Instigator
Points: 3

Classical Liberals (Conservatives) and Liberals have the same ideology, it's just that one is a bit more "classical" and the other a bit more "liberal"

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Alec
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
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Classical Liberals were the first liberals, when an American says they are "conservative" they are saying they are liberals.
Modern Liberals are capitalists who believe in a semi-democratic republic system just as conservatives do. Libs and cons only disagree on various issues that are non-fundamental to the overall system they support such as abortion or what the minimum wage should be etc.

Published:
A Classical liberal is basically a libertarian.  Due to how the debate is titled, if there is merely one difference between classical liberals and liberals, then my side is the correct side.

Some ideological differences between liberals and classical liberals:

-Stance on Guns.  Classical Liberals tend to want to legalize AK 47s.  Liberals tend to want these banned
-Stance on Economic freedom in general.  Classical liberals tend to want the government out.  Liberals want the government in to help poor people.
-Stance on the Environment.  Classical Liberals want less environment regulation.  Liberals want more environment regulation.
-Stance on Affirmative Action.  Classical Liberals want selectment on the basis of merit.  Liberals want more racial diversity.
-Stance on Religious freedom.  Classical Liberals support religious freedom for refusing to bake a cake for gay people.  Liberals want to get the cake baker to bake the cake in the name of gay liberation.

Classical liberals and liberals have very different ideologies.  One is more libertarian, the other has way more identity politics in it.

These are just some of the differences between Liberals and Classical liberals.


Round 2
Published:
A Classical liberal is basically a libertarian
There are libertarian socialists buddy, that definition won't cut it.

Due to how the debate is titled, if there is merely one difference between classical liberals and liberals, then my side is the correct side.
I am so fucking sick of the intellectual dishonesty and silly word games on this site. People who have the same ideology can disagree on things that aren't fundamental to that ideology. Not only are you trying to semantically knit pick at the debate title instead of actually debating me like an intellectual coward, but your stupid assertion doesn't even make any sense from a purely grammatical standpoint.

All of the differences you pointed out do not change the simple fact that liberals and conservatives are both capitalists in support of a semi-democratic republic system. They have the same ideology, which was originally called classical liberalism.

Stance on Guns.  Classical Liberals tend to want to legalize AK 47s.  Liberals tend to want these banned
So you're telling me the ones who want LESS liberal gun laws are more liberal? You may disagree on how liberal to be about certain issues, but you are both liberals in general.

Stance on Economic freedom in general.  Classical liberals tend to want the government out.  Liberals want the government in to help poor people.
There is really an insignificant difference between libs and cons in this regard. So liberals want to raise the taxes a bit and have a few more social programs, big deal, they still aren't changing the overall system. And don't use extreme examples like Bernie Sanders or AOC because they are not even liberals but soc-dems.

Stance on the Environment.  Classical Liberals want less environment regulation.  Liberals want more environment regulation.
More environmental regulations means more economic freedom, because it opens up the market to more clean and sustainable energy and loosens the grip that moneyed interests invested in major pollution-causing industries have on the free market.

-Stance on Affirmative Action.  Classical Liberals want selectment on the basis of merit.  Liberals want more racial diversity.
Affirmative action is not universally agreed upon by liberals.

-Stance on Religious freedom.  Classical Liberals support religious freedom for refusing to bake a cake for gay people.  Liberals want to get the cake baker to bake the cake in the name of gay liberation.
So one group of CLs cares more about religious liberty, the other cares more about gay liberty, what's the big whoop?

Classical liberals and liberals have very different ideologies.  One is more libertarian, the other has way more identity politics in it.
Just a stupid right wing talking point. Do you even realize when you say "libertarian" you are saying you are more LIBERAL than the liberals?
ROTFLMAO



Published:
There are libertarian socialists buddy
They believe in a blend of ideologies.  For example, I would classify myself as a far right libertarian.  I believe in some right wing ideologies, such as abolishing the income tax and abortion, but I support weed rights and homosexuality rights.  At the same time, I prioritize religious freedom over gay marriage, so if a religious store owner doesn't want to bake a cake for homosexuals because of his religion, then go ahead.

 Due to how the debate is titled, if there is merely one difference between classical liberals and liberals, then my side is the correct side.

I am so fucking sick of the intellectual dishonesty and silly word games on this site. People who have the same ideology can disagree on things that aren't fundamental to that ideology.
I was referring to the ideology between classical liberals and liberals.  If there is as much as one non "classical" difference between them that I can point out, then I have won.


All of the differences you pointed out do not change the simple fact that liberals and conservatives are both capitalists
Most liberals and democrats favor socialism over capitalism (1)


So you're telling me the ones who want LESS liberal gun laws are more liberal?
Yes.  Liberal the way the left defines it in this context is, "freedom from mass shootings and from homicide".  This means more restrictive gun laws.

Democratic liberalism wants equality instead of freedom.

Stance on Economic freedom in general.  Classical liberals tend to want the government out.  Liberals want the government in to help poor people.
There is really an insignificant difference between libs and cons in this regard. 

Pro immediately concedes that there is a non classical difference between classical liberals and liberals.  Even if he negated it, it still exists.  It is a significant difference.  2 states that out of the 9 issues that were important enough to be mentioned(and issues like abortion didn't even qualify for the list, despite 3 stating that 21% would be their deciding issue and 67% (21%+46%) have it as at least one important issue), 5 of the issues are economic related.

Economic issues are important to America, more important then abortion, which had 0 issues make this highly selective list.

Stance on the Environment.  Classical Liberals want less environment regulation.  Liberals want more environment regulation.
More environmental regulations means more economic freedom,
More environment means less economic freedom because it involves carbon taxes, which restrict business power, and it is the government telling you how to power your business.  There are good arguments on both sides for this.  However, Liberals tend to like it, Libertarians/Classical liberals tend to not like it.  Lets see why you believe it generates economic freedom:

because it opens up the market to more clean and sustainable energy
The market has been open up for alternative energy for a long time.  My house has solar panels on it.  It's been a good investment, but it should not be forced upon anyone.  Liberal politicians, like those in California, required every new house to have solar panels on it(4).  The Classical liberal probably would have objected to this.  The modern liberal would probably support the decision as what NBC did.

-Stance on Affirmative Action.  Classical Liberals want selectment on the basis of merit.  Liberals want more racial diversity.
Affirmative action is not universally agreed upon by liberals.
5 states that 78% of Democrats support Affirmative action.  A majority of the left supports it.

So one group of CLs cares more about religious liberty, the other cares more about gay liberty, what's the big whoop?
This is another concession to the title of this debate.

Sources:


Back to you.
Round 3
Published:
I was referring to the ideology between classical liberals and liberals.  If there is as much as one non "classical" difference between them that I can point out, then I have won.
On the contrary, if there is one single thing that is "classical" about them then I have one.
See how much of a dick you're being?

Most liberals and democrats favor socialism over capitalism
First of all a liberal/democrat is capitalist by definition (that is not to say "democracy" itself is, because Communism is actually the most democratic system known to man, the American party is what I'm referring to.)

Second of all the source you provided claims that the majority of left leaning people view socialism as mostly positive, not that they prefer it to capitalism. The vast majority of Americans don't even know what socialism is, the left thinks social democracy is actual socialism in the classical sense and the right just thinks socialism means the government controlling everything.
If you ask the same liberals if Bernie Sanders' version of socialism goes a little too far they will mostly say yes, and Bernie Sanders' platform is social democracy, not even full democratic socialism.

Yes.  Liberal the way the left defines it in this context is, "freedom from mass shootings and from homicide".  This means more restrictive gun laws.

Democratic liberalism wants equality instead of freedom.
You are both trying to be liberal in different ways. Right leaning CL's want the freedom to say "nigger" and posses murder weapons and left leaning CL's want the freedom to do drugs and murder their babies.

Pro immediately concedes that there is a non classical difference between classical liberals and liberals.  Even if he negated it, it still exists.
Look at every president in US history, none of them were Ron Paul libertarians. There is a reason for this, because the establishment only allows you to have significant power if you do not threaten the establishment. Democrats and Republicans are virtually the same thing, this is because they serve the same established order, the same ideology. The system that arose from the philosophy of classical liberalism.
So the big significant difference you refer to does not exist in the actual system, it only exists among the "alt right" and "alt left" who don't have any real power in the system. Social Democracy and hardcore right wing Libertarianism are considered fringe in America and do not count as classical liberalism.

The market has been open up for alternative energy for a long time.  My house has solar panels on it.  It's been a good investment, but it should not be forced upon anyone.  Liberal politicians, like those in California, required every new house to have solar panels on it(4).  The Classical liberal probably would have objected to this.  The modern liberal would probably support the decision as what NBC did.
This whole discussion is irrelevant to the debate since I've already established that this does not make liberals not liberals. But I would however point out that you are not considering who actually benefits from lenient regulations on the environment. This is not about forcing the consumer to invest in solar panels, it's about loosening the grip that wealthy investors have on the free market because they are invested in oil related stocks and bonds etc. They do not care about what is more sustainable, they only care about profit, and thus their decisions are often worse for society and the environment than it is for them. The decision of whether or not we shit on the environment should not be made based on what is more profitable, because the rich will surely make the wrong decision for us and the right one for their purse. So some industries need to be choked out so others can have breathing room and these greedy rich cunts will be forced to invest in better alternatives that may be less profitable for them.


In sum, none of your arguments prove that liberals are not classical liberals. Since you claim that just one difference between libs and cons makes them something entirely different I am going to say the opposite just to be as much of a dick head as you are, if there is so much as one similarity then I automatically win. Of course, their entire core ideology is the same so I automatically win no matter what.
Do your standards in this debate apply to other things, or just when it's convenient to you? For example, are shi'ite and sunni Muslims still both Muslims even though they have a few differences?


Published:
On the contrary, if there is one single thing that is "classical" about them then I have one.
See how much of a dick you're being?

First of all a liberal/democrat is capitalist by definition

Most liberals aren't capitalist as I have cited.  Liberals want equality (https://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal).
Second of all the source you provided claims that the majority of left leaning people view socialism as mostly positive, not that they prefer it to capitalism.
If they view socialism as positive, they almost always if not, then they will always view capitalism as negative.  How can you be both a capitalist and a socialist?  Capitalists believe you should keep what you earn.  Socialists believe everyone should have the same amount of money.
Right leaning CL's want the freedom to say (the hard n word) and posses murder weapons and left leaning CL's want the freedom to do drugs and murder their babies.
Classical liberals want all of these things and the freedom for more stuff, such as to not get taxed as much.  

Democrats and Republicans are virtually the same thing, this is because they serve the same established order, the same ideology.
They contradict themselves on numerous issues.

Social Democracy and hardcore right wing Libertarianism are considered fringe in America and do not count as classical liberalism.
Being a social democrat is essentially the same thing as a democratic socialist, which isn't "fringe" as the Bernie Sanders/AOC crowd, which is pretty big tends to support socialism/social democracy/democratic socialist/whatever term you plan on using to describe this belief.
 they only care about profit, and thus their decisions are often worse for society and the environment than it is for them.
That is the free market.  The free market also enables you to get alternative energy, which is good for the environment.  If you don't like it, tour Venezuela.
if there is so much as one similarity then I automatically win
No.  You said they were the same ideology except one was more classical and the other was more liberal.  


it's about loosening the grip that wealthy investors have on the free market
Liberals support regulations on businesses necessary to improve the lives of society and to improve the environment.  Classical liberals are reluctant to regulations because they believe that the market will fix it due to competition.
The decision of whether or not we shit on the environment should not be made based on what is more profitable, because the rich will surely make the wrong decision for us and the right one for their purse. 
The Classical liberal would not say this.  The liberal position would.

 For example, are shi'ite and sunni Muslims still both Muslims even though they have a few differences?
They have a similar ideology, but they don't have the same ideology because they disagree on who should be their ruler.

Source:

Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I issued a challenge debate towards you.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Type1
Hi Type1
The reason I voted you down is clearly stated in my RfD.
You were claiming liberals and conservatives have basically the same ideology, with some differences attributed to being “a little more liberal or classical”. You made little attempt to illustrate that those differences are attributable to those reasons (and to be honest you didn’t even really provide any demonstration that the two “share ideology” either).
To win, you needed to do the following:
Define what a bit more “classical” was
Define what a bit more “liberal” was
Compare ideological similarities, preferably with specific examples (you sort of did this, but broadly and barely)
Show differences that are raised can be placed in the first two categories.
As you only did 0.5 of those 4 things, you lost this debate.
#6
Added:
--> @Type1
A lot of votes are because you have a history of forfeiting debates. The fact that you didn't forfeit is the reason why we tied that other debate and why your only behind by 4 points this time. Your getting better.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @Alec
The votes are always against me for bullshit reasons.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @Type1
I don't publicly complain when there are votes against me. You shouldn't either.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You are clearly biased. Con literally thinks that any little difference whatsoever between two members of the same overall ideology makes them a different ideology. Making such a claim both constitutes poor conduct and an excessively shitty argument.
People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you are just an anti-intellectual douche and a troll. You are voting against me even though it is clear how intellectually dishonest my opponent was just because you are a partisan shill and nutsack gobbling dumpster goblin.
Instigator
#2
Added:
1st comment!
Contender
#1
#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:
Not a great debate.
Con highlights a series of deviations between classical liberals (conservatives) and liberals: these include gun control, environment and religious freedom.
Pros response was to concede some of the differences exist, but they don’t matter: or to try and argue that the “liberals” are not acting liberal, or “classical liberals” are not acting classically liberal.
As con and pro both agreed on instances where there are deviations, it is incumbent on pro to show how those differences are merely one side being “a bit more liberal”, or “a bit more classical”. Pro doesn’t do this to any degree, and doesn’t appear to attempt to link his counter arguments to this rebuttal. He argues mostly that liberals are less liberal, classical liberals are the liberal side - and barely touches upon any of the contentions he needs to support.
As a result, while Alec did a poor job of dismantling this - he did enough to prove his burden, and pro was not able to match it.
Arguments to con.
Conduct:
Pro:
“I am so fucking sick of the intellectual dishonesty and silly word games”
“your stupid assertion doesn't even make any sense from a purely grammatical standpoint.”
“See how much of a dick you're being?”
Pro was excessively rude and profane throughout, Con was not.
Conduct to con