The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points Presidential Election 2013

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 34420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This is a fake Presidential debate. Whoeever wins will NOT be considered the actual president of It's just for fun. I will be the Republican candidate, my opponent will be the Democratic candidate. I will release what topic we debate each round, and we just campaign. After the debate, the people of will vote for who they want as their president (Just like in real elections!)

Good luck.


Hello Patriot, candidate Rabulet here. I accept your debate challenge. Though your controlling the topics introduced places me at a slight disadvantage, I am confident that sound political doctrine and reasoning will prevail in the ever-wise minds of the constituency.
Debate Round No. 1


I am leaving this topic up to you, candidate. In your rebuttal, state the topic and then post your stance and opening statement. To warn you, there might end up being more than one debate between you and me to clear off enough topics, and out of those debates, whoever won the majority of them will win the election.

Governor Patriot P.


I do apologize Patriot, It was not my intention to wrest the choice-of-topic option from you. However, if you insist...

Topic: Welfare

Or, more specifically, any and all assistance (cash, food stamps, rent, utilities, etc.) that governments, (federal, state, local) distribute to qualified citizens most often, and as we see today, as a result of unfavorable economic conditions, to temporarily provide basic sustenance offsetting the hardship and squalor of poverty and community blight (benefit money being reinvested in the local economy).

Generally, it is the argument technique of the Republican, fueled by the excessively high rate of collection and the often questionable expenditure of tax revenue, to highlight the fraud, stereotypical extreme of the benefit recipient, government inefficacy, or other abuses to impugn the program as a whole.

The website GOPUSA citing the U.S. census bureau states that there are 108,000,000 people collecting some form of welfare from the federal government, the numbers ballooning over the last few years. With the total U.S. population (men, woman and children) now reaching 314,000,000, that's a staggering 34.5%.

A good Republican would argue a new epidemic of sloth and indolence, skillfully peppering their speech with ethnic nuance. However, and this is the main point, running parallel with the indicator on the line graph monitoring welfare claims is the indicator showing the exportation of manufacturing and business infrastructure to points outside U.S. borders.

It is the aggressive implementation of globalism, the disassembling, dismantling, dispersing of the American economy to locations abroad, yielding enormous wealth and profits to the corporatocracy- (the corrupt and shady, behind-the-scenes cooperation of government and business) while displacing much of the American workforce, literally "gutting' their local economy and communities.

[The globalist idealogue knows no nationality. To him (and he is usually an American citizen), America is just another flock to be fleeced, and that post-haste (before someone else does it). Any thoughts of national pride or patriotism is considered naive sentimentality, not worth one penny of the profit he can make moving his business to China. He is a globalist. His country is the world. He has no national brotherhood except where he can exploit such for his own gain. He has no affinity with other Americans, especially the laboring class. The decision to move his business to a 3rd world country is "strictly business"; global business. And he is the majority in the federal government, on corporate boards and stockholder rosters. He owns and populates the major media.]

It appears to me that a large percentage of the American population could unite and file a class action lawsuit against the federal government, charging them with fraud, deception and conspiracy, committing warfare against the American people through economic means. They, willfully and aggressively encouraging and participating with business and corporate interests, effectively robbing, by subterfuge, the American citizens of their resources and livelihood. Leaving him, the American worker, high and dry.

The government, found guilty, is paying "damages" to 35% of the American population for crippling the American economy greatly diminishing their opportunities for gainful employment.

Another term for these damages is "WELFARE".
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your response.

I am aware that my fellow republicans may struggle with the welfare concept, but I have my own plans in mind. The definition of welfare is the wellness of a person or a group. The second definition, however, is a statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

How I intend to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need is buy equalizing tax payment and balance a slightly heavier needed taxing payment on the wealthy citizens.

I understand that that is not directly a Republican belief, but I will not make party a direct commander of this election. My focus on the economy is almost about the same as Reaganomics, but I will make sure that whatever happens with our people's money, how the government spends it, and how all things in the money world will end up good if I am elected.

You recently stated that the citizen could file a lawsuit against the federal government for fraud, deception, and conspiracy. That is not even close to my vision of government. I see a government that is limited and a people that live well and can afford to live their lives without the government tossing roadblocks into their path, so to speak.

I will not be using fancy or large vocabulary words to show my skill. I do not intend to intimidate my fellow Americans by doing that. I will be showing them a man they can relate to, a man that they know is there to help and will not stop helping them. And hopefully that man will have the honor to be their president.


Rambulet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I have realized that my opponent has forfeited, so I will post my beliefs for the next topic, which I have decided: Abortion. Also, this will be the first and last debate. The voters, if any, will vote for the president on this debate.

I believe that abortion is incorrect; although I do not think that a woman should be forced by the government to keep her baby. I believe that putting the baby up for adoption should be highly suggested and offered, and the woman will be allowed to choose which option she prefers.

I do believe that abortion is completely unnecessary, though I do and will not go to such extremes as calling it murder; even though I am pro-life.

Though I will warn that if, when the time comes and it seems like the right idea and the best way to go, I will try to make abortion illegal.


Rambulet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Rambulet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF