Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

42
36
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:78
Arguments:79
Total Votes:79
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (41)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (32)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



We may be able to eliminate liberals in the future through genetic engineering.


True.

Side Score: 42
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 36
1 point

Liberalism is a disease. Liberalism is a mental disorder. ;)

Side: True.
instig8or(3308) Disputed
1 point

Conservatism is a virus, Liberalism is the antivirus at work.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

So I did a Google search and here's what I came up with:

Viral infections are hard to treat because viruses live inside your body's cells. They are "protected" from medicines, which usually move through your bloodstream. Antibiotics do not work for viral infections.

So, are you saying that conservatives get under your skin? ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
3 points

Genetic Engineering will never be able to eliminate liberals since engineering requires education, and conservatives have no interest in education.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

According to what you have spoken only Democrats are interested in education then.

Side: True.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

No, according to you only Democrats are for education. You posted a debate proving that you are against education.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
AlofRI(3276) Clarified
1 point

Well, no. Democrats are more interested in "free thinking" education. Many conservatives want to turn our schools over to "donors" or corporations who will control WHAT we learn, set the curriculum to what they WANT us to learn without interference from any federal education department they can't control. Take education out from under that "piece of paper" and put it under the control of those GREEN pieces of paper. Then they just MIGHT be able to eliminate liberals .... through mind control. Kinda like communism.

Side: True.
2 points

There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that conservatives are holdovers from before we had permanent settlements. Many of their traits; high fear response, strong in group loyalty/out group enmity, over simplified problem solving techniques, high religiosity; are more useful in a scary world where every day is a potential battle for your life. Where every tribe you meet could want your goods and women. Where you don't have unlimited time to make important decisions.

But we aren't there anymore. Life is safer, we can spend more time getting things right, not every other "tribe" wants to kill us. Religion isn't needed. Conservatives are the human equivalent of dinosaurs who happened to survive the meteor by clinging to the backs of liberals.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
SlapShot(2608) Disputed
1 point

There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that conservatives are holdovers from before we had permanent settlements.

Is that so? Why have I--an Evolutionary Psych major--never heard of this hypothesis? At least not in the way in which you frame this claim. What do you mean by "permanent settlements?" We homo sapiens were hunter gatherers going back to our first hominid inceptions at around 3 MYA with a. afarensis.

We never really settled down to agrarian cultures and farming until about 10,000 years ago. So for a good 90% of our evolution we have been hunter gatherers. Ergo, your claim is very nebulous and wields a very wide and unspecific time window.

And you need to elaborate on what you mean by Conservatives. You cannot possibly be referring to the political ideology, since that shit did not exist until only a couple hundred years ago. And if you mean conservative to mean one who simply is imbued with family values and is cautious as to embracing progress, well, that is such a nebulous and non-provable trait that it is meaningless.

Got any links?

Many of their traits; high fear response, strong in group loyalty/out group enmity, over simplified problem solving techniques, high religiosity; are more useful in a scary world where every day is a potential battle for your life.

Who says Conservative have a high fear response? Again, give us some links or sources. This sounds as if it is simply your opinion. A conservative would tell you just the opposite, that its the liberals who have an inordinate fear response.

Again, this is scientific nonsense. By fear response if you mean the physiological "fight or flight" mode that we ALL enter when threatened or provoked, then you are again totally wrong. One's political ideology has nothing to do with this hardwired and evolved genetic pre-disposition.

How can a problem-solving technique be "over-simplified?" If it works and is effective, then the simpler the better. And again, this is all your opinion. A conservative would respond to saying that Progressives are elitest and condescending and try to make issues seem to complex so their constituents thinks they need the government to figure it out and take care of them.

But again, all of what you say does not fly biologically or is NOT a documented evolutionary trait. And Again---politics and ethics do NOT effect physical inherited traits.

As far as "high religiosity." There is not proof at all that ancient man was religious. It is likely he believed in supernatural gods, but these were far different than the Judeo-Christian gods. Instead, they were nature-based gods, representing the vital forces of weather and crops and agriculture. Their gods were much closer to, say, what they Native Americans or the Pagans or Wiccans believe nowadays than today's Christian movement.

So if you are trying to say that the Religious Right has an evolved and documented past stemming from selective inheritance through biological Evolution, then again yo are just plain wrong and are obviously fishing to make your biased anti-conservative rant sound as if it has some real science behind it.

But alas, it does not.

Conservatives are the human equivalent of dinosaurs who happened to survive the meteor by clinging to the backs of liberals.

No they are not. There is not human equivalent to dinosaurs, you are speaking of totally different species. And the rest of your sentence here does not even make any sense. Since there were no liberals around 65 MYA when the asteroid (not a meteor, btw) annihilated the dinos, how could anybody back then have clung to their backs? And how would that have helped survive a total blacking-out of the sunlight anyway?

Most of your post is one giant steaming messy WTF?

LOL

SS

Side: True.
Darkyear(345) Disputed
2 points

Well dangit. I wrote a big old response, but either forgot to submit it, or there was a glitch. So, lets work on getting you educated:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=5&ref;=science.&

https://braindecoder.com/post/politics-neuroscience-1282982492

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias

I believe these answer the main questions you have. There is also a link to a podcast interview with John Hibbings, who was one of the first to propose this theory. That's in the last article, but all are worth a read.

No they are not. There is not human equivalent to dinosaurs, you are speaking of totally different species. And the rest of your sentence here does not even make any sense.

LOL dude. It is an extended metaphor. Seriously, this ain't rocket science college boy. Although I guess we are talking about brain surgery-ish stuff.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that cities are a breeding ground for liberals. People who are unable to take care of themselves and need others to survive. They follow the herd mentality. They don't realize that their life style is extremely fragile. Take away their latte and their cell phones and they are lost. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Darkyear(345) Disputed
1 point

I haven't had a cell phone in 2 years, and I'm not actually sure what a latte actually is. I'm not lost. I'm not found either, but that's a whole nother story.

Meanwhile, how bout those rural places. Low education, low wages, machinery that is decades out of date. Unless they work for a corporation. Which is in a city. Which is where they will go for treatment for the cancer caused by all that chewing tobacco. Yeah, its a wonderful life in the rurals.

Side: True.
1 point

Your argument is flawed from its very inception.

Why?

Because in the vast majority of cases it is those very Liberals and Progressives who are most in favor of funding and research and implementation of Genetic Engineering-type projects.

And, conversely, most often it is the Conservatives, especially the Christian Right, who are AGAINST genetic engineering. These wack jobs usually claim that anybody doing that stuff sort of science is trying to platy god.

To which I say: How can you "play" a non-existent deity? Is that like playing Odin? Or playing Zeus? Like in a school play or something?

LOL

SS

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-conservatives-against-designer-babies

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!