The Instigator
ClashnBoom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

What are all the Political Ideologies and convince me to have the same political ideology as you.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 71034
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

ClashnBoom

Pro

You said you needed more time so here you go.

Explain all the Political Ideologies in depth and try to convince me to have the same political ideology as you.

The only rule is no foul words.
16kadams

Con


I will use this round to explain the main ideologies.


1. Conservatism


Conservatism—generally referred to as a conservative ideology—is the ideology I adhere to, and, to some degree, the republican, Prohibition, and Constitution party. Conservatives want to uphold tradition and utilize traditional institutions in society. In the United States, Conservatism began in the American Revolution with it’s commitment to “republicanism, sovereignty of the people, and the rights and liberties of Englishmen while expelling the king and his supporters.” [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...].


It should be noted that at the time, this was not seen as conservative. It was called liberal, and now called classical liberalism (libertarian, who are generally allies with conservatives). Though their opinions today are very conservative as they were all socially conservative and fiscally conservative by today’s standards.


Paleoconservatives—which best describes my view—focus upon “tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism and anti-federalism.” [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The American Conservative is an American magazine which has paleoconservative leanings. Paleoconservatives are generally opposed to war and The American Conservative was actually created in opposition to the Iraq War.


Although paleoconservatives seem to be allied with Libertarians on some foreign policy, they differ socially. Alan C Carson, when it comes to marriage, argues “The family is the natural and fundamental social unit, inscribed in our nature as human beings, rooted in marriage, rooted in the commitment to bring new life into the world, and rooted in a deep respect for both ancestors and posterity.” [2] This means they support regulation of the family in order to promote social flourishing—something libertarians generally oppose. Both libertarians and paleoconservatives support free markets.


2. Libertarianism


Libertarians in many ways are similar to conservatives. The main differences arise due to social issues. Conservatives are seen as more authoritarian, whereas libertarians are a lot more lenient. They seek to maximize ‘liberty’ and self-autonomy. Most libertarians are lasseiz-faire libertarians and support the free market as the best way to run an economy, though there are socialist libertarians who favor cooperatives and abolishment of private property. Libertarians generally advocate for “civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.” [3. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Libertarians are often seen as a threat to liberty due to their “lack of philosophic and moral foundation” [3], but the ideology seems to be growing and is especially popular on this website, leaving me and Donald Keller as the few remaining conservatives.


3. Liberalism


“Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.” [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...]


Liberals and conservatives often strive towards a similar end goal: liberty. But it is how you achieve liberty which causes liberalism to conflict with modern conservatism and libertarianism. The latter ideologies usually support less government intervention. Conservatives—and a few moderate libertarians—support a minimal amount of regulation in order to work out the quirks in capitalism allowing equal opportunity. Liberals want everyone to be equal in the end—or, at least, more equal than they are now. Liberals also like big government. A conservative may support a government policy, but hopes it reduces government interference in the future. A liberal will support government policies which grow the size of the government—or keep it the same, rarely shrink it—in order to promote the common good.


4. Communism


State communism has been tried and failed. It is other communists which seek to abolish the free market, private ownership, and instill cooperatives instead of corporations led by a few people. I am not going to dwell on this because the ideology is unpopular and is not very logical as historical and economic evidence strongly supports private property rights.


What I will be talking about:


I will attempt to focus on modern political issues in order to make this discussion relevant and have the most impact on my opponents views.


1) Taxes


- Flat Tax


- Progressive Tax


- Sales Tax


- How libertarians, conservatives, and liberals view the issue


2) Foreign policy


- Modern examples


- How Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservatives view the issue


3) Economics


- Stimulus


- Regulation


- How each ideology handles economics


4) Social issues


- Abortion


- Gun Rights


- Gay Marriage


- Death Penalty


- How each ideology views the issues


It will be Round 2 that I begin trying to actively convince my opponent of an opinion.



Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

1. Taxes


a) Low Taxes


Liberals tend to favor high tax rates for the reason of promoting equality. But that begs the question whether or not a perfectly ‘equal’ society is even desirable. Inequality has increased in recent years, but that is not necessarily bad. Say in a perfectly equal society where everyone had $100, an entrepreneur made something like an iPod. Everyone wants the product so they buy it. But since there is only one seller and multiple consumers, the entrepreneur becomes super rich compared to everyone else—but EVERYONE also became better off because they have this new technology. This is what has been happening in recent years, meaning inequality has mainly been spurred by productivity and new technology which makes everyone better off. Inequality can be bad, but the inequality in recent years has been good based upon how the wealth was accumulated [1. http://scholar.harvard.edu...].


Raising the top marginal tax rate has been found to be bad, according to a literature review by the Tax Foundation. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published research arguing tax rates have no effect on growth and that the fastest growth occurred during the 50s when tax rates were the highest. But their analysis has many problems, including not controlling for the tax base, variation in taxes other than income taxes, short-term versus long term effects, reverse causality (i.e. growth causes the tax increase, not the other way around), etc. These are all well-known issues and modern economists have been able to control these variables. The CRS study claiming no effect has many holes—it is unpublishable in any peer-reviewed journal. The Tax Foundation argues that the burgeoning evidence suggests research on taxes “consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy” [2. http://taxfoundation.org...]. Taxes are bad for growth, and lower taxes should be achieved.


Liberals support high taxes, Conservatives and Libertarians support low taxes. Conservatism and Libertarianism win this point.


b) Flat Tax


A flat tax is an idea in which everyone pays the same percent—not the same amount—of their income to the government. The rich would still pay more as, say, 13% of one billion is larger than 15% of 50,000.


What effect, if any, would a flat tax have on the economy? Slovakia, a former communist country, has implemented a low rate flat tax on all of their taxes and has eliminated the majority of their other taxes (e.g. estate taxes) in 2004. Before 2004, the economy grew fairly slow and did not begin to grow until 2003. After 2004, the economy began to grow at an accelerated rate compared to the rest of Slovakia’s history. This basic analysis suggests the flat tax in Slovakia has led to a period of growth and stability [3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...].


A similar experiment was done in Russia. Russia already had low taxes with 28% being their max tax rate (like under the Reagan administration), but they lowered their income tax to a flat 13%. The International Monetary Fund, although unable to find a supply side effect from the tax, was able to find that more people paid the tax and that revenue increased as a result [4. https://www.imf.org...]. In Russia, a flat tax provided more revenue than a progressive tax! Other researchers did find a supply side effect, noting more hours were worked and it was easier to find jobs. Not only did revenue increase, but the jobs market thrived as a result [5. http://ftp.iza.org...]. A final study on the reform found that there was more tax compliance—so more revenue—but also that productivity increased [6. http://www.voxeu.org...]. The flat tax in Russia was a huge success, and was far superior to the liberal progressive tax they had before.


A liberal’s largest objection is that a flat tax cannot acquire enough revenue, which is untrue. A flat tax is capable of generating 18.5% of the wealth in the economy—same as the current tax code. The reason it is superior to the current tax system, but still able to take the same amount from the economy, is because of how it is structured. The flat tax has a strong supply-side bias, which as noted above would grow the economy. There would be fewer loopholes and deductions which make the tax code easier to understand [7. http://www.heritage.org...].


This is when a liberal will object: why do we need tax reform? Why is the current system bad? The current system is riddled with loopholes, deductions, double taxation, estate taxes, etc. All of these serve to complicate the system forcing many Americans to pay for an accountant in order to avoid breaking the law. The system currently also has a very high marginal tax rate (and the highest corporate tax rate in the world), which makes us very uncompetitive and biases against saving. The current tax code “create[s] sizeable disincentives against working, investing, and taking risks”, and all of those things are necessary in order to grow the economy [8. http://www.heritage.org...].The most extensive study on the issue suggests leaving the current progressive tax system and implementing a low-rate, but also revenue neutral, flat tax would lead to economic growth [9. http://www.frbsf.org...].


c) Progressive tax


I have already argued the current system—which happens to be a liberal progressive tax—is bad. But a progressive tax may not be bad if we reform it. A liberal would argue we can close the loopholes, lower the rates, and continue having a progressive tax which works.


And that is true, for a time. Every time that type of reform has taken place it was temporary. In the 80s, Reagan lowered tax rates (people who say they rose them don’t understand what closing a loophole is). He also closed the loopholes and made the system a lot simpler. Today, over 30 years later, we are back where we started. Tax rates have gone up from around 30% to 40%, and the tax system is super complex.


All reforms of the progressive tax have failed. We need a new tax system which is simple and easy to understand. Plus, as noted, rich people work hard for their money. If you want higher tax rates for the rich like under this system, you have to justify the stealing of wealth which was acquired through legitimate means.


I am not really going to discuss the sales tax because the flat tax is enough to convince you that conservatives are right—I am not a fan of the sales tax anyway.


2. Economics


a) Stimulus spending


In theory, the government can spur economic growth by spending. The spending (through a stimulus) is supposed to have a multiplier effect where the money gets circulated and the economy begins to boom. This cannot work due to a policy called monetary offset.


The Federal Reserve, say, is targeting a 2% inflation rate. When the government spends money, inflation increases. So in response the Fed reduces the inflation rate in order to keep it at 2%. This makes it impossible for the stimulus to work, the fiscal multiplier is zero meaning no economic growth is induced by the stimulus [10. http://mercatus.org...]. So liberals supporting stimulus packages forget that it is impossible for it to work due to the Fed’s policies, and it is just a huge waste of money.


Further, analysis by economist John Lott suggests the stimulus may have made matters worse. Unemployment is worse in regions where costly stimulus packages were implemented, and better in those which opted for supply-side reforms and not demand-side stimulus packages [11. http://johnrlott.tripod.com...].


So, Conservatives and Libertarians are right on this issue.


b) Regulation


Libertarians generally do not like regulation at all. Regulation in small amounts is necessary.


The current Obama administration has been increasing regulation at an exponential rate, and the regulations cost 73 billion dollars each year. The cost of red tape/regulation has been exploding under his administration, even compared to the liberal leaning president George W. Bush. These mandates affect small business the most, who are the main drivers of the economy. If liberals keep passing regulation, the economy will continue to be in this anemic economic growth [12. http://www.heritage.org...]. An academic study has been done on the issue, and came to similar results. Excessive regulation—especially when it is growing fast and accumulates—harms economic growth. Had regulation NOT grown, and stayed at the 1949 level, the economy would be worth 59 TRILLION dollars [13. http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org...]. In comparison, the current GDP is 15 trillion dollars. Had regulation not grown, the economy would be almost FOUR TIMES larger. Had an extremist like me been president, we would be four times richer.


Now some regulation is a good thing. A Federal Reserve can, and has, stimulated economic growth via their control over the money supply. Taxes are good (at low levels) because the government can build infrastructure for private industry to use, which spurs growth. The libertarian standpoint is crazy, but so is the liberal side. The Conservatives win.


Summary


Libertarian points: 4


Conservative points: 5


Liberal points: 0


I hope that I have convinced my opponent to be right-of-center, and that I will be able to convert him fully in the following rounds.


Debate Round No. 2
ClashnBoom

Pro

You've already convinced me, but I want to see what you have to type next.
16kadams

Con

I have already won the debate. As my opponent wants more, I will give it to him.


1. Marriage


a) The Importance of Marriage


Marriage connects people in relationships which would otherwise fragment. It causes fathers to remain with the family and care for their children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive way to promote the wellbeing of children. It forces men and women to commit to each other and care for the children their union produces. “According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration.” [1. http://www.heritage.org...]


In the field of crime a lot of emphasis is placed on cohort size. High risk cohorts are more likely to be criminals, so policies which shrink the size of the high risk cohorts will reduce crime. This has been argued in the case of abortion (abortion lowers crime), but that specific correlation has been refuted. Regardless, the idea that changing cohort sizes would change the crime rate is still accepted.


Marriage reduces the high risk cohort. High risk cohorts include single mothers producing children out of wedlock. An increase of 10 children out of 100,000 born out of wedlock will lead to a 5% increase in murder rates [2. http://phys.org...]. The cohort effect is not immediate and takes about 20 years to take affect. Policies which reduce marriage rates increase out-of-wedlock birth rates. This means crime will increase.


Marriage is essential to a functioning society.


b) Privatizing marriage: libertarians are crazy


Privatizing marriage will erode marriage culture and create all the social ills mentioned above. More crime, more poverty, worse educational achievement, worse emotional health, and worse sexyal development.


A libertarian case AGAINST marriage privatization can be found here.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...


c) No fault divorce, wtf liberals?


No fault divorce has been found to increase the divorce rates. This has been confirmed by a broad literature review from studies published from 1995 - 2006

http://www.marriagedebate.com...


I have other debates and since I already won, I am just link spamming but if you are interested in education I recommend reading them.


Debate Round No. 3
ClashnBoom

Pro

Vote Con.
16kadams

Con

If you want anything else PM me bruh
Debate Round No. 4
ClashnBoom

Pro

GG or GD in this case.
16kadams

Con

Vote con.

gg m8
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
You're just wrong. If you wish to oppose policies which cause growth and support policies which cause stagnation, that's your prerogative not mine.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 1 year ago
StalinIncarnate
I don't find it Humorous.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by StalinIncarnate 1 year ago
StalinIncarnate
I've appreciated an Ardent Republican brainwashing a wary individual into believing Liberals are Happy go lucky, Careless, juveniles whose policies are redundant and wrong.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
I'm just messing with you. Haha.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
I convinced you to be liberal wtf?
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
16kadams that's way there are 5 rounds. 😊
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
24 hours = impossible to explain each ideology XD
Posted by NickTheRationalPolitician 1 year ago
NickTheRationalPolitician
Impossible to explain all political ideologies in depth
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
ClashnBoom16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting approach for a debate, and due to its uniqueness, I must alter my voting standards. Normally I'd go through each category worth points, but in this case, there was a clear challenge presented to Con, and Con met the challenge successfully. In the end, Con was effectively able to explain the most popular political ideologies and convince Pro to have the same as him, conservative. To be honest, I'm pretty convinced too, but am still leaning as a moderate libertarian. Perhaps someday Con will be able to convince me as well, lol. Great job Con, this was highly educational and a strong win for you.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ClashnBoom16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
ClashnBoom16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con convinced Pro of the correct ideology and both debaters agreed for a Con win, so he wins.