techie06
09-29-2012, 07:10 AM
I have a lot of Obama supporting friends on Facebook, and every time I post a picture that supports free markets, libertarian ideas, or Ron Paul, my friend Tony HAS to reply and show that I'm wrong, but I want to support my side (even though I'm not a good debater). Here's our latest conversation about how there is really no differences between Romney and Obama:
Tony:
I'm trying to decide whether I want to call this out for being absurdly reductive or for being wrong.
[coin flip]
We'll go with absurdly reductive! They forgot to call them both out for being human males, citizens of the United States, English speakers, educated, and politically active. All of those things are true, too, and a way of describing the sameness of Obama and Romney, without ever weighing their fundamental philosophical differences.
Me:
The point of this is to show that there are no fundamental philosophical differences between the two. If you research Obama and Romney's actions (not what they say, but what they actually do) on each of the above topics, you'll find that they are the same. Social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, are part of the branding for them. Do you want your liberty-destroying president to be for gay marriage or against? Pro-life or pro-choice? Either way, less freedom, more government, and economic disaster on the horizon.
Tony:
It may surprise you to learn that I have done my research, and can still enumerate the philosophical differences between the two, but that is maybe hinging on a point you make: you can't evaluate Romney based on his actions because he has disavowed most of his more moderate policies in favor of a far right stance, and even that is suspect, as there are so many direct contradictions within the framework of his own political narrative. Obama, on the other hand, can make the not-entirely-incorrect claim that a number of his key policy initiatives have been delayed by obstructionist Republicans in Congress.
I also feel the need to point out the inherent contradiction in your own argument: the economy was ruined because of a lack of government regulation of financial markets, and the recovery has been stalled by a lack of government stimulus according to Keynesian economic theory, which despite the standard libertarian talking point on the subject has a demonstrable history of success. How is "more freedom," which is a horribly imprecise term and ought not to be used for that purpose, going to solve a problem that was caused by a lack of government regulation?
I am, of course, completely confused with your devaluation of a social issue that effects a significant minority of our population's own civil rights. How can you trivialize the founding principles of our government in a discourse on freedom?
I suppose if you must reduce all of the philosophical differences to such imprecise language, yes, Obama and Romney are exactly the same, but at that level they are precisely the same as every other politician. Are you suggesting we burn the Constitution and live by lex talonis instead of being governed?
How do I best respond?
Is there any debate tips or tricks you guys can give me?
Thanks.:)
Tony:
I'm trying to decide whether I want to call this out for being absurdly reductive or for being wrong.
[coin flip]
We'll go with absurdly reductive! They forgot to call them both out for being human males, citizens of the United States, English speakers, educated, and politically active. All of those things are true, too, and a way of describing the sameness of Obama and Romney, without ever weighing their fundamental philosophical differences.
Me:
The point of this is to show that there are no fundamental philosophical differences between the two. If you research Obama and Romney's actions (not what they say, but what they actually do) on each of the above topics, you'll find that they are the same. Social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, are part of the branding for them. Do you want your liberty-destroying president to be for gay marriage or against? Pro-life or pro-choice? Either way, less freedom, more government, and economic disaster on the horizon.
Tony:
It may surprise you to learn that I have done my research, and can still enumerate the philosophical differences between the two, but that is maybe hinging on a point you make: you can't evaluate Romney based on his actions because he has disavowed most of his more moderate policies in favor of a far right stance, and even that is suspect, as there are so many direct contradictions within the framework of his own political narrative. Obama, on the other hand, can make the not-entirely-incorrect claim that a number of his key policy initiatives have been delayed by obstructionist Republicans in Congress.
I also feel the need to point out the inherent contradiction in your own argument: the economy was ruined because of a lack of government regulation of financial markets, and the recovery has been stalled by a lack of government stimulus according to Keynesian economic theory, which despite the standard libertarian talking point on the subject has a demonstrable history of success. How is "more freedom," which is a horribly imprecise term and ought not to be used for that purpose, going to solve a problem that was caused by a lack of government regulation?
I am, of course, completely confused with your devaluation of a social issue that effects a significant minority of our population's own civil rights. How can you trivialize the founding principles of our government in a discourse on freedom?
I suppose if you must reduce all of the philosophical differences to such imprecise language, yes, Obama and Romney are exactly the same, but at that level they are precisely the same as every other politician. Are you suggesting we burn the Constitution and live by lex talonis instead of being governed?
How do I best respond?
Is there any debate tips or tricks you guys can give me?
Thanks.:)