The Instigator
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
frankfurter50
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

the democratic party

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 102722
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

passwordstipulationssuck

Con

#1 round one is just for acceptance and stating your position
#2 no ad hominems.
#3 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply
#4 no new arguments in final rebuttals.

Care for round two frankfurter? My opponent will attempt to prove that the democratic party is overall better than the republican party and I will attempt to prove the reverse.

The burden of proof is shared equally between debaters.
frankfurter50

Pro

I accept, but personally, i would like it better if we could debate in round one. debates seem to go by so fast. ah well. go ahead, start us off on yet another venture into politics!
Debate Round No. 1
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

As we all know in the United States there are two main political parties that dominate Presidential elections. The Republicans and the Democrats. Looking back at the founding of both parties we can see distinct differences between the groups immediately. the Democratic Party was founded first in the year 1828 with their main opposition being the whigs. the Republicans began their existence in the year 1854 (1) as a third party with the goal of stopping the spread of slavery into the western settlements with the end goal of eradicating it entirely (2)

Thus I offer the following two contentions to prove that the Republican party is overall better than the Democratic party.

Contention one. the Democratic party supported slavery, segregation, and opposed Civil Rights. As I stated previously, the Republican party was founded with the goal of abolishing slavery. Republicans made significant progress throughout their early existence but all the while faced stiff opposition from the Democrats. In particular, Republican anti-slavery efforts were dealt a major blow in the landmark supreme court case Dred Scott v. Sandford in which the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not citizens but property and therefore had no rights. the seven justices that voted in favor of the decision were all Democrats. the two justices that dissented, were both Republicans. (3) They wouldn't win an election until the year 1860 when the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, took office and began working against slavery as is evidenced by the emancipation act in 1862. This anti-slavery act held little consequence however because a year before in 1861 the Confederacy had broken off from the Union spearheaded by the Democratic Party (4) fast forward to 1865 and the war is finally over. for a few years, Union forces garrisoned in the South overseeing Reconstruction had established far better living conditions for African Americans living in those regions and had overseen their emancipation. However, when reconstruction ended and Union forces withdrew from the south, the Democratic Party roared back into power, quickly reestablished white supremacy, began enforcing "black codes" which forced many African-Americans into indentured servitude due to low wages or debt. They also established the infamous Jim Crow Laws. (5)

Fast forward again, and we arrive in the 1960's where the Civil Rights movement was in full force. There's not much to say here other than that the Democratic Party opposed these legislations as well and they only managed to pass due to near-universal Republican support (6)

Contention two. The Democratic party survives off of the votes of people they had spent most of their existence attempting to oppress. When all of the Democrats attempts to enslave blacks, to keep them enslaved, and then to keep them oppressed has all failed, they realized it was time to try a different approach. As Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson is purported to have said "I'll keep those N*****s voting democrat for 200 years" after all, in African-Americans are going to be allowed to vote, they might as well vote Democrat. The Democrats began throwing up a smoke shield of false narratives, and misinformation telling the world that it was Republicans that wanted to keep them down while the Democratic Party gave them enticing offers of free stuff and seemingly beneficial programs. Meanwhile, it was, and is, failed democratic policies that have kept Africans down for all these years. Massive Welfare Programs have decimated the black family, incentivising broken homes and single motherhood. Over 70 percent of African American families have single mothers.(7) There is a known correlation between single motherhood and crime, substance abuse, and repeating the vicious cycle of single parenthood. Opposition to school choice leaves them trapped in failing schools, and Politically correct policing has left black communities defenseless from violent crime.

(1) History.com
(2)http://www.ushistory.org...
(3)https://ballotpedia.org...
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org... if you don't like this source you can look for one that refutes it.
(5)http://www.crf-usa.org...
(6)http://russp.us...
(7)http://www.actrochester.org...
frankfurter50

Pro

now, i shall offer two contentions.

Contention one: your argument is not valid because the parties have switched sides, and what you claim occured over one hundred years ago. you cannot still claim that democrats are bigger racists than democrats. trump is a big racist. so is ben carson. and ted cruz. and mitt romney. and george bush. they all hate mexicans, or blacks, or all sorts of minorities. you see, minorities, because of their oppression, naturally rarely get rich, so they side with the democrats, who support raising the amount of money that poor people get. as a result. republicans hate both democrats and minorities, because the two groups are basically the same. you are no longer on the side against racism. you are for it.

Contention two: please do not deny that we have switched. Most black people voted for Obama, both because he was black and a rocking cool democrat. Most mexicans, a minority, hate trump, a republican. seriously, how can you deny this? let's move on to some other topic in the next round, please, besides slavery and all that.

most slave owners weren't democrats, but confederates. the confederacy was considered by southerners to be a different country, with no political parties. Now, I'm not saying that would be good, but most slave owners weren't democrats.

I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 2
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I will address my opponents contentions immediately. His contention one that my argument is not valid because the parties have switched sides is in fact, not valid. The parties have not "switched sides" as my opponent states, but the democratic party has simply switched from overt racism into covert racism keeping minorities as dependent as possible on the government in order to secure their vote. Think about it, Affirmative action is creating quotas or lowering standards in order to get more minorities into positions in universities or employment. Basically, this not only fosters dependence on the government but also states that Minority groups have no hope of competing intellectually or professionally with white people without government support and lower standards. Next, Trump is not a racist for wanting to curtail illegal immigration. It is a serious problem in our country that needs to be addressed. Next, with Ben Carson, I thought you leftists believed that Black people can't be racist because racism=prejudice+power. Pick a narrative and stick with it. Also, I've never seen a Republican attempt to instate actual segregation in federal positions like many Democrat Presidents have done.

For his Contention two that I should not deny that the parties have switched. I just did. the reason that most Black people voted for Obama could be explained away with two facts. Psychology, and my contention 1 subpoint A. For the psychological argument, the Mere-Exposure effect states that people tend to like things that are familiar with them. For example, if you hear about something and that something looks or is like you, you are more likely to look upon that thing favorably. (1)

My opponent fails to recognize in his last argument that while the Confederate States of America didn't have real political parties, that we can just ignore the fact that it was mostly democrats that defected to the Confederacy. See my sources in my previous post for evidence

I will grant my opponents request to add new arguments to the debate.

1. Democrats support raising the minimum wage. I shall now provide four reasons why we should not raise the minimum wage

I'm going to use some older information in order to exemplify what raising the minimum wage to the current proposed amount would do.

It Would Result In Job Loss Evidence of job losses have been found since the earliest imposition of the minimum wage The first 25-cent minimum wage in 1938 resulted in significant job losses. Minimum wage increases recently imposed in American Samoa resulted in economic effects so pronounced that President Obama signed into law a bill postponing them. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about two-thirds found negative employment effects. In 2010, Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser estimated: "nearly 1.3 million jobs will be lost if the federal minimum wage is increased to $9.50 per hour."
It Would Hurt Low-Skilled Workers Evidence shows minimum wage increases disproportionally hurt the people they"re supposed to help =623; The 2006 Neumark and Wascher review found the literature "as largely solidifying the conventional view that minimum wages reduce employment among low-skilled workers." A 2012 analysis of the New York State minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 per hour found a "20.2 to 21.8 percent reduction in the employment of younger less-educated individuals." =623; A 2010 analysis by Michael J. Hicks found: "the latest round of minimum wage increases" account "for roughly 550,000 fewer part-time jobs," including "roughly 310,000 fewer teenagers working part-time." It Would Have Little Effect On Reducing Poverty Evidence suggests that minimum wage increases don"t reduce poverty =623; In the previous federal minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $7.25, only 15 percent of the workers who were expected to gain from it lived in poor households, according to a 2012 review by Mark Wilson. If the minimum were today raised to $9.50, only 11 percent of workers who would gain live in poor households.The 2012 Wilson review noted: "Since 1995, eight studies have examined the income and poverty effects of minimum wage increases, and all but one have found that past minimum wage hikes had no effect on poverty." The 2012 Wilson review noted: "One recent academic study found that both state and federal minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 had no effect on state poverty rates."
It May Result In Higher Prices For Consumers The costs of minimum wage increases must be paid by someone. The 2012 Wilson review noted: A 2004 "review of more than 20 minimum wage studies looking at price effects found that a 10 percent increase in the U.S. minimum wage raises food prices by up to 4 percent." A 2007 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that restaurant prices increase in response to minimum wage increases.
Four

2. The Democrats support gun control.
After the horrific Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a sense of fear gripped the nation. Stores pulled guns from their shelves. Cities organized gun buyback events. Lawmakers pledged to tighten gun laws. Bulletproof backpack sales spiked, and some kids even took guns to school for protection.

Through it all, the national debate turned once again to gun control: Should citizens even have guns? And what can we do to prevent future shooting tragedies? The Democrat party responded with clamor for more gun control. On Jan. 16, President Barack Obama signed three memorandums and announced 23 executive actions to help "reduce gun violence."

His plan emphasizes stronger background checks, bans on "assault weapons," and more emergency resources in schools. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" that would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns. Feinstein is known for her anti-gun stance. She championed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 and only banned 18 specific firearms.

Although, gun violence did drop in the 1990"s, a University of Pennsylvania study shows that the 1994 ban had too many loopholes and had no statistical effect on the number of mass shootings. Murder and violent crime rates continued to fall even after the ban expired. In addition to pressing for useless gun regulations, many Democrats also engage in political doublespeak. They talk about banning "assault weapons;" however, there is no set definition of an "assault weapon." It is whatever a given individual wants it to be.

They are against "military-style weapons," but these guns bear a purely cosmetic resemblance to military weapons and would never be used by the military. They speak of the dangers of "semi-automatic weapons," which sounds scary until you realize that "semi-automatic" refers to any gun that can shoot more than once without reloading (nearly every gun that shoots is semi-automatic).

They talk about "reducing gun violence" and promoting "gun safety" (can you really argue against reducing violence or promoting safety?) instead of what they"re really doing, which is attacking our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms by tightening gun control laws. But no matter what terminology they use, gun control is not going to work, and here"s why:

Reason #1: There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. In theory, a more strict gun law could work. In 1996, Australia implemented a strict assault weapons ban with few loopholes. The country banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and spent $500 million buying approximately 600,000 guns from private citizens. But this isn"t Australia.

There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown.

Reason #2: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship.

Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people"s rights being removed little by little. You can"t carry your guns around in public.

Now you can"t own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can"t have any guns at all"time to amend the Constitution. That"s an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile.

Reason #3: Mass shooters don"t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation"s most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course.

But that didn"t stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. in the end, it's only the law abiding citizen that would be harmed by gun control. I hope this satisfied your desire for new arguments

(1)https://psychcentral.com...
frankfurter50

Pro

alright, you say that we're "covert racists" because black guys like us. how is that racism? they just like us because we support helping poor people and they choose to join, we don't force them to.

You republicans always say "guns don't kill people, people do!" yeah, but guns are what most killers use, so I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to keep them under lock and key.

then, you say that raising the minimum wage doesn't help poor people. how the heck could it not? it takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor. just like robin hood. it's not rocket science, but you think it is for some weird reason.

finally, you claim that gun control didn't prevent some mass shooting. well, gun control can't control every gun. it just slows them down a little. he probably got to shoot it because of some republican senator. And there could have been lots more mass shootings that year if you repubbos had your way.
Debate Round No. 3
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

All right. Let's break this down and try to make it more clear. First, It's not because African-Americans like you. It's because through your policymaking you have not only kept them almost completely dependent on the government for support, but you have implemented patronizing policies such as affirmative action that hurts the public image of the people who get the support of affirmative action by demeaning their accomplishments and always making people wonder if they actually earned it. Your policies have also shattered their families and subjected their communities to large amounts of violent crime.

Next, my opponent says we should keep guns under lock and key. for this I have a rather lengthy response. so I'll try to limit it down to just a thousand or so characters. Contention one: Subpoint A I can produce several examples of cases against gun control one according to Time.com is that there has been a remarkable decrease in gun violence since the 1990s yet there has been nothing but an increase in privately owned handguns showing that there is no correlation in the ownership of handguns and the preservation of the second amendment and gun violence. As well that if you have already decided to commit murder I don"t think you"re going to care if your gun is owned illegally that"s like saying "a"right i"m gonna go commit a murder. Wait what handguns are illegal!? Well then it"s all off then we wouldn"t wanna get in trouble."
subpoint B The notion that crime will go away if we ban guns is in and of itself ridiculous the only thing that would be accomplished if we ban handguns from being owned by citizens would be to violate the rights of American citizens and violate the second amendment of our constitution. Which the American government is sworn to uphold as stated in the president"s oath "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If we ban handguns we make those words nothing but empty promises over a dead oath. As Americans, we cannot condone the violation of our rights or our constitution which has presided over the government of our nation since it was created and has done an excellent job with it. The right to bear arms is clearly stated in our bill of rights and while taking away one may seem reasonable at the time it"s a slippery slope. Once we start it will become acceptable to take more and more until the United States is a shadow of its former self, having been denied of its liberties.
subpoint C Furthermore, according to a recent supreme court case known as Heller vs. Columbia according to law.cornell.com written by Cornell University law department on December 5 2015 the supreme court ruled that gun control of any kind is unconstitutional so any argument that the second amendment was drafted a long time ago and is out of date null seeing as it was still ruled as correct in the modern day. subpoint
D according to gunowners.org on handguns are used to defend people against criminals 2.5 million times per year making about roughly 6,850 times per day just in the U.S meaning that handguns are used to defend innocent civilians over 80 times more often than to take lives of innocents. Furthermore, according to the United States national institute of justice the black market for guns is quite large so if we ban handguns clearly the only people without guns would be the people who already follow the law, not the people who don't. this is affirmed by ATF.gov who used gun tracing to detect suspicious activity and found incredibly high numbers of illegal gun trafficking in the U.S. nullifying any argument that banning handguns would keep them away from criminals.

So as we can see, "keeping guns under lock and key" is not only ineffective but is also immoral as it would lead to an increase in innocent deaths.

He asks "how the heck" raising the minimum wage wouldn't help poor people. Reading my posts would help you formulate arguments in case that wasn't clear. All of my reasoning is there and I'm not going to take the time to write it all again.

Next, he states that it's Repubbos like me that cause mass shootings. Ad hominem aside, he also misstated my argument. I did not say that gun control fails to stop some mass shootings. I stated that it failed to stop any significant number of them. In order for something to be statistically significant, the p-value needs to be at or below 5%. Gun control was not statistically significant in stopping mass shootings, therefore scientists would reject gun control as a null hypothesis.
frankfurter50

Pro

right. anyhoo, let's move along to the abortion type thing, I want to get to that before the debate ends.

Democrats are against abortions, republicans are for them. this is absolutely true.

DEMOCRATS give money TO poor people so they CAN AFFORD KIDS and DON'T NEED AN ABORTION.

REPUBLICANS TAKE MONEY AWAY from poor people so they CAN'T AFFORD KIDS and NEED AN ABORTION.

republicans simply use the democrat standpoint to win votes. you may contradict this, say that democrats are pro choice, but the only reason people need a choice is because they're poor, and democrats work to make it so we don't need a choice.

repubs just think that poor people are lazy bums, and they could become as rich as they are in five minutes. Democrats recognize that change is gradual, and things must be taken away from the rich in order for the poor to gain anything. these are the laws of the universe. you cannot contradict this.

I wonder what you'll say now. Please votefor me democrats, if there eevn
Debate Round No. 4
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

Let me first break down my opponents first argument and explain why it's invalid.

1. Yes democrats give money to poor people so they can afford children. But it's not because they're against abortions. No. the true reason that democrats give all of this "free" money away to poor people is to keep them dependent on the government. You see, these policies that you're referring to essentially do the following. "here, if you make the poor decision to have a child you can't afford to support, we will give you free money. Now, you are dependent on this free money in order to support yourself and your family thus you will vote for us in every election from now until the end of your life because without us, you're screwed. please continue to make bad decisions so we don't take your money away." You see, the failed policies of the welfare state have kept the poor in the position they're in by incentivising bad decisions. Thus keeping the poor poor and keeping the ballot boxes stuffed with votes for the democratic party. We Republicans want to break the grip that the Democrats have on the poor by freeing them to make better life choices and climb the income ladder by ending their dependence on government funds. this has nothing to do with abortion. this also ties in to my opponents next statement about how Republicans use democrat standpoints to win votes.

My opponent did not address any of the points I made in my previous argument therefore I have nothing left to address.
frankfurter50

Pro

sorry for that sketchy ending on my last argument-you know, all the "http 500" stuff.

perhaps the most obvious flaw to republicans is that they don't want the government to control stuff. you know what that's called?
ANARCHY!!!
he's been asking me to provide sources all this debate, so here's the google definition of anarchy.

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Sounds pretty much like the whole "kill the government" thing.

it's also hypocritical, because since republicans are a dominant force in politics, they must therefore be involved with the government. politicians are government, man. democrats accept that and know it. Saying that republicans aren't part of the government is like saying that donald trump isn't the spawn of satan. both are untrue.

You'll note that old password usually goes with over two thousand words on his arguments, just to impress voters, but in that last argument, he only went with about 500 by my estimate, so he's obviously just adding a bunch of filler to impress you guys.

Vote for me, but I know you won't, because you're mostly republicans.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 11 months ago
frankfurter50
yeah, you're right. i do. but i can't because most voters are republicans.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 11 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
Come on frankfurter. accept the challenge. you know you want another chance to beat me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.