Instigator / Pro
14
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1265

Democratic Party vs Republican Party

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1486
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description

Intro

I would like to thank YitzGoldberg for agreeing to debate this topic with me. This debate is about which party's ideology and policies best match that of the Torah

Full Topic

The Democratic Party is closer to the Torah's ideal than the Republican Party

Structures

R1: Opening arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Defense
R4: Close

-->
@David

Ok lol. I was just confused by why "banned by request" was separate. Misread :P

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

Oh okay.

That crucial information isn't stated there for some reason.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

"By Virtuoso" simply means that I carried out the ban. If a ban says "By bsh1" it means that bsh1 carried out the ban.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Banned by virtuoso at the request of the user

-->
@David

But it does say that though
"YitzGoldberg - 9/3/19 by Virtuoso"

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log

-->
@bmdrocks21

Rofl

-->
@Ramshutu

The better the argument, the likely the vote, whether one is convinced or not. Sounds fair.

-->
@Alec

Says he got banned by Virtuoso's request

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log

-->
@bsh1

Why did Yitzgoldberg get blocked?

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

The rules clearly spell out that you are ineligible to vote, as you have neither completed 2 debates, nor have 100 forum posts.

The rules also clearly state exactly what a valid vote must include; and I have highlighted the key reasons why your vote falls short. Any vote by any user that is ineligible to vote will be removed, and any vote on a moderated debate that is not sufficiently justified in similar ways would be removed too.

These rules are in place to explicitly prevent voters from placing votes for one side or another simply because they found one side more convincing than the other. They are a check list of requirements to assist voters in a way that focuses on who’s arguments were better, rather than which arguments you agree with - as well as providing a way of moderating those same votes against a measurable standard.

This is not an issue of bias - But simply enforcing the clearly outlined voting rules.

-->
@Ramshutu

It appears there is a liberal bias here, for sure.

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

Yet, Con called Virt a non-progressive, which is equally as bad.
As Socrates said, once one resorts to name-calling (which is childish), they lose all credibility and are not worthy of their arguments. It follows that they automatically lost their argument and their debate suffers because they could not bring further enhancement to the discussion in question. Personally, I think there should be rules to flag ad hominems.
Their grammar was fine.

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

The reason:
I would also like to thank the debtors for organizing the wonderful debate. Now for my vote and my decision. Thank you for your feedback.
This is my first time voting on a discussion platform. Please allow me to use Pinkfreud08's format. Sorry, Pinkfreud08.
Argument:
Pro quoted his sources and I appreciate it but, I enjoyed Con's discussion more. I am of course Republican. So I will try to avoid any creeping bias. But overall, I thought Con made the more persuasive arguments. They were logical and thoughtful (although both seemed professional and deserve this talent). For this reason, the point goes to Con.
Source:
Con's source was so scarce that we will admit that Pro provided the better-sourced arguments. Pro has a reliable source record and I think it has been presented here well. It goes without saying that Pro has presented more sources of information which adds to his credibility. That is not to say that Con lacked validity. This point defiantly goes to Pro.
Action:
Overall, I think this behavior was appropriate, save the name-callings which were a crime for both sides. Though both participants acted normally, as anyone would, I would like to see the name-calling decrease.
I feel that it is misleading for Pinkfreud08 to mention only Con's misconduct. Do not receive it personally, Pinkfreud08. But obviously, Pro has called Conn a racist.
“Now my adversary is showing his complete light cont against the African American community. This is often a false statistic and, as the Southern Poverty Law Center explains, white supremacy Is my favorite "

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jonathon.Horowitz// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources

>Reason for Decision: See above

Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

Also: the source and argument points are non specific and generic enough that they could apply to any individual debate.

The argument point does not survey or weight any of the arguments, and the source point also does not explain the specific impact one source on each side had on the sides debate.
*******************************************************************

-->
@YitzGoldberg

Yitz, before you leave, i cant speak for others, but i didnt call you a troll or any attack. I just wanted to point out that you assume some things about the other side that are not true. That is not an attack on you or any of your beliefs.

Discussion is well worth it, its difficult to change anothers opinion, but you can tweek it alittle. If you wanted to prove me wrong on this, you dont need a 30k manifesto. None of my posts are that long. Just cite prominent liberals saying all conservatives are nazis or acknowledge that we dont all know everything 100%.

You and me just started talking. Dont leave now. Isnt it my side thats supposed to be shutting down conversation?

-->
@Nemiroff

See below.

I am concerned with the facts. And I don't care to keep up this rambling on political policies. I've got better things to do then join in on this site and deal with real trolls and beating those into submission that I'm right or he's right and who cares. I no longer feel the merit in debate, it doesn't change a soul, nor does it the reader. And I'm tired of people calling me a troll when I put my life and soul into this damn debate. Why in hell would a troll write up 30,000 words per round? Why would he bother his time coming up with arguments? You guys make no sense, but whatever, this was a mistake. It's distracting and self-egotism and a big waste of MY time. You guys have fun debating if G-d exists, or if Socialism is the right path. That's your life, and yes, it's meaningless if you choose it to be... because no one, except your mommy, will ever care to read what you write, and in the end, they'll call you a troll anyway. To hell with it. I've got tons of things I could be working on, I don't need this site or you people dictating my thoughts, and then ranting on that I'm just this horrible person who doesn't care about gays, blacks, and the poor.

It's all untrue, it's all trolling. I'm closing my account. Take care and have fun sodding your life away in this useless site.

-->
@YitzGoldberg

And you completely ignored my point that nobody on the left is saying the ridiculous statement that every right winger is a nazi. Its made up. And anyone pushing that is fake news propaganda. Are you therefore conceding this fact?

-->
@YitzGoldberg

I did not!

I accused right wing *sites* and *alt* conservatives of doing 1 (fearmongering) thing. Not *everything* wrong with america. That is quite the extreme interptetations there.

-->
@Nemiroff

You accuse the Right of everything wrong with America.

-->
@YitzGoldberg

I think its best to do this one at a time, starting from the top.

"Jews grow up in America thinking that everyone must be liberal, and if you're conservative, you're a Nazi."

The only place i see this connection is on right wing sites. This is fiction. The only people saying that are the alt conservatives who spread it. This is fearmongering, and part of what makes the right wing scary. This is not their only example of fear mongering.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Many of your reasons against Democrats are terrifying... if they weren't fiction or supported by distortions."

I'd be glad to know what they are and how so.

-->
@David
@YitzGoldberg

I believe the disconnect between the 2 of views is one judges it in grounds of moral decency, while the other judges it on grounds of deeds and mitzvahs.

Every western religion, including judaism, has many modesty and sexuality laws. These are the laws promoted by the republican party and why yitz believes republicans are closer. However such laws are religious laws with reasoning like "god wouldnt like that". They should not be passed outside of a theocracy. Which thank god this nation is not.

However, judaism is also big on deeds and mitzvahs that have secular, human, reasonings behind them. They are also inline with judaism, passable in a modern secular society, and are promoted by the democratic party.

@yitz. You utilize alot of fallacies. For example your claim that homosexuality will lead to beastiality is a classic example of a slippery slope, and also an all or nothing fallscies. There is a clear distinction. Grown adults are capable of giving consent, while animals, children, and corpses are not. If 2 consenting adults want to do something in private, what is the crime? If the crime is only against god, then you are trying to create a theocracy. Jesus said being gay is bad. He didnt say associating with gays is bad. Its their choice. If the other party cant give consent, then we have a crime.

Many of your reasons against Democrats are terrifying... if they werent fiction or supported by distortions.

-->
@Barney

If you thought my comments, arguments, and sources were either a) racist, or b) insulting or trolling, then you either misrepresented what I wrote, or didn’t read it at all.

-->
@David
@YitzGoldberg

---RFD (1 of 3)---

Interpreting the resolution:
Dem. or Rep. better match Tor.

Gist:
Con intentionally or not used Argumentum ad tl;dr. Followed by what I hope was pure trolling, rather than trying to prove the republican party more closely adheres to religious values. At a certain point I could not continue to read the hate speech; but it seemed going forward from there con continued to drop everything to make attacks against various groups of people he dislikes, rather than ever try to meet his BoP of showing the republican party related to the Torah (if the democrats do not, or if people deserve bad things in life, does not actually say anything about the republican party as the resolution requires).

1. Health Care
“…we are commanded to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and to guard our health and our brother’s blood” this is further supported with “A scholar is forbidden to live in any town that does not have these ten things: a court, a charity fund, a synagogue, a bathhouse, a latrine, a doctor, a bloodletter, a scribe, a kosher butcher and a teacher of children.” A good opening, followed by some hard facts about insulin prices and attempts to strip away health care access.
Con eventually responds, drops that less people are insured thanks to Trump (who I would have argued isn’t to blame, but con’s got the right to argue how he wishes), he then argues against science because of a profound distrust for math “45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic.” … continued into attacks against people he dislikes and talk of the Torah commanding greed… I’m just giving this to pro as con is at best just trolling.

---RFD (2 of 3)---

2. Minimum Wage
Pro offers various bible and Torah lines, but in gist: “Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage fulfills the Torah’s obligation to care for our employees and improve their dignity via work. Democrats are fulfilling this obligation while Republicans are opposing this.”
And the start to con’s reply: “My only comment is that if you're dumb enough to still be on minimum wage by 36, in which case, you've disregarded other opportunities such as college or trade school, then you're IQ must be at room temperature and you deserve whatever hell comes your way because you've failed as a human being…”

3. Immigration

4. Democracy

5. Bandwagon fallacy
“One in six Jews are Republican. … But these are just a few examples of how Republican beliefs align with Torah.” This was the limited on topic highlight of con’s R1, the rest was a fine example of Argumentum ad tl;dr.

6. Ad Hominem
“I couldn't help but look at the profile of my opponent's page. To be short,…” I should never see this inside a debate, for a host of reasons… This primarily affects conduct, but it lowers the credibility of the person wasting my time (identifying when these happen would be fine, as I know what content will be there so can skim, at least if given a proper headline,).

---RFD (3 of 3)---

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points (at least the ones I went through before realizing what this debate was corrupted into). If redoing this, understand that I am not going to read the Torah (with the exception of any vital cited passages) to read a debate, so much is taking what the debaters say about it at face value (about like fiat assumptions).

Sources:
I never thought I would see the say, but I’m awarding sources for religious texts. This was a debate about religious teachings, so failing to connect back to them (or even the gist of them) is failing to even try for BoP. Pro provided a ton to prove his case (plus lots of quality ones which given that this debate was trolled, I am not going to bother getting into). His other sources had a high tendency to be ON TOPIC. In contrast, a Gallup poll proving (while elsewhere complaining on pro using statistics, which are science thus must be distrusted…) a fallacious band wagon appeal which does not prove anything about ideologies of the political parties (this was the closest thing I could find to an on topic argument from con in R1). This is not even getting into the issue of source spamming.

S&G:
Not deducting the point, but con seriously, don’t hide your points in walls of text. Also less question marks.

Conduct:
“Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer?” clearly designed to insult the intellect of the other debater, while ignoring the on topic arguments (a case could be made the Torah opposes abortion, and thus the democratic party falls short in this comparative metric, but such was not presented). And it continues. “I didn't expect a response at all. I thought he'd be too scared after I mentioned abortion.”

-->
@Snoopy

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I will do so soon.

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

I don't think he lives in the US. When you vote, people like to see how the debate impacted you and why you voted the way you did. If you don't provide an explanation, then the mods will probably remove your vote if it gets reported.

-->
@Ramshutu

If you want to avoid my vote, fine. We have a right to vote in this country but, you make it impossible to vote here. You should not have a bais and allow my vote, meanwhile, vote yourself for Pro. Not sure what you want or expect from me?

everyone's crying over one vote. LOL

wowee

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jonathon.Horowitz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments 2 points to con for sources

>Reason for Decision: I'm a republican and agree that the Torah focuses on republican values.

Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or sources as requires.

The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate

To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.

*******************************************************************

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

1st vote easy takedown.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Its my right to vote hehe.

-->
@Snoopy

It's alright then, maybe someday.

-->
@YitzGoldberg

The debate description specifically cited that the structure to be followed is that R4 is for closing and not for rebuttals which in turn is why I discarded it.

-->
@YitzGoldberg

What exactly do you want to debate? I'm not sure how we would go about otherwise, unless its just free style.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I respect your vote, but did you read my closing argument? I offered rebuttals to all his claims, but in the end of the day, it's your decision, and I respect that.

-->
@YitzGoldberg

"The Black IQ hasn't been rising in the last century. It's been pretty much stagnate, and that's why, at least for now, I do not support things like affirmative action, because it teaches people that they can have colonies of kids, they'll just get government support."

I don't know what to say to that last one. "Affirmative action" is a vague term, and I think its safe to say that traditional black Americana is being displaced in the real world, even if the institutional clout is as great as ever for the time being. Institutional racism in the 21st century is obsolete, and on its last legs anyway.

-->
@Jonathan-Horowitz

That is not how you vote.

Where are thine guardsmen of the lord?

-->
@YitzGoldberg

Your story is purely anecdotal and is not well represented by statistical data at all.

Here is statistical data done on the matter by reputable sources that finds how socio economic conditions affect people in terms of crime rates.

https://scienceleadership.org/blog/how_the_environment_effects_criminal_activity

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167329

https://www.correctionsone.com/probation-and-parole/articles/nature-vs-nurture-which-causes-crime-u7qC7V8v1F69l0Y7/

Don't get me wrong things such as mental illness and genes does play a factor in how individuals end up, however you're quite simply committing a complex cause fallacy by acting as if individuals are decided entirely on genes and that the environment doesn't shape them whatsoever.

-->
@Barney
@Ramshutu
@TheRedeemer

Debate over. Please vote

-->
@Snoopy

I'd be happy to have a real, intellectual debate on intelligence, rather than some short quips in the comments section. Please let me know if this is an option for you.

-->
@Snoopy

The Black IQ hasn't been rising in the last century. It's been pretty much stagnate, and that's why, at least for now, I do not support things like affirmative action, because it teaches people that they can have colonies of kids, they'll just get government support.

I, out of all people, have first-hand experience of the environment doing crap for IQ. My cousin's mother adopted over 10 kids. One of them was really rotten, his father was in jail, and the day before his departure, he killed a guy and got something like 5 more. This kid grew up to be just like him, he'd threat, beat, curse, etc., EVEN THOUGH HE WAS RAISED IN A PERFECT ENVIRONMENT. So, why didn't the environment help him? Because that theory's a bunch of hogwash, that's why. Bunch of liberal nuts trying their best to prove IQ has nothing to do with it when it's got EVERYTHING to do with it. That includes academic success, social-economic success, etc. You want to know why Blacks make up 1 in 3 in special education? That's why. You want to know why only 20% of work in engineering jobs, that's why.

No, Blacks are better athletes because THEY ARE BLACK. It's in the genes. My cousin was in the Marine corps, he said that Blacks would always outrun them (he was White), but when it came time to swim, Blacks were sinking ducks made of iron. They just couldn't swim. Now, I ask you, is the marine corps racist?

I understand these are all anecdotal, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. In any case, here are some links which explain it further.

1. https://newrepublic.com/article/120887/race-genes-and-iq-new-republics-bell-curve-excerpt
2. https://www.si.com/vault/1997/12/08/8093395/is-it-in-the-genes-studies-have-found-physical-differences-that-might-help-explain-why-blacks-outperform-whites-in-certain-sportsbut-scientists-are-wary-of-jumping-to-conclusions
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc&t=4597s

-->
@YitzGoldberg

Is 40% still a glaring percentage that skews average away from the median and mode?
The US has a few pockets of really bad crime, but is overall quite safe. The thrust of that suggests that it would make sense to compare immigrants and their successive generations to the norms, as the majority of Americans do not live in prison, or the racialized ghetto associated with the prison population.

On the random IQ thing, assimilation is an issue
As a population assimilates, the average IQ will rise across decades, and going from 85 to 100 as families gain a foothold and give their children benefits they did not have is not out of the norm. Given there is a significant environmental component to how people approach a problem, in this context I tend towards viewing extreme IQ disparity symptomatically since a significant amount of people comprising a disparate population presumably have intellectual potential should they apply themselves, but are clearly less accustomed to the sorts of problems associated with academic success.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/

Is it racist to suggest that Blacks are better athletes?
Well, if it's because they are "black", then that would obviously be racist. Analogously to the subject of immigrants, a roughly proportionate amount of African Americans are immigrants when compared with the American populous in general. US crime statistics are still racially biased, so you ended up lumping old American families in with new American families. The commentary wasn't particularly useful in giving the reader an inciteful reflection of reality. Whatever nuance you expect of the reader isn't really common knowledge, and it would have been helpful if you took ten minutes to write something out that makes sense.

-->
@Wylted

Exactly. You can't be generous with other peoples' money!

-->
@David

Saying Republicans are responsible for wasteful spending is really calling the kettle black lol

What does the Torah commanding you take care of the needy have to do with supporting policies that force others to do so. Show me where the Torah says to force your neighbor to give to the needy.

-->
@Snoopy

40% is still a glaring percentage when you consider that they only make up 14% of the population/

Look here, if you think that's somehow racist, it's not. Blacks just happen to have the lowest IQ in America, topping off, I believe, at 85. With that said, 20% of Blacks in America are more intelligent than your average White, and that's great news, believe me!

But the whole "mass incarceration" via the prison industrial complex just doesn't exist because everyone is entitled to a trial and plea. And to be frank about it, police aren't going into Black communities with lasoes over their heads to round them up. It's just not true!

Again, am I racist for bringing in the fact? Is Google racist for only having hired 2% of Blacks? Is it racist to suggest that Blacks are better athletes? So is the NFL racist against Whites? Of course not.

Don't mix empirical data with racism.