The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Amedexyius
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Gary Johnson is the best presidential candiate for Nov 2016.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Amedexyius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 94110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I'm sick of this annoying two party system. Let's vote 3rd party!

1. https://www.presidentialelection.com...
Amedexyius

Con

Acceptance

In respect to the rules, I'll use Round 1 for acceptance. I'll argue against the policies of Gary Johnson, and in comparison to any other candidate that has a more reasonable plan. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Gary Johnson seems to be a reasonable man in my opinion.

Separation of church and state:

Supports separation of religion and state. (Aug 2011) [2]

Drugs:

"Marijuana is safer than alcohol." (Aug 2012) [2]
"Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime. (Jan 2001) " [2]

Immigration:

"Bigger border fence will only produce taller ladders. (Jan 2016) " [2]

From the above you can see Gary Johnson is a reasonable man. That's what need in a leader. Not somebody who is going to drastically and erratically change everything.

http://www.ontheissues.org...
Amedexyius

Con

I thank my opponent for providing his arguments towards his candidate.

I'll start with rebuttals and move towards counter-arguments and alternative candidates.

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

My opponent starts his argument with Johnson's support for the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is one of the most fundamental pieces of contemporary politics, today. There is no specialty to Johnson in his argument other than being religiously competent. Hillary Clinton, for one, has also advocated strongly for the separation of church and state [1].

My opponent moves onto drugs, with the true statements of the relative safety of the use of cannabis and the percentage of drug related crimes, roughly at 46% in the US [2], so thank you for those statistics although you didn't mention the stance of Gary Johnson on drugs. Hillary Clinton, to help with the statistics you mentioned, also advocates for loosening of federal marijuana laws to help impact the criminal rate against possession of marijuana [3]. She also supports medical marijuana which has factual benefits to health [4]. Hopefully, one day she'll also legalize recreational marijuana, she just might be taking federal increments.

The next argument of my opponent quotes the stance of Gary Johnson on immigration. Hillary Clinton also advocates against a wall and a more relaxed immigration system to help more legal immigrants enter the country safely [5]. She has advocated for immigration reform, leaning towards more open borders towards immigrants while still diverting a significant amount of resources to background checks in order to ensure national security (Refer to Source 5).

Hillary Clinton As A Better Candidate

I won't be putting much effort into this considering neither has my opponent, although one stance where Hillary Clinton completely trumps Johnson would be on gun control. Johnson has made the statement that gun control laws are ineffective and advocates against them [6] which is a slap in the face to the proven studies of firearms and causality and correlation within a national level. In reality, considering the United States has one of the most permissive gun laws in the world and the most amount of guns per capita [7], it is no surprise that they also lead the world in mass shootings by about a third of the world [8]. There has also been independent investigations by renowned scientific journals proving the causation of mass shootings through lax gun control laws [9], something Johnson refuses to believe. Hillary Clinton recognizes the impact of firearms in the United States, and the permissive gun laws the country has, and she has made determined promises in her campaign, unchanging, that she'll advocate for much stronger background checks, diverting far more resources into them, along with expansion and possible buybacks for gun owners who no longer meet the new criteria [10].

Sources
[1] http://www.patheos.com...
[2] https://www.bop.gov...
[3] https://www.google.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
[7] http://www.ontheissues.org...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.cnn.com...
[10] http://www.sciencealert.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent has shown Hilary Clinton has a similar stance on many issues that Gary Johnson has. I say we drop these issues since the differences are too small to quarrel about. Instead, lets focus on gun control.

Yes, its tragic that people use firearms for malevolent purposes. I mourn for the victims of violence just like anyone else. Yet, we need to see the big picture. Trading freedom for security will not solve the problem, and may even make it worse.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

R13; Benjamin Franklin [3]

Our forefathers fought hard to liberate the original thirteen colonies from the British. Our fathers also knew we could lose this freedom very easily. I wish we lived in a more ordeal world, but we don't. The people must keep the government in check. We need firearms and it is just that simple.

As seen by the attack on France via a large truck, firearms are not the only weapons capable of killing. [4] Note, France has some of the most stringent gun control laws. [5]

As seen by statistics homicide by firearm is not even within the top 10 list in the USA. [6] In fact, heart disease and cancer are. Despite these diseases having cures that are cheap and readily available by following a whole foods plant based diet. [7][8] Thanks for reading and thanks for the debate.

Sources.
3. https://www.goodreads.com...
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
5. https://www.theguardian.com...
6. http://www.cdc.gov...
7. http://www.ravediet.com...
8. http://www.forksoverknives.com...
Amedexyius

Con

I thank my opponent for providing his arguments.

Opening Statements

My opponent starts off stating that we should move only to gun control in this section of the debate considering Hillary and Johnson are nearly identical in most policies except guns. I should say that considering the topic of this debate is whether Johnson is the best candidate, and the proposal of my opponent to null the prior arguments can hurt his position. I'll now start with my rebuttals and counter arguments.

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

Pro starts off with the statement that "Trading freedom for security will not solve the problem, and may even make it worse.", which is a fallacious statement and refuses to acknowledge my three sources in the previous round. He continues his argument with a quote by Franklin, a bias opinion from an individual known to radically secure his rights, but was a hypocrite enough to own two slaves [1], and while he did hop on the bandwagon for abolishing slavery, he never refused to believe that the black race was inferior (Refer to Source 1).

The continuing arguments of my opponent is outdated considering the United States is far more stable and less likely to fall to a totalitarian monarchy then they were over 239 years ago [2]. There is no need for Americans to continue to own so many guns, considering it has become their own threat even when the 2nd amendment thinks firearms are the saviours of freedom. My opponent tries to dodge my argument of causation and correlation by stating the incident of what happened in France, although what happened in France was a terrorist strike [3], while the majority of the incidents in the US are homegrown psychologically unstable implosions [4].

My opponent states the statistics of firearms not being in the top 10 list, but digresses from the argument considering that heart disease and cancer doesn't have the potential of being banned or controlled. Lax gun laws can be changed, and international examples such as Japan, having one of the world's most powerful gun laws, rarely sees firearm related deaths or mass shootings [5].

I thank my opponent for this debate, it was fun.

Sources
[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://www.theglobaleconomy.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://csgv.org...
[5] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
I'll vote on this soon
Posted by Amedexyius 1 year ago
Amedexyius
@ThinkBig Thanks for the RFD!
Posted by SM29 1 year ago
SM29
Really annoying; I was going to post this exact topic today lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by WKOJ 1 year ago
WKOJ
StupidapeAmedexyiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con made good arguments but it was eventually tied until the gun control part. Clinton and johnson both have similar politic stances so they went equal on the topic. When pro argued that gun control doesn't work he had the advantage for having more reliable sources. Con only used sources that were helpful to his cause.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
StupidapeAmedexyiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts by arguing that Johnson is against a border wall, and for legalized drugs and seperation of church and state. Con responds by showing that Hillary Clinton also advocates for all of these stances, thus Pro's argument doesn't posit Johnson as any better than Clinton, whilst Clinton is for gun control laws which Johnson refuses to believe. Pro responds by arguing that we ought not have gun control because it is a vital check on the government. Con responds by showing that guns are no longer needed to check the government because it is less likely to become totalitarian than back then. Regardless, Con's statistics on gun deaths still outweigh this argument. Thus, since Clinton has a better stance on gun control than Johnson, Clinton is a better presidential candidate. Con wins
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
StupidapeAmedexyiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro would have been far better off had he given himself a lesser burden of proof. Because the resolution states that Johnson is the *best* Presidential candidate, con can easily negate the resolution by showing a candidate that is better than Johnson. Pro really hurt his case by arguing solely on the issues. Pro argues that Johnson is the best candidate as he supports relaxing the drug laws, believes in the separation of church and state, and supports a legal path to immigration. Con showed that Clinton has a similar stance on those issues than Johnson. Pro then drops the arguments and focuses on con's contention on gun control. Pro really never addresses con's argument and instead focuses on a hyper-conservative interpretation of the constitution and ignores the evidence that con gives that gun control can help to reduce crime and save lives, instead opting to show that other things can be used to kill. That is largely irrelevant to con's claim. Con wins.