The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Dont vote for John Huntsman, GOP primary 2012

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 20296
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Prefferable if you accapt this debate you will be an actual Jon Hunstman supporter but since those people are so rare (a reason he will not win) I will probably have to do with just an opponent who argue as if he were one of his supporters.

I believe I can make a logical case that one should not vote for Huntsman no matter what end of the conservative political spectrum you come from. (you do need to be conservative, we are considering the primary for this debate not the General Election)

Whatever your reason for supporting him could be, there is a better canadite to choose from that would fit with those reasons (primarely Mitt Romney)

This first round is for accaptance only, please also let me know in the first round if your an actual Huntsman Supporter or you just going to fiegn support for him for purposes of this one debate.



I accept this debate....and I'm a Huntsman supporter.
Debate Round No. 1


I wont be able to fully compair and contrast what your specific reasons are for supporting Hunstman until you give them of course but are some general things

John Hunstman is on the Modorate end of the conservative spectrum, something Romney himself has been critisized for in his race against Mike Huckabee and now agianst Perry or Santorum.

So if your conservitive views are like that of the moderate republicans in Massichusets (There like the same thing as our Virgina democrates in my state) then logically Romeny is also a fine fit for your support. He even also has the 'first mormon' president thing that would go for him in the race against obama if you like the idea of another 'first' president getting elected.

So what does Huntsman have that Romeny does not? He can speak Mandarin, but thats a novilty and you cant seriously be considering electing a president based on that.

What does he not have going for him? character issues wich I think are highlight by Huntsman in paticular being compaired to Romney. Last GOP election Romney's opponents tried to paint Romney as this rich guy who thinks he can just buy the white house, like he's some spoiled rich kid that was born into a rich family. Truth is Romney's Success is his own in the busness world One of the most well known examples being STAPLES

Huntsman on the other hand is exactly what others have tried to paint Romney as being. He truely has had to 'phone dad' to make it anywhere in this race, and this has been a trend to his life since he got his first job out, Vice Presedent of his daddy's company.
Romney is a Rich boy who grew up to stand on his own sucess, Huntsman grew up to continue standing on his billionair father Jon Hunstman Sr.

Also, if Newt Gingrich is the canadite in the race that personifies the corrupt slimeballness that comes out of washington that we all hate controling the nations politics, Junior Huntsman is the peronification of all the Snooty, condesending Elietist that many of us hate in politics. This is elitist condesending attitude this rich mans son holds is most evedent in his pointed statements about being pro-'science'

If it were just that he agreed with evolution & Globle warming would be fine with that, its nothing to hold against him, but he takes such condesencion towards me and other like me that I think THAT pompous arrogence should be held against him. For the record I do believe global warming is real and true but concerning where I think the facts lay I support Intelligent Design and even young earth creationism. and yet Huntsman thinks I can only be stupid and 'anti-sceince' for taking that position. It's not like I just heard something from a preacher and decided 'evolution conflicts with my bible so I cant beleive in it.' I have heard the issues brought up just considering the sceince and because of that I am against evolution, and it actually does not conflict whith my beliefs in the bible to think that evolution could be accurate.

To the people who dont believe in global warming, I dont consider them stupid by defult or anti-'science' just cause they have deferent conclusions than I or several scientific athourities conclude. I have heard many of them try to give there case and they are not ignorant to the issues sometimes they bring up things I dont know anything about. I can disagree with them respectfully but not condecendingly. So far at this point I have not seen that kind of condesention coming from Romney and I was very impressed with Rick Santorums speech in the last debate on how we can remain respectfull in disagreement quoting James Madison as he did so.

Hunstman Juniors kind of elitist condesension is abrasive to free thought, while not outright killing it it bullies it hoping to bring it to submission or at least ridicule it to be ignored.

Mitt Romney Stands on his own legs, and is not so extreamly elitist as Junior is. And for those key character issues and how they relate to factoring in how a man can be a leader, and how he can unite those of diverse views, are why I think you should logically support Romney over Huntsman.

With that I end my first round.


Alright time for me to begin...I thank my opponent for their opening arguments.

I have a few reasons why Jon Huntsman is the best man for the job so to speak.

1. He is the only candidate in the GOP with executive experience as he was ambassador to China, he was the HEAD of this mission. Executive experience is important it shows they know how to lead, and they can hold up under stresses and command.

2. He has demonstrated ability to work with both parties effectively as governor of Utah and ambassador to China

3. The United States' relationship with China will become important in the coming years. Huntsman is the only GOP candidate with first hand experience of China's culture and the only one who can speak their language. It will be easier to deal with the Chinese on equal footing this way. It is being respectful to speak their language. Respect is key.

4. Huntsman has enormous appeal to young conservative voters and independent voters. He is the only Republican candidate, because he is the most moderate, who has a chance to win key swing votes and as a result states.

5. According to the New York Times, Huntsman has the best chance at winning against Obama. Obviously shouldn't the person who is the GOP candidate be the one who has the best chance at winning?

6. Jon Huntsmen is the most qualified. He was the US Trade Ambassador under President Bush, the Ambassador to China, as well as the CEO of his families company.

As Trade Ambassador he helped to negotiate dozens of free trade contracts with Asian and African nations.

7. His commitment to service, to the United States, rises above partisan lines (something which is direly NEEDED today). He worked under Bush and Obama and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be ambassador in 2009, Huntsman had members of both parties support.

8. Huntsman is not as elitist as people think. As ambassador, Huntsman REFUSED to ride in his motorcade instead choosing to ride bicycle and interact with the Chinese people, not the elitist you think. He worked closely with business owners in the United States to try and facilitate growth.

9. As governor of Utah, he cut taxes by 400 million dollars, caused Utah to later keep its AAA Bond rating, and during the recession Utah was ranking number 1 for job creation and was named the best managed state by the Pew Center.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for there prompt response

I think I will go bullet by bullet that my opponent gave, you will know what I am rebutting as it will correlate with the number my opponent put in front of his reason for support

1) number is a flat out lie, or a falsehood born of ignorance. Mitt Romney was also a Governor of Massachusetts and Rick Perry is currently Governor of Texas. That’s executive experience, and of States far more populated than Utah, so more difficult to manage.
And for what its worth, Rick Santorum makes a pretty good case for why executive experience is not all its cracked up to be in this link He list of presidents who had none before taking office and still got things done and some who did and got nothing done or tried to be 'Governor of America' doing things that needed to left to the states.

2) Huntsman may try to make 'Obama was my boss when I was ambassador' to show he can work with both parties but that’s not the same as being able to overcome partisan politics. china ambassador is not a job were party politics come into play and its absurd to suggest that they do somehow. Mitt Romney on the other hand actually has shown he can work with democrats in Massachusetts extraordinarily well, and Rick Santorum has quite the record as well for being able to get both parties to work together in both his State legislature and in the Senate on the bills he sponsored. On this reason of yours for supporting Junior Huntsman there are two Candidates who have a superior version of that quality.

3) Yes our relationship to china is important, but so are other Countries like Iran. While Hunstman experience is restricted to just China, Rick Santorums foreign experience is much broader as he sat on the Senate Armed Services committee. If its so down right important the Chinese be spoken to in Mandarin for respect purposes how about President Romney/Santorum just get there ambassador to china to come with them to say what they want him too. Your third point is a reason to make him ambassador again not president. Its just not rational to elect a man on the novelty of speaking Mandarin.

4) Huntsman cannot get swing states because he was not able to get on our ballet. Virginia is going to be one of the most important swing states in the election Obama will be going after and the only people who could get on the Primary Ballet was Romney and Paul. As to appealing to Youth, your confusing Huntsman with Ron Paul if you have been watching the news at all. He has been getting the votes from young college students and Independent and older folks to a degree as well. You are completely ignoring reality when you say he is the ONLY candidate to that can get votes as a moderate. I already stated Romney is about as moderate as Huntsman but without the elitist attitude.

5) I hope people actually read the link you posted. That ‘poll’ was an idiotic math equation that was not based actual facts. Every poll across America throughout the whole election that has actually surveyed real people who will do the real voting has shown Romney is the best candidate to beat Obama.

6) Jon Huntsman Became a CEO because his daddy gave his boy the job, not because he was qualified, and seeing the trend of taking care of Junior whatever way he needs in his life there’s not a lot of reason to think his Dad didn’t puppet run Juniors job for him.

7) all of the candidates are committed to service of the country, that’s why there running. If your not committed then you don’t choose to enter like Chris Christy or Sarah Palin choose not too.

8) I gave several reasons in the first round why Huntsman is an elitist, and you did not address either of them so they stand un-refuted. Your only defense is ‘he rode a bicycle, elitist don’t do that….’

Huntsman is the biggest elitist there is out there, maybe your being fooled by his totally condescending attitude because he tries masking it by sound sad ‘I feel so sad for you for being so dumb and ignorant, you need to know I know better than you….’

9) Utah is a small state population wise, so his record there is not as impressive as it sounds. It’s a whole lot easier to keep you county budget in check than it is a whole state’s. While what he has done in Utah is good, when you compare that to the what Perry has done in Texas and Romney in Massachusetts understanding the population size difference there records are about as impressive as Huntmans if not more so.

I have answered all of my opponents points and he has answered none of mine. He has however shown his lack of knowledge of the facts by repeatedly using the word ONLY when it absolutely should not be used. you said he is the only modorate, thats false, you said he is the only one with executive experince, thats false, you said he is he only one with background in forien policy, thats false, and you said he is the one polls say can beat obama wich is only coming from that ridiculose one you sourced, its pretty common knowledge that Romney is projected in polls to be best able to beat obama. all the reasons you gave is a reason to support Mitt Romney who I could get behind. He could unite all conservatives to support him against Obama, but Huntsman is such an elitist snob toward core conservatives like me I would have a very hard time getting behind Huntsman.



As my opponent has stated Romney is the only member of the GOP who can stand up to Jon Huntsman in terms of experience.

We'll start with character issues.

My opponent is obviously confused by how Romney made his way in the business world. He was a private equity fund manager. For the sake of clarification let me explain what this means. The super rich go to private equity firms and invest large amounts of money. The equity managers take this money and combines it with 5 or 6 other rich people's monies. Using this they then go and buy a business for let's say 400 million dollars. The equity firms makes sure the business does really well then 3-4 years later, after the monies made a profit, the equity manager either sells the company, takes the money and gives it back to the investors (firing all the employees in the process). Or they fire all the employees, chop the business up into economical "chunks", and sell it at a bigger profit. Is this somebody who we really think has great character? Somebody who will destroy an entire company, fire all the employees and screw up those lives for the sake of money? He may be successful but, his success is unethical. Fine, Huntsman may he gotten a job from his father, but, that does not mean he did not do his job and do it well. Therefore, we must assume, until proven otherwise that Huntsman was the one doing his own job not his father. And doing a more ethical job.

My opponent seems to think that bluntly stating that people are stupid is a bad thing. But, he has provided no reason why it is a bad thing. We need somebody as our leader who will bluntly state what people need to hear but, do not want to hear. The United States education system is figuratively "going down the toilet". The United States once had one of the best public education systems in the world. Now, as of 2009-2010, the United States is ranked 30th, just above Mexico. As a nation, people are not learning as well, because they are not learning as well, they are not learning as much. Because they are not learning as much people, through generations, are getting dumber. I applaud Huntsman for saying what nobody else has the gall to say. Bluntness is not a bad quality.

Defense of my points:

1) Fine so they both have executive experience. Even if the state is more or less populated it is still equally as difficult to manage the states budget.

2) I'll concede this point.

3) The Senate Armed Services Committee only is empowered with the legislative of the United States military. This is not as relevant to foreign affairs as say being an ambassador to a country. A more relevant committee dealing with foreign affairs would be the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Seeing as no candidate sits on this committee, an ambassador position is much more relevant, and hands-on, in the world of foreign affairs than sitting on a committee dealing with solely the military. Even so, our relationship with China is much more important than our non-relationship with Iran. China is a military and economic superpower in the world. Iran most assuredly is not. Should the United States not worry about something which is present instead of something which may become present in the future? The United States has a bigger economic stake with China than Iran. Iran's only real threat to the United States are the nuclear weapons they do not posses currently and the Strait of Hormuz which they cannot completely close under international law.

5) I never said it was a poll.

6) Ok and your point is? His father may have given him the job. But, you cannot prove that his father did his job for him. So we must believe that since it was Huntsman Jr.'s job he did it himself. Furthermore, you completely ignored the other qualifications I stated. So you must agree with me on this point. Experience is the most important thing the leader should have.

7) Not at. Trump began for personal gain, more people know his name. Furthermore, you do not have to be dedicated to a country, to be a leader of a country.

8) Actually you gave one reason but, that's besides the point. My opponent is making a mockery of my argument. My argument is that in China instead of riding in a secluded high-up motorcade. Huntsman choose to ride a bicycle and interact with the Chinese people, finding out their personal views on certain topics. This shows a willingness to interact with the regular person. Which is not being aristocratic in any stretch of the imagination.

9) Ok? Once again your point is? It still is a state and he obviously performed well as governor there.

The most important attributes for a leader of the country is experience. Huntsman has the most executive experience of all the GOP candidates as he was both governor, Trade Ambassador, and Ambassador to China, no other candidate has this experience. My opponent in fact, agrees with me in this regard. Should the presidential candidate not be the one with the most experience? I say yes. My opponent obviously not.
Debate Round No. 3


1&9) my point is the population changes the impressiveness of the credential. You say you support huntsman because he has executive experience as govern of Utah. That same kind of experience is also found in Romney and Perry in spades. They are tried and tested in a superior way as governors.

2) my opponent conceded this point

3) The armed forces committee has had to keep informed on the social and cultural situation in the middle east to make there decisions on military matters. China is important to the U.S. in as much as its affects on our economy, the middle east has always been a important front in world politics. Small military power or not they are the countries that are always on the verge of going to war with someone else not china, the middle east is were the 9-11 attackers came from not China

4) my opponent conceded this point

5) as it isn’t a poll it in no way reflect reality and is based on the assumptions victory will be had by trying get the republican to appeal to the liberals and not the democrat appeal to the conservatives.

6) I did not ignore the other points, you repeatedly bring up that he was an ambassador in other bullets so I cover them in those. And when it comes to politics and mafia games, you should assume the worst not the best until proven otherwise.

7) That is my point I made about Trump and the others who didn’t jump in the race, they were not committed to the country, and since your now dropping the need to be committed I take it you concede this as a reason to support Huntsman over Romney or Santorum.

8) It’s a single act for the sake of PR, which when done by a politician, is by no stretch of the imagination evidence he’s not an elitist. He can go ‘play with the poor people’ all he wants it does not change his being an elitist were it matters, in his condescending attitude.

Your complaints against Romney’s business experience I would expect to hear from a democrat, that’s how the free market works. Second off it completely ignores the companies that have prospered under Mitt Romney like STAPLES. Sure some companies are ‘eatin’ up but that’s how businesses work, there comes a time when its best to cut your losses and make the most of them. Being able to make the choice to ‘eat’ other companies IS a sign of leadership, as it shows when the horse is dead Romney will not go on in denial trying to save it by beating it, he just serves the meat up and has more grass to give to the live horses instead.

Being in disagreement with others is not a bad thing for huntsman, what is bad is that its not done in respect. Romney in any interview he has been in has spoken with respect to those he engages with, even if they have there differences, Huntsman has shown he does not no how to do this. He has gone out of his way to insult me and other tea partiers like me who do not think evolution holds up against the facts. He could if he were presidential material try engaging with us as if we were not totally being disregarded intellectually like ‘what you I.D’ers may not have considered, or known….’ But no instead he chooses to just ignore us and call us stupid. Huntsman is like DDO’s Izbo when it comes to this matter, and seeing as Huntsman has gone out of his way to disregard my intellect and insult tea partiers everywhere its hard to see how we could ever come to his aid or support in the general election where this will all count. We are the hand that feeds the GOP and Huntsman has decided to bite us.

Even if you are of moderate views like Huntsman, Huntsman is not willing to work with the rest of his party to get those positions accomplished. Romney on the other hand has shown he can work with tea partiers, and liberals all just the same to get the pragmatic solutions he has in his 59 point plan in place.



My complaints against Romney are the exact ones Obama would bring against him in a national election. You may say that's life. That's how a free market works. But, when the theme of the election is going to be unemployment Romney's past deals of buying, chopping up, firing all the employees, and selling businesses is not going to be good for his image. Obama will paint Romney as someone who made his fortune off of other people's economic hardship. So what are his chances like with an unemployment rate of 8.5%?

1&9) Romney, in a speech, wishes his state "Were More Like Utah." He felt Utah was run better. Furthermore, that still doesn't change the fact Utah had the number 1 job growth during Huntsman's governorship, he caused a boom in the state's economy. Far exceeding the growth Romney and Perry had in their respective states.

3) First of all, the economy is what allow the military to stay operational. You need money to run it. Second, China will be the next superpower should we not have a leader who has direct experience with the Chinese government?

6) He was Ambassador to China, Trade Ambassador, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Deputy US Trade Representative, CEO, and governor. He still has more experience than the other contenders.

7) No, I was stating a fact, a leader does not have to be dedicated. If they are not dedicated they will not be a good leader. If they are they will be a better leader.

8) So basically, it was PR for a presidential campaign that would occur years later? Yea, right.

And where did I say the companies he was selling were dead? In many of his dealings he sells companies that are doing well in order to make a large profit. (Someone gives money for x amount of time after x amount of time they want their money back).

Furthermore, this elitist attitude you speak of is just being blunt. Not a bad quality for a leader. Better than smooth-talking your way to the conclusion someones an idiot.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
haha I saw that...oh well.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
on a humorous side note, even John Huntsman himself agrees with me, since he withdrew to support Mitt Romney after reading this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
in my RFD i had exactly 500 characters O.o
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
I apologize for pushing that so close. but I did get an argument in on time
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
on an official note of who I support vote for Rick Santorum!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: rather than just using his longtime low polling numbers to paint huntsman as impossible to be elected at this point as a reason for why people shouldnt vote for him, pro instead tried to attack the mans credibility and plans, which i felt the con successfully refuted. pro gets sources though
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't have any or many sources
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Although opening arguments where even the refutations came into play. Although both sides seemed underdeveloped pro was to the point and offered facts and more decisive rebuttals. Con did well too, but his where more shabby. Also pro had more sources and they seemed credible. Although con had one credible source pro had many. But both did well, pro wins this debate, con did have his high points and good points but in my opinion pro was more developed and more in depth, and his rebuttals trumped