'cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion

Pro proposition claims “cookie-cutter ideologies are a huge problem in politics and religion.” There is not a single instance where he provides: (1) a reason that would logically lead one to see the connection (2) a single piece of evidence or a single source. [Question]: Con asks: Does this mean radical or extreme ideologies would be preferable? Would its antithesis create larger or smaller problems than the cookie-cutter thesis? Pro answer: [white space between colon indicates a blank, meaning Pro did not provide an answer] [Question]: Con asks: What are the “Huge Problems?” Pro’s answer: [blank] [Antonyms for cookie-cutter generated above are Con’s given that no dictionary-based website provides satisfactory antonyms] In round one my opponent states: “a cookie cutter conservative or liberal is someone who believes things because that's what they are suppose to believe to be liberal or conservative. all social issues, all economic issues, down to the party line.” Taken as a whole, it is safe to infer that Pro believes that “cookie-cutter” ideologies (aka conventional politics or beltway wisdom) should change. Con comments and counterfactuals: Merriam Webster Online’s definition of cookie-cutter is a “lack of originality or distinction"[1] Similarly, the Urban Dictionary defines cookie-cutter: “Marked by sameness and a lack of originality; mass-produced.”[2] Next, let us apply these definitions to American politics. We can all agree liberals and conservative divide on social and economic issues more or less like this: Liberals = same-sex marriage [social issue] Conservative = traditional marriage [social issue] Liberals = active role for government in market, specifically through regulatory policy [economic] Conservatives = less government intervention in the market, less regulation [economic] At its most basic, this is a accurate picture of the two parties, therefore any non-cookie-cutter ideology must be default break out of this bifurcation. Try to imagine a non-cookie-cutter ideology on the issue of marriage after excluding the possibilities offer or blindly supported by the two parties, it is very difficult right? There an endless buffet of possibilities but to be honest they would create more problems, not less problems. Here are a few marriage arrangement recognized at some point in world history that cannot be said to be cutter-cookie at all: § Polygamy [marriage that includes more than two partners] § Polygyny [where several unions may be recognized as being legal] § Polyandry [woman takes more than two or more husbands] § Plural marriage [group marriage] § Child marriage [where one or both spouses are under the age of 18] One way to solve the conundrum to cookie-cutter ideologies would be to adopt the opposite of cookie-cutter as evidenced in bullet point list above. Then logically, if towing the party line is a problem what is members of both parties did the opposite, an extreme opposite. What if conservatives decided to support a non-cookie-cutter ideology, say fascism. And liberals did likewise, but by supporting a form of radial communism. Then just for the sake of fun imagine independents formed and supported non-cookie-cutter ideologies like anarchism, or some radical Islamic ideology, and maybe some other groups decide based on a strict states’ rights ideology, they secede from the Union and plan on using nuclear missiles from silos in their state to provide their ideology. While the scenario is obviously ridiculous, it does illustrate one point: if everyone gave up cookie-cutter ideologies in favor of radical or extreme ideologies, the inevitable result would produce even worse results. Voters should consider the counterfactual because it highlights central fallacies inherent to Pro’s initial proposition. Now there are really quite a few areas pro never satisfactorily answered. When there are “huge” problems in religion and politics, what always occurs? Someone, an expert or insider, politician or pundit, preacher or priest turns it if not into an issue they plan on addressing, at the very least an academic writes a some scholarly journal articles to maintain tenure. Con would like to make one point very clear—even though in reality it is ancillary to the debate. In Round Three, Pro states: “you said martin luther believe the eucharist is figurative. actually, he believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.” [Statement by Pro]. The only time Con very wrote “eucharist is figurative” was when quoting from Pro. This should be clear because the statement by Pro is in quotations, with bold text, and is underlined. But perhaps Con should have been more careful, perhaps in addition to the quotation marks, bold text, and underlining the text, I should have properly footnoted attribution. So let me do that now for the quote: “eucharist is figurative. etc etc.”[3] [So to be clear: Con never said Luther believed the eucharist is figurative. Whatever flaw Pro sees in this statement is not the fault of Con’s but rather a contradiction between Pro’s statement in Round One and Round Three. In Round One pro states: “eucharist is figurative. etc etc.”[4] Then in Round Three Pro states: “actually, he [Martin Luther] believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.”[5] ] Con has attempted to provide an even more transparent system of attribution in the paragraphs above. Pro’s statements are in quotations, bolded, italicized, underlined, and footnoted. I hope this will suffice as an adequate system. By the way, adding [ ] inside the quotes is a standard of clarification accepted by all academic disciples. Consult this book if you question this assertion. One final point that has no bearing on the debate but wanted to address since Pro made it a significant part of the Round Three. [Pro states]: “actually, he [Martin Luther] believed in contransubstantiation, which is a hybrid between literal and figurative. more literal than anything.”[6] ] [Con’s question]: What evidence do we have for this assertion? Because Pro does not provide an reference. As such Con, will answer what we know about Luther’s personal convictions on the matter as well as sources, evidence, with citations to back up this claim. Luther’s views are well-known on the issue of the Eucharist, in fact it is the only disagreement that divided Luther and Zwingli. Luther maintained a notion of Sacramental Union: the Lord’s Supper were united to the true body and blood of Christ for all communicants to ear and drink.[7][8] Again let me reiterate why Voters should vote for Con: (1) Pro did not provide an actual definition of cookie-cutter or ideology (2) Pro did not provide example of how there were “huge problems” (3) Pro did not provide any evidence (4) Pro did not provide any souces [1] "Definition of cookie-cutter". Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. 2014. Retrieved: 8/20/14. [2] "Definition of cookie-cutter". Urban Dictionary (2014). Retrieved: 8/20/14. [3] dairygirl4u2c, “cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion,” Debate.org. Retrieved on 8/21/2014 [quotation found in dairygirl4u2c’s Round 1 statement, specifically Paragraph 4 Sentence 6] [4] Ibid. [5] Dairygirl4u2c, “cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion,”Debate.org. Retrieved on 8/21/14 [quotation found in dairygirl4u2c’s Round 3 statement, specifically Paragraph: 1, Sentence: 2] [6] Dairygirl4u2c, “cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem n politics and religion,”Debate.org. Retrieved on 8/21/14 [quotation found in dairygirl4u2c’s Round 3 statement, specifically Paragraph: 1, Sentence: 2] [7] Cary Phillip, Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation, [The Teaching Company: The Great Courses] [Sound Recording] Lecture 8-14. [8] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmannm trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. James Atkinson (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 44: 123-217.