Instigator / Pro
Points: 14

Democratic Party vs Republican Party

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Virtuoso
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
Points: 2
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
Round 1
Published:
I would like to begin by thanking YitzGoldberg for accepting this debate.
 
I. What this debate is about
 
Just so the voters are clear, this debate is about which party’s policies and ideologies come closest to matching that of the Torah. The Torah should be defined as the entire body of Jewish literature. In my opening arguments, I will be focusing on the main four issues: 1) Health care, 2) Minimum Wage; 3) Immigration; and 4) Democracy
 
II. Health Care
 
Throughout the Torah, we are commanded to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and to guard our health and our brother’s blood. Let’s first explore some texts and then get into the policy nitty-gritty.
 
Rambam Mishneh Torah
It is a positive Torah command to remove any stumbling block that poses a danger to life, to be watchful of it and be extremely careful of it, as it is said: “Be very careful and guard your life.
 
Since maintaining a healthy and sound body is among the ways of G‑d—for one cannot understand or have any knowledge of the Creator, if he is ill—therefore, he must avoid that which harms the body and accustom himself to that which is healthful and helps the body become stronger
 
Talmud Sanhedrin 17b
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.
 
It is clear that the Torah places an obligation for the sick to seek healthcare and for the physicians to provide healthcare. Thus we can conclude that the government has a moral obligation to seek to it that everyone has access to affordable care. The Medicare for All bill supported by Sanders, Warren, et. al. will do just that. Here are some statistics that should alarm all of us:
 
Fact 1: More people are uninsured than when Trump took office [1]
Fact 2: A 2009 study showed that 45,000 Americans die due to the lack of health coverage [2]
Fact 3: The New England Journal of Medicine found that states that expanded Medicaid significantly reduced mortality rate and improved access to care [3]
Fact 4: The cost of lifesaving medicine such as insulin and EpiPen’s have significantly increased over the past few years. Indeed, one family saw their EpiPen cost rise 400% [4] and several people died due to rationing insulin [5]
Fact 5: Medicare for all will significantly reduce deaths, significantly reduce cost, and provide access to care for everyone who needs it [6] [7].
 
What have Republicans proposed? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they tried to repeal Obamacare 70 times without even proposing a better plan [8].
Medicare for all fulfills the Torah obligation to guard our health and the health of our citizens. Democrats have fought for minimum wage increases while Republicans have consistently opposed it.
 
III. Minimum Wage
 
Deuteronomy 24:14-15
You shall not withhold the wages of a poor or destitute hired worker, of your brothers or of your strangers who are in your land within your cities. You shall give him his wage on his day and not let the sun set over it, for he is poor, and his life depends on them, so that he should not cry out to the Lord against you, so that there should be sin upon you.
 
Leviticus 19:13
You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning.
 
Psalm 128
When you eat from the work of your hands, you will be happy, and it will be well with you
 
Talmud Nedarim 49b
Rabbi Yehuda used to go into the Beit Midrash carrying a pitcher on his shoulders. He would say, 'Great is work, as it gives honor to the one who does it.' Rabbi Shimon would carry a basket on his shoulders and would say, 'Great is work, as it gives honor to the one who does it. '" (b. Nedarim 49b)
 
RAMBAM Laws of Charity
The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support a fellow Jew by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand so that he will not need to be dependent upon others . . .
 
From these texts we can conclude the following:
 
1.     Work is dignifying
2.     Work is the greatest form of charity
3.     It is a positive commandment to work
4.     The employer has a positive commandment to give his worker’s wages on time.
5.     Wages should be enough to be a “living wage,” i.e. enough to live off of without depending on others
 
Now let’s bring in some facts about the minimum wage.
 
Fact 1: The minimum wage is $7.25 and has been that way since 2009.
Fact 2: Nowhere in America can you afford a modest 2-bedroom on minimum wage [9]
Fact 3: Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is worth significantly less than it has been in the past. Indeed, the highest the minimum wage has been (in 2016 dollars) was 8.68 in 1968 [10].
Fact 4: Had minimum wage kept up with productivity rates, the minimum wage would be $18.42 [11]
Fact 5: The average age of the minimum wage worker is 36 years old. [Ibid]
Fact 6: 28% of minimum wage workers have children [Ibid].
Fact 7: Minimum wage improves the economy and reduces worker’s needs to public assistance [12] [3]
 
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.
 
IV. Immigration
 
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
 
Exodus 22:20
You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt
 
Exodus 23:9
You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt
 
Leviticus 19:24
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt
 
I could cite dozens of other texts about immigration, but the Torah is unanimous that we must love the immigrant since we were strangers in the land of Egypt. We ought to love them as ourselves and not wrong them. Now let’s bring in some facts.
 
Fact 1: Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion in taxes per year [14]
Fact 2: Immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and that there is a negative correlation between levels of immigration and crime rates [15]
Fact 3: Immigrant owned businesses employ 8 million Americans and have a purchasing power of $ 1.1 trillion [16]
Fact 4: US law states that in order to seek refugee or asylum status, you have to be physically present in the United States regardless of your legal status or how you got here. [17]
Fact 5: Migrants are fleeing violence and seeking a better life. Because you have to be physically present in the United States, the “children in cages” are following the law. [18]
Fact 6: Trump and others have called immigrants an invasion and have constantly spoken dangerous lies about these migrants. As a result, the El Paso shooter systematically targeted Mexicans and blamed Trump for his actions [19].
 
The conclusion of these facts shows that we must love and care for the stranger. The United States has a moral obligation to welcome immigrants fleeing violence in their community, especially because the United States is responsible for the crisis and violence [20] [21].
 
Democrats are fulfilling the mitzvah to love and welcome the stranger while Republicans are violating that mitzvah.
 
V. Democracy
 
Berakhot 55
With regard to Bezalel’s appointment, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One may only appoint a leader over a community if he consults with the community and they agree to the appointment, as it is stated: “And Moses said unto the children of Israel: See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah” (Exodus 35:30). The Lord said to Moses: Moses, is Bezalel a suitable appointment in your eyes? Moses said to Him: Master of the universe, if he is a suitable appointment in Your eyes, then all the more so in my eyes. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Nevertheless, go and tell Israel and ask their opinion. Moses went and said to Israel: Is Bezalel suitable in your eyes? They said to him: If he is suitable in the eyes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and in your eyes, all the more so he is suitable in our eyes.
 
Democracy is the heart of our country. As such, we ought to increase that democracy and ensure that every American can have equal say in our government. Democrats have made numerous proposals to increase democracy. Democrats have made a modest proposal to make election day a national holiday. Mitch McConnell called this a “Democratic power grab.” [22] Democrats have also made modest proposals like same-day voter registration, automatic voter registration, voting by mail, and many others. Each of them was opposed by Republicans. Republicans have made it harder to vote by passing voter ID that makes it harder for minorities and seniors to vote [23]
 
VI. Conclusion
 
I examined 4 major issues that we are facing today and compared them to the Torah. Democratic policy wins on each of these major issues.
 
Please vote pro.  
 
Sources
1. https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2019/aug/13/tammy-baldwin/us-sen-baldwin-right-more-americans-are-without-he/
2. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa1202099
4. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/insulin-new-epipen-families-facing-sticker-shock-over-400-percent-n667536
5. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/21-year-old-died-after-rationing-insulin-family-says.html
6. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders
7. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/04/medicare-for-all-health-care-churn
8. https://www.newsweek.com/gop-health-care-bill-repeal-and-replace-70-failed-attempts-643832
9. https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jul/30/bobby-scott/scotts-right-modest-two-bedroom-apartments-not-aff/
10. https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jul/30/bobby-scott/scotts-right-modest-two-bedroom-apartments-not-aff/
11. https://aflcio.org/2016/5/25/10-facts-minimum-wage
12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/08/its-not-just-paychecks-surprising-society-wide-benefits-raising-minimum-wage/
13. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/minimum-wage-by-state-jobs-data-employment-economic-research/587992/
14. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/
15. https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/myths-and-facts-about-immigrants-and-immigration-en-espanol
16. https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/press-release/new-data-shows-immigrant-owned-businesses-employed-8-million-americans-immigrants-wield-1-1-trillion-in-spending-power/
17. https://it.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/rome/sections-offices/dhs/uscis/refugeesasylum/
18. https://www.amnestyusa.org/fleeing-for-our-lives-central-american-migrant-crisis/
19. https://theintercept.com/2019/08/05/el-paso-gunmans-fear-migrant-invasion-echoed-donald-trump-fox-news/
20. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/29/american-policy-is-responsible-migrant-caravan/
21. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/19/central-america-migrants-us-foreign-policy
22. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/30/18203936/mitch-mcconnell-election-day-federal-holiday
23. https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Published:

Resolve: Judaism ≠ the Democratic Party and Here's Why...

I want to first thank my opponent, Virtuoso, for agreeing to debate with me on such an important issue. Jews grow up in America thinking that everyone must be liberal, and if you're conservative, you're a Nazi. Somehow, these two things correlate together as if by Divine decree. Well, I'm here to tell you that that's false. And by false, I mean a-hundred-percent false. "But that's not Jewish!" I hear that from so many people all the time, and I ask them, "so I'm no longer Jewish if I'm conservative? Tell that to 64% of Israeli Jews" [1]. Now, I get it, there are more liberal Jews here in America, but by and large, generation Z is the most conservative generation ever in the history of the United States [2]. So what does that tell us? What does conservatism have to offer which liberalism lacks, and why are so many turning to it? Well, for one, 78% of conservatives in this country are people of faith [3]. One in six Jews are Republican [4]. Obviously, they're from the Haredi world. We all know who these people are, they're the most authentic Torah Jews in the world. These people give the most tzedakah, they even dress modestly! So maybe we should listen to them? Maybe we should hear them out once in a while? Most all Jews who join the Democratic party have assimilated in some way and hold fast to secular values, so how can they be keeping Torah? [5] Liberals mistrust authority, well, G-d IS authority. An observant Jew is to give up everything for G-d. He is first and foremost a Jew, then he's a doctor, or a journalist, whatever he does for a living because being Jewish is a full-time occupation.
But of course liberals have their shining moments. Of course Karl Marx meant well. The problem is, we're talking about reality here, not a utopia. The Left has goon too radical. Everyone suddenly needs rights. Already, there are heads voicing rights for pedophiles [6], claiming it to merely be another form of sexual orientation. I ask you, did the Torah command such? Do you want your kids growing up in such a world where they can be assaulted? What about incest and beastialty? Where do we draw the line, Virtuoso? Is there a line to draw at all?

If the Democratic party is so Torah-driven, why do they criticize abortion? Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer? Not long ago, a bill was opposed just by one vote! That bill was going to give mothers the right, in the state of Virginia, to abort newborn babies. Do you expect me to somehow believe this is sanctioned by Torah? How have we, as a collective melting-pot, gone so low? Perhaps it's overpopulation? Have you heard of the Rat Paradise experiment? It took place in the 60s, and it's what we're going to face soon [8]. A grim reality. So perhaps that's why mothers will put their children to death without remorse? Now, I'm aware that Judaism allows abortion under extreme circumstances, but one thing is sure, you sure can't have one if you were merely irresponsible.

But these are just a few examples of how Republican beliefs align with Torah. Wait, I've got one last thing to say before I give the baton back to my opponent....

Earlier, I made mention of liberal Jews holding to the mistaken assumption that conservatism equates to Nazism. I'm aware that to some, it may not be apparent why. Jews who grew up after the Holocaust witnessed extreme forms of anti-Semitism. They equated Hitler with capitalism and Republican values, somehow forgetting that Hitler's party was called National Socialism. To a point, this was acceptable, but now the Left has grown far more dangerous than the anti-Semites of the Right and that's because they've managed to hide all their blatant hatred against Israel (= Jews) under some clever umbrella terms. Terms such as anti-colonialism, White privilege, and the rhetoric of human rights.

Keep in mind, dear readers, that the Right isn't drawing closer to Fascism, it's liberals. How can I make such an astounding claim? Well, just ask yourself, which side is suppressing information? Which side demands that you follow its dogmatic currency as if it were some kind of faith? Which side has criticized the freedom of speech, to fact-check, and see opposing views? Liberals! Guess what, Hitler suppressed information and the right to fact-check. Hitler criticized his opponents and made sure the masses didn't look the other way. That's the irony of it all, and I didn't even have to quote the Torah once because that's not necessary, we know the basics, we know what it says and its merely reinterpretation when one attempts to align Torah with Socialist values, values which aren't there in the book given to us at Sinai.

Well, thank you so much for putting up with me, I now pass the baton....

Sources:



Round 2
Published:
Thank you for your response and I hope you had a great Shabbos. 

I. Tips to Con

Your arguments were rather difficult to follow given the format that you presented your arguments in. I strongly recommend that you read Ragnar's DAART style guide found here: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt.

II. Word Salads

There are several sentences that Con writes that are complete word salads or fragments: 

  • I want to first thank my opponent, Virtuoso, for agreeing to debate with me on such an important issue. Jews grow up in America thinking that everyone must be liberal, and if you're conservative, you're a Nazi. Somehow, these two things correlate together as if by Divine decree. Well, I'm here to tell you that that's false. 
  • But of course liberals have their shining moments. (This is a sentence fragment) 
  • If the Democratic party is so Torah-driven, why do they criticize abortion? Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer?
  • Do you expect me to somehow believe this is sanctioned by Torah? How have we, as a collective melting-pot, gone so low? Perhaps it's overpopulation? Have you heard of the Rat Paradise experiment? It took place in the 60s, and it's what we're going to face soon
  • Keep in mind, dear readers, that the Right isn't drawing closer to Fascism, it's liberals. How can I make such an astounding claim? Well, just ask yourself, which side is suppressing information? Which side demands that you follow its dogmatic currency as if it were some kind of faith? Which side has criticized the freedom of speech, to fact-check, and see opposing views? Liberals
  • To a point, this was acceptable, but now the Left has grown far more dangerous than the anti-Semites of the Right and that's because they've managed to hide all their blatant hatred against Israel (= Jews) under some clever umbrella terms. Terms such as anti-colonialism, White privilege, and the rhetoric of human rights.
These sentences are really hard to understand and follow. I literally have absolutely no idea what you are saying or how you are connecting this to the Torah. Since this debate is primarily Torah focused, it is imperative that you present Torah sources to support your claims as I did in R1. Nonetheless, I will try to do the best I can to respond to your arguments. 

Respectfully, I don't know where to begin. I strongly recommend reformatting your arguments. 
Published:
INTRODUCTION

I want to first thank my friend, Virtuosu, for coming through with his response. To be honest, I didn't expect a response at all. I thought he'd be too scared after I mentioned abortion. In any case, he didn't seem to want to argue against it, which is a little absurd, but also authentic. Authentic because, let's be fair, I did rush it. I wrote up my argument too quick, and this contributed to its confusion.

Therefore, I'll make it easier this time. First, I'll reorganize my previous argument, then counter my opponent's. Are you ready?

PROBLEMS WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Let's do a quick run-down for why I believe we should reconsider the resolve that Torah follows a Democratic world-view (the links to the sources are above unless otherwise noted).

I. Generation Z is the most Republican generation since the end of WWII.

II. 78% of Conservatives are people of faith. In Israel, it's 64%. Most Conservative Jews are from the Haredi world, and for good reason, as they look to Torah as their only authority. Democrats, on the other hand, disregard authority (a secular value). This has led to the acception of homosexuality, and, if left unchecked, to things like pedophilia, incest, and beastialty.

III. I'm having difficulty in understanding how a "Democratic Socialist" could support abortion. According to the CDC, Americans have aborted 45,789,558 babies in 2015. [1] Someone please explain to me what happened to the rights of unborn children?

IV. I mentioned the Rat Paradise experiment in the 60s to showcase an argument which might explain why mothers supported a Virginian bill which failed to pass last January to put children to death in the fourth trimester. According to the experiment, scientists allowed rats to populate to a certain threshold. Once reached, rat society (to the extent that it exists), fell apart. I fear we've reached that threshold as a species. Now, obviously there's a silver lining here, because if an unborn child will in some way harm or kill the mother, then Jewish tradition says there's no choice... but if your abortion is the result of irresponsible sex, then you're playing with the fires of hell when you choose to kill that child who was made in the image of G-d.

V. Liberals get upset with such facts, so a mechanism of defense is to call us on the Right, "Nazis." That was my first point in the last post, and of course, such name-calling is childless because one could easily take the moment to glean over the definitions of a National Socialist and a Conservative.

VI. My line of reasoning for liberalism cultivating Fascist ideals more so than Conservatism follows thus: Hitler suppressed information, burnt books, etc. Go watch any liberal think-tank - what you'll find there is that it's like a religion, what they believe is dogma, and if you go against that dogma, you're excommunicated. This is the problem, because they, like Fascists, are withholding opinion, information, etc. This isn't hard to understand and it's beyond me why my opponent couldn't grasp this concept.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

Health Care

1) My opponent says that more people are uninsured since Trump took office. Well, let’s examine that for a second: why are they uninsured? Perhaps it has something to do with Obamacare no longer being mandatory?

2) Supposedly, a 2009 study showed that 45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic. What was their sample size? What was their average? They likely conflated the numbers, and this is why I don't take such studies seriously because the context in which the study was done, is always different than the one in which we're reviewing it. Aside from the inherent issue of studies, let's imagine a simple scenario and you tell me if health coverage has anything to do with it: say Joe took part in this study back in '93. Years later, he dies of a sudden heart attack.

Do you see the issue here? Now, can I purpose a better plan? If you want perfect, free health care, try exercising and eating right.

3) He says that states which expanded their Medicare program cut their mortality rates in half. He's suggesting that if we expanded it further, we'd cut all deaths in half. The problem is, how can we afford it? We already have a huge deficit as it is, plus, people are living too long these days, and that means there's going to be some form of major surgery for every one passed aged 81. The issue is that liberals expect big government (or big corporation, whomever you trust) to baby-sit them and solve everything for them.

But the main issue here is that he's mistaken as to the role of Medicare. The whole purpose of Medicare is to teach you responsibility, not hand you free care. It works the same with auto insurance.

4) Regarding EpiPen, Heather Bresch is the founder of a multi-billion dollar company, and if she's greedy enough to make an extra buck, what can I say? It's her business, but that doesn't make it right on a moral level. As far as insulin prices are concerned, keep it up. These people have to learn that what they're doing to themselves is self-inflicted, and if they're going to ruin their bodies, they're going to pay for it, not us taxpayers.

5) Again, he keeps suggesting that we'll save costs and reduce spending if we expand Medicare - STOP, JUST STOP - you, the reader, think to yourself the following: how will we do that? Even if you cut military spending, the biggest expenditure in this country would still be entitlements. Let's look at Greece. They had all the entitlements you could ever dream of, and it lasted two years before it all imploded. People were kicked out of hospitals, university students had to open their wallets. If this happened in America, it would be economic disaster. And the sad truth is, there are people with real disabilities who work for peanuts doing jobs nobody will do, and I'm not talking about the bums on SSI.

6) Yes, you're right, Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare 70 times... and? I ask this because if you thought any party had your best interests in mind, you're wrong. Both are giant corporations, and both are at fault. Republicans for the above, Democrats for promising something they couldn't keep.

Minimum Wage

1) He says that the minimum wage has always been $7.25 since 2009. Well, he mustn't travel much, because perhaps it's that low in Nowhere, Missouri, but not in places like New York and Los Angeles.

Points 2, 5-6) He believes that no one on minimum wage can support a "modest two-room apartment," a family, etc. 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.

Points 3-4) I didn't understand this one, but he's saying that, if adjusted for inflation (and that's not a good thing by the way), the minimum wage should be around $18.42.

I'm not sure if he understands the implications of that. For one, what would happen to small businesses who couldn't afford to pay that, and what would happen to the jobs? Secondly, if you're going to demand a whopping $18 an hour, then be prepared to be replaced by a machine which will work for a quarter of that. These same liberals who complain about minimum wage will then be complaining about being out of a job! 

Just think of it, our rampant greed, such as the above, will destroy us. It destroyed the Romans, the Han, the Incas, the Greeks, and I promise you, it will be our undoing, not some external takeover.

7) Will minimum wage reduce the need for public assistance? Nope, people are just too conniving and rotten for that, they'll never give it up. To be blunt about it, laws were built for that reason, because people can't be trusted.

Illegal Immigration

1) I'm sorry, but the claim that "undocumented immigrants" pay $12 billion in taxes a year when they, being illegal, don't even have a social security number, is plain stupid. In fact, it's the opposite, as the Faux Family scam is costing us millions of dollars a year. Basically, it's when illegal migrates claim children they don't own, but who supposedly live with them to get benefits. Therefore, the myth of the hard-working, innocent illegal immigrant is nothing more than a joke, because if you're going to take advantage of the government, you must be a filthy, soulless bastard.

2) The real reason immigrants are "less likely to be incarcerated" is because Blacks make 13% of the population, and yet, over 40% of them are behind bars. [2] Liberals, however, can't handle the truth, they can't believe that the truth is really indifferent to their feelings, and so they invent the myth that police merely walk into Black neighborhoods with lassoes over their heads, as if the prison industrial complex exists, which, it doesn't.

3) Immigrants employ 8 million Americans, etc. No one's arguing with that, in fact, I don't even get why he's arguing it. In essence, we're all immigrants, unless you happen to be Native American.

Points 4-5) I don't get it, is he trying to tell me that he's against people seeking asylum to be physically present? I'll say this much, only a 15 year old would want this and not think about all the troubles it'd bring. Just imagine for a moment the following situation: scammers calling in and demanding payment and asylum status without being present in this country and the government not being able to track them.

6) I'm so confused by this point, my head is spinning. Supposedly, Trump was responsible for the El Paso shooting. What about the Dayton shooting, was he responsible for that, too? Of course not. One thing you have to understand is that crazy people who do crazy things will have crazy motives. Also, when you have waves of swarming migrants trying to make their way into this country (and we'd have to pay for all their entitlements if they got here), you can bet your life it's an invasion! How are we to even begin taking care of these people when we can't even get our homeless off the street?

My conclusion? I think liberals hate this country and the policies guiding it. The problem is, they seem to have no foresight, because if you, a liberal reader, believe this system is broken and flawed, how will it fare any better for the migrants? And if you're going to say it's our "moral obligation" to bring 'em all in, reconsider that because I think we have a "rationale obligation" to keep them out (see Numbers 15:39, Jeremiah 17:9).

Besides, Democrats don't really care for migrants, they just want their vote.

Democracy

1) When was the last time you read the Constitution because I can promise you, there isn't a word in there about democracy. If anything, the Founding Fathers hated it with a fiery passion. For example, John Adams thought democracy would lead men to substitute morality with wanton pleasure and cruelty. For this reason, there was never a democracy which didn't, in his words, "Commit suicide." [3]

His point? The common people are just as corrupt as the elite and one of the best ways to prove that comes every four years when the populace contradict themselves in believing in their politicians and then complaining about them later.

And if you think the Greeks did it better, Aristotle would disagree; he knew a mere simpleton couldn't know two stitches about government, but if you're still unconvinced, just ask your next-door neighbor if he knows the three branches of government, or perhaps who his representative in Congress is.

And that leads into why I support Voter ID. Just imagine what would happen without it? A bunch of people would vote fifty times. My opponent asks for everyone to vote, does that include tourists and criminals?

And regarding Republicans making it tougher on minorities to vote, just note that there's no evidence for this whatsoever.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS...

I couldn't help but look at the profile of my opponent's page. To be short, yes, there were no surprises. For one, he supports a 99% tax on the rich. Liberals hate the rich, even though they're the ones making them less poor each day. Moreover, just think of all the good the rich do for the economy: compare all the jobs the Walton family supplies to what your best friend does - it's not even a contest! Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Yes, perhaps they should pay a little more, but not 99%! You do that, and they'll all just pack their bags, and then what? Who's going to make the next billion-dollar company, your friend?

Another mistake on his part... the gun war. Yes, he wants a war on guns. Haven't we learn a thing or two from Prohibition? I guess not. In my view, more people should be armed. Imagine if more responsible citizens had firearms, imagine how much victims the Sandy Hook shooter would have gotten then? This is evident in the recent Poway Chabad shooting. One of the congregants was a veteran, he tackled the guy. If he had a pistol, it might have even been faster. Truth be told, there is a halachic basis for being armed in Shul [4] and on Shabbos [5]. An interesting fact which liberals conveniently forget is that handguns do most of the killing, not automatics, so ban them instead [6]. 

And now, for the frost on the cake: he supports the government taking away all weapons. Time then dictates that at some point, a government takeover may occur, and when that does, guess what, you've just handed them all your weapons, great job!

 Virt supports a 100% estate tax. Who in the world wants a 100% tax? Not me! The taxes I want is what we used to have in this country before the Spanish-American War, and that was a luxury-goods tax. That tax is fair because it was grounded on how much you spent. It took your greed to the bank. Another idea would be a taxation on imports, and it doesn't take much brains to figure out how that would help the economy. 

Lastly, Virt wants to replace Capitalism with... Socialism. Well, what kind of Socialism, because we already have a lot of it. What, Communism? How many more millions will it take to die before people like him realize it doesn't work? He sits here and rants on Capitalism, but it's the Capitalist system in this country which allows him to live in a house and yet, complain about it! These kinds of people take advantage of everything Capitalism has to offer them, they alone prove why democracy doesn't work.

Well, roger out.

Sources:


Round 3
Published:
Thank you, Yitz, for your speedy reply. 

I. What this Debate is About

The resolution of the debate is whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party come closer to supporting the ideals set forth in the Torah. Yitz has failed to produce any Torah verses to support his arguments. With that, let's rebut his arguments. 

II. Problems with the Democratic Party

1. Even if I concede the point about Generation Z, there is no impact on the resolution of this debate. Moreover, polls are rather mixed on Generation Z. According to Pew Research Center, Generation Z is as liberal or more liberal than the Millennials before them. For example, they find that the statement "Government should do more to solve problems" found that Generation Z agreed with this statement 70% while Millennials agreed 60% [1]. The Hill also found that Generation Z to be the most liberal generation. Since many Generation Z people are just entering adulthood, it is not quite clear how their political views will evolve. 

2. The argument that homosexuality will lead to pedophilia, incest, and Beastiality is absurd. This is an assertion that Con failed to support. Moreover, this was the same argument used in the past to support bans on interracial marriage [3]. Such arguments are absurd. To make matters worse, I believe that the Torah should be reinterpreted to support homosexuals. Let's consider the following passages:

Genesis 2:18: "Hashem/Elohim said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”" 
Berakhot 19b:9: "Come and hear: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah." 

In Jewish law, saving a life overrides almost any Torah prohibition. When we look at the statistics on the LGBTQ+ community, it is clear that a traditional interpretation of homosexuality is no longer attainable. LGBTQ+ young adults contemplate suicide almost 3 times the rate of their heterosexual counterparts [4] Moreover, attempts to "cure" them via conversion therapy do far more harm than good [5]. 

So when we take a look at the Torah as a whole, we ought to prefer a Torah interpretation that favors homosexuals and welcome them fully into the community. 

3. The debate on Judaism and abortion could be a separate debate in and of itself. Let's consider the following statements from the Torah:

Yevamot 69b: "until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being" 

Mishna Oholos 7:3, “If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and bring it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child].”

Mishneh Torah, Murder and the Preservation of Life: "This, indeed, is one of the negative mitzvot - not to take pity on the life of a rodef. On this basis, our Sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or with drugs. For the fetus is considered a rodef of its mother. If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another. Although the mother may die, this is the nature of the world." 

Exodus 21:22-23: "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.” 

We can conclude that the Torah does not view a fetus as a full person with full moral rights. But it gets worse. Study after study shows the harmful effects of criminalizing pregnancy and denying a woman the right to abortion. When Georgia passed its abortion law, women who miscarry could get 30 years!! in prison [6]. Certainly, this cannot be the Torah's idea. 

4. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Late-term abortion is extremely rare and is only done in extreme circumstances. In one case, a 10-year-old girl was raped and became pregnant. Because of the draconian abortion laws, their family had to drive to Kansas to get Dr. Tiller to abort the fetus [7]. Other cases when abortion is done later in the pregnancy is due to severe fetal abnormalities (i.e. stillbirth). Case in point: In Texas, a couple was forced to carry their stillborn fetus to term [8]. Certainly, my opponent must agree that forcing a woman to carry her stillborn fetus is cruel and dangerous. 

5. This is absurd and has no basis in reality. Citation is needed. 

6. Citation and evidence needed. 

III. Counterarguments 

A. Health Care

1. Had my opponent read my source, he would have known what is causing the increase in the uninsured. For example, my source states that Trump has made it harder to signup for healthcare, made enrollees pay more, let states alter Obamacare, and require Medicaid patients to work [9]. Furthermore, Vox reports that funding for Obamacare enrollments and outreach has been cut significantly [10]. 

2. Once again, had my opponent actually done some reading, he would have found some of the causes of the uninsured pre-Obamacare. Before Obamacare, health insurance companies could deny health coverage based on pre-existing conditions [11]. Many of these people who died without insurance had preexisting conditions. Eating right and exercising is important, but is no substitute to actual health coverage. 

3. I suppose we can afford universal healthcare the same way we can afford tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, corporate welfare, a bloated military budget, wasteful spending, and endless wars. It's funny how no one ever asks how we are going to pay for those! Moreover, I cited studies that show that Medicare for All would be cheaper than what we have now. This point is dropped. Please extend it across the board. This drop is significant as it completely undermines this argument!

My opponent's statement that Medicare is to teach you responsibility and not give you free healthcare is a statement that has no basis in fact. Once again, my opponent cited absolutely NO evidence to support this! 

4. My opponent has no problem with greedy insurance companies, thus my opponent has no problem with greedy pharmaceutical companies literally killing their patients because they cannot afford their medicine. How is THAT supported in the Torah! 

5. Once again, had my opponent READ my sources and did 5 minutes of research, he would have known why medicare for all is cheaper! Gerald Friedman notes that Medicare for all saves money for these reasons [12]:

To begin with, studies show that medical billing is more expensive in the U.S. than in many countries.

The U.S. health care system spends twice as much as Canada, for example, because more “payers” means more complexity. Savings from a simple Medicare expansion could reduce this waste by about $89 billion a year.

Another source of savings is on insurance administration. Private insurers spend more than 12 percent of total expenditures on overhead, compared with around 2 percent for Medicare. Savings from moving everyone to Medicare would approach around $75 billion because of economies of scale, lower managerial salaries and more meager marketing expense.

A third way a simple Medicare expansion would yield savings is by reducing the ability of hospital monopolies to overcharge private insurers. Medicare, in contrast, is able to pay 22 percent less for the same services because of its size. If all Americans used Medicare savings on hospital costs could exceed $53 billion.

6. The reason why it is problematic that Republicans voted 70 times to repeal Obamacare is, for one, the fact that they shown absolutely no interest in making a counterplan for Obamacare and was just showing their contempt for the person in the White House. Do you know what's more ironic? The cost of the 60+ votes to repeal Obamacare cost over $80 million!!! [13] 

B. Minimum Wage

1. I was talking about the FEDERAL minimum wage. Only 18 states have Minimum Wages higher than the federal minimum wage [14]. 

2, 5-6. This just shows my opponent's contempt for the poor! First, college is extremely expensive and not everyone can afford college. Second, very few minimum wage jobs actually give people the opportunity to improve. Third, the economy needs people to work these "minimum wage" jobs. Finally, those who work deserve a living wage regardless of what type of job you do. 

3-4. That's exactly the point. Minimum wage used to be worth more and had no impact on jobs. My opponent fails to cite evidence for the claim that higher minimum wages hurt small businesses. In fact, evidence shows the opposite to be the case! Indeed, over 60% of small businesses owners support an increase in the minimum wage and 85% of small business owners pay all of their employees more than the minimum wage. [15]  

The reason is pretty clear. Small businesses generally have higher prices than places like Walmart, but small businesses better help the local economy. A higher minimum wage makes it more affordable for people to shop at small businesses. Furthermore, higher wages result in lower turnover rates! [16] 

7. Once again my opponent shows his contempt for the poor! No support is given for his claim! It's a shame that my opponent has such contempt for the people the Torah repeatedly requires us to support and love! 

My opponent drops all of my Torah verses! Please extend these across the board! Since my opponent fails to challenge the fact that the Torah requires employers to pay a fair wage, this point is dropped. Thus the Torah clearly requires employers to pay a living wage! 

C. Illegal Immigration

1. Citation needed

2. Now my opponent is showing his utter contempt for the African American community. This is a frequently miscited statistic and a favorite of the white supremacist as the Southern Poverty Law Center explains [17]:

White supremacists frequently like to manipulate crime statistics in order to claim that nonwhite minorities, particularly African-Americans, are far more crime-prone and the source of most violent crime against whites. Indeed, it is a core belief that this is the case, and many white nationalist ideologues — including politician and pundit Patrick BuchananJared Taylor of American Renaissance, and the Council of Conservative Citizens — all have made considerable hay out of proffering “studies” laden with risibly bad statistics and other evidence to make their case.

The BJS study demonstrates plainly that this is simply not the case. Some 57 percent of crimes involving white victims were committed by white perpetrators, while only 15 percent were committed by blacks, and 11 percent by Hispanics. Black crime victims fell along similar racial lines, with 63 percent of the crimes committed by black perpetrators, while 11 percent were committed by whites, and 6.6 percent by Hispanics.
Overall, the BJS reported, “the percentage of intraracial [that is, same-race] victimization was higher than the percentage of interracial victimization for all types of violent crime except robbery.”

Moreover, it explained, “the rate of white-on-white violent crime (12.0 per 1,000) was about four times higher than black-on-white violent crime (3.1 per 1,000). The rate of black-on-black crime (16.5 per 1,000) was more than five times higher than white-on-black violent crime (2.8 per 1,000). The rate of Hispanic-on-Hispanic crime (8.3 per 1,000) was about double the rate of white-on-Hispanic (4.1 per 1,000) and black-on-Hispanic (4.2 per 1,000) violent crime.”

This is consistent with previously collected data, including a National Crime Victim Survey in 2000 that showed that 73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80 percent of black victims were targeted by blacks. This pattern is even clearer in the category of murder.

That hasn’t chastened the people promulgating the distorted statistics. Buchanan, citing Taylor’s fake statistics in 2007, wrote: “The real repository of racism in America — manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder — is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community.”

Nor have the smears faded at all: In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump retweeted a graphic that originated on a neo-Nazi website trotting out statistics mainly lifted from Taylor and the CofCC.

The false beliefs that arise from these smears have consequences, too: Dylann Roof, the domestic terrorist who killed nine members of a Charleston church’s black congregation in June 2015, shouted during the rampage at his victims his belief that they were “killing us.” In his manifesto, he specifically cited the CofCC’s website and Taylor’s smear pamphlet as the source of his information.

Alright, I am completely out of space. I'll finish my rebuttals in the next round! 


V. Sources
Published:
I. HELL YEAH THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

1. Look, it matters whether Generation Z is conservative or not because otherwise, what are we doing in this debate discussing it? This sort of argument, that it has no "impact on the resolution," comes from weak reasoning. Case in point, the Business Insider polled a lot of people, and they're not democrats. [1] The signal we should be getting is that the left is losing ground. Historically, the left has always captured the imagination of young minds, but now, those minds are drifting right. So this isn't a win-win situation for liberals, it's terrifyingly ugly. Look at the hippie generation, it happened the same way, now those people are voting conservative. [2] 

2. My point regarding pedophilia and incest as the "next norm" follows what's known as the "domino effect." Give up one right, and the rest are sure to follow. [3] Based on his critique, I can safely assume that Virt supports these things gaining influence in our society. Now, we can look back to the ancient Egyptians and the Greeks, who had all sorts of weird things, and see what kind of results they produced, morally, as well as economically. As it turns out, it was one of slavery, debauchery, and murder. The evidence of this has been well documented, [4] so I think it does matter, and if we're to be serious about it, there was a reason for Torah implementing such guidelines. The fact is, no matter how you interpret it, the Torah is clear that these things are violations to G-d, as well as to yourself. So we can't come at it with 21st-century glasses.

With that said, I'm not the one shouting for burnings. We should do our best to help these people, not demonize them. After all, this is a serious mental disorder, they used to call it dysphoria. To the academic world, it still is. [5] You can call me a fundamentalist nut, but let me remind you that there is no shortage of Orthodox intellectuals out there, including those who are doctors, lawyers, and mathematicians. How come they don't take issue with following the Torah's every command? How come they can still practice their secular livelihood, without sacrificing their deepest values? Perhaps, Virt, it's because you're afraid to be "different"? Well, if that's the case, then take down that mezuzah, stop practicing. There are plenty of Jews who've decided to restore their foreskins and give up their heritage. [6] 

Judaism, my friend, isn't an "either-or" game. You don't decide you're going to keep part of it while chucking out the rest. My advise? Be proud to be a Jew, you're blessed in that your mission in this world is to showcase living the Torah life. I think that's a fair trade-off to our Creator, don't you? And if you're going to follow through with it, then you've got to stop misquoting verses from the Talmud and Genesis, because we know how it ends, and certainly not with the creation of a male partner! In fact, I find it very disingenuous that you'd even have the nerve to decontextualize the text to the degree which you did because there's not one rabbinic scholar in the whole world of Jewish literature, past or present, who'd ever concur with that nonsense. You tried pulling that same rubbish with Berachot 19b. What it's talking about is Kevod HaBeriyot, which has nothing to do with secular dignity, and is merely concerned with d'rabbanan (granted, it discussed sanction to alter d'oraita, but that was ultimately rejected, and thus, it remained that only Nevi'im were permitted to annul it temporarily). 

Out of all people, you ought to have known that!

Okay, time to move on; you mentioned how conversion therapy fails. Granted, but so does sexual reassignment. [7]

3-4. You take it to extremes with the rape issue. I could too, in the case that a girl is forced to have an abortion against her own will by her legal guardians. In any case, I was never in defiance of the halachic view (which you seem to want to make me out to be). What is that view? That only when necessary, are abortions permitted. This fundamental fact, that you don't own your body, but is rather leased it, has been unchanged since the giving of the Torah. With that said, the Talmud is full of scientific errors, so we should be watchful when it says that life begins months after conception. Abortion, as a means to correct irresponsible sex, is clearly a violation of Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai and will never be abrogated under any circumstances.

5. You want an example of the left stamping the right as Nazis? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtI8RKe6HwE

6. Yet another fine illustration of the liberal media-controlling information, as the Nazis did: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/22/jordan-b-peterson-quora-answer-called-spam-removed/ 

Happy now?

II. REBUTTALS

A. Health Care

1. Virt must have some sort of love-affair with statistics because he never stops using them. Well, red flags anyone? Statistics, as we've already discussed, are untrustworthy and easily refutable. They're no better than anecdotal evidence in court, and that's why even economists don't rely on them for their field.

2. I couldn't agree with him more on the evils of the "pre-existing condition" argument. However, try and see it a little from the other side. Why did companies use them? Because it's all a dirty business, and health coverage, like auto insurance, isn't running a charity. What you put in is what you get out, and it worked, when people died at 72. Now, we're living too long and no one wants to stop seeing the returns, and so I'm afraid we're going to be the generation which takes the fall and gets screwed. 

Now, onto the umbrella term, "Obamacare," which is really the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, has been in "development hell" since the Nixon administration. But here's the catch-22: ACA gave corporations unparalleled power, and Americans were forced to enroll in it because the whole system would collapse otherwise, and everyone knew it. So coverage skyrocketed as a response, much the same tuition did when we started government grants. 

And while he has no qualms espousing the horrific suffering of those whose lives were altered once ACA was regulated, he conveniently forgot about all the millions whose lives became a living hell because of ACA in the first place. [8]

3. Okay, let's break this down. He's being very misleading here because he's correlating tax cuts for corporations (assuming that's what he meant by the "uber-wealthy") with the possibility of affording universal health care. Well, I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. That's like telling a middle-class family that since they could afford a new vehicle today, they might as well get a yacht tomorrow. The two are just not commensurate at all, and there's a big difference between a tax cut and an allotment - guess what? The latter's more expensive, and when you hand people money, expenses are sure to rise, and costs, cut. But the most glaring mistake in Virt's calculation is that so many small business owners aren't wealthy and are yet saving thousands because of Trump's cuts. Whether you like it or not, corporations (many of them sole proprietors with mere folders stashed away in shoe-boxes as evidence) are just loopholes through the system so they don't have to pay so much damn taxes. For instance, when you write off your car problems, what the hell do you think the IRS is thinking? They know exactly what you're doing, but hey, who gives a damn? As long as your corporation is afloat, they still get your taxes.

So his assessment that Medicare for all is cheap, it's just a fairy-tale for adults. Remember that we're spending more money on medicare than our military as it is! Wait till we get it "for all"! And believe me, you can give privately owned hospitals all the government funding you want, it ain't going to solve a thing because rates will just explode due to the simple fact that there's no way in hell you're having more cash than them.

4. I do have a problem with greedy pharmaceutical and insurance companies, I thought I made that clear. Why wouldn't I? They have billions of stock in fast food enterprising [9]. Still, the individual can be blamed for not taking care of his body, and then expecting others to. To be frank, the reason universal health care works in places like Canada (and even that's debatable), can somewhat be attributed to the fact that they don't have an obesity epidemic. In any case, Type-2 Diabetes can be solved by eating right. Also, Rambam makes a good case for helping yourself first, lest you "desecrate" the name of G-d. [10]

5. We, in America, are spending more on medical research than the rest of the developed world. [11] Gerald Friedman must not understand that if we were to stop this, our premium cares would cease.

Virt goes on to quote Friedman, suggesting that $89 billion will be a reduction - man, wake up, $89 billion is mere pocket change in terms of US spending. Moreover, being a non-profit means that there's going to be overhead costs in government, that's just how capitalism works, otherwise, your top-notch minds full of brilliance go elsewhere. Corruption? Yes. Valuable? Yes. And once we got care for all, guess who's paying for it? YOU! Because the government can't afford it, we'll each save a buck. Is that worth it? Look at Sweden, they've followed through with your suggestions and they have a 40% income tax with a 25% value-added tax because of cuts on the middle-class. So such a strategy only works in a time of excess, but we're ready for a nuclear recession, and when that hits, game over. Virt hopes to make America great again by making her like... Greece.

(sigh)... Hospitals having a monopoly is a side-effect of ACA, but it's only because the government pays them, and you won't solve it with universal coverage because they'll just turn to government grants.

6. Virt claims the republicans had it in for the Black man in office. I only wrote it that way so that you, the reader, could see how silly this argument truly was. In any case, I want him to consider the cost of instituting ACA in 2016 because it far exceeded those repeal bills. Well, just take into account that it cost us over $110 billion! [12]

B. Minimum Wage

1. Okay, the 18 states who have it higher are those states with a larger populace and more cash on hand. I'm not saying that $7.25 are good wages, but if you plan on raising a family of four on that, you've made your own bed.

2, 5-6. Again, you want a "living wage" for a family, not a minimum wage. He argues on principle, not logic; just remember, your job will be automated. For instance, the state of Pennsylvania (which is already losing money), can't afford $15 an hour, and so companies will just move or close up. You want an analogy for that? How on earth did cars get popular? They were slower, unreliable, and prone to break down, yet, they were cheaper to make. Far cheaper than owning a horse. And now nobody uses horses anymore, at least nobody I know. That's what's already happening to all the jobs in this country, and I promise you, if people like Virt keep fighting for higher wages, you're going to start seeing burgers produced in China. They're already making furniture out of trees chopped in Wyoming and selling it back.

3-4. He says that minimum wage was once worth more, yet had no impact on jobs. That makes no sense, in fact, he didn't even write a complete sentence, and those stats make no sense either. Most small business owners are sole proprietors and couldn't afford to pay their workers anything more, let alone afford their damn health care, worker's insurance, and unions. Furthermore, keep in mind that small business don't have the sort of logistics big enterprises like Walmart have, so when you raise the minimum wage, PRICES WON'T GO DOWN, THEY'LL GO UP.

C. Illegal Immigration

1. There is no citation needed for common sense.

2. Just when I began to miss the old ad hominems, Virt got desperate and essentially called me a "racist." Liberals, what can you say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, to get back on topic, he claims the Southern Property Law Center to be a White-Supremacist organiz... well, that's news to me! Literally, these are the guys who vote every time for Blacks when it comes to White lawsuits against them that its earned the reputation of a kangaroo court!

Then came the argument that my stats where the invention of Neo-Nazi organizations (I'm not going to lie, I laughed at that for 15 minutes). Again, this guy loves statistics, and supposedly, he's allowed to bring them up, but when I do, I'm suddenly stamped a "racist." For a progressive, Virt's pretty closed-minded. But it gets even better because he admits that Blacks-on-Black crimes are far higher than White-on-Whites crimes. Case in point, look at Detroit. Blacks have killed more people in that city than all the years in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, and nobody talks about it. [13] Um... talk about identity politics. In any case, by admitting  to the above, he put himself in the same category of "racist" as he put me. 

Last point. Virt seems to believe that one conservative psycho proves that all conservatives are wild bigots. I happen to know a liberal in jail, but I'm not using that to claim that all liberals are terrible. I find it hilarious that for one urging against stereotypes, he's just been caught with his hand in the jar. Again, it'd be like me asserting that Virt has some racial problem with Whites. But hey, I'm conservative, so what do I know?

III. Sources 


Round 4
Published:
Thank you, Yitz, for your reply. I am going to briefly wrap up and summarize the debate and appeal to the voters for their vote. 

VOTING ISSUES

I. Interpreting the Resolution

The resolution of this debate is "The Democratic Party is closer to the Torah's ideal than the Republican Party." We ought to interpret this debate to be not just which party's platforms are "better," but which ones come closest to those in the Torah (defined as the entire body of Jewish literature). With that said, I believe I have fulfilled my burden far better than my opponent had.

II. Arguments

A. Drops

Here are some key issues that my opponent drops:

  • Drops the Torah verses that I provided in the opening round and also failed to respond to my interpretation of the Torah verses that I provided in the opening round
  • Drops my sources on the minimum wage and drops the fact that small businesses support increasing the minimum wage
  • Drops the statistics and facts that I provided throughout this debate. This is key: Instead of providing other statistics or showing why mine are wrong, he stated " Virt must have some sort of love-affair with statistics because he never stops using them. Well, red flags anyone? Statistics, as we've already discussed, are untrustworthy and easily refutable. They're no better than anecdotal evidence in court, and that's why even economists don't rely on them for their field." Once again this is a claim that NEEDS a citation (more on this later). 
  • Drops my sources that medicare for all reduces cost.
There are other things that he dropped, but these are the most important issues that need to be highlighted. 

II. Souces 

For every claim that I made I provided a reliable source or two while my opponent makes many assertions that have no evidence to support. Key examples:

  • Again, he keeps suggesting that we'll save costs and reduce spending if we expand Medicare - STOP, JUST STOP - you, the reader, think to yourself the following: how will we do that? Even if you cut military spending, the biggest expenditure in this country would still be entitlements. Let's look at Greece. They had all the entitlements you could ever dream of, and it lasted two years before it all imploded. People were kicked out of hospitals, university students had to open their wallets. If this happened in America, it would be economic disaster. And the sad truth is, there are people with real disabilities who work for peanuts doing jobs nobody will do, and I'm not talking about the bums on SSI.
  • 78% of Conservatives are people of faith. In Israel, it's 64%. Most Conservative Jews are from the Haredi world, and for good reason, as they look to Torah as their only authority. Democrats, on the other hand, disregard authority (a secular value). This has led to the acception of homosexuality, and, if left unchecked, to things like pedophilia, incest, and beastialty. 
  • But the main issue here is that he's mistaken as to the role of Medicare. The whole purpose of Medicare is to teach you responsibility, not hand you free care. It works the same with auto insurance.
  • So his assessment that Medicare for all is cheap, it's just a fairy-tale for adults. Remember that we're spending more money on medicare than our military as it is! Wait till we get it "for all"! And believe me, you can give privately owned hospitals all the government funding you want, it ain't going to solve a thing because rates will just explode due to the simple fact that there's no way in hell you're having more cash than them.

These are all major claims that need major evidence behind them. The bolded point is especially egregious as this is a slippery slope argument. When I pressed him on this he drops it. The last two points are also significant as I provided both studies that show that medicare for all is cheaper and provided a rationale for why that is the case. Again my opponent ignores my studies and fails to provide any counter-evidence. 

III. Grammar 

I feel like I had fairly decent grammar throughout the debate. My opponent, on the other hand, had many statements that are total word salads (see his round 1). 

IV. Conduct

I feel that I had good conduct. I didn't forfeit and I didn't resort to any personal attacks. On the other hand, my opponent resorts to attacking me personally.  Examples:

  • For a progressive, Virt's pretty closed-minded.
  • Last point. Virt seems to believe that one conservative psycho proves that all conservatives are wild bigots. I happen to know a liberal in jail, but I'm not using that to claim that all liberals are terrible. I find it hilarious that for one urging against stereotypes, he's just been caught with his hand in the jar. Again, it'd be like me asserting that Virt has some racial problem with Whites. But hey, I'm conservative, so what do I know?
  • Just when I began to miss the old ad hominems, Virt got desperate and essentially called me a "racist." Liberals, what can you say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Virt supports a 100% estate tax. Who in the world wants a 100% tax? Not me! The taxes I want is what we used to have in this country before the Spanish-American War, and that was a luxury-goods tax. That tax is fair because it was grounded on how much you spent. It took your greed to the bank. Another idea would be a taxation on imports, and it doesn't take much brains to figure out how that would help the economy.
  • Lastly, Virt wants to replace Capitalism with... Socialism. Well, what kind of Socialism, because we already have a lot of it. What, Communism? How many more millions will it take to die before people like him realize it doesn't work? He sits here and rants on Capitalism, but it's the Capitalist system in this country which allows him to live in a house and yet, complain about it! These kinds of people take advantage of everything Capitalism has to offer them, they alone prove why democracy doesn't work.
In the context of this debate, none of this is necessary and points 1-3 are blatantly false and 2-3 are totally irrelevant to this debate. This is what we call a red herring.

For these reasons I strongly urge a vote for pro! 

Published:
I. WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Thank you Virt, for your swift reply.... I wish we could have gone back and forth a bit more, but as George Harrison famously said, all things must pass.

So, where does that leave us? Certainly, it's a well-known fact that G-d isn't a democratic socialist, but He sure ain't no damned republican either. Well, that takes care of the juxtaposition, but it leaves us with a whole set of others, chief among them, where does the Torah stand?

For one, we can judge it by the policies of both parties, and I think we've done out best to uncover the riddle to the extent possible, given the constraints leveled at us. So I ask you - the reader - if I've missed anything? Or, perhaps we should dance to Virt's fiddle of accusations against me? Well, I'll present my reasons why we should first put some thought into this before we decided who won over some mere cleverly worn-out bickering. So toss caution to the wind, let's get on with it.

II. ARGUMENTS (#rehash)

Okay, he starts out by pressing the wound, essentially claiming that I didn't take the proper time to confront certain quotations in Torah which he used to buttress his charge that the Torah only follows democratic policies. Well, if it weren't already clear to anyone, perhaps that has something to do with my agreement with the quotations themselves, not their interpretations, which are, by default, outside the verses. Look, let me give you an example.

Deuteronomy 24:14-15

"You shall not withhold the wages of a poor or destitute hired worker, of your brothers or of your strangers who are in your land within your cities. You shall give him his wage on his day and not let the sun set over it, for he is poor, and his life depends on them, so that he should not cry out to the Lord against you, so that there should be sin upon you."

Yeah, I agree with that. So what's his problem? As far as his interpretation goes, I don't agree with it. Does that make me a thought criminal? Am I designated "enemy no. 1" for exhibiting the squandering nature masquerading minimum wage as a livable wage, and that the Torah supports this? If anything, he was the one who misrepresented certain passages from Jewish tradition, as shown below:

You've got to stop misquoting verses from the Talmud and Genesis, because we know how it ends... not with the creation of a male partner! In fact, I find it very disingenuous that you [had] the nerve to decontextualize [Genesis 2:18] because there's not one rabbinic scholar in the whole world of Jewish literature, past or present, who'd ever concur with that nonsense. You tried pulling that same rubbish with Berachot 19b. What it's talking about is Kevod HaBeriyot, which has nothing to do with secular dignity, and is merely concerned with d'rabbanan (granted, it discussed sanction to alter d'oraita, but that was... rejected, and thus, it remained that only Nevi'im were permitted to annul it temporarily). 
But hey, Virt, try this on for size: "Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without doing work and derive his livelihood from charity, desecrates G‑d's name." Yep, that's from Maimonides. He also said you should help your fellow man, so that his hands may "be fortified and he will not have to ask others." The source to that is here: Mishneh Torah, Sefer Madah, Hilchot Talmud Torah, 3:10,10:7.

Ask yourself, what is he suggesting here? That you push yourself to the limit and beyond, that you find yourself a pedestal to stand on, not wait by the wayside, complaining about how bad your life sucks because you can't pay the bills! Surely we ought to do better than that. And whether you work minimum wage or not, your goal should be one word: progression. Life often gets hampered down with all the headaches and pain, but if you don't progress, no one's going to do it for you. Certain things sound nice in a book, and we should all do our very best to confirm to them, but hey, this is the world, and it's tough. Maimonides definitely had a thing or two to say about that. Yes, when the time comes that you need aide, "ask a little help from your friends." But in all truthfulness, most likely, they'll be trying to resolve their own problems and if there's one message of all the messages Judaism taught, it's to be self-reliant and self-resilient. That's the damn epitome of the whole Jewish experience, I mean, wake up here, look what we've been through as a people, trouble after trouble, and hell, nobody helped us out - ever. 

Well, even I can get too cynical at times, but we're far from Olam HaBa, so we need to deal with the world's problems on our own.

Now, regarding small business owners in support of higher minimum wages, this is false. I brought proof after proof, too, but he refused to take them seriously. As stated before, one doesn't need a citation for common sense, so let's get through it, quickly.

Which small business do you - the reader - know of who could support $18 an hour per person, let alone their worker's insurance, health coverage, and union? In my home state, if workers were granted that much, businesses would close, period. Again, the people who push for this (those who work minimum wage and feel as if they're owned everything on G-d's green earth), will be the same people being replaced by machines, especially when inflation rises. Oh, do I need a citation for that? What about a footnote for common sense? By the way, his source came from a heavily liberal source, and its stats are from - wait till you hear this - 2013! As if that's relevant! Here's something from the current year about how raising the minimum wage will crush small businesses: https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2019/07/17/federal-minimum-wage-hikes-could-crush-small-businesses-across-america/#7610dfd76eb1.

What about his stats? Do you need an economist to tell you why you shouldn't rely on them? Here, an economist explains the reasons: https://www.barrons.com/articles/henry-kaufman-dont-rely-too-much-on-statistics-1443629085.

To sum it up, he pretty much says that stats just aren't accurate enough nor valid to base an argument. Now, does that mean I shouldn't contend with the facts he provided, say, in support of universal health care? You're damn right I should. Virt must have forgotten all the logical arguments that followed each of his stats, so it's not true that I merely called it a "love-affair" and moved on, that's what he want's you to believe.

Do you want an example of that? Here:

Virt: Fact 2: A 2009 study showed that 45,000 Americans die due to the lack of health coverage.

Me: Supposedly, a 2009 study showed that 45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic. What was their sample size? What was their average? They likely conflated the numbers, and this is why I don't take such studies seriously because the context in which the study was done, is always different than the one in which we're reviewing it. Aside from the inherent issue of studies, let's imagine a simple scenario and you tell me if health coverage has anything to do with it: say Joe took part in this study back in '93. Years later, he dies of a sudden heart attack. 

Do you see the issue here? Now, can I purpose a better plan? If you want perfect, free health care, try exercising and eating right.
Did you miss it? The writing which I italicized was a logical argument. Now tell me, what's wrong with that? Nothing that I can tell, it's still a valid argument. 

Regarding my dropping of some sources he used to fortify his, argument that we could afford universal health care, again, what do you think I did? Just sit there? No, I responded with logical arguments which, I believe, debunked every claim he put forward. Gosh, do I need an example for that? Remember Greece in 2009? They had everything liberals could ask for, free healthcare, free education, and look what became of it? Greece's pathetic, and I'm guessing liberals can't see that's the fate of this country if we go down the same path.

Now look, he's the one arguing that I didn't respond to a few things, well, let's take a look at all the stuff he didn't respond to, and he could have easily done it in the last round, I would have had no qualms about that.

Virt didn't bother to respond to the following headings: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, points 3-6; DEMOCRACY, 1 point, and SOME FINAL THOUGHTS, which had about 4 points in total.

III. SOURCES?

Virt made a gross error, I was surprised he did it. I again quote him:

For every claim that I made I provided a reliable source or two while my opponent makes many assertions that have no evidence to support. Key examples:

This has led to the [exception] of homosexuality, and, if left unchecked, things like pedophilia, incest, and beastialty [will become transparent in society]. 
He must have forgotten that I stated at the beginning of the next round, the following information:

Now, we can look back to the ancient Egyptians and the Greeks, who had all sorts of weird things, and see what kind of results they produced, morally, as well as economically. As it turns out, it was one of slavery, debauchery, and murder. The evidence for this has been well documented, [4]....
In case you're wondering where the link to that is, look no further: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/nov/10/history.society.

So Virt strikes out again because I offered links to my so-called "assertions" which he'd criticized me earlier for in the round before. 

But when all is said and done, Virt himself dived into the so-called "I make claims but sources? None" field. Look, below is a prime example of it:

My opponent's statement that Medicare is to teach you responsibility and not give you free healthcare is a statement that has no basis in fact. Once again, my opponent cited absolutely NO evidence to support this!
I ask him, "Virt, where's your citation in support that health care should just be free, and in fact, was always meant to be so without teaching some responsibility? You're arguing from the same logical background as I am, so don't play games and get all fired up about it, because you did the same here."

Remember, contradiction is the perfect sign of corruption. Oh, are you asking for a citation for that, too?

IV. GRAMMAR

There was also an occasion where Virt produced an incomplete sentence. Now, I'm no English wiz, nor am I your Harvard professor, but this was a glaring mistake which caught my eye: "Minimum wage used to be worth more and had no impact on jobs." That was in the last round, under Minimum Wage, points 3-4.

So, for each inconvenience Virt can provide on my end, which, by the way, I've rightfully debunked, I can equally show the same from him, as seen above.

V. CONDUCT

Virt says the following:

I feel that I had good conduct. I didn't forfeit and I didn't resort to any personal attacks.
Wait a minute, so you're telling me that the following "attacks" on my credibility as a person, aren't attacks?

This just shows my opponent's contempt for the poor! 
Much later, in the same round:

Now my opponent is showing his utter contempt for the African American community.
If I really hold such views, believe me, there'd be much more to talk about because I'd be a disgusting human being. As it turns out, however, my contempt isn't for the poor and neither is it for the Black community. Granted, I do have nothing but contempt for people who are lazy and are unwilling to work, and yet, get everything for free. Wouldn't you? As I've stated before:

And the sad truth is, there are people with real disabilities who work for peanuts doing jobs nobody will do, and I'm not talking about the bums on SSI.
It's been documented that most people on SSI are fakers, therefore, they're cheating the government. If you don't have contempt for that, you're a rotten soul. No one deserves to be cheated, even the government. The source for those cheating is found here: https://www.lifelock.com/learn-fraud-types-of-social-security-fraud.html and https://tucson.com/business/social-security-and-you-cheating-the-system-or-honestly-receiving/article_435ffb54-1af8-54c0-9ebd-c2f01143af33.html

In the meantime, the blind, those who ought to be getting disability, are working hard: https://www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/employment.

Regarding the African American community, it is sad that Virt brought himself so low as to call me, for all intents and purposes (which he didn't try and refute, by the way), a racist. This is what I really said:

The real reason immigrants are "less likely to be incarcerated" is because Blacks make 13% of the population, and yet, over 40% of them are behind bars.
The source for that is here, and it's nothing more than empirical data, there's absolutely nothing racist about it, other than what your imagination might want to read into it, in the hopes of confirming a baseless bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States.

Besides, I also wrote in the comments section:

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!
Both numbers are coming from places of empirical data, but let's be honest about it, if I truly had "contempt" for the Black race, do you really think I'd be the one - of all people - to be proud that there are around 20% Blacks who are smarter than your average White? That they're not all dumb (regardless of race) proves that there is hope and achievement in store for those lucky 20%.

His argument is therefore void, as well as just plain nuts. After all, every claim I made was reasonable, so Virt, assuming that I'm some sort of Neo-Nazi who holds a grudge against the poor and Blacks, is pretty miserable (note that he cited a Neo-Nazi source at one point, as if that's the sort of thing a Jewish guy like me would read).

I feel if he were to be honest about it, he'd just admit it was more along the lines of what Socrates said, that the one who no longer has the ability to make an intellectual case against his opponent, resorts to personal attacks, such as the above.

One more thing. From the start of this debate, we both agreed that I reserved the right to go into some other issues, such as gun control, socialism, etc. Unfortunately, this site wouldn't allow me to post a screenshot of that discussion, but anyone can ask for it, and I'll happily send them an attachment of it via email as proof of it having taken place. You can reach me at [email protected].

VI. CONCLUSION

I think I've made it clear that my opponent has been unfair to me in the last round. Therefore, please vote con.

Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Ok lol. I was just confused by why "banned by request" was separate. Misread :P
#72
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @Ramshutu
Oh okay.
That crucial information isn't stated there for some reason.
#71
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#70
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Banned by virtuoso at the request of the user
#69
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
But it does say that though
"YitzGoldberg - 9/3/19 by Virtuoso"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log
#68
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Rofl
Instigator
#67
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
The better the argument, the likely the vote, whether one is convinced or not. Sounds fair.
#66
Added:
--> @Alec
Says he got banned by Virtuoso's request
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log
#65
Added:
--> @bsh1
Why did Yitzgoldberg get blocked?
#64
Added:
--> @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.
#63
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
It appears there is a liberal bias here, for sure.
#62
Added:
--> @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.
#61
Added:
--> @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 "
#60
Added:
--> @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.
*******************************************************************
#59
Added:
--> @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?
#58
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1265/comment_links/18552
Con turned it into a troll debate anyway.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I'd like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate, now onto my vote.
Arguments:
Throughout the entire debate Con has ignored several of Pro's arguments and dropped them without explanation.
This includes but is not limited to,
- Dropping Pro's source on small businesses supporting a higher minimum wage
- Dropping Pro's source on Medicare for all being cheaper than private healthcare
- Dropping Pro's interpretation of the torah verses they cited
Due to Con ignoring several of Pro's key arguments, I must award argument points to Pro as they responded to every one of Con's arguments and didn't just drop them.
Sources:
Con has made several claims without any sources to back them up which include but not limited to,
" So his assessment that Medicare for all is cheap, it's just a fairy-tale for adults. Remember that we're spending more money on medicare than our military as it is! Wait till we get it "for all"! And believe me, you can give privately owned hospitals all the government funding you want, it ain't going to solve a thing because rates will just explode due to the simple fact that there's no way in hell you're having more cash than them."
And also,
" 78% of Conservatives are people of faith. In Israel, it's 64%. Most Conservative Jews are from the Haredi world, and for good reason, as they look to Torah as their only authority. Democrats, on the other hand, disregard authority (a secular value). This has led to the acception of homosexuality, and, if left unchecked, to things like pedophilia, incest, and beastialty. "
Due to Con's lack of proper sourcing, I must award the sources point to Pro as they provided reliable sources throughout the entire debate such as,
" Fact 1: Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion in taxes per year [14]
Fact 2: Immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and that there is a negative correlation between levels of immigration and crime rates [15] "
Both of which demonstrate a great use of sourcing as Pro not only used reliable sources but also cited the exact number, making it easier for voters to tell what specific source it’s.
Conduct:
I take debate conduct very seriously and Con has engaged in very poor debate conduct through the use of personal attacks made against Pro.
This includes but is not limited to,
“ Lastly, Virt wants to replace Capitalism with... Socialism. Well, what kind of Socialism, because we already have a lot of it. What, Communism? How many more millions will it take to die before people like him realize it doesn't work? He sits here and rants on Capitalism, but it's the Capitalist system in this country which allows him to live in a house and yet, complain about it! These kinds of people take advantage of everything Capitalism has to offer them, they alone prove why democracy doesn't work.”
And nextly,
“Just when I began to miss the old ad hominems, Virt got desperate and essentially called me a "racist." Liberals, what can you say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
And finally my personal favorite,
“ For a progressive, Virt's pretty closed-minded.:”
Due to Con’s use of personal attacks, I must award the conduct point to Pro
Grammar points tied as both had decent grammar overall.