I want to debate liberals

Author: Singularity

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
Liberals believe the opposite of the following things and I would like just one to have the courage to defend their beliefs. I have reworded all the below so I am pro on all these issues

1. Over regulating things is possible
2. We should not have completely open borders
3. late stage abortions should be illegal unless done for medical reasons
4. All guns should not be completely banned
5. People should not be able to cut there 12 year old human child's dick off and call him a girl?
6. Bruce Jenner is biologically a male
7. It should be illegal for grown men to fuck 5 year old human children and younger,
8. The United States should not completely disband the military
9. Religions should not be outlawed.
10. There should be a presumption of innocence in rape cases
#2
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@Singularity
I am rather liberal and i agree with all of those points.

Just goes to show that the right wing is fighting a strawman caricature and should stop getting their info on liberals from conservative pundits. 2 and 4 are the only ones that may have small left wing support, but nothing mainstream. 

Pick any and i will try to clear your confusion.
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Singularity
I would happily debate that none of these positions represent the opposite of any classically liberal position. 
#4
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
The United States should not completely disband the military
I dont think they want to get rid of the military entirely
Topic's author
#5
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@oromagi
The definition of liberal has changed deal with it. Technically I would fall under the classically liberal paradigm, any definition of the word liberal that would include me is one I refuse to accept. I have been on youtube and know you liberals disagree with the above statements. I have also read michael Moore books so I have been exposed to arguments from who the left sees as an intellectual leader

Topic's author
#6
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Nemiroff
I HAVE HEARD LINERALS SAY COUNTLESS TIMES THAT Deregulation is stupid. How is deregulation stupid if liberals agree with the fact that there are too many or wrong regulations in some areas? 

Topic's author
#7
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
Thomas Jefferson was a classic liberal. I wish racists who are pro killing 50% of blacks through abortion before they are born would stop trying to adopt the term
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Singularity
Yeah, i would certainly qualify as a liberal, and as far as i can tell i agree with every one of your statements. 

I HAVE HEARD LINERALS SAY COUNTLESS TIMES THAT Deregulation is stupid. How is deregulation stupid if liberals agree with the fact that there are too many or wrong regulations in some areas? 
because reviewing and revising regulations that are not functioning correctly is absolutely necessary. If the regulations aren't having the intended effect, or if the downside of the regulation is greater that the upside, then they should absolutely be changed or removed to fix the issue. 

But when the right says "deregulate", they don't usually mean reviewing regulations on a case by case basis and fixing the handful that are problematic. They usually mean slashing as many regulations as they can get their hands on. The effect of this is usually terrible for the poor or working class while the rich can now get away with more stuff (poisoning ground water, risking their employees lives, bankrupting people etc)

So it is entirely logical to both believe it is possible for regulations to go too far, and also say that deregulation is stupid. 

#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
The definition of liberal has changed deal with it.
Just because FOX news requires you to think that does not make it true.  Dictionaries record semantic shifts, not Rush Limbaugh.

Technically I would fall under the classically liberal paradigm
Bullshit. 

  • You don't believe that all people are equal in rights. 
  • You consistently prefer totalitarian propaganda to liberal science. 
  • You think that guarantees of human rights imply an absence of responsibility when the opposite is true.  Anarchy is not freedom
  • Your name, Singularity, reflects your core ideology that humans should build robots that take over human decision-making and punish humans who don't submit
    • Your whole ideology is one big  "let's give up"  in search of some enemy you might surrender to.
  • Because you don't understand that America is by definition a liberal project, you don't understand the word liberal or the nation called the United States of America

#10
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@Singularity
History buff covered deregulation for me. Essentually over regulation is possible, and very bad. But blind deregulation for the sake of deregulation is also very bad. 

Would you like to pick another one of your misconceptions for me to correct?
#11
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,514
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
I am rather liberal and i agree with all of those points.
He means progressives. Open borders = bad and banning all guns = bad
#12
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, i consider myself progressive. 
Almost noone is for open borders.
Gun control is not the same as gun ban. 
I would call the belief that these are progressive policies is propaganda. Stop getting your info on the left, from pundits on the right.
#13
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,514
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
Almost noone is for open borders.
Legalizing illegals is not open borders?

Gun control is not the same as gun ban.
Gun control is the first step in a gun ban. But progressives do want ARs banned. So yes ban guns.

I would call the belief that these are progressive policies is propaganda. Stop getting your info on the left, from pundits on the right.
Why do you assume I do that? I form my opinion based on primary sources rather than media “analysis” whether it be from the left or right.
#14
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
"Legalizing illegals is not open borders?"
Legalizing illegals who been here for many decades does nothing to change the security or laws on the border. The two issues are not connected, although based on the next segment, you seem to be a proponent of the slippery slope fallacy.


Gun control is the first step in a gun ban. But progressives do want ARs banned. So yes ban guns.
And police are the first step to a police state. Should we eliminate police? No. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

Why do you assume I do that? I form my opinion based on primary sources rather than media “analysis” whether it be from the left or right.
I say that because none of those are left wing policies and the only places i hear such claims are right wing pundits and trump's twitter. I would love to see your primary source claiming such policies.
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,263
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Singularity
Liberal is a Conservative assumption and vice versa.

Assumptions are only variable data output and therefore subject to variability.

How one aligns or votes politically is only indicative of how one chooses to align or vote politically.


Me....I'm a Liberal Conservative or maybe a Conservative Liberal or perhaps a Moderate or perhaps just a human being with variable and changeable points of view.
#16
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,514
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
Legalizing illegals who been here for many decades does nothing to change the security or laws on the border. The two issues are not connected, although based on the next segment, you seem to be a proponent of the slippery slope fallacy.
Yes that’s open borders. What’s the point of legal immigration if I can come in illegally stay a couple years and gain citizenship. It’s a never ending cycle.

As for the slippery slope fallacy, in case you didn’t know, slippery slope arguments aren’t necessary fallacies when the proceeding event is likely to occur. We see in various countries in history where slowly guns were confiscated. Most recently that would be Canada where they’re banning more guns because of a mass shooting caused by an illegal smuggled gun.

I say that because none of those are left wing policies and the only places i hear such claims are right wing pundits and trump's twitter. I would love to see your primary source claiming such policies.
For just these two policies. Idk about the others. Here’s Beto O Rourke saying we’re going to take your ARs.

Here’s Dianne Feinstein saying if she could, she’d ban all guns. 

From Elizabeth Warren’s website: “I’ll reshape CBP and ICE from top to bottom, focusing their efforts on homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wanting time abolish ICE that is tasked with deportations

The end goal here is banning guns. The end goal is ending deportations of those who cross the border illegally. It’s a never ending cycle.


#17
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Re open borders.
If post amensty, we still  have border security, checkpoints, and migration limits.... how is that open borders? Im sorry you are wrong. Amnesty is not a cycle, and it does not give citizenship. Your arguments seem to be running mostly on assumptions. Amnesty should be judged on the merits right here right now, and not some presumption of repetition that is completely optional.


Re slippery slope
Slippery slope is an official logical fallacy from well before this partisan debate. Your assuming a possibility will happen when in reality we can stop mid hill, or even double back at any time. Never, not even during the wild west, have we had so little gun control laws, and the claim that any controls is too many controls is false. 

Re your sources
Beto: Yes, banning semi autos is a democratic position. If we ban ARs, but shotguns and handguns are still legal... are guns banned? No. If your gonna claim the extreme position, defend the extreme position, and not some watered down point. This is not for banning guns.

Diane was trying to ban assualt style guns in 1994. In 1995 she said "if she could, she would have banned them all." You claim she meant all guns, most fact checkers say she meant all assault style guns. The few second clip you showed does not clarify her position. Based on modern AR availablity, she did not succeed in banning assault style guns in 94' and it is wholly reasonable her quote of ban them all is in reference only to assault guns, which she did not have enough votes to do, and clearly failed. I hate out of context clips, has she or.anyone pushed any bill to ban all guns? And how many democrats supported such a bill? These are important questions that will dispell the need for guessing.

None of these positions are for gun ban, unless you have a longer quote from feinstein, context matters.

I agree with warren on reshaping border security to focus on smuggling and drugs. Whats the problem? That isn't open borders.

I was horrified with the end ice chants because i thought this was an integral part of our government, like the fbi, or cia. but then i learned ice is a new creation from the 9/11 fear days. In light of this fact, i dont think it's  that extreme of a position. We didnt have open borders before ice, this is not an open borders position. 

Obama was the deporter in chief, but he focused on people who committed other crimes, or people who came illegally recently even without other crimes. This is not an end to deportation. This is smart deportation. As opposed to grabbing low hanging fruit of people checking in at court or dropping kids of at school. Open borders are bad, but sensible immigration is good, especially with our quickly aging boomer population. If a bad law is fixed, those punished under the bad law should be unpunished. If we fix immigration law, we will not need future amnesty programs. If we keep the broken system, it is likely we will need amnesty again in the future. 

None of these positions are for dismantling border security and allowing free migration. People caught at the border will still be deported.
#18
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Closely related to the slippery slope fallacy is the all or nothing fallacy. Some gun control is not all gun control. Easing of border/immigration rules is not open borders. 

If you wish to debate the merits of individual gun/border change ideas, sure. But jump to the most extreme conclusion is counter productive and foolish.
#19
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Nemiroff
Beto: Yes, banning semi autos is a democratic position. If we ban ARs, but shotguns and handguns are still legal... are guns banned? No.
An AR can be a semi-automatic but other guns fit into that category as well. 

A semi-automatic refers to when however much you hold down the trigger only a single bullet comes out. This means shotguns and handguns fit into the category.  

Semi-autos account for almost all guns since fully-automatics barely exist to the public your first sentence would pretty much be an entire gun ban. 



#20
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Some handguns are semi auto, but im pretty sure most have a limit to their fire speed regardless of how fast you pull the trigger. Same goes for shotguns. I could be wrong, guns are not an area of expertise. 

A classification we can use instead is high capacity. Even with a fast fire rate, there is a limit to how many people a person can kill if they have to stop and reload after 6 shots.
#21
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Nemiroff
Some handguns are semi auto, but im pretty sure most have a limit to their fire speed regardless of how fast you pull the trigger. Same goes for shotguns. I could be wrong, guns are not an area of expertise. 
The difference in firing speed doesn't matter towards calling it a semi-automatic.
A classification we can use instead is high capacity. Even with a fast fire rate, there is a limit to how many people a person can kill if they have to stop and reload after 6 shots.
Better for sure since conservatives can't literally talk the surface level to argue against the point but they would be parroting their idols talking points like on pretty much any other issue.

This high capacity magazine limit has already been set in nine states. 

#22
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,514
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
But jump to the most extreme conclusion is counter productive and foolish.
Why? Is it a slippery slope if gun control leads to more gun control? Historically that has been true. Unless you deny historic trends, I don’t know how you cant see that a slippery slope argument is valid. As I mentioned Canada is a prime example just recently. But any who, there’s zero solvency for abolishing the Second Amendment. Only possible method is the Court which will thank god stay conservative from a couple of decades.

As for open borders you don’t acknowledge that it’s a never ending cycle. Please show to me that after illegals are legalized that’s the end. We will deport the rest of them that come after. Not one Democrat has ever said that. Why? As for abolishing ICE or reshaping what they do, you’re inherently bringing allowing more crimes by illegals to occur. That’s their primary job: deport illegals and in a lot of cases violent ones. 
Topic's author
#23
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Nemiroff
Slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Sometimes we do have a slippery slope. Let's check to see if there is one here. Along with banning ARs, are you willing to also implement a law along with it to create no new gun laws?
Topic's author
#24
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Nemiroff
Why would you want to limit the amount of people somebody can kill. The risk is that the government will get a monopoly on fire power like what happened in nazi germany. Sometimes a bad person gains power over a nation. It just happens and no nation is immune, so you want to have the people having some control and bot monopolize all control and power with a government
#25
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Nemiroff
Yeah, I'd say that almost no liberals or leftists believe in any of those things. For open borders, it could also be a call-out on libertarians. Generally, lefties are just happy with super high, mass immigration, just not open borders.
Late-stage abortions are generally accepted by your side, though, aren't they?
I remember "abolish 2a" being a little more popular than expected, but most on the left actually support gun rights, too- just to a lesser extent.
#26
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Singularity
It should be illegal for grown men to fuck 5 year old human children and younger,
What about 6 year olds? :^)
#27
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@Singularity
No nation is immune, however the cost is far more than the benefit. None of these weapons are even comparable to minor government forces. The best way to prevent "a bad person" is to have proper safeguards,  seperation of powers, impeachment, whistleblower protections and a unrestrained press. I feel it has done a fine job restraining this administration.

The 2nd amendment was written in a time of monarchies. Modern governments can belong to us depending on how we utilize our vote. In the end, it is our say.
#28
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
@Singularity
Why? Is it a slippery slope if gun control leads to more gun control? Historically that has been true. Unless you deny historic trends, I don’t know how you cant see that a slippery slope argument is valid. 
The trend is true, the reason is false. Continued gun control is a choice, if it is a choice many make consistently, its possible that it is simply a successful choice. At no point is further control an inevitable consequence of previous controls. Each step should be taken or avoided based on individual merits that can change with technology and situation and i do not commit to any future action or lack of. I am not a prophet.