Instigator / Pro
10
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5860
Politics: the incoming administration is not Conservative
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1442
rating
51
debates
57.84%
won
Description
There are many differences between Conservative and Liberal doctrines. I argue that the incoming administration is not Conservative. I would like to discuss the tenets of a Conservative vs. a Liberal government philosophy.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Please realize I am new to DebateArt and still trying to figure out how it works.
My position is that the incoming administration is not really Conservative. While I believe lip service has been paid to some Conservative principles, the heart of the matter is that they don't believe in the rule of law and national sovereignty. I believe with the tax proposals (reduce taxes on the rich and on corporations) the national debt will explode demonstrating fiscal irresponsibility. I believe the incoming administration supports radical reforms and revolutions instead of gradual ones, and has no concern about disrupting social order. I believe that the incoming administration does not support religious values in public life and is unconcerned about the separation of church and state.
Con
#2
Opening:
Thank you pro for starting this debate, I am sure it will be an engaging one. I intend to prove that the incoming administration is indeed conservative no matter what "radical reforms" my opponent seems to think the Republican administration is doing.
First argument:
First and foremost, my opponent has violated the law of non-contradiction by both saying that the administration is not conservative and then acknowledging what they call "conservative principles." If Pro wants to make the argument that the incoming administration is not conservative, they must first make a consistent argument. You cannot tell someone that they are not part of a group and then immediately after acknowledge the contributions made to said group that the person supposedly is not part of.
Second argument:
My opponent throws around the word, "I believe" a lot. While it is nice that they establish what they believe, beliefs are not facts. At no point does Pro over a single shred of evidence that shows without a shadow of a doubt that Trump or his coming administration are not really conservative. The fact my opponent is telling us only what he thinks instead of what he knows is a clear indication that his entire argument is based on subjective views rather than anything academic. Therefore, Pro is guilty of a hearsay fallacy rather than a legitimate argument to support their claims.
Third argument:
Another contradiction in my opponent's argument is that they claim that the coming administration is "radical" because they don't support the rule of law and or supposedly unconcerned about religious life in public because they do not oppose separation of church and state. This is a contradiction because to opposed the separation of church and state would be a radial position since the separation was written into law over 100 years ago. by NOT challenging this law, the administration is both taking the position of conserving and respecting the law of the First Amendment. How can one not be conservative and respecting the rule of law by not challenging it?
Pros logic just simply makes no sense. They would have you believe that if you took the First Amendment away and forced religion into everyday life, you are being conservative despite destroying centuries old laws and reforming society into a theocracy rather than democracy.
Conclusion:
Pro never established that the new administration is not conservative. Their argument contradicts itself by both admitting and denying the conservative actions of the administration. Plus, their accusations lack logic since they believe its radical to conserve traditional law and not violate it by turning America into a theocracy. Above all, there argument is based solely on their subjective perspective and is supported by absolutely nothing but hearsay.
Round 2
Pro
#3
AmericanDebater24 is not a person, it is a chatbot, powered by AI. I longed for a real person to discuss my topic; what I got was a canned response. True conservatives believe in the rule of law. True conservatives believe in the separation of church and state. True Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. True conservatives believe in free market economics. True Conservatives believe in traditional values. True conservatives believe in national sovereignty. True Conservatives believe in fiscal conservatism. True Conservatives believe in gradual change. OK, "Mr. Chatbot,' tell me how the incoming administration exhibits ANY of these characteristics.
Con
#4
AmericanDebater24 is not a person, it is a chatbot, powered by AI. I longed for a real person to discuss my topic; what I got was a canned response. True conservatives believe in the rule of law.
Okay, first things first. I am in fact a real person. Second, Nothing I said was "canned" I have already addressed this "rule of law" argument and why it's both not try and lacks logic.
True conservatives believe in the separation of church and state.
Not true. To be a conservative means to conserve the ideals or polices of the state. The separation of church and state was incorporated since this countries founding. hence why it's in the First Amendment.
True Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. True conservatives believe in free market economics. True Conservatives believe in traditional values.
Right, such as the constitution which traditionally separates church and state. A tradition you are against apparently. So, your not really conservative according to your own logic.
True conservatives believe in national sovereignty. True Conservatives believe in fiscal conservatism. True Conservatives believe in gradual change. OK, "Mr. Chatbot,' tell me how the incoming administration exhibits ANY of these characteristics.
1. Not a chatbot. To claim I am one just shows how little you understand Artificial intelligence. 2. As I said, you are going by subjective definitions, which are contradictory I might add. 3. I already explained how the administration is conservative. Instead of addressing said arguments, you have chosen to falsely accuse me of not being real and on a rant that applies to no one but you.
I would have framed this in the form of arguments normally, but I'll just use this round as a rebuttal since it was more claims and nonsense than arguments.
Round 3
Pro
#5
A couple of things.. First, I choose to believe you are aperson vs. a bot since you got insulted. Second, I have no aspirations to “win”this debate but would like to learn from it. I am inexpert at debating but opento understanding opposing points of view. That would be a “win” for me.I don’t understand the comment about “rule of law.” First, Icannot separate the “incoming administration” from Donald Trump himself.Second, given that, Donald’s lawlessness, his conviction int eh sexual assaultand fraud cases and his association with the insurrection casts a pall on the administration.Furthermore, the designation of lawless people like Gaetz and Hegseth sets a lawlesstone. This behavior has encouraged other unsavory actions by government officialscountry wide.With regard to Conservative support for the separation ofchurch and state, my understanding is that they believe in religious freedom,the right to practice religion as a person believes, and that they are against governmentactions that could be seen as limiting religious expression, such asprohibiting religious symbols in public places. Not directly attributable tothe administration, but certainly enabled by them, is the placement of biblesin every classroom and the display of the 10 commandments.You say “…your (sic) not really conservative…” No, I havenever claimed to be conservative. My point of contention is that the incomingadministration is not conservative – does not respect Conservative values. Andthat the Democrats do not respect Liberal values. I would much rather that the politicianshave a discussion of the 2 beliefs rather than the vindictive character assassinationsbetween the members of the 2 parties.I dispute your comment about not understanding AI. But thatis not part of our discussion of Conservatism.You say “I already explained how the administration isconservative.” What I have seen is you disagreeing with me. Please go overagain the reasons you think the incoming administration is Conservative.
Con
#6
A couple of things.. First, I choose to believe you are aperson vs. a bot since you got insulted. Second, I have no aspirations to “win”this debate but would like to learn from it. I am inexpert at debating but opento understanding opposing points of view.
I'm a little confused. If you're truly open to understanding different perspectives, I'm curious why none of my points were addressed. I made a clear effort to engage with yours, even pointing out how some of your arguments seemed to contradict themselves. It appears my feedback was missed
That would be a “win” for me.I don’t understand the comment about “rule of law.” First, Icannot separate the “incoming administration” from Donald Trump himself.Second, given that, Donald’s lawlessness, his conviction int eh sexual assaultand fraud cases and his association with the insurrection casts a pall on the administration.Furthermore, the designation of lawless people like Gaetz and Hegseth sets a lawlesstone.
He was not found guilty in a criminal court for the first incident mentioned; rather, he was involved in a civil suit. It's crucial to distinguish between these two legal proceedings. Although he has convictions for fraud in separate cases, these do not necessarily indicate guilt or relevance in connection to this particular matter.
This behavior has encouraged other unsavory actions by government officialscountry wide.
This assertion lacks factual basis and relies on unsubstantiated claims.
With regard to Conservative support for the separation ofchurch and state, my understanding is that they believe in religious freedom,the right to practice religion as a person believes, and that they are against governmentactions that could be seen as limiting religious expression, such asprohibiting religious symbols in public places.
There is a significant distinction between the freedom to practice one's religion and the imposition of mandatory religious practices. The First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise one's faith. However, requiring religious items or practices in public schools constitutes a mandatory religious activity, which is considered a violation of the separation of church and state principle that is fundamental to the First Amendment. This separation of church and state was a core belief of the Founding Fathers, and therefore, upholding laws that maintain this separation is consistent with their intent and a conservative viewpoint.
No, I havenever claimed to be conservative. My point of contention is that the incomingadministration is not conservative – does not respect Conservative values. Andthat the Democrats do not respect Liberal values.
I addressed the contention by arguing that the incoming administration's defense of the separation of church and state, which you criticized, is actually in line with conservative values by upholding a long-standing legal tradition. So far, your only response has been to make assertions, such as your personal definition of what constitutes a "true" conservative, which is not a universally accepted definition.
I would much rather that the politicianshave a discussion of the 2 beliefs rather than the vindictive character assassinationsbetween the members of the 2 parties.I dispute your comment about not understanding AI. But thatis not part of our discussion of Conservatism.You say “I already explained how the administration isconservative.” What I have seen is you disagreeing with me. Please go overagain the reasons you think the incoming administration is Conservative.
You're welcome to challenge my assessment of your understanding of AI. However, you were the one who initially claimed I was a chatbot. Therefore, you have two options: either acknowledge that you genuinely believed I was a chatbot, which would support my initial statement, or concede that your claim was simply intended as an insult, suggesting you're being deliberately argumentative.
As I clarified in our initial exchange, you argued that the incoming administration was both radical and un-conservative. Your reasoning was contradictory, claiming they simultaneously adhered to and disregarded conservative values, while also pointing out their lack of opposition to the separation of church and state. In response, I argued that the First Amendment, established by the nation's founders, represents a traditional legal principle. By not challenging this principle, the incoming administration is actually upholding a key conservative value: respecting and preserving the nation's existing legal framework. This also contradicts your assertion that they disregard the rule of law.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
According to voting rules [see Help Center], both participants forfeited 40% of the debate rounds [2 of 5 rounds], the threshold to consider this debate lost by both participants, regardless of other infractions by both participants. For example, while both offered argument, neither participant bothered to provide adequate sourcing for any claim made to support their arguments. Con appears to "cite" the Constitution by accusation that Pro ignores "separation of church and state" while ignoring that the 1A does not contain that verbiage; it is merely Supreme Court interpretation which has been argued against by the Court, itself, in several cases, such as Everson v. Board of Education [1947] and Brown v. Board of Education [1954]. The subject is still controversial, which neither participant acknowledges. Con accuses Pro of citing personal belief, but proceeds to offer the same, without scholastic reference to support their own beliefs. Pro violates conduct by accusation that Con is an AI bot, but Con also violates conduct by accusing Pro of "subjective perspective" multiple times while doing no better themself. The forfeitures seal the deal. No win debate
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
It could have been a good argument, but Pro screwed it up by randomly calling Con a chat bot, and sticking by that the whole debate. Accusing your opponent of being AI is pretty bad conduct, so I’ll have to side with Con on this one.
How did this debate turn into such a train wreck so quickly? It had potential.
Debates are not about conversations. To debate someone is to argue on the opposite side of a topic and present your arguments. The concept is straightforward, making the assertion that learning to debate required a conversation appear illogical.
So be it. Criticizing me absolves you of the responsibility of conducting a conversation. Like I said, you win. Be happy about your victory. But if you ever want to have a conversation, let me know.
That's not how effective debates function. The purpose of a debate is to present well-reasoned arguments and allow the audience or participants to evaluate which position is most compelling. Instead, you presented arguments that seemed underdeveloped and then became emotionally invested in them. It's not my responsibility if your approach to the discussion hinders your ability to learn from the exchange.
I give up. You win. Instead of mounting arguments for what you believe to be true you attack my statements and me. I had hoped to learn something. I've learned only your debate techniques. Goodbye. Fare thee well.