most self identified political labels r meaningless

It would be unfair to engage too much in semantic games, but let us reiterate PRO"s position: "most self-identified political labels are meaningless." PRO even provides concrete scenarios that he postulates would show that labels are more psychological than substantive. However, while Con sympathizes with this position and tends to agree in a limited sense, the position frankly does not hold up to scrutiny. PRO uses the two most dominant political labels in ROUND 1: liberal and conservative. In the following paragraph, CON will outline what appears to be one of the basic flaws in PRO"s argument. First, PRO states, "I would bet if you did a study, you would find that there's a significant or even most people, who actually agree with each other more in actual substance than just their self-proclaimed label." Thankfully, we do not have to engage in philosophical speculation or rely on metaphysical arguments. America is a heavily polled society, perhaps the most polled country in the world. The ubiquity of polling is both a tool for advertising as well as a way to gauge what voters believe and want to hear from politicians. Moreover, political scientists, think tanks, and research organizations use labels to differentiate significant differences between individuals that subscribed to a particular ideology. At the same time, organizations like PEW RESEARCH also include what could be designated as 'superficial differences' between people with ideological differences. While PRO might ask, "what does this actual tell us about people?" And CON"s position is: it matters quite a bit. Last month PEW (see citation 1) asked very specific questions, very similar the ones PRO mentioned in the introductory round. As you might expect, individuals who identify as conservative support smaller government, favorable attitudes toward business interests, support a strong foreign policy, possess strong (Christian/Protestant) religious beliefs, and are significantly less likely to favor same-sex marriage. The poll provides a comprehensive data set of differences between conservatives, dividing their attitudes into two camps: STEADFAST conservatives and BUSINESS conservatives. There is a divergence on certain issues, including same-sex marriage, with BUSINESS conservatives (those with more libertarian values) closer to progressives than STEADFAST conservatives are. Liberals similar patterns: See citation 1 for a more comprehensive look. Second, the labels we use are more than just shallow generalizations, they provide also translate into lifestyle choices and other substantial attitudinal differences. For instance, here is statistically data from another PEW study that looked at differences among liberals and conservatives. Here are the findings (see citation 2): Liberals would rather live in cities, while conservatives prefer rural areas and small towns. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to say racial and ethnic diversity is important in a community. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to want to live in a place where many people share their religious faith. 15% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans would be unhappy welcoming someone from the other party into their family. Just 35% of Americans say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics. 36% of Republicans say Democratic policies threaten the nation; 27% of Democrats say the same about GOP policies. 38% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans now view the opposite party in strongly negative terms Republicans and Democrats with very unfavorable views of the opposing party are more likely to be politically engaged. Even though PRO will be able to build a very good counterargument, so far suffice to say, the differences separating liberals and conservatives is a very real difference and it is meaningful. Political labels provide meaning, to political scientist, to advertisers, et cetera and so on. Based on labels and polling we can learn quite a bit about a person. The argument PRO is trying to make is similar to this: "dog is an artificial division, a meaningless separation, nothing more than an etymology that speaks to nothing." This would have been a better argument, debating the terminology that separates a dog from other subspecies like a wolf. Labels like that one probably matter little to most people, outside of biologists and academics, but the same is not true for political labels. They are salient and relevant. [1] http://www.people-press.org... [2] http://www.people-press.org...