The democratic party is morally superior to that of the republican party
Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent will try to argue that the republican party is morally superior to the Democratic party. Do you accept?
round 1 acceptance
round 2 speech
round 3 conclusion rebuttals
i like quicker debates, we can always rematch iff youd like a longer debate
Their hate of God and religion. Their are numerous examples of Democrats trying to take away religious items, or even mention of God, from the public. The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The founders knew that to have a moral society, we need to have God. "Endowed by our CREATOR..." How could you possibly claim that the anti-god party is one of moral superiority
Their push for making a new kind of marriage. It is obvious from the bible that the right thing to do is have a man marry a woman.
Integrity and truthfulness are moral acts. The Democrats show their lack of these qualities when they deceptively take advantage of black Americans to further their political aspirations and keep a voting bloc.
The Democrat party is known to be the one which okays abortion. Killing an unborn baby, especially if for no good reason,is immoral.
The Democrats try to build up strife in America by turning citizens against each other. They make sub groups and tell them that the republicans hate them. One example is the wealth "classes." The Democrats tell the lower class and middle class that their suffering because of the wealthy. This creates a negative attitude towards the upper class in this country.
I do have more examples of the Democrats' lack of morals, but ill start with these.
Okay, you were supposed to say i accept, but i infer that you do.
Our country was not found based upon judeo-christian values. Our country(The United States of America or otherwise known as the US) was found based upon the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The basis of our government were founded upon the philosopher John Locke. America was founded upon the oppression of the British Crown and their taxation without representation. The original thirteen colonies were religious refuges for people like the puritans, catholics in england, quakers, amish, and others who chose to escape religious persecution back from their motherland. So, one of our own inalienable rights includes the freedom of religion.
Firstly, the democratic party does not hate God. The democratic party supports the first amendment of the US constitution and believes that you should have every right to hate God or to love him on the basis of our inalienable right to freedom of religion. We believe that there should be a separation between church and state, this does not mean we are taking away religious freedom, but we are doing this in order to ensure religious freedom for all. If church was the state, we would have something like the Vatican City, which is not the USA. That is one of the reasons why Democrats do not support forcing schools to make their children pray, but respecting a religious organization or practice is supporting one, and for a government to support a religion means that it no longer has a separation between church and state. Without this distinct separation, there truly would not be freedom of religion because now our government supports a certain religion. We must as the United states of America respect the freedom of our own conscience from the religious views of our state.
Second, we push for the right for gays to marry. We believe that the pursuit of happiness is one of the founding values that our forefathers invision, because that was what was stated in our declaration of independance. This declaration is one of the single most important documents of our precious country. According to the declaration of independance, we all are endowed with the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Democrats believe that if Gay people want to be married and that it will make them happy, then we should not infringe upon their liberty.
Third, the Democratic party does nor deceptively take advantage of Black Americans to further our own political aspirations. Black americans are free to vote how they want to, and they tend to favor the democratic party because LBJ signed the voting rights act which gave black people the right to vote. Black Americans vote for the democratic party because we are the party that allowed them to vote. You may point to the fact that the republican party freed the slaves, but at that time, the democratic party was actually what the republican party is now, against social change, wanted a weak government, and wanted increased states rights.
The Democratic party is okay with abortions. We are not killing unborn babies, we are merely giving the right for a woman to have a child or not. This is moral because we are given the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes, an abortion is need to save a womans life. Other times, a woman is raped and she does not want an illegitimate child or incest where the child may be genetically problematic. Yet others, some women believe that a child will ensure them unhappiness. I do not support the act of abortion, but i do support the right to have one.
The Democratic party does not try and build "strife" in America. Democrats do tend to have a negative view on the wealthy because they have far more than they need. There are other people are scraping by, starving, and are in a generally bad condition. We believe that maybe if we took a little bit of the rich man's money and still keep the rich man happy, then with that money, we can aid the starving and homeless and help them get out of hardship. Are all men not created equal? Many democrats do not like the fact that some people at the bottom are a million times poorer than the people at the top.
As a Democrat, i believe that the government should not be able to tell you what to do, but that they should try to protect you and your rights. The notion that the Democratic party is deceptive and is trying to build "strife" among the public is a harmful notion. Inequality of wealth does exist, it is a well known fact and i believe by stating that is not creating strife. The strife comes from the realization that some people can work for a day(ceo) and makes a years wages of another man(garbage man).
Our nation was not built upon the Bible, otherwise, why would we have to write a constitution? why didn't we use the bible as the basis of the government instead of writing one with forefathers? We may be against the Bible, but freedom of religion is explicitly in the constitution. We have the right not to believe therefore not to follow it, If our laws were to be strictly adherent to the Bible, what separation of church and state would be there? why do we even have a freedom of religion of the state sponsors a religion? BTW, the endorsement of a religious institution is unconstitutional
The only instance where republicans can be right in the issues of human rights, is on the political spectrum.(joke)
One thing that is important here, is to define morals. How can we argue over which party is morally superior without first making sure we agree on what morals are. I think morals are a set of positive values which are derived from a higher power. In other words, how we are supposed to act based on the word of God. However, some people would argue that morals are decided by us, the current generations of people. That morals are just common sense, we don't need God to know how which values to hold. Heck! there might not even be a God. Maybe you think morals are something else, I don't know. Some of my arguments will only hold, if we're using the first definition of morals. If not, even using the second definition, there are still many arguments that will hold against the morality of the Democrat party.
It seems that the Democrats of today do not understand what the separation of church and state is. It doesn't mean that were supposed to push God or religion out of public life. Democrats seem to think that the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") means that we need to have a secular government. That thought is obviously untrue because America's conception of rights is dependent upon a higher set of morals than the laws of man. Again, a reading of the Declaration will show that the founders looked to God as the ultimate source of our rights. When Democrats try to do something as ridiculous as remove "one nation under God" from the pledge, it shows their hate for God. When they oppose a display of the ten commandments in the capital, when they want to remove a cross from the Mojave Desert, when they try to remove crosses from memorials, when they suggest that Catholics shouldn't serve in emergency rooms, their hate for God and religion shows. In 1963 Democrats in the Supreme Court banned school prayer. It had a bad effect on American youth, but it shows how their attitude on God is far from what the founders envisioned.
You stated, like many Democrats that you would like homosexuals/gays to be able to marry. This is an easy one to show the immorality of. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. This means that he should marry a woman and have children. Also the Bible says a man shall not lie with a man. Lastly there's a reason there are no "gay marriages" in the bible. So, even if you're right that the "pursuit of happiness" grants them the ability to marry, it is still immoral.
I'm happy that you brought up LBJ. I think what he said 50 years ago describes well the thought process of modern Democrats, "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." The democrats treat blacks a little better than slaves. If any black strays from their leftist views they start calling names and attacking that person, their hidden racism comes out. They pretend that irresponsibly giving welfare to poor black communities helps them. In a few cases it does, but the Democrats try and make sure they are reliant on them for life. Its one way that they buy votes. Republicans want to give those that truly need it the help, and would like ultimately for them to have their own job and be self reliant. How did Robert Byrd become a Democratic senator? I think its because they share views with him. Republicans want to give education choices to low income families (commonly black or Hispanic.) They know that in order to get the best education possible, the parents should be able to choose a school. The Democrats are scared of giving up their hold on these peoples education, so they fight against school vouchers.
You're telling me its moral for a woman to have the choice to abort her baby because of the pursuit of life, liberty, happiness. You said "We are not killing unborn babies, we are merely giving the right for a woman to have a child or not." How does the woman choose not to have a child? By killing it. So how is that not killing unborn babies? Committing an abortion ends a babies right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I agree that if the mother's life is endangered its ok, but it is wrong to do just because someone changed their mind. If you don't want the baby put her up for adaption. Babies in the womb can feel pain very early on. There have been quite a few experts that confirmed this. Here's what surgeon Robert P. N. Shearin said about the matter, "As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain". First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain." Chopping up a baby and sucking out of a woman (as done in D&E abortions) is disgusting and appalling. So I think the more moral thing to do is make the child available to be adopted, if its unwanted. The "pro-choice" garbage by democrats is ridiculous. They are ending the babies choice as to if it wants to live or not.
The Democrats are not taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor because they care. They're buying votes. If they really cared about the poor they'd help the find a job. Instead of encouraging a good work ethic they unquestioningly give hand-outs. We already know right wingers give a higher percent of their money in charity, leftists just want to give out other people's money through big government.
As I explained freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion.
hello, i would first like to thank you for having this debate with me
First, i would like to point out, nowhere in the bible, does it support the claim of the pursuit of happiness. These ideas sprouted out of the enlightenment period when everything was becoming more secular. Our Country was not in fact based upon the Biblical values. If biblical values were truly what our constitution was based on, then why aren't all the commandments in the ten commandments observed? The single, most important commandment Jesus truly set up for us was to love our neighbor. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."-mark 12:31.
moral-founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom
ethics-the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.
legality-the state of being in accordance with the law
enactment-the process of passing legislation
custom-a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time:
right- in accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct or true
truth-something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality
fact-a thing that is indisputably the case
ok so, sorry i mentioned this earlier, but morality is not based upon God. Morality is based upon conduct that is in accordance with fact, reason, or truth.
If there is no God, which is a possibility, then where would be our ultimate source of rights? According to that ideology, without God, we would have no rights, yet you pointed out there might not be a God.We have the Right to religion, i cannot emphasize them enough. I do not care whether or not someones attitude on God has changed, it is purely up to them to decide. We must as the United states of America respect the freedom of our own conscience from the religious views of our state.
Yes, our founders did believe in a God, but our framers did not envision something like a theocracy where God's law is in control, where God's glory is the sole purpose of the government. They envisioned a representative democracy and separation of power between legislative, judicial, and executive. Democrats do not hate God, but are trying to protect religious freedom for all. Religious freedom entails a freedom to not have a religion so by stating "under God" would be to infringe on that liberty. The pledge was created in 1945, the pledge added "under God" in 1954 by congress. The pledge has been ruled not mandatory to be recited by the supreme court for the religious nature. The 1963 ban was unconstitutional. Can we stop debating about God and move on to morality of the political parties? morality is founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom. looking for answers in the Bible is a custom specific to christian Americans.
moving on to the real morality issues....
Homosexuals and gays should be able to marry, it is moral because it is in accordance with fact, reason, or truth. It is a fact that Gay people want to marry. It is a fact that they can be happy together. Why are we using the bible to bar them from attaining happiness together? If one man and a woman can be married, isn't it fair that a man and a man can get married since men and women are equal and one can trade off with another?According to morality, Gay marriage is in accordance with fact, reason, or truth, because it is reasonable for two people who love each other to have the ability to be with each other.
The very basis of con's argument that Democrat have "enslaved" black people as merely voters is incredibly dehumanizing. Con sees black people as something to be taken advantage of, something to be decieved for the benefit of one party. This is a very mean thought as it sees this group of people, not as individuals who can think for themselves and act for themselves, but as mere pawns that we supposedly "created." My opponent fails to realize that not all black people vote Democrat, but a majority do. By thinkin Also, minority groups like latinos, blacks, and asian tend to vote for democrats because of their policies that are nicer to immigrants(im an Asian immigrant myself). We also like many of the social programs Democrats offer like Obamacare. Also Democrats are trying to do a lot of education overhaul like republicans, were on the same boat the education should be increased like plans such as "race to the top" endorsed by obama and funded by the federal government. I don't really understand why your saying that Democrats are trying to "control" and force these people to do anything. Republicans are trying to cut food stamps, which feeds hundreds of thousands of people who are struggling, this is a factor why some black people vote democrat. Taking the right to feed yourself, in my opinion is unethical and wrong.
BTW, 90% of babies are aborted before the first 12 weeks. Your abortion argument is barely valid since it no longer has much impact. OK abortion is not how you describe it, they do not "chop" up the fetus, yes, they do use suction technology in order to remove the fetus. We are not ending the babies choice to live, the baby was created by a mother and if the mother chooses not to have the fetus, who are we to tell her she cannot do what she wants with her own life? We support the right to a safe abortion, otherwise we would have desperate women seeking illegal alternatives like dumping infants into trash cans etc which is not only unsafe for the woman, but is unethical because the child has begun to percieve pain etc, whereas 90% of abortion cases occur before pain kicks in. Also, women have the right to do what she wants with her body, whether you like it or not, you cannot control her, its unethical to try and force your rules upon her.
Republicans give more to charity because there are more republicans in the upper 20% of income levels therefore they have more to give. Democrats comprise more of the lower and middle class. How do you possibly encourage a good work ethic might i ask? If there are starving americans, it is a moral obligation to feed them and to ensure that they have atleast someplace warm to stay at night. Democrats advocate for welfare because we know the bottom 20% struggle to feed themselves and afford a warm place to stay at night. The bottom 20% are not all lazy, unworking people! The bottom 20% comprise of minimum wage earners and immigrants. Do you think that people who work at you local mcdonalds are incredibly lazy? It's immoral to assume all poor people are lazy and that they need to be "taught good work ethics."
Freedom of Religion is the Freedom to follow a religion or not follow, therefore it is the right to be able to be freedom from religion, because it is a freedom and some people may choose to follow the religion of no religion which my be freedom from religion.
voters, vote for the best argument, thank you and have a nice day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's only real objection is abortion. Well a bean size collection of cells doesn't equal a baby. No point awarded. Pro is right on the church state question. For religion to remain free it must be free from the government. Win for Pro on gay rights. And of course we know the Republicans don't really have any concern for the poor. They are simple a waste product. Not only does Pro win the debate, better yet Pro is correct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.