By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Who won the debate? Biden or Ryan?

 

Who won the debate?

Vice President Joe Biden 218 52.03%
 
Congressman Paul Ryan 123 29.36%
 
Nobody/Tie 73 17.42%
 
Total:414
Mr Khan on 12 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:

See, what bothers me here is that the right will fight like hell to see that the baby is brought to term, but once it's out? Fuck you, i got mine, you care for your kid.

Either you care for human life or you don't, which is why i'm more inclined to believe that the right's stance is more about oppressing women than it is about caring for any sort of sanctity of life.

I don’t think that is a fair characterization ...

I would say that (in general) most people who are pro-life want to prevent unwanted pregnancies rather than terminate them. In general, they would argue that (if you're unable to support a child) you should abstain from sex or at least have protected sex with responsible people; and if you end up pregnant you should favour adoption.

 

I generally find the left's positions far more bizzarre, they will argue that having sex doesn't mean that you're consenting to have a child unless you're a man; either sex does not obligate you to be a parent and we should create legal paternal surrender laws, or it is an obligation and women should not be able to abort their children. On top of this, since wide spread birth control, abortion, and several forms of surrendering your children exist to prevent women from having to support children they can't afford we're (as society) still to pay for these women to raise these children even though they consciously decided to have them knowing they couldn't afford them; and since their financial hardship is caused by a conscience choice then welfare should be denied to single mothers.

And how barbarously cruel would it be to deny welfare to single mothers? You're talking about the people who need it most, right there.

There should be grounds for paternal surrender, but it must depend on several factors, because whether we like it or not, pregnancy and childbirth is one place where the genders will never be equal (unless we ever move to a "Brave New World" style of total machine-birthing), and so where the double standard is valid (and pretty much the only place where the double standard is valid, as i generally share your concerns on the matter).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
silicon on 12 October 2012

My candidate used facts while his opponent always avoided the question. Also, my candidates facts were correct while the retorts were misleading and not entirely true!

Also the attitude that the opponent display was rude, while my candidate showed passion.

The winner is clearly whoever is associated with my political affiliation.



chocoloco on 12 October 2012
gergroy said:
chocoloco said:
 

I do not care about what type of women are in which group. If what you said was true most women voters would vote Republican because most of the average female votersare not a young un-marriedwomen. Most of them are older and married or were married.

If what you said about independants was also true. Romney should be winning the popular vote. As there was a slight edge for Republicans over Dems nathionwide this year, yet Obama still leads the the popular vote in most cases. If most Independants really said they were voting Romney, than Romney should be winning all polls in the popular vote. Not happening.


Nah, if you look at the poll breakdowns, they usually poll a percentage of democrats that is about ten points higher than independents and republicans.  It is true that romney has lead independents since this election started, pretty much.  It just seems like either polling data is skewed or more people just think of themselves as democrats these days.

on that topic, is there a reason you dont think of yourself as a democrat? With such disdain for third party and republican options, it doesnt seem like you are very independently minded...

I had a very well thought out post that explained my thoughts, but due to human and computer error it was deleted right as I was about to post it. To annoyed to rewrite it. I will not say much about my thoughts with out a decent explanation so, I see no reason how you could claim my posts have ever showed disdain for third parties and why you would conclude I would not vote for them if I agreed with them  if they actually stood a chance of winning.



HappySqurriel on 12 October 2012
Mr Khan said:

And how barbarously cruel would it be to deny welfare to single mothers? You're talking about the people who need it most, right there.

There should be grounds for paternal surrender, but it must depend on several factors, because whether we like it or not, pregnancy and childbirth is one place where the genders will never be equal (unless we ever move to a "Brave New World" style of total machine-birthing), and so where the double standard is valid (and pretty much the only place where the double standard is valid, as i generally share your concerns on the matter).


When a woman has inexpensive (or free) access to birth control, the right to refuse to have sex with any man who doesn't wear a condom, the morning after pill, abortion, surrendering the child to the state (often anonymously), and open and closed adoption, how can you argue that women becomming single mothers is ground for getting welfare when they choose to become mothers.

It is in no ways barbaric to say that the abundance of options to avoid having a child that it is their responsibility to support it if they choose to have one.

It is completely unreasonable to argue that one person is the only one who has the right to make a choice and also argue that the responsibility and consequences of that choice should be shared with society.



Mr Khan on 12 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:

And how barbarously cruel would it be to deny welfare to single mothers? You're talking about the people who need it most, right there.

There should be grounds for paternal surrender, but it must depend on several factors, because whether we like it or not, pregnancy and childbirth is one place where the genders will never be equal (unless we ever move to a "Brave New World" style of total machine-birthing), and so where the double standard is valid (and pretty much the only place where the double standard is valid, as i generally share your concerns on the matter).


When a woman has inexpensive (or free) access to birth control, the right to refuse to have sex with any man who doesn't wear a condom, the morning after pill, abortion, surrendering the child to the state (often anonymously), and open and closed adoption, how can you argue that women becomming single mothers is ground for getting welfare when they choose to become mothers.

It is in no ways barbaric to say that the abundance of options to avoid having a child that it is their responsibility to support it if they choose to have one.

It is completely unreasonable to argue that one person is the only one who has the right to make a choice and also argue that the responsibility and consequences of that choice should be shared with society.

Because the bond of familial love is something that shouldn't be tampered with if someone chooses to embrace it? Utilitarian as i may be, love and happiness aren't something that should be trifled with, and using economic incentives against love and/or happiness is nothing short of monstrous.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 12 October 2012
Mr Khan said:

Because the bond of familial love is something that shouldn't be tampered with if someone chooses to embrace it? Utilitarian as i may be, love and happiness aren't something that should be trifled with, and using economic incentives against love and/or happiness is nothing short of monstrous.

If you can't interfere with "familial love", should a man be able to claim his unborn child and force the woman to carry it to term?



Mr Khan on 12 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:

Because the bond of familial love is something that shouldn't be tampered with if someone chooses to embrace it? Utilitarian as i may be, love and happiness aren't something that should be trifled with, and using economic incentives against love and/or happiness is nothing short of monstrous.

If you can't interfere with "familial love", should a man be able to claim his unborn child and force the woman to carry it to term?

The difference is between a child that does exist and one that does not yet exist.

In the case of a married couple, a man should be able to have more say in the decision (and in any ideal situation ,would simply have such say by virtue of being agreeably, happily married), but you can't love that which does not yet exist, but rather love the idea of her having a child, which is a very different scenario with different connotations.

Like i said, the one valid application of the double-standard.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

HappySqurriel on 12 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:

Because the bond of familial love is something that shouldn't be tampered with if someone chooses to embrace it? Utilitarian as i may be, love and happiness aren't something that should be trifled with, and using economic incentives against love and/or happiness is nothing short of monstrous.

If you can't interfere with "familial love", should a man be able to claim his unborn child and force the woman to carry it to term?

The difference is between a child that does exist and one that does not yet exist.

In the case of a married couple, a man should be able to have more say in the decision (and in any ideal situation ,would simply have such say by virtue of being agreeably, happily married), but you can't love that which does not yet exist, but rather love the idea of her having a child, which is a very different scenario with different connotations.

Like i said, the one valid application of the double-standard.


But here in lies the problem, if you can't love what doesn't exist than you can't make the argument that welfare should support women who have children knowing they couldn't support them because of "familial love".



killerzX on 12 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

See, what bothers me here is that the right will fight like hell to see that the baby is brought to term, but once it's out? Fuck you, i got mine, you care for your kid.

Either you care for human life or you don't, which is why i'm more inclined to believe that the right's stance is more about oppressing women than it is about caring for any sort of sanctity of life.

while I think there is a huge difference between not providing a livelyhood for someone and actually actively killng a person,  i kind of agree with you here.

I do think it is the responsibility of the government to some extent to provide the basic neccesities of live for a child, if the parents cannot do so. that includes taking them away from bad/abusive parents. Since obviously children cant provide for themselves.

and i guess millions of women like opressing themselves, especially the majority of married women with kids.

Somewhere where we agree, what do you know

 

i think you and I agree on more things than you would think. where we disagree on is who should do it. You think the government should do it, while I think individuals should.

and for me protecting life is my first priority, the role of government is a distant second. I put life above anything else.



sperrico87 on 12 October 2012

Both held their own very well. There wasn't a clear winner like last week's debate with Obama and Romney. Biden interrupted a lot, smirked and laughed a lot, and was generally rude and not respectful. Whether or not you like that style of debating will likely decide for you who "won". On substance, they seemed pretty even. Biden delivered a very good show for the left's base. Ryan delivered a good show for the right's base, even if it was a tad on the moderate side of things.

The only part of the debate I really had a hard time with was the abortion segment. Why didn't Ryan make it clearer that there isn't much Romney could as President to limit abortion? He could do very little, other than Supreme Court nominees and over-turning that international funding that can be used for abortion. Ryan could have made his party's point much clearer I thought. It's not like if Romney is elected all the sudden women are going to have more difficulty getting abortions. That's not the case at all.