'cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem in politics and religion
Debate Rounds (3)
the problem, is that truth is not a party line thing. historically, we have two random parties that exist with an arbitrary array on how the issues are sorted. there's all kinds of historical and ideological ways to create a party, yet people want to adhere to what the current infrastructure is politically. they often don't put much thought into it. it's pamphlet material. it's sad when you can tell about someone by just by reading propaganda and a pamphlet.
and they hardly ever defend the opposing candidates even when merited. no politician is perfect, but no politicians is completely without merit too. yet, the cookie cutter can't find it in themselves to speak favorably of an opposing candidate of their ideology. for example take a random event like the benghazi scandal. there is no ideology here, either a mistake was made or it wasn't. and not to get into the politics of that scandal specifically, but you will never hear the cookie cutter say things to defend the opposing candidate even if they are favorable.
in religion, the problem is cookie cutter fundamentalists who are usually only fundamental only to things that modern fundamentalism has socially been said to espouse. bible is the word of god. non christians can't be saved. salvation by faith. faith along. bible alone. eucharist is figurative. etc etc. the problem is that there's more than one way to be a fundamentalist, even on arrays of issues, but they believe what they are suppose to to fall in line with a preexisting social order.
I agree with you that the truth should not be skewed by ideology, and that parties tend to politicize even the most cut-and-dry affairs. However, people have the right to support whatever party they want to, as well as hold any prejudice they want to, regardless of how much others disapprove of it.
I know that this stance, taken to its logical conclusion, would permit the likes of nazis and violent nationalists to be condoned in the public life. I say: let the demagogues exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly, so long as they commit no crimes.
I think what this debate boils down to is how to mitigate the negative effects of granting freedom of speech to everyone. Unfortunately, there are charlatans everywhere. But, it is still every individual's right to judge for themselves what is right or wrong, and who they should follow. As long as nobody's freedoms are infringed upon, "cookie cutter" proponents of an ideology, in themselves, aren't really a problem.
con points out cookie cutters are not an issue with freedom of politics so they aren't a problem. but they ae a problem, at last in terms of original thinking and getting things done politicallly
Want proof? According to the 4th annual TV News Trust Poll in 2013, the majority of Americans no longer trust cable news, with the exception of PBS. (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com...).
A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports in April 2014 suggests that the majority of Americans no longer trust legislators to represent them. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com...)
Finally, Gallup polls for the August 7-10, 2014, show that 40% of Americans identify as Independent, more than either Democrat or Republican, respectively. (http://www.gallup.com...)
So, although there are some people who decide to hide behind party lines, it seems like most of us are sick of propaganda and want compromise in Congress.
To be honest, earlier I was confused about what we were contending. Though at first Pro was apparently arguing for the truth (which lies outside of partisanship altogether), it seems that she is simply arguing for the sake of ideological originality within political and religious spheres. I think it's telling that she never originally specified why cookie cutters were a problem, only giving examples of their political views and expressing her personal disapproval of them.
Earlier I said that uncritical political advocates are a growing problem in America. That was a mistake. I based that off of my personal experiences, because I am still a student, and many of my classmates adhere to one of the two big parties. However, this is not at all the big picture. A 2014 Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com...) found that 50% of 22-year-olds identify themselves as Independent, as compared to 28% D and 18% R. Thus, while most older people are divided by party lines, the next generation is not.
Pro's defense relies on the patronizing assumption that originality can not be accomplished because a large percentage, if not the majority of people, are mindless disciples of the big two parties. Besides not having any evidence to support this anecdotal claim (and more than enough evidence exists against it), there is another problem with this view. If thoughtless adherents are that much of a problem, what about a large number of people who reasonably support their party? Then wouldn't they also contribute to the problem by perpetuating the status quo? Either way, mainstream partisanship ensures that congressional legislators are unable to develop any long-term domestic strategy. Pro might argue that this stalemate is due to political conventionality, but I disagree.
The average Senate campaign costs $3 million. (https://www.ieeeusa.org...) Russ Harrison of IEEE says that "...[f]or the average House race, candidates must raise about $10,000 every week for two years just to be competitive." As such, special interest groups help defray the expense. In 2014, the top 10 sectors have donated more than $257.1 million to Congressional representatives (https://www.opensecrets.org...). The #3 sector, Securities & Investment, is headed by Elliott Management, the hedge fund management corp recently responsible for Argentina's default. Another contributor in that sector is Goldman Sachs, which testified for fraud in a 2010 congressional hearing.
Common sense yields that money is power. So the real reason why congressional partisanship is so bad is because it works to the benefit of contributors, as well as the two big parties. How? Legislative bickering is a distraction from the steady leak that will sink the boat, the leak being our 17-trillion-dollar deficit, the boat being us, and bank executives being mutinous sailors who fill their pockets with gold as they strap on inflatable life jackets.
In short, dogmatic political adherents per se do not threaten doctrinal originality or the election process. Just ask America's 38 officially recognized parties (http://www.politics1.com...) or any campaigning congressional hopeful, who would recognize that most Americans are moderate. Without a doubt, Americans know things are wrong, but their problem isn't that they're indoctrinated: it is that the truth is being withheld from them by The Man himself. And if no one questions the actions of those responsible, nothing will change.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years 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 didn't really have a strong case against the resolution and, indeed, in some places seemed to support the basic premise of it. Con was definitely hindered by the apparent misunderstanding that formed the basis of the R1 argument. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.