The Instigator
Patrick_Henry
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
mindjob
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

The discussion of politics belongs in the bar

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  
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: 2/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,716 times Debate No: 2677
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (8)

 

Patrick_Henry

Pro

Growing up in the United States there were two maxims that were constantly presented to me by parents and elders, that it's impolite to discuss politics and religion. So much to the point that people honestly think that their politics is no one else's business.

We live in a nation where popular vote decides a lot of things, yet many people still feel it is impolite to discuss politics, and some still feel that they shouldn't, and that they won't discuss their political views, such as who they are voting for. The anonymity of casting one's ballot was meant to protect a person from the fear of being punished for how they voted, and was first used by the Athenians during their court cases.

It was not intended to expand onto all political views. In a nation where so much is decided by the popular masses, we need to be open to the discussion of politics and policy with each other.

After years of drinking in college, I now also own a bar. One of the frequent things that I hear from people who often cannot justify their political views is that "poltics doesn't belong in the bar!" I have come to the opinion that a man who will not discuss their politics with you is out to do you harm, and should not be trusted.

I can think of no better place to discuss political views because if you cannot explain your views to another person while inebriated, or cannot get an inebriated person to accept or understand your political views, you should probably change them when you're sober.

After all, politics in the United States were born in the bar when people got together to read and discuss the newest letters and pamphlets. Sam Adams, after all, was just a drunk in the bar expressing his unpopular views for twenty years until the rest of his peers realized he was just the man they needed, so John Hancock bought him a new suit, and took him to the Constitutional Congress.
mindjob

Con

First, I want to say that I actually agree, in part, with pro. I am not much of one to debate against pro's position considering I have discussed politics in bars plenty of times, much to the irritation of my friends. Bars have actually been some of the more acceptable locations that I have discussed both politics and religion. That being said, let me see if I can offer up a good con to this proposition.

In an ideal world, everyone would be able to discuss both politics and religion in all kinds of company. In an even more ideal world, everyone would know what they were talking about too. Unfortunately, we don't live in anything close to an ideal world. These maxims exists because of their practicality and understanding of human nature. If you know the people you're talking with well, then you can talk about whatever you want. You know what the response will be. But in company that you don't know all too well, you have no idea what reaction you might receive. First impressions are everything, and you wouldn't want to blow it by getting into a discussion that very easily can lead to an argument where you could very possibly call into question everything that your company believes. Politics and religion tend to be the two most deeply held beliefs that people have and do not usually react well to head-on debate, especially when your company is most likely not there to debate such things. This assumes, however, that they are even into politics and religion in the first place. If they are, then either they agree with you and there isn't much of a discussion; or they disagree with you, thus potentially leading to a heated argument when the social situation didn't call for it. If they don't care about either, then you bringing up religion or politics will fall on deaf, and increasingly irritated ears.

Transfer this into the bar setting, where the alcohol is flowing freely. Either you're going to start up a conversation that will die quickly or spark a potentially heated argument with someone who, as time goes on and they get more heated, they're also getting more drunk as well. Alcohol and questioning core beliefs almost never go well together. Or, the people you're trying to talk politics with don't care, and are just there to have a good time. In this scenario, you're nothing more then a Debby Downer and no one will want to talk to you. Either way, it's best to just leave both at the door when you go to a bar and try to enjoy yourself discussing other, more trivial things.
Debate Round No. 1
Patrick_Henry

Pro

Well, if you agree with me then I know your hearts not in it. But that does mean we should just start going to the same bar.

The personal practicality of avoiding a social faux pas doesn't outweigh the damage that is done to the general welfare of the nation by avoiding the discussion of politics. It is important to know how and where your friends and neighbors stand politically, so that you may be able to band together with your friends and neighbors to effect political change. And if, your friend is supporting a policy which does you harm, it's something that is just good to know.

To remain mute on your political thoughts, and your religious beliefs might aid in making a first impression, but if the first impression does not include your politics or your religion, how is this first impression genuine? It would be better just to air all of these views up front, so to minimize the amount of bigotry that you could encounter as the person discovers that your political views differ and find them offensive.

Your reasons for not discussing politics in a bar rely on the idea that the political discussion might break into a disagreement, heated argument, or a fight is likely caused by the belief that politics are not meant to be discussed at a bar. If discussion and political disagreements were more of a common place, it is likely that people might realize that there are more successful ways to discuss politics than yelling at each other. Other tactics of persuasion could be developed, as people realize that finding commonality, and building off of it is more fruitful than identifying differences and condemning them for it. If we keep our political views to ourselves, and absorb only the viewpoints that we like from pundits, and never learn how to discuss matters civilly with people that we disagree with because we never bothered practicing, we might as well just give up on democracy.

Democracy kind of depends on the ability of arriving at a consensus, and if we can't arrive at a consensus, we might just be better off consenting to a governing body that won't allow the citizens of the nation to fight against their own interests while fighting each other on policies that don't matter that are usually used to define the political parties that have split apart the middle class, so that we don't discuss nor organize on the premises of the things that do matter.

An aspect of Greek philosophy was that a man was comprised of two selves, the sober self and the drunken self. Effectively, if a decision was very important they thought about it, and decided the issue while sober, then drank to the point of drunkenness, and considered the issue again. Unless both selves agreed, the decision was not carried out. So, again, if you can't justify your views when you're intoxicated, you probably shouldn't hold those views.

For our society to function, it requires discussion. We can't just rely on the relation of trivial things to each other so long as each of us has

Also, in defense Sam Adams, he was just a drunk talking politics in a bar. Yes, he had a "Masters in Arts" from Harvard, but bear in mind that doesn't mean he didn't spend his later years in a bar. Much of his ideas and attitudes were developed from what he would have been exposed to in course work, which largely was classical languages, history, and literature.

The Boston Brewery, which produces Sam Adams was started in 1985, and used a recipe created by the family in the 1860s in St. Louis and has nothing to do with the Brewery that Sam Adams briefly owned. His father ran a successful Malt house, which Sam Adams worked at after other business men in the town decreed him to be unemployable. At the death of his father, Sam Adams inherited the brewery, and all of his father's other assets and proceeded to quickly run the brewery into the ground. He was a perpetual debtor and owed huge sums of money, and yes, spent a lot of time in the bar. His good friend John Hancock literally bought him a new suit, and took him to Philadelphia with him. We've created some mythical figures out of the men who birthed us a nation, and have forgotten that happy people seldom change the world. It just doesn't bode well with many folks that a big influence on our Constitution, the drafter of the Articles of Confederation, and a leading proponent of secession was a failure at business, and a drunk. Some of history's greatest people have been professional drinkers.
mindjob

Con

My heart is in it, because while I regularly do what this debate is about, I am still aware of the problems it has created for me. I can remember many of the times that bringing up politics and religion has cost me socially. I just don't seem to give a damn all that much.

I think you're making much more out of it than is deserved. If someone is your friend for any length of time, then you have most likely discussed politics in some length. If there is an issue where a community needs to come together for something, or if you need to know your neighbor's politics, you can do both those in a much better context than in a bar and with people you don't know. You would hopefully know your friends and your neighbors. If you don't know your neighbors, then you probably aren't caring that much about your community as a whole.

That first impression is genuine because you are not your political beliefs. You are much more than that. You are much more likely to be discriminated against if you throw your political and religious beliefs out for everyone who doesn't know you at all to see. Once you get to know people, and they get to know you for being a human being instead of just a bunch of talking points and intractable beliefs, they are much more likely to accept you once they do find out your beliefs.

I base a lot of my argument on that belief because it has often worked out that way. Like I said, these maxims exist for a reason. They are practical and take into account human nature. People do not usually react well to having their core beliefs challenged. This is magnified under the influence of alcohol. Granted, these are more extreme examples. What is much more likely is that you will turn off everyone around you who are there to simply have a good time and talk about much less weighty topics. You can trust me on that one. I have repeatedly brought down the atmosphere of an outing or completely bored people by bringing up politics or religion. People tend to get bored more with politics, while they get pissed with religion. My own informal studies back his up. For the sake of your less politically-involved friends, keep politics to times when they are not out to simply have a good time. We don't have to give up on democracy, just on our lack of ability to find anything else to talk about. Just because we don't talk politics 24/7 does not mean we become empty vessels for pundits to fill up with their incompetence. I think it is unreasonable to claim such things.

Again, I think you're taking a good idea too far. Most people do not have the time to engage in politics. Discussing politics in a bar with them when they are just trying to relax after a long day's work is not going to get them to suddenly become engaged in the process. You're just going to piss them off. The more you do it, the more you will piss them off. Consensus can still be arrived at without having to force political debates on people who don't want to have them in a bar. For all of American history, the majority of people have not been politically engaged, but we've still managed pretty well so far.

Sure, the Greeks were very important to the creation of our political mindset. But just because one of them said something doesn't mean that it was a great idea. The Greeks were not infallible, despite their founding status of democracy. I can positively tell you that, if my drunken mind says something is a good idea, it is almost assuredly not. If I had to get both my sober and drunk minds to agree on something before I did it, I would never get anything done. Not only that, I would have to get drunk a lot more than I do just to attempt to get stuff done. This might have been an aspect of Greek philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was a good one.

We do need discussion in society to keep our government effective, but that doesn't mean we need to introduce ourselves as "Hi. My name is Eric. I'm a liberal democrat who doesn't believe in god. Let's talk about your evangelical dogma and why its wrong over a few beers." This would not have flown well with my new boss or the parents of my girlfriend the first time I met them. I would have seriously hurt my own cause in both instances had I done anything remotely like that.

Oh, I am one of the last people to confuse our founding fathers with the legends most people want to believe. I'm sure Sam Adams got drunk often. Hell, even Washington thought it was patriotic to start up your own distillery to make American whiskey and not rely on the British. I just thought that Sam Adams did most of his drinking after the time in which he was most important to the cause, kind of like telling the young guys all his tales of glory over a pitcher of his own ale. I wish Adam's own brew was still around, because I still maintain that the modern day Sam Adams sucks. Except for their seasonal versions, especially their winter lager. That stuff is really tasty and has, at times, led me to some really dumb ideas.
Debate Round No. 2
Patrick_Henry

Pro

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I believe that the only think that should be discussed in a bar setting is politics, which is not the case. My premise is that politics and religion should be subjects that are discussed and welcome in common settings, even among strangers. We have these maxims in order that we might not risk offending another individual, yet if a person is offended by your politics or your religious views, I'm not certain how their ignorance of them ultimately is any different.

Yes, of course, there are times when the first two sentences out of your mouth shouldn't be your political and religious views, but if you make your opinions and beliefs well known, that is laundry that is immediately aired. Especially when meeting with parents of a potential spouse. Its better that they know that they're going to hate you for your political views than to find out later that they now have to hate you because of your political views, even though they like your personality.

Bars are a common place of recreation, and a great number of subjects are discussed at a bar. I find it obnoxious that it's appropriate for me to discuss the virtues of a woman's figure, yet if I try to bring the conversation to the virtues or problems with one policy or another, suddenly it's a faux pas. I'll admit that we've reduced our political dialog to being just about candidates or congressmen, but if it were more frequently discussed, we might actually see people caring more about policy over partisan hackery.

I think a lot can be said about a person by their political and religious beliefs. In history, we have passed judgment on many people for their political beliefs, whether they be Benedict Arnold, Lenin, Mao, Gandhi, St. Paul, et cetera. (I'm focusing on people that there might be common opinions of) To be honest, finding out the political beliefs that a person can ascribe themselves to is like an insight into their personality.

These maxims are meant to protect. I'll grant you that much, but who are they protecting? While sometimes it is wise not to speak one's mind, there are times when it should happen and it shouldn't be discouraged because of someone's idea that politics is impolite discussion. Fears also are meant to protect, but not all fears are good things. These maxims, meant to protect are not good things. From time to time, a fear of heights might prevent you from being in a situation where you could fall to your death, but it can also stop you from being able to function normally.

Alcohol in of itself is a depressant. While there are individuals who get angry when they're drunk, its usually because they're angry when they're sober. They just might not be expressing it. A person who is inebriated might not make the best decisions, but you typically get an honest reaction from them and there is often less shame in their honesty.

There are those who have taken to mimicking the voices of punditry, we see them on this website. Without a common discussion of political discourse, faulty ideas are allowed to be retained more easily. Trying to defend a position that is not defendable or trying to make an argument that is poorly supported in person is often embarrassing enough that a person will change their mind. Absent of discussion, a person may never have to reflect on their political views, and without that reflection they may spend their entire adult life in err because of ideology over truth.

I think the notion that we're doing well is pretty subjective. The famous words come to mind, "It will be a Republic, if you can keep it." We've not been doing very much to keep it, and the absence of political discourse in our nation has allowed those with more things in common than not to be split in twain over trivial issues. Because we do not more freely talk to our neighbors, associates, and colleagues we have lost much of this Republic's potential, and brought about the political situations that many of our forefathers warned against. Our forefather discussed Locke in the bar, we should too. It might actually require us learning a thing or two about the philosophy behind the reason why we have a Republic to begin with.

With the Greeks two selves, I wasn't meaning every decision in life. Only the major ones, you don't need to get drunk before you can actually decide whether or not you want Captain Crunch for breakfast, although it might help. You're also likely considering a "bad decision" you've made that you would not have made sober. Many men feel this way, and it usually has to do with women. I typically maintain that people impaired with Alcohol may make mistakes, but they're often actions that they would still do when sober, even if they can think of a good reason not to. But, not all of us are as good at recognizing our demons so we might not realize that the alcohol just allowed our demons to have a little more fun than we'd let them usually. It's still us, sometimes it's just hard to cope with so we blame the alcohol instead of ourselves.

If people started introducing themselves as liberal democrats, maybe the phrase liberal democrat would start to mean something. Instead it's just kind of thrown around, like the world neoconservative. Probably one of the most over used, and little understood political definitions that has ever existed. I'd probably have no idea what it meant, if Francis Fukuyama didn't spend fifteen minutes at dinner trying to explain why he wasn't a terrible human being.

Samuel Adams died in the 1790s. He didn't have too much free time after those revolutionary days. In fact, the revolution actually reduced his bar time. Can't drink as much when you're a governor. The days leading up to the revolution, he was in the bar a lot. Like, every day. Functional Alcoholics are the center of a lot of great things. In fact, happy people seldom change the world.
mindjob

Con

It would be great if politics and religion could be discussed anywhere, anytime. I've had constructive debates and discussions in many places, and I've also had them blow up in my face in the very same places. If you know the person well, then you might be safe having that debate. If you don't then you might just have it blow up on you. If you don't know, then you might just be bast served if you saved the debate for another time with another person.

Unless you know that you are heading into a debate with someone who knows the same, then most definitely the first two sentences out of your mouth should not be politics or religion. If your politics and religion are dirty laundry, then they shouldn't be aired in public when the situation doesn't call for it. If the first things you tell your potential spouse's parents are such things as politics and religion,then they have nothing to judge you on. What about your intelligence? What about your sense of humor? What about how well you treat your potential spouse and what kind of mate you will be? Those are much more important things to be concerned with. But if your politics or religion differ with your gf's parents, then they won't think of any of those things. If they do, it will be through the filter of their political or religious differences with you. If they get to know everything else about you first and like you because of it, then their opinion of you won't change much once they do learn of your political and religious stances, assuming they differ. If those two things are the first thing they learn of you, and you differ in any way and get into a heated debate. then you're doomed from the beginning.

A woman's figure will most likely not offend the people you're sitting there with. Now, if you're there with an uber feminist friend or your significant other, and you comment on how hot someone else is, then you can surely bet that you'll ruin your night. But at least you know who you're there with in those scenarios. Imagine if you didn't know who you were talking to, but they held the same kind of beliefs. Then you would have started something with someone who has little reason to keep things civil with you because they don' know you. If you manage to ease your way into a debate and it works out, great. But you shouldn't go into a situation like that assuming you can bring it up. That's why, as a rule of thumb, just leave these topics at the door unless a natural situation arises where a debate becomes welcomed and constructive. These situations will most likely not arise in a bar, however, because most people do not find pleasure in debating politics and they are in a bar to most likely relax and have fun. Debating politics or religion with these kind of people will most likely not grow into something constructive. In fact, you're probably going to start ruining their time there.

All of the people you mention were purely political people who brought out their politics in arenas where it was expected. We all expect to hear politics from someone like one of the candidates now, but if you were sitting down to a beer with Barack Obama, would you really want to hear more politics from him? It might be fun for a bit because we expect it from him and we all love politics (otherwise, we most likely wouldn't be on this site), but at some point you would just want to get to your beer. I bet you he would too after such a long campaign so far. Bars are for relaxing and having fun. If you enjoy politics and you're with someone who does too, then of course, go ahead and have a debate. But most likely, even if you are with someone who loves politics, they aren't going to want to discuss it in a place where they are just trying to relax and not use their brain.

These maxims exist because too many good times have been brought to a screeching halt by the inappropriate injunction of politics or religion into the discussion. if you're sitting around the tv watching a debate with your friends, you can bet that politics will be brought up as you talk with your friends. If you are having a polite meal with business contacts or thanksgiving dinner with family that might not agree with you, then perhaps you should just enjoy the good times and leave the debates for a situation that might better call for it. These maxims are suppose to get you to err on the side of caution, but they don't keep you from discussing them altogether. Just have more tact with it.

That's good that you finally got a grasp on neoconservatism because of your discussion with the person you mentioned, but I'd figure you wouldn't need to discuss it around dinner to learn about it. I love politics and love discussing it, but I didn't need to sit down over dinner with someone to learn something political. That term, and all that it means, comes up enough in the media that no one who cares about politics should have to talk about it over a polite dinner to learn what it means. Being a liberal democrat and its lack of definition has as much to do with the party's fractious nature and conservatives' ability to define liberal at will. No matter how many liberals get up in public and try to discuss it, they seem to fail on a lack of articulation. That isn't a failure to discuss it around the dinner table or in a bar, that's a failure of the left to adequately defend itself.

Sam Adams was a great man. Its a shame that the beer that bears his namesake sucks so much.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Just caught the "great minds." That's good stuff, really.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Correction: I DO think you have cause and effect confused when it comes to liberals being more educated.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Yes it bothers me that the more educated are more likely to be liberal. But I don't think you have the cause and effect confused. Liberals don't seek to be educated in as much as American education seeks to create liberals.

Also, formal education is highly overrated, as you and your cronies continually demonstrate on this website. Common sense is always king. I finished my degree so I could (with authority) convince others they should save their money and invest it in a small business instead of handing it over to bunch of liberal professors who know nothing about the real world.

As for your comments on corporations being greedy; once they truly infinge on the rights of others and not just contribute to a negative outcome, prosecute them. You have my blessing. Capitalism may create some negative consiquences from time to time, but on the whole it's made some pretty desent progress-- especially when you compare it to socialism over the past 200 years.
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
And no, I don't even know patrick. Great minds think alike, however
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
you loved. As soon as I was old enough to appreciate my parents, I was old enough to want a government with the funds and manpower to adequately oversee private companies who try to cut corners. So no, I don't have to be old and greedy to understand the world. You keep saying that government can't do anything right, yet you don't give any examples. You keep repeating yourself over and over, so I guess I'm suppose to take that as your evidence. Sorry, the real world doesn't work like that.

If there were no taxes to support public schools, then of course a parent would have to send his kid to private school, because there wouldn't be an alternative. Of course, this private school could teach whatever it wanted with no regulations to ensure they were doing the job right. And even with private schools, they still pay their teachers around $10 an hour, so what kind of education do you think they are really getting. Private schools also have the ability to deny anyone they want access to their school, so what is a parent suppose to do if the only school they have time and money to get to denies their child an education? Public schools ensure everyone gets an education, not just the white rich people that live in their own little gated communities. Public education is the great equalizer of opportunity. What kids do with it beyond that is up to them. But without public education, you would only have the rich with an education while everyone else struggles to learn how to read. Making as much as you do, I'm not surprised how little you give a damn about that, however.

Businesses, using the government to get passed what it wanted, passed tariffs to protect themselves from foreign competition. The market wants to get as much of an advantage over its competition as it can, right? So yes, the market created the Great Depression. Deny it all you want, the evidence proves you wrong.
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
Does it bother you that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be liberal? The people who best understand the world and who have devoted themselves to learning the complexities of the world are more liberal than the average high school dropout. There's a little nasty fact that won't go away either.

As you grow older, you lose your empathy and understanding with everyone else. Life beats it out of you. Maybe you read Nietzsche one too many times...I don't know. The fact of the matter is that libertarians are the worst of the kind that wants everything but doesn't want to pay for any of it. You take full advantage of the world created around you by strong governments, but then crap on them every chance you get without any understanding of how lucky you are to have a government that can ensure domestic tranquility and safeguard us from foreign attacker. There are always mistakes, like you said with business, but just go to where there are no strong governments and see the market at work. The strong rise to the top and squelch out anyone else who would challenge them. This is the way of no-holds-barred economics too without government regulation.

Perhaps you're right about libertarians never changing what they believe. They think they are in it for themselves and screw everyone else from the beginning, and continue in that mindset until they are old a hitting people in the shins with their canes. They are wrong when they're young and they stay that way. At least people who were liberal when they were young were right for once in their lives.

The contractors on the Big Dig weren't trailblazers, they got greedy and cut corners to increase their profits, all while abusing the public trust and putting taxpayers in danger of their shotty work. Make all the excuses you want, it is still a monumental failure of the private sector and would be endemic of the world you would love to see. You'd change your tune once a tunnel collapsed on someone
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Again, I'm glad I'm here to clear up all this nonsense. Are you and Patrick roommates?

There is another side to the coin when it comes to liberals which brings me some comfort. They vote without regard to principle, so their opinions are likely to change with their circumstances. So maybe someday when Mindjob starts producing something worth protecting he will change his views. I was a libertarian long before I made any money. Most liberals have to grow up and produce before they become libertarians or fiscal conservatives-- and no, not the kind in Washington.

Does it ever bother you that younger, (i.e. less wise and less experienced) people are more likely to be liberals? That is a nasty fact that just won't go away. Young libertarians, on the otherhand, act based on principle and independent of their circumstances. No need to change our colors as we succeed in life. And we usually will, because, unlike liberals, WE BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE!

Yes government does contract out, and it's a good thing. We don't want them involved in anything that needs to be done right the first time. And yes, there are failure on the part of anyone attempting to make progress. It's called trail blazing. Arrows are taken.

Public education is okay, but it is a rip off when you think about the number of tax dollars it takes to educate just one grade school student. If a parent could keep that money and send his child to a private school, I wonder if he would. You bet! And so would you. Few public schools would be able to compete. The fact that liberals are afraid of the voucher system is proof they agree. The reason public higher education is affordable is not because the universities are efficient, but because they too are pumped up with huge numbers of tax dollars.

"the market created those tariffs."
Unbelievable. Tariffs are created by governments interfering in free trade, whether to impede private industry or in an effort to help it-- a bad idea either wa
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
from the government, who would earn anything?

Like with most massive infrastructure projects, the return for any one group of investors would not be enough to justify the initial costs of building that industry. The internet started in a government department, and it was government money that made it profitable for private industry to expand it to what it is now. Give credit where credit is due. It costs money to regulate the internet, or at the very least for the government to defend itself against hackers. Why not tax various parts to recoup that cost?

The government, on the whole, does a great job of providing higher education. They even do a better job of providing primary education with the right people and policies in place. I go to a public university now and would put my knowledge and training up against anyones, whether they went to a private or public school. The best part of public education is that it makes it affordable for many more people. Without it, education would be outside the reach of most people, making the country a lot more stupid than it currently is.

See, great things come from using evidence to back up your arguments. Try it sometime.
Posted by mindjob 8 years ago
mindjob
The saddest part is that you are serious about all of this.

When was the last time government did its own building and construction? Ever since the CCC, government has been contracting out to private companies to get the job done. It is private enterprise that screws up projects now. The Big Dig ring a bell?

That's the thing. You have to rely on blind faith to believe government is always the problem since you have to overlook so many examples to the contrary to believe it. There is nothing quite like faith to get you to overlook evidence to the contrary, and it is obviously necessary for you.

A gun to donors' heads? Tax deductions are no such thing, regardless of how emphatically you claim them to be. Only anarchists would think that government does not have any role to play in ensuring basic services, but to provide those the government must tax. To spur the kind of activity society likes to see, the government gives tax incentives to do just that. Charitable giving would not be anywhere near where it is without tax incentive. You choose to overlook this to make your point, again pointing to your need for blind faith.

The auto industry is a picture of private enterprises' stupidity at times. In fact, based on the evidence, one could say companies get retarded when they play the market too well.

If you went to a public school, then I'll begin to believe your point about public education for your disheartening understanding of American history. Those bread lines were the result of pro-business policies that instituted incredibly high tariffs. The market created those tariffs and therefore those bread lines. However, as we've seen with the auto industry, our market is too stupid to make itself competitive when we adopt free trade.

Often times, books are written with the intent of expressing opinions or sharing thoughts, with profit being an afterthought. This is much the same as musical artists. Besides, without copyright protections
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
You're pretty smooth. If your comments go unchallenged, you may influence some readers. So here's my rendition:

Skyscrapers: Produced by private enterprise, even when paid for by government. If government does it's own contracting, you can bet the skyscraper is inferior.

Art: Finally!! You admit private charity does work, and without the government's gun to the temple of the donors.

Cars: Thanks for conceding that one.

Restaurants: Government restaurants? You mean bread lines.

Books: Written for a variety of reasons, but mostly published for evil profit. Thank capitalism for most of the books you used to brainwash yourself.

Internet: Al Gore, right? You probably believe the internet would never have been invented without the help of the government. Afterall, there's no profit in the internet to lure capitalists. Hilarious! But don'y worry, I'm sure you will soon be able to credit the government with at least taxing it.

Universities: Do you honestly believe the government is better at providing a college education than private universities? And yes, I believe government contributions to private universities is wrong.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by liber-t 8 years ago
liber-t
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Patrick_HenrymindjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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