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


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: 2/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 99910
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The definition that is to be used is the one on wikipedia in the first 3 paragraphs of the page:
I would type it up here, but that would take up too much of my debate space.

1) no ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults
2) My opponent should either just rebut my arguments or offer arguments of their own for their ideology. Don't do both, as this puts me at a disadvantage since I would be unable to do both. However, if I pose a question to my opponent, they may answer the question as well as offer their own arguments(if they chose to offer their arguments)

Note: I'm not arguing for right-wing or left-wing libertarianism, just libertarianism in general, so it could include either one. For the record, I am in favor of a left-wing libertarianism though.

Main Argument:
Libertarianism is about liberty, so I have to ask my opponent: why is liberty a bad thing? Again, if they choose to offer just main arguments, they may do that plus answer this question. Just don't rebut the rest of my arguments.

Now, I would argue that libertarianism is a better ideology because it doesn't force things on other people. The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism. Under authoritarianism, you have a government that forces ideas on other people. What if you, as an authoritarian rightist, lived in an authoritarian left-wing regime? You would not be happy. I contend that it is inconsistent to want to force your opinion on others, but be opposed to it when others do it to you.

Libertarianism doesn't force opinions on other people, and it's generally a belief in society to believe in the golden rule. Authoritarianism goes against the golden rule, because you're doing something to other people that you would not be happy about if they did it to you.

While I am leaving this short, I believe the few arguments I did bring up are compelling. I turn this over to my opponent, whoever he or she may be.


Well since we are talking about Libertarianism in general the definition provided by Webster is " a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government" no when we look at this the party that you are representing are asking for complete freedom to say or do anything with so much as a smack on the wrist from the government Correct? Now how does the ideology of Libertarianism fit in the political setting ? it doesn't, that's the issue why it will never be adopted by the United States as a party you would see in Congress. I will elaborate because any functioning country needs oversight from some sort of government. To take some words from the writings of Friedrich Hayek "Leave people alone, and a coherent civil order will spontaneously emerge and perpetuate itself" now this sentence has been in my opinion one of the bases for Libertarianism . Now this is a misconception because the word is not perfect our world is too complex to be left in a state of freedom from rule this would cause chaos itself. My final point would be the point of a president that is of the Libertarianism party isn't that a bit ironic ? a leader that represents people that "should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government" who can he lead ? because that is what this country needs is leadership.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Amarandum 2 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: twitchh misunderstood libertarianism. It's not the idea that only Libertarian Party voters deserve the freedom to do and say what they please, rather it's the idea that all of society deserves these things. Do Republicans think only their party members should practice conservatism, or do they think it's the best way for everyone? Do socialists think only their voters deserve free benefits, or do they think it's a human right? Does the Green Party believe only their constituents should protect the earth, or do they believe it's the responsibility of all people. Con's argument was weak to say the least. Hopefully he was debating as a devil's advocate.