The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
Einstein
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

The new Democrat slogan should be "Honor to the homeland Mother Russia"

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: 1/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,285 times Debate No: 2150
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (89)
Votes (19)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

Democrats opposed standing up to the Soviets. Democrats have supported, enabled, defended, and empowered Marxists at home and abroad. Ted Kennedy sent John Tunney to the USSR to propose a strategy on behalf of Kennedy to defeat Reagan. Kennedy offered to help the Soviets, military and civilian leadership to conduct a campaign in the U.S. to help defeat Reagan. Democrats have been pushing America toward world government. The goal of communism is to establish one-rule communist state. Wilson tried to push America into an International League of Nations, which layed the foundation for the U.N. FDR erected socialst welfare state, New Deal, while aligning with Stalin, calling him "Uncle Joe." One of FDR'S closest advisers, Alger Hiss, was a proven communist spy. FDR'S vice president, Henry Wallace, ran against Truman on the progressive party ticket, which was supported by the Soviet Union. Truman had dozens of Soviet spies in his administration. Joe McCarthy found 57 documented communists, according to the Venona Report released in 1995. The socialist welfare state was revived by Kennedy and Johnson. They tried to build the "Great Society" which resulted in 50 million dead babies, epidemic rates of suicide, depression, drug addiction, child molestation, suicidal children, and a progressive education system that produced massive amounts of illiteracy and ignorance, and a 50% divorce rate. Democrats support same-sex marriage which is a radical social experiment. Hillary Clinton wants to take a little from all of you and distribute it for the "common good" which is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Re-distribution of wealth and equalizing the income classes...communism.

President Roosevelt had been warned repeatedly over the course of a decade that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, but continued to promote Hiss to positions of greater influence. Two Democratic administrations had employed known Soviet spies at the highest level. Because of inept Democrats, Soviet penetration was so deep that Stalin would learn about the atomic bomb before President Truman did. The Democrats had trifled with Communism. Quick action had to be taken immediately after the Hiss case. Otherwise Americans might dwell on the fact that Democrats cannot be trusted with the defense of the nation. Haha. The liberal establishment reacted to Soviet spies swarming through the government with the gentle, protective attitude of an Oxford don toward Soviet agents like Kim Philby. It was simply prerogative of the old WASP ruling class to harbor Soviet spies. It was on the spectrum of things young people did. Some of their young men would grow up to be poets and some would grow up to be Bolsheviks. McCarthy exposed the moral corruption of the entire liberal ruling class. Salon liberals foolishly indulged their information with Communism to the peril of the country.

Even the Hiss case had failed to rouse the Dems. The Dems defended Alger Hiss and then brushed it off as a mere nothingness. A half century later, when the only people who call themselves Communists are harmless cranks, it is difficult to grasp the importance of McCarthy's crusade. But there's a reason "Communist" now sounds about as threatening as "monarchist", and it's not because of intrpeid New York Times editorials denouncing McCarthy and praising Harvard-educated Soviet spies. McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover.

It is a fact that hundreds of agents of this blood-soaked ideology became top advisors to Democratic presidents, worked on the Manhattan Project, infiltrated every segment of the United States government. Stalin's agents held top positions in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Army, and the OSS. Because of Democrat incompetence and moral infirmity, all Americans lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for half a century. As Soviet spies passed nuclear technology to Stalin, President Roosevelt gave strict orders that the OSS engage in no espionage against the country ruled by his pal, Uncle Joe. When it could have been stopped, when, days after the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed, an ex-Communist came to the United States government and informed Hiss, as well as dozens of other Soviet spies in the government, President Roosevlet had laughed. McCarthy punched back so hard, liberals are still reeling.

No amount of evidence proving anyone was a Soviet spy could ever be enough. Blindlingly obvious Soviet spies were treated as innocent liberals victimized by anti-Communist hysteria drummed up by Joe McCarthy. Fleeing to the Soviet Union is deemed ambiguous evidence. Handing secret documents to a KGB agent is merely "circumstantial." One could have a more fruitful discussion with a paranoid schizophrenic about his tinfoil hat than with liberals about Soviet spies crawling through Democratic administrations at the onset of the Cold War. This is the atmosphere in which McCarthy's charges have been evaluated for the last half century.

Liberals continuously berated and besmirched Ronald Reagan for standing up to the Soviet Union and attacked him for calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Liberls continuously berate and besmirch President Bush for responding to the 9/11 attacks and have ceased to end their invective toward conservatives from day one. Nanci Pelosi committed treason by meeting with the terrorist sponsor, Asad, completely disobeying President Bush's orders. Jack Murtha, right when we were mounting a surge to win the battle in Baghdad, tried to de-fund the troops. Joe Kennedy did back room oil deals with Hugo Chavez, the communist dictator in Venezuela. Chavez then came on our soil at the UN in NYC and referred to President Bush as the devil. The leftists kiss up to Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes was chatting away with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran who denies the Holocaust, and has promised to wipe Israel and the United States off the face of the planet. Who's side are the liberals on?
Einstein

Con

I would like to begin this argument by pointing out that at least half of what my opponent pointed out was simply ad hominem attacks on the Democratic party, without any real justification for why there's any relation between the Democratic party, and communism. There is a saying that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, any attempt to draw any sort of analogy to this situation would fail. My opponent is essentially making the argument that because the Republicans were against communism, and the Democrats were against the Republicans, the Democrats were for communism. This is an utterly ludicrous fallacious argument. Additionally, the communism that was practiced in the Soviet Union was far different from the inherently noble ideas that communism in general supports.

In the first few paragraphs, my opponent gives the example of Alger Hiss and other Soviet spies in the U.S. government. However, this is in no way a reflection on the Democratic party's loyalties; it might show that the Democrats should have been more careful in picking their employees (although even this is a tenuous position - not everyone working in a Democrat-controlled government necessarily supports the Democratic party), but there's no proof that this has anything to do with whether the Democrats supported Soviet Russia or not - and note that my opponent never even tried to prove that, he simply stated a bunch of facts in the hope of slandering the name of the Democratic party. Also note that it was not unreasonable at all for the Democrats to defend Alger Hiss; even to this day, it is not really clear whether he was guilty, and the evidence at that time was not so clear as to say that the Democrats were Communists for defending him. It is easy to look at things from a historical point of view (they say that hindsight is 20-20), but you must consider what was going on at the time before you make any conclusions.

Now, something that is important to note is that all of the "evidence" my opponent gives for the Democrats being Communist is circumstantial at best. Since it is apparent that I need to "defend" the Democrats in this instance, let's just run through a few examples in history. Who was President during the Berlin Airlift? Truman, a Democrat. Who created the trade embargo against Cuba, a Communist state? Kennedy, a Democrat. Who helped in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s? Carter, a Democrat. Oh, and who got the U.S. involved in the wars against the Soviet Union in Korea and Vietnam? Oh right, Democrats. They have actually done a whole lot more, in terms of actual action, than the Republicans in actually fighting Russia. Would the Democrats have done all this if they truly supported the Soviet Union? I suppose you could believe some conspiracy theory that the Democrats did it in order to ultimately strengthen the Soviet Union... but look what happened to them in the end.

One of the major flaws in my opponent's argument is that the socialist policies Democrats advocate in the United States are related to the policies of Soviet Russia. Let's face it: They are completely unrelated. Even if we do tend to share some common principles with Marxism (and this does make sense; Marx proposed a Utopian world after all, is it not such a bad thing to believe in peace and prosperity for all?), the way we practice our socialist tendencies was far different from the way the Soviets enforced theirs. Any attempt to connect them is a half-baked attempt by someone grasping at straws to defend Reagan's legacy instead of actually looking at history from an unbiased perspective. The goals of our policies are to help the societal welfare. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. are all programs that are designed to help those who are down on their luck, or are too sick or disabled to help themselves, sustain their lives. Again, as I said, one could come up with a wild theory about how this is really the same thing as what the Soviets did; but obviously the facts trump this. We haven't used our socialist policies to terrorize the people or create a dictatorial state; our socialist policies have purely been used to help the populace. In contrast, the Soviet Union always used socialism as a front for its pure dictatorship. Socialism was really a facade used so that leaders like Stalin could gain power. They terrorized the populace, spied on and tortured people, and in general cared about the well-being of the political leaders as opposed to the well-being of the population.

Actually, come to think of it, isn't there a political party here in the United States that tortures and spies on its own citizens?
Debate Round No. 1
89 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
analogies dont mean anything. im talking about reality. wake up and smell the roses.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
It seems that you completely ignored the analogy I made earlier. So I'm done with this.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
ok so has any of that happened to you or anyone you know? didnt think so.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
i just want a quote. i'm not saying you're wrong. i just want to see a quote.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
Do you want me to actually quote text from the FISA law? Or can we just agree that it exists?
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
show me where is says "spying" on someone is unconstitutional.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
The point is, you're saying that I shouldn't care about the government spying because they wouldn't spy on me. But if the government murdered someone, should I not care because they didn't murder me?

If spying on someone is illegal and unconstitutional, it's not any less unconstitutional because the person being spied on is a terrorist.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
haha where the hell did you get that analogy? I have no idea what you're talking about. The government doesnt care about what we do, they care about what people who threaten the security of the United States do.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
So, by analogy, it's okay for the government to murder someone as long as it's not me?
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Duron 9 years ago
Duron
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 Ddanon33 9 years ago
Ddanon33
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 Logos 9 years ago
Logos
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 tempest 9 years ago
tempest
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 everseeingeye 9 years ago
everseeingeye
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 Rachelst 9 years ago
Rachelst
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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 Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
ReaganConservativeEinsteinTied
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