The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

'cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,445 times Debate No: 60531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




a cookie cutter conservative or liberal is someone who believes things because that's what they are suppose to believe to be liberal or conservative. all social issues, all economic issues, down to the party line.

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.


So first, thanks for the debate. So, for the next round I want to clarify some of Pro’s key terms. Pro mentions “cookie cutter ideologies are a huge problem in politics and religion.” “Cookie Cutter” simply means bland, unoriginal. However, to the process is a retroactive distinction though, right? A person accepts bland, trite, hackneyed arguments in the realm of politics and religious arguments [AND THEN] they are cookie cutter? And to be clear, Pro’s position is “Cookie Cutter” ideologies aren’t simply a problem, but rather are a “huge problem.”

Huge defined[1]

1. Extraordinarily large in bulk [unlikely we are talking about bulk], quantity, or extent.

2. Of unbounded extent, scope, or character; limitless

Relevant synonyms:

Mammoth, gigantic, colossal, enormous, immense, tremendous

I will save the cookie cutter political argument aside for the moment. The example mentioned of a “cookie-cutter” religious ideology. I am not a religious believe but I am incredible familiar with the works of Martin Luther. And I don't think the dissolution of the Roman Catholic Church, several decades of regional wars beginning with the Peasants’ War of 1525, and a fundamental division of European states up until the enlightenment. However, this seems to be the implication based on the “salvation by faith alone.”

The Protestant Reformation and the notion of “salvation by faith alone” is credibly original and novel today, if argued from the writing of Luther. Personally, Con is not religious but has at times found the writing of Martin Luther fascinating.
However, I should not be too quick to conclude you meant Luther the only Protestant Reformer. I am aware that Huldrych Zwingli in 1523 while living Zurich Switzerland drew similar conclusions, which set up the Reformed Protestant sects in Northern Europe. Or the Calvinist version of “salvation by faith alone.”

I could go on but Brad S. Gregory academic at Princeton recently wrote a book arguing that the protestant reformation, well specifically the theological as well as literal battle over notions such as sola fida, sola scriptura, priesthood of all believers help create the conditions later on for a modern secular society, enlightenment, et cetera.[2]

However, I will wait until some clarification terms and key arguments from Pro. Good forward to the debate.

[2] Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012).

Debate Round No. 1


con goes on a rant and tangent about martin luther. i didn't say all protestants are cookie cutter and con seems to be saying that just because he believes in martin luther than i call that cookie cutter ism. con's points are mostly irrelevant.


Okay, so it may have been fair to characterize the second round as a rant. I believe there is an explanation, especially related to Martin Luther and the explanation comes from Pro’s statement in the opening round:

salvation by faith. faith along. bible alone. eucharist is figurative.”

Each of these ideas is attributable to Martin Luther the sixteenth century Augustinian Monk and later Protestant rebel. So the above-mentioned led statement provided by Pro lead me to take on the idea that this ideology could be considered cookie-cutter. However, Pro refutes my reasoning is irrelevant.

Given that the full Burden of Proof is on Pro
, it is incumbent on me to ask for a clarification on what he means by cookie-cutter. Why is it irrelevant to use the example of Martin Luther, if prove believes the origin rest with Luther alone?

Pro has thus far not demonstrated that cookie-cutter ideologies are a huge problem. What are the huge problems.

So let me create an argument structured in a manner similar to the one debated

Anti-Semitism has been a huge problem in politics and religion [claim]

Because they have faced hostility, discrimination, and irrational violence historically in Europe and elsewhere [reason]

Then I would cite Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of the Jews from Spain during the early modern era; then note the restrictions placed on their profession in Italy during the Renaissance; and then cite the various attitudes leading up to the Third Reich and delve into the ideology of Nazi Anti-Semitism; moreover I would link that anti-Semitism to the development of the Catholic Church in the Holy Roman Empire, as well as anti-Semitic strands in Lutheranism [Evidence]

This would lead to the obvious questions: But what about the “huge problem” [warrant]

While I would answer the warrant if this was an actual proposition, I do not feel particularly obliged to here recite a recent history of mass atrocities.

Pro states that Con has made irrelevant points. Therefore, in the interest of not making a similar mistake, I would ask Pro delineate the meaning of “cookie-cutter.” Based on the second round statement, it is clear that I am unable to discern the underlying meaning of cookie-cutter. Cookie-Cutter is a designation used by Pro and requires clarification. Because political scientists do not use the word in any academic capacity I have found, nor do theologians or religious philosophers.

Con’s obligation
: Since Con is on the “opposing side” Con only has “to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate.”[1]

So far, Pro has not provide any evidence to support his claims. However, I expect Pro will provide that in the next round.

[1] "Burden of Proof." Rational Wiki. July 24, 2014. Accessed August 20, 2014.

Debate Round No. 2


you said martin luther believe the eucharist is figurative. actually, he believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.

it's not the ideology that is cookie cutter. it's the idea of belieing something because that is what it takes to be a consevative or liberal or fundamentalist. martin luther was an original thinker. he defined much of what it meant, a lot of cookie cutter ideas, but he wasn't believing those things to be a fundamentalist.


Pro proposition claims “cookie-cutter ideologies are a huge problem in politics and religion.” There is not a single instance where he provides: (1) a reason that would logically lead one to see the connection (2) a single piece of evidence or a single source.


Con asks
: Does this mean radical or extreme ideologies would be preferable? Would its antithesis create larger or smaller problems than the cookie-cutter thesis?

Pro answer: [white space between colon indicates a blank, meaning Pro did not provide an answer]


Con asks
: What are the “Huge Problems?”

Pro’s answer: [blank]

[Antonyms for cookie-cutter generated above are Con’s given that no dictionary-based website provides satisfactory antonyms]

In round one my opponent states:

“a cookie cutter conservative or liberal is someone who believes things because that's what they are suppose to believe to be liberal or conservative. all social issues, all economic issues, down to the party line.”

Taken as a whole, it is safe to infer that Pro believes that “cookie-cutter” ideologies (aka conventional politics or beltway wisdom) should change.

Con comments and counterfactuals:

Merriam Webster Online’s definition of cookie-cutter is a “lack of originality or distinction"[1] Similarly, the Urban Dictionary defines cookie-cutter: “Marked by sameness and a lack of originality; mass-produced.”[2] Next, let us apply these definitions to American politics. We can all agree liberals and conservative divide on social and economic issues more or less like this:

Liberals = same-sex marriage [social issue]

Conservative = traditional marriage [social issue]

Liberals = active role for government in market, specifically through regulatory policy [economic]

Conservatives = less government intervention in the market, less regulation [economic]

At its most basic, this is a accurate picture of the two parties, therefore any non-cookie-cutter ideology must be default break out of this bifurcation.

Try to imagine a non-cookie-cutter ideology on the issue of marriage after excluding the possibilities offer or blindly supported by the two parties, it is very difficult right? There an endless buffet of possibilities but to be honest they would create more problems, not less problems.

Here are a few marriage arrangement recognized at some point in world history that cannot be said to be cutter-cookie at all:

  • § Polygamy [marriage that includes more than two partners]
  • § Polygyny [where several unions may be recognized as being legal]
  • § Polyandry [woman takes more than two or more husbands]
  • § Plural marriage [group marriage]
  • § Child marriage [where one or both spouses are under the age of 18]

One way to solve the conundrum to cookie-cutter ideologies would be to adopt the opposite of cookie-cutter as evidenced in bullet point list above.

Then logically, if towing the party line is a problem what is members of both parties did the opposite, an extreme opposite. What if conservatives decided to support a non-cookie-cutter ideology, say fascism. And liberals did likewise, but by supporting a form of radial communism. Then just for the sake of fun imagine independents formed and supported non-cookie-cutter ideologies like anarchism, or some radical Islamic ideology, and maybe some other groups decide based on a strict states’ rights ideology, they secede from the Union and plan on using nuclear missiles from silos in their state to provide their ideology.

While the scenario is obviously ridiculous, it does illustrate one point: if everyone gave up cookie-cutter ideologies in favor of radical or extreme ideologies, the inevitable result would produce even worse results.

Voters should consider the counterfactual because it highlights central fallacies inherent to Pro’s initial proposition.

Now there are really quite a few areas pro never satisfactorily answered. When there are “huge” problems in religion and politics, what always occurs? Someone, an expert or insider, politician or pundit, preacher or priest turns it if not into an issue they plan on addressing, at the very least an academic writes a some scholarly journal articles to maintain tenure.

Con would like to make one point very clear—even though in reality it is ancillary to the debate. In Round Three, Pro states:

“you said martin luther believe the eucharist is figurative. actually, he believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.”
[Statement by Pro].

The only time Con very wrote “eucharist is figurative” was when quoting from Pro. This should be clear because the statement by Pro is in quotations, with bold text, and is underlined.

But perhaps Con should have been more careful, perhaps in addition to the quotation marks, bold text, and underlining the text, I should have properly footnoted attribution. So let me do that now for the quote: “eucharist is figurative. etc etc.”[3]

[So to be clear: Con never said Luther believed the eucharist is figurative. Whatever flaw Pro sees in this statement is not the fault of Con’s but rather a contradiction between Pro’s statement in Round One and Round Three. In Round One pro states: “eucharist is figurative. etc etc.”[4] Then in Round Three Pro states: “actually, he [Martin Luther] believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.”[5] ]

Con has attempted to provide an even more transparent system of attribution in the paragraphs above. Pro’s statements are in quotations, bolded, italicized, underlined, and footnoted. I hope this will suffice as an adequate system. By the way, adding [ ] inside the quotes is a standard of clarification accepted by all academic disciples. Consult this book if you question this assertion.

One final point that has no bearing on the debate but wanted to address since Pro made it a significant part of the Round Three.

[Pro states]: “actually, he [Martin Luther] believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.”[6] ]

[Con’s question]: What evidence do we have for this assertion? Because Pro does not provide an reference. As such Con, will answer what we know about Luther’s personal convictions on the matter as well as sources, evidence, with citations to back up this claim.

Luther’s views are well-known on the issue of the Eucharist, in fact it is the only disagreement that divided Luther and Zwingli. Luther maintained a notion of Sacramental Union: the Lord’s Supper were united to the true body and blood of Christ for all communicants to ear and drink.[7][8]

Again let me reiterate why Voters should vote for Con:

(1) Pro did not provide an actual definition of cookie-cutter or ideology

(2) Pro did not provide example of how there were “huge problems”

(3) Pro did not provide any evidence

(4) Pro did not provide any souces

[1] "Definition of cookie-cutter". Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. 2014. Retrieved: 8/20/14.

[2] "Definition of cookie-cutter". Urban Dictionary (2014). Retrieved: 8/20/14.

[3] dairygirl4u2c, “cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion,” Retrieved on 8/21/2014 [quotation found in dairygirl4u2c’s Round 1 statement, specifically Paragraph 4 Sentence 6]

[4] Ibid.

[5] Dairygirl4u2c, “cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion,” Retrieved on 8/21/14 [quotation found in dairygirl4u2c’s Round 3 statement, specifically Paragraph: 1, Sentence: 2]

[6] Dairygirl4u2c, “cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion,” Retrieved on 8/21/14 [quotation found in dairygirl4u2c’s Round 3 statement, specifically Paragraph: 1, Sentence: 2]

[7] Cary Phillip, Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation, [The Teaching Company: The Great Courses] [Sound Recording] Lecture 8-14.

[8] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmannm trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. James Atkinson (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 44: 123-217.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BennyW 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not do a very good job of supporting the argument, Didn't address con's points. Con did go off on a bit of a tangent but still had better arguments overall.