Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Topic
#4523

The shifting paradigm of the US political spectrum to the left is eroding the strength of the US.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description

In regards to the political scale of left and right or liberal and conservative, respectively, the US has drifted to the left. Pro is arguing that this is weakening the strength of the country economically, socially, and internationally. Con is arguing that the left-ward shift is not causing these effects.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Definitions (open for alteration upon Con's suggestion)
Political Left - Holders of liberalist views. That is, views that support individual liberty through the use of government action.
Political Right - Holders of conservative views. That is, views that individual liberty can only be maintained through the restriction of government action.
Liberalism - An ideological stance that supports government intervention to provide social services to the population. Likewise, societal problems are also supposed to be solved by the government. Traditionally, in the US, this stance is one taken by Democrats.
Conservativism - An ideological stance that favors minimal government interference and advocates for private-sector solutions. Traditionally, in the US, this stance is one taken by Republicans.
Strength - Strength, more specifically in the context of this debate, governmental strength, is the ability to control or influence events in the world at large.
Preamble
With the argument that the political left-ward shift of the American political sphere is damaging the country's strength, there are two points that I have to hit on.
P1: The country has indeed shifted left.
P2: The shift has directly harmed the country's power.
With these two points in mind, and with the proper evidence, the audience will come to the same conclusion that I have. That the overpowering shift in favor of liberalism is harming the country.
P1: The country has shifted toward the left.
The overall left-ward shift of the country can be most prominently seen in the modern LGBTQ+ and Feminism movements, both recipients of widespread Democratic support. But there are some supporting stats as well. (Pew Research Center, 2017).
  • "Government aid to needy. Over the past six years, the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying the government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt, has risen 17 percentage points (from 54% to 71%), while the views of Republicans and Republican leaners have only slightly changed (25% then, 24% today)."
  • "Racial discrimination. In recent years, Democrats’ views on racial discrimination also have changed, driving an overall shift in public opinion. Currently, 41% of Americans say racial discrimination is the main reason many blacks cannot get ahead – the largest share expressing this view in surveys dating back 23 years."
  • "Climate Change. There is a clear majority of Democrats believe in climate change, the current share (92%) is as high as it has ever been in surveys since 2006. In contrast, Republicans have a large internal conflict over the issue, with a slight majority (52%), mostly in those younger than 30, believing it." These beliefs can be assumed to translate to actions taken to reduce the impact of climate change.
P2: The shift has harmed the country.
  • Government aid to needy. The US has no feasible solution to ending poverty, in any significant capacity. Nonetheless, the US has spent more than $1.1 trillion in 2016 for social welfare (Rector & Menon, 2018). In essence, an action that is throwing money at a problem hoping to present, at best, a stop gap, and at worse, a patch of duct tape on the bursting pipe that is our ever-expanding population of needy persons. Add that to the record $22 trillion debt the US is in, and you can see an obvious shortcoming in the plan (Chappell, 2019). A plan that, for all intents and purposes, is of a Democratic making.
  • Racial discrimination. With a growing focus on race in all matters, from socioeconomic success to decision-making on the casting couch, the Democratic movement has become avid supporters of the organizations cropping up to contest perceived racism, wherever it exists, if it even does. Now, whether or not such organizations are good or ill matters not. But with the political focus becoming a racial matter, it has once again become a prominent talking piece that has incited divides. You can see this quite clearly in the George Floyd protests of 2020 that cost upwards of $2 billion in damages (Polumbo, 2020). This impact of racial divide, once again a making of Democratic advocacy, is a snap in the connection of the American people, and destroys one of the key proponents of power in a country, and that is unity.
  • Climate Change. Now, whether or not climate change is real or not isn't a major focus of this debate. Instead, I list climate change, not as an aspect of the debate, but as an aspect of Democratic/liberal decision-making. It is government intervention in what is perceived as a social problem. In that regard, and "according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, public spending to protect the nation’s natural resources jumped from $27.7 billion in 2014 to $32.3 billion in 2018" (Lee, 2021). Again, this is a contributor to the already large pile of debt that the nation is currently sitting on and damaging the US's economy.
Resources
Rector, R. Menon, V. (2018). Understanding the Hidden $1.1 Trillion Welfare System and How to Reform It. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/understanding-the-hidden-11-trillion-welfare-system-and-how-reform-it
Pew Research Center. (2017). The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider. https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf
Polumbo, B. (2020). George Floyd Riots Caused Record-Setting $2 Billion in Damage, New Report Says. Here’s Why the True Cost Is Even Higher. FEEhttps://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/
Lee, L. (2021). Steady Increase in Funding of Green Programs by State and Local Governments. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/06/public-spending-on-protecting-environment-up.html

Con
#2
Pro has made two errors in the above definitions.:

Liberalism - An ideological stance that supports government intervention to provide social services to the population. Likewise, societal problems are also supposed to be solved by the government. Traditionally, in the US, this stance is one taken by Democrats.
Conservativism - An ideological stance that favors minimal government interference and advocates for private-sector solutions. Traditionally, in the US, this stance is one taken by Republicans.
This is to confuse Liberalism/Conservatism with Socialism/Capitalism. While not mutually exclusive, to say that this represents both definitions is misleading, to say the least. 

  • Liberalism- A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
  • Conservatism- The holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional  ideas.
(Oxford Dictionary) 

Framework/BOP
The burden of proof falls mostly on Pro to show that leftist ideology is causing significant damage to the nation that it’s resulting in economic and societal collapse. 

What this means is linking most of the economy’s and society’s disasters to Leftist culture. Such a requirement will be difficult to show in any case, as there are too many counter-examples. 

Rebuttal 1

P1: The country has shifted toward the left.
The overall left-ward shift of the country can be most prominently seen in the modern LGBTQ+ and Feminism movements, both recipients of widespread Democratic support. But there are some supporting stats as well. (Pew Research Center, 2017).
  • "Government aid to needy. Over the past six years, the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying the government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt, has risen 17 percentage points (from 54% to 71%), while the views of Republicans and Republican leaners have only slightly changed (25% then, 24% today)."
  • "Racial discrimination. In recent years, Democrats’ views on racial discrimination also have changed, driving an overall shift in public opinion. Currently, 41% of Americans say racial discrimination is the main reason many blacks cannot get ahead – the largest share expressing this view in surveys dating back 23 years."
  • "Climate Change. There is a clear majority of Democrats believe in climate change, the current share (92%) is as high as it has ever been in surveys since 2006. In contrast, Republicans have a large internal conflict over the issue, with a slight majority (52%), mostly in those younger than 30, believing it." These beliefs can be assumed to translate to actions taken to reduce the impact of climate change.
Blacks have dealt with a history of oppression and persecution and have never really escaped it systematically. 
  • A lot of blacks and latinos are born into lower status. 
  • Finding long-term employment that pays sufficiently is difficult. 
  • This makes them resort to crime and results in the majority of blacks and latinos being wrongfully profiled. 
Leftist ideology is not harming the nation socially or economically by bringing awareness to this issue. 

Because of LGBT activism, gay marriage has become legal in all 50 states. I consider this a step forward. 

As for the Climate Change issue. Whether poor action was taken, Pro fails to prove that this is a consequence of leftism. Regardless of who makes up the political demographic, this is less to do with personal ethics and beliefs and more to do with people’s fear of environmental catastrophe. 

  • The U.S. cannot rely on traditional sources of energy permanently and environmentalists are demanding a change because if we continue down this road, the country will deplete its energy resources.
  • Alternative means of energy in this case are necessary. 



Round 2
Pro
#3
Sorry for the late response of this round, but it’s going to be a relatively simple affair. I just have some questions before we delve further, if you wouldn’t mind.
Q1. With regards to your definition of liberalism, would you agree or disagree that liberals want to achieve “political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise,” through the use of government action? If you agree, I’ll concede to your definitions for both terms.
Q2. Would you say that minorities are institutionally oppressed? If no, how can government action do anything beneficial if the situation is the best it can be, with personal freedoms allowed.
Q3. Would you agree that families are the most basic unit of society?
Q4. Would you agree or disagree that US government action can only be taken by majority representation?
Q5. Do you consider awareness of a problem to be synonymous to the eventual resolution of the problem itself?
Con
#4
Overview
Pro has not set any definitions in the description, nor has he contested my definitions, which means he already conceded to them. Instead he wasted a round. 

We have only one round left before the last, so I would see it as too late to make any alterations, as there’s not enough room or time to argue semantics. So my definitions shall remain for now. 
Q1. With regards to your definition of liberalism, would you agree or disagree that liberals want to achieve “political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise,” through the use of government action? If you agree, I’ll concede to your definitions for both terms.
Q2. Would you say that minorities are institutionally oppressed? If no, how can government action do anything beneficial if the situation is the best it can be, with personal freedoms allowed.
Q3. Would you agree that families are the most basic unit of society?
Q4. Would you agree or disagree that US government action can only be taken by majority representation?
Q5. Do you consider awareness of a problem to be synonymous to the eventual resolution of the problem itself?
  • Yes. Because that’s the definition. 
  • Minorities are institutionally oppressed. Statistically speaking, latina and african americans are more likely to be wrongfully sentenced than their white counterparts because of systemic racial biases.
  • Families - Basic unit of society? You must rephrase that question. 
  • Can’t say for certain because there are always counter-examples, so it’s not a specifically yes or no answer even if the answer is mostly yes or no. 
  • Awareness is necessary in order for society to work towards a solution. Without awareness of the problem, action cannot be taken. 
However, awareness of the problem doesn’t always guarantee sufficient action will be taken either. 
Round 3
Pro
#5
Definitions
It wasn't really contesting; it was elaboration. I wholeheartedly agree with your definition of Conservatism, but your definition of Liberalism implied something that I felt needed to be said. That is, they want to achieve these lofty ideals through using governmental action. That's what a politician does, and you've agreed with that. So, thank you. I concede to the definitions.
Racism (rebuttal)
Minorities are institutionally oppressed. Statistically speaking, latina and african americans are more likely to be wrongfully sentenced than their white counterparts because of systemic racial biases.
The statistics you use are, at best, correlational to the problem at hand and, at worst, the type of left-wing thought process that fostered my belief that it is weakening the country. The systemic racial biases you speak of, I presume, are widespread, general population biases that inflict harm, in various ways, on minorities. For instance, a jury (the ones who decide guilt or innocence) thinking that the black suspect is a gangster, even if this man in particular isn't, because they view black men as thugs. That's not the problem of the institution. That's a problem of ignorant people, and we already do all the preliminary screening that we can without infringing on their privacy. We can't let off one black person proportional to one white person just because the black population is more numerous in prison. Vice versa, we can't just grab a white person off the street and throw him in jail to even out the scales. Our justice system is in no way perfect, but most of the problems are a result of human individualism, not institutional biases. Changing the institutions to forcefully even out a scale is an act of injustice. And if the institutions are unjust, name one thing that a white person can do that a black person cannot.
This leads me to my next point.
Awareness is necessary in order for society to work towards a solution. Without awareness of the problem, action cannot be taken. 
I agree that without awareness, action cannot be taken. I also appreciated the wisdom in your follow up.
However, awareness of the problem doesn’t always guarantee sufficient action will be taken either. 
The problem is that left-wing politicians fanned the flames of an angry, blind awareness of the issue that has led to a divisive estrangement of American communities. Yes, there is undoubtedly a difference between the life outcomes of different races. I don't believe anyone would argue differently. My personal opinion, though it is not one unique to me, is that the difference in racial outcomes is a matter of culture, more so than race.
For example, and this is anecdotal, a man once entered a public elementary school. He asked the kids there what they wanted to be when they grew up. Black kids, on average, aimed to be athletes. White kids, though, wanted to be doctors, lawyers, and to a much lesser degree, athletes as well. Now, sure, you can argue that this is likewise an aspect of a racial bias, in that black athletes are super prevalent, and that can guide youthful dreams, but I could just as well argue that this is indeed racism, and turning white kids away from sport endeavors because they don't feel appropriately represented in professional athletics. I'd argue, in this case, that there should be a handicap for the whites to get equal representation in the athletic spheres. But, that wouldn't be fair. This is the problem though; left-wing politicians are attempting tactics like this to get re-elected. Trying to "balance" the scales for minorities. Take the San Francisco reparations idea (Arango, 2023). It will probably never see the light of day, and for good reason, but talks like that can only serve to spread divide. They are advertising and promoting the idea to take away from the majority, forcefully, to enrichen the minorities. What kind of unity can be achieved in a world like that? And what country can muster strength when its fists are pointing at themselves?
Family
Families - Basic unit of society? You must rephrase that question. 
That was pretty much the best way I could summarize the point, but here goes: do you think society can function without families? I don't. In fact, I think it literally couldn't. Society was built, with the smallest aspect of a community, by various families coming together. So, if families were to fall apart, I'd argue that society wouldn't be far behind. The basis for this line of thinking is pretty simple. If the population doesn't expand by families creating more families, it can only weaken, be that because the gene pool thinned, or because people grew old, the reason is unimportant. The point is that when the population doesn't grow, it begins to shrink, and the benefits of being part of the community/society likewise lessen, prompting the individuals to leave, for what reason would they stay if there's no benefits?
I bring this up because this destruction of the family unit is pretty much what the left-wing political advocates have attempted. Feminism, a left-wing endorsed ideology, though seemingly a good thing for equality, has wreaked havoc on families. (Ambert, 1985).
  • Women are freer sexually than they used to be.
  • Women have access and are encouraged to use birth control, which isn't a stranger to dangerous side effects.
  • Women have fewer children.
  • Greater likelihood of divorce by employed women, a statistic which increases as the woman's annual earnings rise.
Now, none of this is bad, for the individual. They're free from the constraints of the family. But this breaking of the "chain" does bode ill for the country. Before that though, I'd also like to group into this point the LGBTQ+ community which, as you mention, is now legal for matrimony in all fifty states. The point, as I get to it, is that the traditional family is in peril of losing its place as a dominant staple in the country. There is obviously going to be an effect on the population, which is one of the best predicates for a successful economy, as well as military strength.
So, to summarize, left-wing politicians support these movements. These movements hurt citizen unity and population growth. Two very important aspects to governmental strength.


Resources
Ambert, A.-M. (1985). The Effect of Divorce on Women’s Attitude Toward Feminism. Sociological Focus, 18(3), 265–272. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20831368
Arango, T. (2023). Can Reparations Bring Blacks Back to San Francisco? Real Clear Politics. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/05/17/can_reparations_bring_blacks_back_to_san_francisco_598663.html

Con
#6
The statistics you use are, at best, correlational to the problem at hand and, at worst, the type of left-wing thought process that fostered my belief that it is weakening the country. The systemic racial biases you speak of, I presume, are widespread, general population biases that inflict harm, in various ways, on minorities. For instance, a jury (the ones who decide guilt or innocence) thinking that the black suspect is a gangster, even if this man in particular isn't, because they view black men as thugs. That's not the problem of the institution. That's a problem of ignorant people, and we already do all the preliminary screening that we can without infringing on their privacy. We can't let off one black person proportional to one white person just because the black population is more numerous in prison. Vice versa, we can't just grab a white person off the street and throw him in jail to even out the scales. Our justice system is in no way perfect, but most of the problems are a result of human individualism, not institutional biases. Changing the institutions to forcefully even out a scale is an act of injustice. And if the institutions are unjust, name one thing that a white person can do that a black person cannot.
This leads me to my next point.
It’s not just racist jury. 

It’s racist prosecutors, racist cops, and sometimes racist judges. African americans and latinas are generally born into a lower class and cannot afford adequate legal counsel to fight back against corruption. 

This is why corrupt cops can get away with fabricating evidence or framing innocent people of color for murder or doing drugs. Because they’re powerless to stop it. 

The problem is that left-wing politicians fanned the flames of an angry, blind awareness of the issue that has led to a divisive estrangement of American communities. Yes, there is undoubtedly a difference between the life outcomes of different races. I don't believe anyone would argue differently. My personal opinion, though it is not one unique to me, is that the difference in racial outcomes is a matter of culture, more so than race. 
For example, and this is anecdotal, a man once entered a public elementary school. He asked the kids there what they wanted to be when they grew up. Black kids, on average, aimed to be athletes. White kids, though, wanted to be doctors, lawyers, and to a much lesser degree, athletes as well. Now, sure, you can argue that this is likewise an aspect of a racial bias, in that black athletes are super prevalent, and that can guide youthful dreams, but I could just as well argue that this is indeed racism, and turning white kids away from sport endeavors because they don't feel appropriately represented in professional athletics. I'd argue, in this case, that there should be a handicap for the whites to get equal representation in the athletic spheres. But, that wouldn't be fair. This is the problem though; left-wing politicians are attempting tactics like this to get re-elected. Trying to "balance" the scales for minorities. Take the San Francisco reparations idea (Arango, 2023). It will probably never see the light of day, and for good reason, but talks like that can only serve to spread divide. They are advertising and promoting the idea to take away from the majority, forcefully, to enrichen the minorities. What kind of unity can be achieved in a world like that? And what country can muster strength when its fists are pointing at themselves?
Whites do not need extra-representation in sports just because it is black-dominated. The privilege that whites have over blacks means they have better access to training, nutrition, and equipment. 

Blacks are discouraged from academic or intellectual pursuits because they sometimes lack the financial resources to pursue it, regardless of their full commitment and because of racist employers, using selective hiring to discriminate against candidates of color. 

Any problems stoking a rage in activism by politicians looking to get re-elected is not a fault of leftist ideology. Pro’s blame is misplaced. 

Pro’s problem is with grifters who pretend to be leftists to progress their careers. 

That was pretty much the best way I could summarize the point, but here goes: do you think society can function without families? I don't. In fact, I think it literally couldn't. Society was built, with the smallest aspect of a community, by various families coming together. So, if families were to fall apart, I'd argue that society wouldn't be far behind. The basis for this line of thinking is pretty simple. If the population doesn't expand by families creating more families, it can only weaken, be that because the gene pool thinned, or because people grew old, the reason is unimportant. The point is that when the population doesn't grow, it begins to shrink, and the benefits of being part of the community/society likewise lessen, prompting the individuals to leave, for what reason would they stay if there's no benefits?
I bring this up because this destruction of the family unit is pretty much what the left-wing political advocates have attempted. Feminism, a left-wing endorsed ideology, though seemingly a good thing for equality, has wreaked havoc on families. (Ambert, 1985).
  • Women are freer sexually than they used to be.
  • Women have access and are encouraged to use birth control, which isn't a stranger to dangerous side effects.
  • Women have fewer children.
  • Greater likelihood of divorce by employed women, a statistic which increases as the woman's annual earnings rise.
Now, none of this is bad, for the individual. They're free from the constraints of the family. But this breaking of the "chain" does bode ill for the country. Before that though, I'd also like to group into this point the LGBTQ+ community which, as you mention, is now legal for matrimony in all fifty states. The point, as I get to it, is that the traditional family is in peril of losing its place as a dominant staple in the country. There is obviously going to be an effect on the population, which is one of the best predicates for a successful economy, as well as military strength.
So, to summarize, left-wing politicians support these movements. These movements hurt citizen unity and population growth. Two very important aspects to governmental strength.
There is no proof any of these movements are hurting families. 

If anything, leftism is about keeping families together. There are more than a million immigrants in the United States and a certain right-wing politician gave the executive order to deport the illegals, which if successful, would have separated majority of the families currently living in the nation. 

Most leftists rightfully opposed this order because it was separating families. 

Round 4
Pro
#7
Final Rebuttal
  • Racism
It’s not just racist jury. 
It’s racist prosecutors, racist cops, and sometimes racist judges. African americans and latinas are generally born into a lower class and cannot afford adequate legal counsel to fight back against corruption. 
This is why corrupt cops can get away with fabricating evidence or framing innocent people of color for murder or doing drugs. Because they’re powerless to stop it. 
First off, injustice does exist, and I can agree that there are cases where such a thing can occur, but it's rare, and estimated to be around only 1% of the prison population (How Many Innocent People are in Prison? - Innocence Project). Still, I can get behind the idea that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. The problem with that, I find, is that the source of the injustice isn't because of a racist system. Tens of thousands of people, of every race, go to jail without ever talking to a lawyer, innocent people, of every race, take plea deals, and prosecutors, of every race, apply pressure like a 1000kg bench press to get cases closed. That's a fault of a congested system, not a racist one.
And I can agree that there is a power dynamic between prosecutors, cops, and other justice dispensers in comparison to suspects, but is that strictly race-based? No, it isn't. The problem is one of economics. You yourself admitted that the problem is a matter of affording adequate legal counsel. In the context of your argument, you state that it is "to fight back against corruption", but I disagree. It is to fight back against prosecution, and that is something that every race has to deal with. Whites aren't blessed to have money to afford counsel, and neither are minorities damned to be deemed guilty, but it's simply that the rich get richer with all the benefits that includes, and the poor suffer.
  • Privilege
Whites do not need extra-representation in sports just because it is black-dominated. The privilege that whites have over blacks means they have better access to training, nutrition, and equipment. 
Blacks are discouraged from academic or intellectual pursuits because they sometimes lack the financial resources to pursue it, regardless of their full commitment and because of racist employers, using selective hiring to discriminate against candidates of color. 
What I meant by bringing the point of sports up is to say different groups have different advantages, and that can lead them to different outcomes. Sure, a white person can, on average, invest more money in their children, but does that guarantee they get to go the professional leagues? No, it merely gives them a leg up. Can a black person have incredible athletic abilities and still not make it to the professional leagues? Yes, but their abilities give them a leg up. Professional athletes are a minority of the population, and they all have to have the ability to stand above others with their skills. Race, as a matter of skin color, does not matter on the field, court, or wherever the playing field is.
Here's a final question to Con: are LeBron's kids basically guaranteed NBA positions because of genetics, race, family ties, or skill? I, personally, think it's a mixture of all but race. And I think this same mixture applies to everyone.
As for academic and intellectual pursuits, as well as employment, I'll only say Affirmative Action and scholarships. Both institutional concepts that favor blacks to whites.
  • Immigrants and Family
There is no proof any of these movements are hurting families. 
If anything, leftism is about keeping families together. There are more than a million immigrants in the United States and a certain right-wing politician gave the executive order to deport the illegals, which if successful, would have separated majority of the families currently living in the nation. 
I can't understand where you're getting no proofs from. As I've said before, Feminism promotes women to have less children, engage in more "free" sexual relationships, and to prioritize work over maintaining the family. Meanwhile, the LGBTQ+ movement, rapidly spreading, is unequivocally opposite of traditional, Christian values, such as a family with a father and mother at the head of household, which has been the familial model for almost all of this country's lifespan. This can directly translate to less statistically stable, traditional family structures (Are Same-Sex or Heterosexual Relationships More Stable? | Psychology Today). 
If you're saying this doesn't hurt the individual families, I'd like to point out that divorce stat I cited in the previous round. And, if you're saying this doesn't hurt the concept of family, I'll again point out that the LGBTQ+ community is one that operates in pretty much anything but a conventional, traditional manner.
As for immigration, there's no one saying to stop legal immigration. The major issue is of border control, and how strict immigration laws should be. You're reference of that executive order is directly about illegal immigration, and I don't think that has a major relevance to this debate. The debate is about governmental strength, and though illegal immigrants do reside in the country, they aren't subject to the laws of the country, as by the very definition of the group, they've already broken them. That means no taxes, no draft. Also, you think illegal immigrants are part of the majority of families in the nation?
Recap of the Pro Argument
The left has weakened the country in two major ways. One, they've divided the country, and two, they've broken the family. In the case of the first, Leftist politicians have, looked at in the best manner, "awakened" people to different outcomes for different races. They might have done this with the best of intentions, but having no solution and riling up the townspeople can only lead to the townspeople getting out their pitchforks and trying to solve it themselves. What the left has really done has made race and racism the number one talked about factor in every decision. From the casting couch to the draft pick, to the paycheck, race is again, a predominant thing. Whatever happened to the content of their character, not the color of their skin?
Additionally, the left-wing social movements are ones set to oppose not just tradition, but the idea of family itself. Feminism has desecrated the family to something unimportant, and the LGBTQ+ community has molded it into something never before seen. And yet, both are advocating that this is the best way to live.
Con
#8
The job of Pro was to prove that leftwing ideology is weakening the US. But as I’ve shown in my examples that most of the problems that existed are unrelated or what caused the switch to leftist politics. 

Pro starts off this debate with incorrect definitions and a very fragile position that immediately crumbled when I offered pushback. Nor does he spend anytime later in the debate either defending or supporting his case. 

He wastes too much time conceding to my definitions and refuting my points instead of trying to meet his BoP.

Extend all my arguments and sources

Vote Con.