent tries to fix this situation by saying that it should be a PROMINENT liberal defending a conservative; herein lies another fallacy:

b. The Spotlight Fallacy

My opponent makes the mistake of believing that a prominent liberal in media, politics, etc. can be representative of the entire liberal movement; obviously, this is simply not the case; not all liberals are going to share the opinions of their prominent counterparts; on the flip side, he extends the fallacy through the example of Bill O'Reilly being 'thrown under the bus'; understand that, despite my opponent's claim, that this is in no way hate; obviously, O'Reilly appeared to be misrepresenting the viewpoints of other conservatives, and other conservatives wisely separated themselves from this: again, despite what my opponent might say, not all conservatives are like Bill O'Reilly.

2. Evidence vs Logic

a. While his first few sentences here are a bit hard to decipher, I'm assuming that he means all the sources are "opposite of a liberal point of view"; if this were case, conservatives very likely wouldn't be accusing their own movement of hate speech. Alternatively, assuming my opponent meant that these sources are attacking the "opposite point of view (conservatism)", then he's simply dodging my argument yet again. Let me explain something; proof consists of two parts: Evidence and logic; my opponent has provided a multitude of different links, and saying that, because they were unchallenged, and because there were a lot of accusations, his claim must be true; I understand that he has a lot of 'evidence', but he never backs his position up with logical warrants, and simply dodges every attack I make by hiding behind his pile of sources; I've clearly proven that his ad populum and negative proof fallacies can't be allowed to stand in today's round; also, in my opponent's last argument, his logic is a bit circular; when I question the validity of his logic, he simply says that his multiple sources explain the validity of the sources; simply put, the sources are correct because the sources say so. I'm sure you see the flaw here.

b. He claims that the news media would call someone out if they weren't telling the truth, as the media takes both sides; this is simply untrue; human nature inherently produces bias, and the news media cannot escape this; you have stations like FOX News that are primarily conservative, and stations like CNN and MSNBC that are primarily liberal; with the majority of stations favoring the left (as liberalism is considered far more popular by Americans in the current times), it's easy to see why media stations would leave liberal accusations of hate speech unchallenged; it goes back to the unanswered argument that political mudslinging accounts for many of these unchallenged accusations.

As opposed to numbering and lettering, I just had to take a few statements from my opponent himself.

"Logic dictates that if an accusation goes unchallenged it must be true."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't have much to say on this: my opponent himself dictates that 'because these accusations aren't proven false, they must be true'. Call it negative proof, or argument from ignorance, it doesn't really matter: This is a fallacy.

"Liberals can not stand hateful speech or thought and discredit anyone in their movement when accused of hate speech or hateful ideas."

So, would liberals discrediting each other for acting illiberally be akin to conservatives discrediting each other, for example, Bill O'Reilly, for acting un-conservatively? If not, it sounds like you're saying that liberals are able to do it, but if conservatives do it, they are hateful; again voters, note the irony there.

Back to numbers and letters for a bit, now.

3. The sources

a. My opponent can honestly say whatever he pleases regarding the sources, because the main reason that I actually used them is to prove that, simply because one puts links out there does not mean they are correct, as my opponent has clearly demonstrated for us, as I had hoped; conversely, my opponent has also inadvertently shown us that, simply because sources are unchallenged does not make them true, no matter how many times one asserts that fallacious logic is true.

b. There is one small thing that I would like to say about the biased sources, such as Conservapedia. This was also intended as a bit of a trap for my opponent: by calling out Conservapedia as a biased source, he must also accept the bias in some of his own sources, such as Liberapedia and Feministing; this goes back to my previous argument that, just because my opponent provides you a link does not make it substantive evidence, especially when it's surrounded by faulty logic.

4. Pro's final thoughts

a. My opponent makes a few interesting final comments, such as the fact that both liberals and conservatives are called out for hate speech; this goes back to my previous argument on how the accusations of 'hate speech' are nothing more than mudslinging.

b. His assertion that "conservatives are haters and their ideas are based on hate" is still that; strip away the biased sources, fallacious logic, and incoherency, and you get a still-unwarranted assertion.

c. Once again, he asserts the argument from ignorance regarding the sources; re-apply my previous analysis.

d. His last claim is just silly, that 'no one wants to touch conservative ideas with a ten foot pole... etc."

Conclusion:

I don't want to sound like a broken record any more than I have to, but let me just rock the flow one last time with a little summary.

My opponent has done a lot of things in this round; he has asserted what was proven to be faulty logic as truth, he has created a multitude of fallacies, he has dodged a massive amount of my refutations by hiding behind a pile of sources, he has dropped countless numbers of his own arguments, and he has fallen into my traps at every turn. I hope you can see the absurdity of Pro's position as clearly as I can. I know that I've done my job today, and I hope that you all feel the same way.

And sadolite... Thank you for this opportunity. :)
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Conduct: Con, for civility;
SP/G: didn't vote on this; Con's format was better;
Arguments: Con, by far; too many errors in Pro's reasoning to take his contention seriously;
Sources: Didn't vote on this; too tired to go through all the political sites.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I love how mongeese, a conservative, gave his RFD for the debate. It's funny in the sense of irony, I guess. I voted the same way as mongeese.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Conduct - CON
Hateful, much?
S/G - CON
Poor sentence flow.
Arguments - CON
PRO was fallacious.
Sources - CON
PRO's use of sources was fallacious.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
And of course, no matter how you vote, please leave a reason for decision, even if it's only a sentence or two.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - comparing conservatives to Hitler, calling for their elimination, and trying to force Con into an awkward burden didn't do much for Pro.
S/G: Con - Pro had a few errors early on, and made a few mistakes as the rounds progressed.
Arguments: Con - Con successfully pointed out the myriad of fallacies on Pro's part, while Pro did drop many of his arguments, and also did little more than pick out a few of Con's arguments instead of refuting everything; Pro also made a lot of strange assertions, and used very little, if any, legitimate logic.
Sources: The sources were a complete joke: By the time Con was done, it was clear that Pro's sources were questionable at best, but that his own sources were also intended merely to get Pro to unintentionally expose his own flaws; also, all sources were essentially thrown out, and Con's last Wikipedia article was far less than sufficient to earn him the 2 points.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I could ride a bike without a helmet
I could buy french fries cooked in animal fat
I could play on a merry go round
I could ride my mini bike on the street
I could ride a go cart on the street
I could ride a motorcycle without an endorsement and didn't have to pay 300 dollars for a class just for the privilege of riding a motorcycle
I could go to the store for my mother and buy cigarettes for her
I could drive a jeep off road on govt land without fear of prosecution
I could go fishing without a licence
I could add onto my house without getting a permit. You can't even put a window in your house without a permit now.
I could help my neighbor fix his house without fear of prosecution from the state for not having a contractors licence
I could work on the air conditioning system on my car without fear of prosecution from the EPA
I could play with lawn darts
I could play with clackers (Remember those wrist smashers)
I could jump on my neighbors trampoline or the neighbors kid could jump on my trampoline without fear of being sued for everything I own if someone fell off and got hurt.
I could ride a skate board in a skate park without any safety gear.
I could sit in my dads lap while he drove the car
I didn't have to wear seat belts
As a kid I could lay down in the back seat of a car on long trips
I could fall and hurt myself and it was my fault and no one elses
My neighbor had every right to whip the tar out of me for being a rude jack a## and then when I got home my parents did it again.
My parents didn't have to fear the govt for disciplining me for being an unruly jack a##
I could smoke indoors without fear of prosecution
I could smoke at the beach
I could burn my trash rather than have to pay to have it hauled away

Those are just a few I'm sure I could think of hundreds more.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Sadolite:
Please enumerate at least some of the freedoms you had then and do not have now.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
"Executing politicians in Times Square..."

I may be pointing out the obvious, but that is a tiny bit extreme, psychotic, even bitter.

Besides, whatever government is installed after your not-so-bloodless hypothetical coup-d'etat will most likely be as bad as the one before. Revolution begets violence begets need for control begets curbing of "freedoms" begets violence again begets... you see where I'm going with this.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
years*
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Well, freedom isn't everything. Plus, it's not only conservatives that have been in office for the last 30 yeasrs.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 7 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by roobain 7 years ago
roobain
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Rumsy 7 years ago
Rumsy
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Blake93 7 years ago
Blake93
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by doomdayer 7 years ago
doomdayer
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
sadoliteCody_FranklinTied
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:07