Instigator
Alec avatar
Points: 4

The Republican Party is better then the Democratic party.

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
7,000
Contender
RationalMadman avatar
Points: 7
Description
Rules of the debate:
1: The BoP is shared
2: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is a loss of conduct point.
Round 1
Published:
Because of the rules, I waive this round.
Published:
Before I begin my beautiful Republican-bashing session, please get yourself relaxed but not so relaxed that you don't want stimuilation... Breathe those deep breaths, mmmm baby we're in for a ride. Take a listen to this: 


Right-click the video and put it on 'loop' if you want. It's a very relevant song to this debate ahahahah oh baby let's hit those right-wing hypocrite left, right and centre but mainly from the left! ;)


Who is it that was stuttering humbadumbalumdumb? Bush Jr. 


Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
- Fine Republican Speaker for the nation and two-term President George W. Bush Jr.

So, anyway, who was this pathetic leader leading the nation in the hunt of? Osama Bin Laden. Apparently he was 'within our grasp' or something like that was the excuse (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/29/bin.laden.2001/index.html). So, let's be clear here. Bush Jr. was struggling and Osbama as 'just out of his grasp' for the majority of his 8-year presidency and Obama and his left-hand-ferocious Secretary of State are oh so much superior in Intel and strategy of using it that they find and kill Bin Laden 2.5 years into his presidency? Hahaha okay, okay it could be bad luck for Bush.

So what's the point I'm making here? Morality aside, intellect is blatantly in favour of the Democratic Party.

Trump and Bush Jr. stumbling over their own words every speech is one thing, the genuine lack of strategy and ability to plan things out in the long run is why the nation of the US has become more and more Democratic and less and less Republican and less Constitution-obsessed over the years.

So, at the core a Republic is the following:

Republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics. The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.

That's fine, that's what the US still is but do you realise that in the original US, with slavery still happening (and I will get to the KKK calling themselves Democrats, promptly), things were still able to be justified as being a true Republic? This is because it's very vague who should be represented to what degree and this means that white, male land owners could have all the say and then claim that because there's a white male land owner from each area that it's sufficiently qualifying as a Republic. 

The old US was a Republic to the core and over time has become more and more Democratic, even with Republicans in power because the values of the Democratic Party and ability of them to get legislation through even with the opposing party in power is unparalleled by the other.


Typically, white, male property owners twenty-one or older could vote. Some colonists not only accepted these restrictions but also opposed broadening the franchise. Duke University professor Alexander Keyssar wrote in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States:

At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

From allowing women and blacks to vote to acting to end wars, global warming (including abusive spills and cover-ups from companies like BP) to gay marriage and the encouragement of making schools public and available to people of all incomes and ages, things have moved away from 'few having a say from each area' to 'all having a say and informing the uninformed if the issue is that the voters are uninformed' over time.

This is because the Democratic Party are superior in intellect and while their opposition is ruthless to the poor and to foreigners, the Democratic Party is just as ruthless but to threats from within, not necessarily outside the US. Threats can be income inequality, not necessarily people.

What is the core concept of a democracy as opposed to a Republic?

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
So, bring it on, tell me what's so great about the Republican Party? I'm going to use the angles you bring against you, Pro, and going to show you how utterly inferior in both intellect and morality that the Republican Party has been, is and probably always will be.
Round 2
Published:
I scanned the lyrics of the song and it mainly talks about how the artist believes that America sucks because of the police.  While the police aren't perfect (no one is)  they save more lives then they take(1).  Moreover, the vast majority of police officers don't kill people on the basis of their skin color.  Stereotyping police officers like this is like stereotyping Muslims because of terrorist attacks.

Your George Bush quote is:

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
This is a misquote.  Many presidents make them, like when Obama said he has been to the 57 states(2).  George Bush meant to say that the enemy will never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and we don't stop thinking about harming the enemy.  He was referring to the enemy and not the USA.

You point out the fact that Obama killed Osoma Bin Laden.  I would like to point out that both the left and the right wanted Bin Laden dead.  Obama just happened to be the one who killed him.  He also had some non partisan advantages that Bush didn't, such as inheriting all of the intelligence and knowledge about where Osoma Bin Laden was that Bush had developed for Obama.

 the genuine lack of strategy and ability to plan things out in the long run is why the nation of the US has become more and more Democratic and less and less Republican and less Constitution-obsessed over the years.
Are you sure America is becoming more liberal?  (3) states that there are signs that America is becoming more conservative.  Believe it or not, Generation Z is more conservative then their predecessors(4).  They tend to be savers instead of spending money they don't have.

So, at the core a Republic is the following:
There is a difference between a Republic and the Republican Party, just as there is a difference between democracies and the democratic party.

The old US was a Republic to the core and over time has become more and more Democratic
This isn't entirely true.  For example, Republican states legalized women voting before the Democratic states did (5).  It is safe to assume that the Republican Party legalized blacks voting as well and liberated the black community from slavery and segregation before the Democrats did.

You mention Liberals being smarter then conservatives, however this could be due to the fact that liberals tend to be in more urban areas and this happens to cause intelligence levels to be higher since you have more access to education in the cities.

Threats can be income inequality, not necessarily people.

Income inequality is not a threat.  It also is not an effective way to measure how wealthy a society is.  Lets say there were 2 guys in country A who each have $20,000.  In country B, there are 2 guys, one of them has $40,000 and the other has $60,000.  Which country is better off?  If you use income inequality as the means of measurement, you would say that country A is better off just because they are, "more equal".  However, it is obvious that Country B is better off because of overall success?

So, bring it on, tell me what's so great about the Republican Party?
The Republican Party believes in:
-Protects our borders, having a middle ground between open borders and closed borders; people can enter legally.
-Protects the rights of the unborn from abortion.
-They keep America's taxes low and more equally distributed.
-They support a strong military, necessary to prevent communism from expanding and killing and torturing millions.
-They believe in judging you by the content of your character, rather then by the color of your skin.
-They Support the 1st amendment
-They support the 2nd amendment.

I would like to point out just some contradictions with the democratic party:
-They hate the police killing black people.  They think the government is tyrannical, but the left doesn't support many of the guns needed to defend against a tyrannical government.
-They want equality, except for the unborn and for whites.
-They want to reduce rape, yet they don't support the guns to defend against rapists, since they want to ban guns for all those under 21.
-They claim to sand up for the rights of women and minorities, yet they support abortion rights on the basis of race and sex(source 7)

A basic summary of their bill is below:

I await your response.

Sources:

Published:
xP = x Party
D/R = (the) Dem/Rep

Trump speaks broken English in all his speeches. Bush had a moderately severe stammer that led to actually saying things that he didn't mean at all, such as my quote that Pro doesn't deny was said. The point that the DP has more eloquent speakers is undisputed, the sole error in a speech ever made by the left wing was the one brought forth by Pro.

Pro states some things that are not only unproven but non-linked to making RP better than DP.

The first total lie is that it's RP who is open to middle-ground solutions to Immigration. This is, and always has been, DP.[1][2][3][4] Rs infamously hate immigration because they apparently 'steal jobs'. The hilarious part of this is that the primary reasoning behind the loathing of immigrants is something that DP's values should lead to more dissatisfaction; the ability to pay illegal immigrants sub-minimum-wage. This is something that RP has forever stood for if it isn't with immigrants.[2][5] It would follow that this is the ideal scenario for Rs except that they need to attract trailer park voters and many working class voters to vote into power the Party that hates them most, so what they choose to do is take a very left-wing stance on caring for the working class' jobs when it really doesn't add up. The reason it doesn't add up is that immigrants can actually be of all kind of class and the middle-class ones open up business and increase activity and competition regarding new jobs and new industry-players in the US.[6][7] So, not only do they hate immigrants for primarily anti-right-wing reasons but they should actually like them for right-wing reasons that they ignore (creating new jobs and quality of work in said jobs by increasing competition).

Abortion is something that RP like to pretend they stand against. Bush Jr., Bush Sr. and Trump... Is there anything changing on abortion? Not in the pretend-stance that they hold, not one bit. Abortions are legal and increasingly available even with Trump in power. This is a fake stance that I needn't fight as this is about the Party, not the voters who fall for their ridiculously lie-filled campaign. Oh, and the source? Well, there's hardly a good source on what HAS NOT happened being proven to have not happened but there are two good two forum/blog-type sources on the matter:[8][9]

Now for the tax distribution point. The reason that progressive tax (PT) is in place (and that RP cannot and will not pass a bill to return to Flat Tax ever) is that there is such undeniably huge snowball effect of how trapped a poor person is in their poorness if you think about things that they're forced to pay (especially in the US where healthcare is private and public transport is relatively scarce) that you end up trapping them in their income bracket to the brutal bottom of a cesspit that they can't get out of. For instance, let's say you injure yourself and can't do your blue-collar physical-demanding job and that this snowballs into you not being able to afford food for not just you but your family and that the nutrition which could have gone to you or your children etc. to make them do well at school and/or work is then going to make them worse at their ability to get rich and generation after generation it gets worse and worse until they are malnourished, weak and pathetic by no fault other than the system and some bad luck. PT is not about unfairly uneven 'distribution' of tax it's about making the tax even out what already is brutally harsh distribution of INCOME. It's pretty simple to understand, this is why no RP candidate has ever pretended, yes they don't even dare to pretend on this one, that they are going to bring flat tax back or reduce how progressive it is. What they instead do is promise to make it lower on everyone, that is not better distribution or more even distribution. Pro is simply wrong on this one both in saying it's morally good and in describing what they do as even distribution.

"Strong Military" isn't needed when you're smart and have good relations internationally. Every time RP is in office, it's like this; if they aren't dying due to a terrorist at home (which happens more under RP) then they're dying on soil that they are put on under false pretence. From Afghanistan to Iraq, we see that RP use their own people as pawns.[10][11] It's vile how Bush completely altered what was a Saudi-attack on US soil to become instead about nuclear weapons in Iraq and have an ongoing Afghanistan War on the side for equally BS reasons all the while increasing alliance with Saudi... The nation that was told to be responsible for the attacks... Irony much?

When Pro says that Rs believe in judging people based on character rather than by skin, it's only possible that he isn't joking and stating the very obvious opposite of the parties if he is referring to the Ku Klux Klan. If you look at the states where the KKK operated and look at who NOW, TODAY, are the RP's fanboy states... Well, go ahead Pro and search it for us both. I will like to quote Lincoln (who was R and what RP supporters love to point out was President when slavery was abolished):

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
- [12][13]

Since he 'freed the slaves' there was still severe things that only DP helped to alleviate including Voting Rights and many other things that I needn't source because the proof isn't necessary as this is about what the Party is, not used to be. The black race in the US votes DP regularly and much more so than they vote RP, this is true for all non-white races.[14][15]

The second amendment doesn't make sense. If Tyrants took over the US, they'd take your arms anyway and gun you down machine gun vs semi-automatic weapons. The first Amendment is supported by both, it's the exceptions and where to draw the line that differs. DP supports stopping speech that inspires violence whereas RP ignores the logic there.

I am yet to be contradicted on my R1 with facts.

Sources:

Round 3
Published:
The point that the DP has more eloquent speakers is undisputed
Here you state that the DP is better not because of their policies, but by how, "eloquent" their speeches are?  The DP use so many euphemisms in their speech and they are so seduced by words like, "progressive tax", "living wage", and they insult the other side by calling them racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, transphobes, and general bigots.  It's not like much of the right labels the DP anymore, even though we easily could.  For example on abortion, we could label the DP, "anti-science", "baby killer", "racist" (since they allowed race based abortions as I pointed out) but the right simply has better conduct then to label their opponents.  The left on the other hand, tries to exploit these labels in an effort to try to change minds without presenting much facts, only labels.

The first total lie is that it's RP who is open to middle-ground solutions to Immigration.
It depends on how you define, "middle ground".  I define it as a compromise between completely open borders and completely closed borders.  Republicans have an answer for this: Only let the legal immigrants in and keep the illegal ones out.  However, much of the L wants open borders; there are some that don't want this, but for many(1, 2, 3) they support open borders.  Site 1 isn't really the most leftist site either, so many liberals that read their stuff would support open borders as well.  These pro open border liberals don't make up the whole party, but they make up a good chunk of the party.

Liberals claim something along the lines of:

We need to have taxes on smoking to discourage people from smoking; we need taxes on alcohol to discourage people from drinking alcohol
Apply that logic to income and you get, "we need to tax income to discourage people from making income" (Source Louder with Crowder)

The reason why the rich have so much money(most of the time) is because they earned it by being productive to society by owning a business that creates jobs.  

undeniably huge snowball effect of how trapped a poor person is in their poorness
If business people get rich, then if a poor person wants to be rich, how about they start their own business?  It takes work, but they are used to that from having a job.  Moreover, unemployed people would not only get a job from starting their own business, but they would probably employ others as well.

For instance, let's say you injure yourself and can't do your blue-collar physical-demanding job and that this snowballs into you not being able to afford food for not just you but your family and that the nutrition which could have gone to you or your children etc.
This is why poor people who can't afford kids shouldn't have kids or if they have them, then they should find someone else willing to take care of them that can afford it.  The Right is fine with adoption.

yes they don't even dare to pretend on this one, that they are going to bring flat tax back or reduce how progressive it is.
Ted Cruz wants to bring back flat tax because the flat tax has resulted in one of the highest stable GDP per capitas in the world for the USA.

"Strong Military" isn't needed when you're smart and have good relations internationally.
Norway has pretty good relations with countries.  But they need the US to defend them in case Russia invades them, which Russia has been rehearsing.  The Baltic States don't have a bad reputation either, but due to their small military budget, they need the US to defend them from Russia.  South Korea has pretty good relations with the world(at least compared to their northern counterpart) but they need the US to protect them from North Korea.  You need protection whether or not you have good international relations.

The reason why we have troops in the middle east is to prevent ISIS from terrorizing the region.  Obama tried to remove troops from the region and it resulted in the creation of ISIS.  This wasn't his intellectual fault; he had no idea.  But now that the troops are there, they have to stay in the region to prevent something like ISIS from resurrecting.  While our military is not perfect, it does more good then harm to the places it is in.  I see you didn't touch on how the military is bad in situations like preventing the spread of communism.

It's vile how Bush completely altered what was a Saudi-attack on US soil to become instead about nuclear weapons in Iraq
The US didn't want a nuclear Iraq because a nuclear Iraq would actually use their nukes on another country, like Israel, which the middle east generally hates.

all the while increasing alliance with Saudi
I'm surprised you would complain about this, since you support alliances with Saudi Arabia in general(https://www.debateart.com/debates/197).  Nonetheless, although we should ditch the alliance, we need the oil with our current technology and the right sees that.

When Pro says that Rs believe in judging people based on character rather than by skin, it's only possible that he isn't joking and stating the very obvious opposite of the parties if he is referring to the Ku Klux Klan.
I am referring to Affirmative Action, something that rewards people significantly(to put it into perspective, colleges help black people out by 280 points on their SATs for being black, while they hurt Asians by 50 points) for being a racial minority.

If you look at the states where the KKK operated and look at who NOW, TODAY, are the RP's fanboy states
The left classifies the KKK as "hate speech".  The right doesn't.  This gives the KKK more freedom in the south.

You call Mr. Lincoln a racist.  While I'm not denying this after checking Snopes, at the time, the same is true with DP members like General E Lee.

The black race in the US votes DP regularly and much more so than they vote RP, this is true for all non-white races.
Many people have their ticker issue(s), which is the reason why they vote left or right.  In the case of blacks (in general) they tend to vote to the left because of the welfare that it provides.  Similar with Hispanics, plus liberals tend to have more lenient immigration laws.  Hispanics are more likely to vote right wing because of their common stance on abortion.

 If Tyrants took over the US, they'd take your arms anyway and gun you down machine gun vs semi-automatic weapons.
There are 3 reasons why I support the 2nd amendment:

1: Protection against criminals.
2: Protection against a tyrannical government.  You stated that they would blow you down with machine guns but cops have pistols.  If you have a shotgun, then you can injure multiple cops at once without inherently killing them.  The only way they could take your guns by force is if they gradually strip them away, which is what the left does.
3: Guns in the hands of Law abiding citizens saves more lives then it takes.
Published:
Which Party, Dem or Rep, do you think is willing to defend Norway from the Russians and set up such an agreement?

The Consulate General places are all D-heavy. New York, San Fransisco, Houston and Minneapolis... These are the four places that Norway is closest with in the US and how the alliance is maintained heavily via US politics on the US-end of things. So, you use that as proof that Rs are better for wanting a strong military? No, buddy, you can't just claim they want things and ignore my point. DP are geniuses of making alliances to barely need a strong military and yet providing it with the least bloodshed on the US-end of things possible as well as looking like the good guy internationally throughout their leadership. RP are bloodthirsty antagonists by nature. Even the way in which Lincoln 'freed the slaves' despite being a white supremacist, was not at all lacking in blood-lust or 'might is right' mentality. 

DP speak better, think wiser and have done far more positive things for the people of the US and non-US than Republicans ever have, are or will. 

RP 'frees the blacks' led by a white supremacist who simply wanted to keep the US held together for the sake of controlling more land and stopping the Confederate States breaking off into an independent nation. This was nothing to do with Republicans vs Democrats and this is proven as almost all the Confederate States are R-loyal racists at heart even to date, hence why someone calling Mexicans rapists and Muslims threats to society, even though Sharia Law is severely Conservative and Right-Wing, is in power in the US. 

The RP are not bad at politics, this was never the question. They can win an election and outmanouvre DP within the US. When it comes down to what they do, we see that RP are posers where DP are the real deal. Even in Round 1 I explain that the core principle of a Republic is so vague and open to abusive interpretation as happened indeed in the US. It was solely the DP whom after RP Lincoln 'freed' the black slaves, ended up makign blacks able to vote, ride the same buses as whites and so many other things. In the same way, while it was RP who went in killing and hurting Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and such, it was The DP who led the reconciliation process (which is still resulting in a grudge thanks to how brutal RP did it) and them who maintain good relations with the very nations of the Nordic (not Baltic, that's Ukraine and Romania etc.) places like Norway, that you mentioned.

There is absolutely no point in the entire case where you explain why RP is better. 2nd Amendment is literally not about protecting yourself from criminals with guns, it's actually about allowing a well-regulated group with guns who are not affiliated with the government (and thus de facto outlaws) to fight the government and entire nation's military when the time comes... So, not only is it self-defeating and irrational but it is nothing to do with the aspect of Gun Rights that you, Alec, love so much; protecting yourself from criminals with guns as a law abiding citizen with a gun. The DP-heavy states actively are reducing gun crime and you never did show how it's only the law abiding citizens who end up without guns when sting operations and such are done right. I can't bring new points in my last Round stats-wise so I won't.

Income inequality is a threat, to EVERYONE ON THE BOTTOM END OF IT... I actually explained in a detailed story how the slightest thing can wreck an entire family if healthcare and such are too expensive for the father to afford etc. The fact you support a select few ruthlessly having such a huge percentage of the money while others are starving on the lower salary, you sit there telling me 'country A is better'. Well, you have never proven why countries should exist. It's undoubtable that DP holds a one world nation as the goal of international politics whereas RP are two-faced saying they are isolationist and yet being the party to kill the most US citizens via sending them to die and enemies as well, innocent or not... Oh, and torturing too but DP has done this too and the stats are hidden as it's mostly top secret.

Frankly, you staggered at the entire arguments around immigration and abortion. Where exactly did your definition of 'middle ground' prove that it made the party better? Where did you explain how the fake-poser pro-life RP have ever done anything since abortion was made legal, to make it outlawed once again? How the hell can a poor person start a business if the system has rigged it against them that they have a broken leg and many other illnesses that they can't even eat the vitamin C and protein to fight or heal from? Without foster care and any social service for children (both DP concepts and institutions) no one can 'take away' kids from parents too poor to raise them well and it affects generation after generation.

Ted Cruz 'wants to bring flat tax' but never would because you can't pass something like that without the Senate and such allowing it. This is why it's never going to be brought back, ever. It's irrational and disgustingly unfair on the poor as are all RP values and concepts that they either completely fake standing for or actually stand for and it's exactly as immoral as I just stated.

You've been annihilated boy, it's time to apologise for your Party.
Round 4
Published:
“The Consulate General places are all D-heavy. New York, San Francisco, Houston and Minneapolis”  Because in the US, urban areas tend to be politically left. It’s the opposite in Belgium.

“These are the four places that Norway is closest with in the US and how the alliance is maintained heavily via US politics on the US-end of things.”  It’s too late to cite this when you should have.

“DP are geniuses of making alliances to barely need a strong military and yet providing it with the least bloodshed on the US-end of things possible as well as looking like the good guy internationally throughout their leadership”  You are basically saying that the democrats make good alliances with nations. Under Right Wing and Left wing leadership, our alliances have been maintained. Trump wants to pull out of NATO, or at least threatened too because most of the members weren’t paying their fair share.

“RP are bloodthirsty antagonists by nature.”  Since the left supports abortion on the basis of race, sex, and disability status(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299), and the left looks to use unborn baby parts in medicine, even when alternative vaccines exist.

“Even the way in which Lincoln 'freed the slaves' despite being a white supremacist, was not at all lacking in blood-lust or 'might is right' mentality.”  Everyone at that time was a white supremacist. At least Lincoln didn’t treat the beings he saw as inferior like slaves.

“DP speak better, think wiser and have done far more positive things for the people of the US and non-US than Republicans ever have, are or will.“  If it wasn't for Republicans, the democrats would have gone extreme right now.

“RP 'frees the blacks' led by a white supremacist who simply wanted to keep the US held together for the sake of controlling more land and stopping the Confederate States breaking off into an independent nation.”  Lincoln wanted to keep the nation together under an anti-slavery banner.

“This was nothing to do with Republicans vs Democrats”  Then why are you bringing it up?

“almost all the Confederate States are R-loyal racists at heart even to date, hence why someone calling Mexicans rapists and Muslims threats to society”  Trump was accusing some Mexicans of being rapists, otherwise he wouldn’t have said, “And some, I assume are good people”. He considers Muslims a threat to society because of terror attacks, ISIS and Sharia law.  Much of the world is at tense relationships with Muslims because of ISIS.

“even though Sharia Law is severely Conservative and Right-Wing, is in power in the US.”  How is Sharia law present within the US? Moreover, it’s not right wing either. Here is evidence of it:


-Linda Sarsour, a leader of the women’s march supports sharia law (https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/25/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour/)
-Sharia law prohibits interest on loans.  That sounds like big government.

“When it comes down to what they do, we see that RP are posers where DP are the real deal.”  The parties are opponents.

“In the same way, while it was RP who went in killing and hurting Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and such, it was The DP who led the reconciliation process (which is still resulting in a grudge thanks to how brutal RP did it)”  The RP was attacking Al Qaeda influence in the region. When Obama pulled troops out, it left a power vacuum that ISIS filled.

“and them who maintain good relations with the very nations of the Nordic (not Baltic, that's Ukraine and Romania etc.) places like Norway, that you mentioned.”  These places have good ties with the USA because the USA protects them from invaders like Russia.

“2nd Amendment is literally not about protecting yourself from criminals with guns, it's actually about allowing a well-regulated group with guns who are not affiliated with the government” (and thus de facto outlaws) to fight the government and entire nation's military when the time comes”  ALthough they would be outlaws, if the government would go corrupt, then ordinary people would be “outlaws” because if the government went left wing tyrannical (or right wing tyrannical) then people who disagree with them would be considered outlaws. The 2nd amendment states:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“being necessary for the security of a free state” means that guns are necessary for a free state, not just from a tyrannical government like what’s in North Korea, but also from gangs and criminals in Chicago.

“The fact you support a select few ruthlessly having such a huge percentage of the money while others are starving on the lower salary”  How are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ruthless? They are captains of industry, employing tens of thousands of people, enabling them to not starve and allowing them to survive in a mutually beneficial way.  The poor person gets money. The rich person gets money. That’s America. It’s reasons like this why every time a country goes socialist, their economy in the long term plummets.

“RP are two-faced saying they are isolationist and yet being the party to kill the most US citizens via sending them to die and enemies as well, innocent or not”  The GOP is not isolationist, with the exception of some of its members. The troops are okay with dying to defend freedom. They signed a contract for that. Liberals are okay with people dying when they consent to it, why not expand that right onto soldiers?  Most of the people the troops kill are guilty enemies that degrade human rights, which is what our military protects.

“Where exactly did your definition of 'middle ground' prove that it made the party better?”  They allow immigration under some conditions, like if they come here legally.

“Where did you explain how the fake-poser pro-life RP have ever done anything since abortion was made legal, to make it outlawed once again?”  They have gradually chipped away at abortion rights until abortion finally becomes illegal. For example, Trump eliminated federal funding to international groups that promoted abortions.

“How the hell can a poor person start a business if the system has rigged it against them that they have a broken leg and many other illnesses that they can't even eat the vitamin C and protein to fight or heal from?”  The system is not rigged against them. Most of them don’t have a broken leg. Even if they did, that shouldn’t get in the way of them starting a business. They then get the money for better food which can help them heal to some extent.  

“You've been annihilated boy, it's time to apologise for your Party.”  I think the voters should see this as poor conduct by RM.

I would like to address the points that I have dropped, but I'm out of characters, so I can't do that.  This is why some points were dropped.


Published:
Round is Waived.
PGA2.0 avatar
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Your Republic has worked better than most democracies, yet is it being undermined by Democratic Party values (or lack of good values and lack of common sense). I don't see how you can think that the Democrats are more intelligent than the Republicans, they are just more shifty and cunning and know how to manipulate their Democrat base and many independents.
#18
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
The issue isn’t the word count, it’s your utilization of word count that is the problem.
If you want to spend the majority of the debate in long rebuttals of tanegental points that neither support nor negate the resolution to the detriment of key points that do support or negate the resolution : then you are going to end up losing a lot of debates.
Not all points are relevant or warranted, and if you simply focus on addressing all points chronologically to the same extent regardless of how irrelevant or warranted, it’s going to suck up al your word count, and you’ll not be able address the important stuff.
#17
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
When arguing, I tend to be elaborative in my rebuttals. This means I can only address so many points per round.
Instigator
#16
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
If you’re opponent had the word count to raise a point, you had the word count to deal with it.
#15
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I had to drop some points because I ran out of characters. This is not true for my opponent.
Instigator
#14
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
From my position that the speech by the KKK should be considered as horrifying by voters by default - I’m treating this as a major concession by pro.
Talk about who votes for who seems irrelevant to the resolution and I will ignore it.
Pro provides reasons he is for the second ammendment.
R3: con argues that the dems are better at forging alliances and maintaining peace - so don’t need a strong military.
Cons final round here seems more like a rant, but thankfully he points out this is dema vs reps and pro hasn’t said anything to raise republicans over democrats.
R4 pro :
This was purely formatted, and quite frankly was mostly off the topic of the resolution, or responding to cons rant from the previous round.
This entire round is so far off topic at this point, it’s not entirely what the rebuttals are even intending show at this point.
#13
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
Con argues that a strong military isn’t needed when you make good alliances.
Con then argues that the republicans are racist, and we should look at the states in the past - then argues we should look at the state of things now not in the past - literally a paragraph later.
Con argues the second amendment makes no sense, and both sides support the first ammendment
R3: pro
Pro drops claims about republicans contradiction policy on immigration.
Pro argues that liberals want open borders by citing three examples- and does not bother to show that the Democratic Party supports this notion. I’m ignoring this point.
Pro rebuttal to cons argument on income inequality and inability to get ahead were pretty feeble here, arguing that people should just start a business, and that being injured could lead to extreme poverty should be solved by adoption was bordering on simply absurd.
Pros rebuttal to the “strong military” argument here is good. Con oddly does not argue that democrats are also for a strong military but instead that a strong military is not a great thing. So I have to give this point to pro - but weakly.
Pro points out affirmative action treats people differently - he doesn’t offer any actual arguments against the merits of affirmative action
Pro argues that the racist, KKK who have historically murdered black people, who are typically in support of the degradation and harm of black people are not treated as hate speech by republicans - whereas they are by the left.
#12
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
Argument rounds.
R1 - con.
Con provides one speech from one president and uses this to assert Democrats are smarter. This is a completely unwarranted argument at this point.
Con then spends half the post confusing republic and democracy with Republicans and Democrats.
Con ten provides a list of positives from Democrats which are mostly a series of unsupported assertions that he doesn’t provide justification or sources for.
R2 pro negates cons assertions about bush - but then concedes liberals are smarter.
Pro then says it is safe to assume that republicans gave blacks the right to vote and liberated them from slavery, and ended segregation. Is that safe to assume? Where are your sources?
Pro finishes his opening with a list of unsubstantiated claims about both republicans and democrats - just as con did.
Pro conceded the main issue of intelligence, and didn’t offer any rebuttal of cons primary assertions about democrats
R2: con
Con - insanely - drops pros claims that republicans ended segregation and established voting rights .... uh wut.
Con argues that DP is open to sensible immigration policy - and sources this. He also points out that the RP actually has an incoherent policy as its propose to implement policies that form the basis of its opposition to illegal immigration. This argument has a lot of holes, but I will wait to see what pro says.
Con argues that nothing is changing on abortion. I don’t see how this is relevant ti the debate contention.
Con argues that progressive tax is an excellent idea, and comes up with a really good explanation of why relating to ability to succeed.
#11
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @PGA2.0, @Mharman
Please vote if you have the time.
Instigator
#10
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @blamonkey, @whiteflame
Please vote if you have time/
Contender
#9
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
As you're dedicate to vote on EVERY SINGLE debate, this is only a one-week period and if you're gonna last minute vote against me I'm losing anyway so please put your vote in for or against.
Contender
#8
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @PGA2.0, @Mharman
Please vote when you have the time.
Instigator
#7
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Raltar
pls vote here when you have time, ty in advance.
Contender
#6
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
"was struggling and said Osama was" not "was struggling and Osbama as"
Contender
#5
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
I realise I didnt directly address the KKK issue. I'll prove that the states they operated in and entire way they think/thought and operated/operate is anti-democrat and other things too.
Contender
#4
Ramshutu avatar
#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:
Conclusion:
This debate was objectively a bit of a mess as both sides lost site of the resolution. Pro moreso than con.
Neither side offered a strong cohesive message of why their side was better and stronger, nor gave me a way of determining how I should even tell what constitutes better in the first place.
In my view both sides presented mostly a distorted caricature of the opposing party: though con did better in contrasting if the two sides, and objectively explaining the importance of the issues: In terms of military and issues of income inequality
Multiple points were dropped by both sides to the point I lost count. Multiple things pro said were objectively divorced from reality, and yet con did not challenge them.
I also felt pros rebuttals in particular seemed to often completely lack any context, and grounding of the resolution to the point their relevance to the debate was far more questionable :
“The Consulate General places are all D-heavy. New York, San Francisco, Houston and Minneapolis”  Because in the US, urban areas tend to be politically left. It’s the opposite in Belgium.”
This seems like pro is trying to simply explain why things are a particular way, rather than trying to explain why this makes republicans are better than democrats. This was the case in multiple places, far more than con.
The only thing that really separates the two sides is pro conceded that democrats were smarter, that republicans are accepting of the KKK and their speech, and the democrats are not; con attempted to refute almost every point pro raised in support of republicans, whereas con dropped EVERY benefit con raised about democrats in the opening round.
As a result I must award arguments to con.
More detail in comments from Comment 11