2 years ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
22 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    lol why are you two debating this?

  • 2 years ago

    Con voters agree that I shouldn't give a shit ROFL~

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui If honesty is important, and you believe the woman. Than yes you should care. If you do not care about your senator being a honest man or you don't believe the woman or both. Than no you should'nt care.

    • 2 years ago

      @mattyyboyy86 what if there is some kind of gulf between "I do not care about my senator being a honest man" and "I don't care about the woman?" What about that situation?

      What if it's the case that I think the average senator has done, can do, and will do things far more consequential than this. Then what?

  • 2 years ago

    This debate went absolutely nowhere. Mvineyard kinda argued against himself. He made a really weak case that you should care. He kinda agreed with you.

    • 2 years ago

      @mattyyboyy86 still open to the argument that I should (live debate only, only because otherwise it's not worth my time).

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Sure, When I got back yesterday you seemed to be AWOL. I'm not in the mood right now, it's a beautiful day and I'm gonna go enjoy it. Maybe tonight?

    • 2 years ago

      @mattyyboyy86 I took this on as a fun way to challenge the orthodoxy. A serious resolution might be worded "Should I care about the Roy Moore Accusations?" - or "Should I not care about Roy Moore Accusations?" When someone says "I give a shit" - or "I don't give a shit" ....in both cases...it tells me that this is a VERY low priority item! (And - remember the statement "I couldn't care less" ??) So...from the title of the debate...I wasn't sure where he was coming from.

      So - my attitude was....why would the accusations against Moore be an issue?

      First - Democrats have never cared about the morality of their own candidates...they have voted for a person who killed a woman (Mary Jo Kopechne), they voted for a Congressman who was diddling an underage House Intern ....(Gerry Studds), they voted for Bill Clinton (even when there were far more recent and credible accusations of rape - Juanita Broaddrick), and they were willing to vote for Hillary - allegedly a criminal in many ways - and a big enabler of her husband Bill in his groping and sexual mis-adventures. So - for Democrats - why is 'morality' suddenly important.

      Second - our own society is fairly morally depraved - where a 32 year old man dating teens with parental permission is far less 'creepy' and 'sleazy' than the fact that 80% of Americans admit to using on-line porn REGULARLY. How could anyone regularly using porn be critical of unproven allegations that are 40 years old, have a very low degree of seriousness, and the 3 serious allegations are by women that have far more serious 'credibility problems' than Moore. Consider society has made 'heroes' of child rapist Roman Polanski and Woody Allen. Jerry Seinfeld is lauded as a great guy...and he was in his late 30's when he married a teen. So - again - is it hypocritical for Americans to be critical of Moore? About what?

      Which leaves a very small minority of Americans who might not be regular purveyors of porn, who do not like the idea of a 32 year old man dating (with parental permission) teens....and would then choose to vote for another person - who attacked to destroy the credibility of a 15 year old college student who was sexually abused in a college; Doug Jones goal was to save the college money - and if destroying a 15 year old girl was part of it...so be it. And - of course- these 'moral people' could hold their collective noses and vote for someone who supports partial birth abortion - up to the point of being able to deliver a healthy baby. Sure - morality can be used in the choice of voting...but whose morality?

      The whole thing leaves me wondering why anyone worries (or pretends to worry) about any 'morality'.

  • 2 years ago

    This is not a pair I'd expect to see arguing this topic!

    I'm with @mvineyard in that I don't try to tell people what to think, but I will tell them what I think. Especially when we are talking about voting and politics.

    Though really, no topic can survive contact with Con... I've got some talent for wandering off on a tangent, but it doesn't hold a candle to Michael!

    I actually agree with you both on marriage. Better mostly just to recognize whatever people say their marriage is. Make it a private contract.

    I don't like what Moore did as a judge. I also think that Moores version of small government is selective in the usual conservative mode. Lots of big government making laws about what I can do if he finds it immoral or unchristian, not so much about my money.

    As to morality. It does enter into my voting. It's not an over-riding concern, but it is significant. For me, a politician needs to both have a policy I like, and a character I trust. I don't choose leadership I don't trust, and demonstration of sufficiently suspect morals destroyed my trust.

    As to Moore, I think his politics are more why I would not vote for him than his moral character in terms of sexuality. I do find his interest in young girls problematic. I do tend to believe the accusations. They are far from the most shocking things a politician has done. They don't quite rise to a level I would distrust him based on those, but I do find it pretty unsavory.

    What I find more problematic is how he denies even knowing any of these women. From the evidence I've read of, that seems very very unlikely so I suspect he is lying on that account at least. That does erode trust somewhat.

    But all that is pretty academic. Honestly, it's not something I care much about specific to Moore. My interest in issues of sexual harassment is at the society level.

    I won't comment on the military section of the debate... I did that with Michael already. My sympathies are with Bronson on this, but Michael is not being unreasonable.

    • 2 years ago

      Oh, ya, voting Bronson, just because technically, Con didn't really contend against anything he said on the subject of Moore.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried where would you rank Roy Moore's moral character on a scale of 1-10? 1 being "this is not worth legalizing marijuana" and 10 being "legalizing marijuana is more important than this."

      I'm at 5 and have no confidence or certain in my position, looking to ber convincg either way.

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui That's an interesting scale! As a politician.. 9 I'd much rather legalize marijuana than worry about Roy Moore's sexual proclivities. If I understand the scale.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Yeah honestly I'm a 9 too, maybe even a 10. I put almost zero weight on personal attribute and close to 100% on policy. The average American does the exact opposite, which is why sexual indiscretions are literally the "make or break" issue (that's starting to change now though with Trump and Moore).

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Do they? I don't know. People do get elected with these kinds of things going on sometimes. Though I suppose its the exception rather than the rule. Trump had plenty of allegations against him for this kind of thing and it just rolled off. Bill remains very popular, though not sure he could have won a third term if it was allowed.

      I feel like people like to make a big stink, but they don't actually vote on it in huge numbers, more like, there are enough that it is sufficient to swing elections, and that doesn't always take all that many voters. But I'm just hip shooting on this.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried "Do they?"

      Yes. We have mountains of data on US elections. Infidelities are often the most important issue, on average, in any given election. Policy is almost never the most important issue.

      If you have a sex scandal during the campaign there is a very HIGH probability you will lose the election whereas we cannot come up with similar correlations based on policy positions.

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Well, take Moore for instance. Since the scandals got rolling, he's lost something like 6% of the support he had. So if 6% of the ~50% of people who supported him have changed their mind, that's like 3% of the overall base of voters who care enough to participate.

      Does that 3% represent average americans, or do all the others who continue to support him or the other side they normally support?

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried "Well, take Moore for instance. Since the scandals got rolling, he's lost something like 6% of the support he had. So if 6% of the ~50% of people who supported him have changed their mind, that's like 3% of the overall base of voters who care enough to participate."


      Does that 3% represent average americans, or do all the others who continue to support him or the other side they normally support?"

      Alabama is an outlier, as is Trump. Roy Moore is a special kind of candidate and these "special candidates" enjoy support independent of any allegations of sexual improprieties.

  • 2 years ago

    7:05 I meant to say I found Roy Moore INCORRECT and the Supreme Court to be correct on the issue of the 10 Commandments in the courthouse.

    • 2 years ago

      15:45, a friend of mine told me Woody Allen lives on Maui and is also an ancap, which is what I was thinking about when you were discussing that. Never met him, which is surprising to me because I felt like I knew all the libertarians on Maui.

      • 2 years ago

        @mvineyard thanks for the debate man. Watched 3 times now for some reason. I really enjoyed this.

        My main argument is that personal BS is less important than policy decisions which cause MASS SUFFERING. I believe MASS SUFFERING is probably, on average, more important than appearances. I think evil policy positions are worse than alleged sexual improprieties, call me crazy.

        • 2 years ago

          This topic actually opens the door for more intellectual insight and open inquiry than 95-99% of the assigned tournament topics. Including a 'vulgarity' did nothing but emphasize the disparity.