The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

most self identified political labels are meaningless

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...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 348 times Debate No: 59321
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

most self identified political labels are meaningless

for most people, they are more a tool for psychological self identification than anything, more an indicator of the biases you've grown up with than a thought out label.

i would bet if you did a study, you would find that there's a significant or even most people, who actually agree with each other more in actual substance than just their self proclaimed label.

for example. if you tested this hypothesis. what i would suppose you would find. if you asked people "what should a person on welfare be able to get...." and then list some things, or ask "should food be a necessity for those who are trying their best and aren't lazy" or "which of the following environmental situations do you most support for environmental purposes... water, air, saving natural parks, etc". and continue giving more concrete specific scenarios.

i would guess there would be a great number of people who say they are conservative when in reality, they agree on just as much or more things than the liberals.... and vise versa. they only disagree with each other in the abstract, where often the ideologies are so basically vague they are meaningless.
Mike_10-4

Con

I accept this debate and looking forward to a learning experience.

The first thing I (Con) did was to look up Pro's “self identified political labels” listed on his profile having the Ideology: Progressive, and his Party: Reform Party. Con's can be best described as aligned with the Ideology: Conservative, and is leaning towards the Party: Tea Party.

These labels are not “meaningless,” but have meaning in some form of generalized categories to identify a baseline. If they were “meaningless,” why would Debate.org go through the trouble to have such categories part of the profile? Of course this generalization lacks detail, and I hope Pro could share his philosophy of the difference between Progressivism and Conservatism while Con returns his philosophy.

By doing so, we will add depth, fidelity, and a learning experience in the passion of our positions and similarities we may share. Let's test Pro's, “...most people, ... actually agree with each other ... hypothesis.”
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con is correct, they are a way to give a base line. but that is all. and here at debate.org people are often more educated and have better thought out views, so it is even more meaningful

for most people though, given most people have very low political IQs, this baseline is mostly rhetoric. the way to identify this is to do that hypothetical study i argued about.
for most people the labels more nothing more than "help the little guy" "be fiscally responsible" etc etc. vague statements.
Mike_10-4

Con

Since Pro is a Progressive and Con is a Conservative, in Round 1, Con suggested to do that “hypothetical study” between Pro and Con to see how well it goes with those of us who do not have “low political IQs.” Perhaps, in Round 3 we could do that “hypothetical” and let the voters decide.

As for “most self identified political labels are meaningless,” I find that not to be the case. Whether having a high or “low political IQ,” those political labels have a profound outcome on Election Day for those powerbrokers who invest a lot of energy and money on those labels. For the most part, one may view those “political labels” are just the strings of puppets.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con is correct, they are a way to give a base line. but that is all. and here at debate.org people are often more educated and have better thought out views, so it is even more meaningful

for most people though, given most people have very low political IQs, this baseline is mostly rhetoric. the way to identify this is to do that hypothetical study i argued about.
for most people the labels more nothing more than "help the little guy" "be fiscally responsible" etc etc. vague statements.
Mike_10-4

Con

Con agrees with Pro's following statement, "con is correct, they [political labels] are a way to give a base line." Therefore, "political labels are" not "meaningless."

Any label is a baseline. Most labels have a length of one word, and from semantics, the scope of one word carries little depth or detail. Con pointed out these political labels are very important on the buildup to Election Day, for those powerbrokers who invest a lot of energy and money on those labels.

Pro, a number of times, made reference to some "hypothetical study." Con, a number of times, wanted to try this study on Pro and Con, however, Pro did not follow through.

Pro made the point in Round 1 that political labels "are more a tool for psychological self identification than anything..." Con, on the other hand, finds all "self-identified political labels" having an imbedded association to a group or Party. Such political association, from low- to high-political-IQs, have meaning and essential importance in voting persuasion that could change the course of a nation.

With all due respect and in closing, I could only hope Pro's Progressive label will not prevent Pro from voting for Conservative candidates this November.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2cMike_10-4Tied
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: Pro had a weird repetition of rounds. But essentially Pro seemed to concede the point when Pro admitted that "Con is correct, they are a way to give a base line". Thus, arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.