Is Marco Rubio really more electable than Ted Cruz?
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe that Marco Rubio is indeed the more electable Republican Candidate than Cruz.
Round 1: State your position and nothing more.
Round 2: Opening Arguments.
Round 3: Response to Arguments and Further Evidence
Round 4: Closing Statements (No new evidence allowed!)
I would like this to be against a Ted Cruz fan preferably, but obviously that is not a requirement. I would also like to say I am personally biased for Marco Rubio, but will try to keep that out of the debate as much as possible.
Electable- the likelihood of being chosen as the, in this case, Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.
I agree with the given definition of electable so that is fine.
Millennial- An adult age 18-34.
Claim: Marco Rubio is indeed more electable the Ted Cruz
Argument 1: Appeal within traditional Liberal Voting Bloc's
According to polling by NBC Marco Rubio is running a statistical tie with Hillary Clinton among Millennial Voters.  As most people who pay a fair amount of attention to politics know, Millennials are an important demographic especially for more liberal candidates and they are credited with helping to propel Barack Obama into office in both 2008 and 2012. For a Republican Candidate to cut into that important voting bloc could signal the end of the surge of the Democrat Party in recent years.
Rubio is a Latino (so is Cruz, Sorry New York Times). Naturally this comes with a bit of a boost for the man among what is also traditionally a Liberal Democrat Voting Bloc. Admittedly the numbers are not good across the board for any Republican Candidate, but Rubio does the best.  Rubio is behind Hillary by 19 points, to 27 points behind for Cruz respectively. This significant gap between Rubio and Cruz is important, although both are relatively insignificant when compared against Hillary Clinton's numbers. Rubio has a clear advantage over Cruz among yet another important Liberal Democrat voting bloc, adding to the idea that he is more electable than Cruz
Argument 2: Appeal within Republican Voting Bloc's as well.
Contrary to claims leveled by Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz, Rubio is a Conservative. With a 94% rating from Heritage Action  and a 96% from the American Conservative Union . In spite of these impressive scores and other Conservative Credentials, Rubio maintains appeal within the Republican "Establishment". This is best demonstrated with the winning of the backing of Paul Singer, and the endorsements of the more moderates in Sen. Pat Toomey, Sen. Cory Gardner, and Former Sen. Phil Gramm. Rubio also racks up an impressive list of endorsements from more conservative figures like Former Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Tim Scott, Rep. Trey Gowdy, and Former Senator Rick Santorum, making the case that Rubio indeed does have broad appeal with in the Republican Party as well as outside of it. Ted Cruz on the other hand has racked up endorsements from largely just Conservatives. 
Argument 3: Stands best in polling against Hillary Clinton
In just about every round of polling Marco Rubio fares the best against Hillary Clinton.  In these polls by Real Clear Politics Rubio maintains a lead of almost 5 points over Hillary Clinton, whom for this instance we will assume is the Democrat Nominee. Contrast this with Cruz, whom currently has a lead of just 1 point of Mrs. Clinton. 
Overall, even though Cruz has an impressive listing of endorsements within the Republican Party, he remains too polarized of a figure to be elected over the far more broadly appealing Rubio (I am not hitting Cruz for being too Conservative, I think he has done a wonderful job). If it comes down to the two parties nominee's brawling over, lets say about 5-10 percent of the vote, the likelihood is that Mrs. Clinton would win that battle based on her longer list of "experience" in Washington if she were to face Mr. Cruz. Now, if she were to face Rubio the case can be made that the fight over the electorate could be larger, say 7-12 percent, not only because of Mr. Rubio's appeal within the Republican Party, but also his general electorate appeal, a strength that Mr. Cruz simply lacks.
The Republican Party is the Conservative Party of America with all presidents since every president since Teddy Roosevelt has been on the modern conservative spectrum.
Point A: Conservatism
Cruz is more conservative than Rubio by a very big margin. The Conservative Report has rated Cruz as 97% conservative. This is because of his abortion stance were as he stated in 2012 that, "Churches shouldn't be forced to fund abortion while the state should be prohibited from funding it. Rubio on the other hand is open to abortion prior to the 20 week mark, which is not where most of the Evangelical and hard-core conservative votes are. Also, Cruz has outright stated that all useless regulations in the economy, which is what the population wants, compared to Rubio who has shown his support on this, but doesn't plainly state it.
Point B: Polls
In National GOP polls, Cruz has led Rubio in every poll since the last November poll except 1 Rasmussen poll just recently released. But the national polls don't always hold face value as Donald J. Trump lost Iowa with a decent margin, even though he had a very close poll running nationwide. South Carolina is the next state in the GOP primary and shows that Cruz is winning by a margin of 5.0 points, while Nevada, who is next after South Carolina, is winning by 9 points. And the exit polls show what areas Republican voters are most concerned with, and the biggest category being angry with the federal government, in which Cruz is in second, only behind Trump.
Point C: Results
Cruz won Iowa with over 8,000 more votes than Rubio, in a state that has an 81 Republican to 69 Democratic state legislature, and 2 Republican Senators in the United States Congress, along with 3 Republican Congressional Representatives. In New Hampshire, Cruz beat Rubio by a smaller margin, my guess because it is a more liberal state, in which it is split 1 Senator and Representative for each party.
Rubio is the more liberal of the two candidates, which, though is better in the Presidential Election, is not what Conservative Republicans wants and will most likely be the ones that decide the nominee as they did with Reagan, Nixon, and George W. Bush in each of their respective first primaries that led to their election in November.
Marco Rubio is the more electable Candidate
Response to Point A:
Rubio is just as Conservative as Cruz with the major exception on their apparent differences over Amnesty. A 94% rating from Heritage Action does not add up with someone who is a "RINO". Rubio's stances on Abortion are among the most Conservative in the Race and that showed when he said "I just believe deeply that all human life is worthy of protection of our laws," Rubio said, adding, "I would rather lose an election than be wrong on the issue of life."  I am not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I will respond to what I think you are saying. On economics, Rubio and Cruz are virtually identical with the exception of the VAT Tax, which in the grand scheme of things is not that great of a difference.
Response to Point B:
Polls are extremely volatile and have a historical inaccuracy, especially in the early states. None of the last three caucuses in Iowa have been predicted correctly.  Next, there is no "National Primary" therefore any polls showing the relative strength of one candidate versus another are a mute point. Other state Primary polls, though interesting to look at, still do not provide a clear and accurate prediction of how a Candidate is to perform, case and point is Iowa where Marco Rubio over performed expectations by 6.2%, Trump under performed by 4.3%, and Cruz over performed by 3.7%. That clearly demonstrates the inability of polls, especially early voting state polls, at predicting the overall strength of a candidate.
Response to Point C:
Iowa is territory that is immensely favorable to Ted Cruz, with a high concentration of evangelicals whom vote in high numbers in the Caucus, it is hardly a surprise that Ted Cruz won Iowa and beat out Marco Rubio by over 8,000 votes. What is telling however is the spectacular third place showing of Rubio whom heavily beat out expectations and came relatively close to beating the GOP "front-runner" in Trump. In territory that is less-friendly to Rubio, his show of strength is far more impressive than the actual victory of Ted Cruz. On your points about New Hampshire I would generally agree, with one addition, the strength of JEB!, Kasich, and Christie.
I will agree with you that Rubio is the more Liberal of the two Candidates, but I will only concede that he is more Liberal on Immigration. I reiterate my point that a 94% score from Heritage Action is not reason to believe that Rubio is any less of an option to the Conservatives that Ted Cruz is, and with his appeal across party lines and within the party, Rubio is the more electable Candidate.
Now that we have thoroughly debated the merits of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio I must ask, how does debating Conservative merits add to the overall question of electablility?
You say that Rubio's stance on abortion is the most conservative in the GOP primary field. I would disagree as Cruz has gone on to argue Supreme Court cases against abortion and won, where Rubio has proposed legislation that passed the House, but not the Senate, and has no chance of being signed by Obama, which is accompanied by zero chance of a legislative override as the House, with the highest Republican majority, didn't even have a 2/3 yea vote.
You are correct on the VAT tax and how it doesn't make a big difference, but you are forgetting about the privatization of health care, which Rubio disagrees with, while Cruz has supported it for much time. This is very important as those who disagree with universal health care lean more towards Cruz because of this.
You express why polls shouldn't be trusted, which is understood as polls only need roughly 2,000 voters to be considered legitimate. But what about rallies. Rubio has far less attendees to his rallies as compared to Cruz. Also, because Cruz has a grass roots campaign nationwide, he has many times what Rubio has in campaign volunteers. I believe this should be an adequate measure of elect-ability as the more volunteers equals more opportunities, which is also multiplied because of the grass-roots approach that allows for people to feel more connected when being called, compared to a headquarter. Also, the grass-roots Cruz is running has many door-to-door operations that have been shown to be very effective.
Now in keeping with the rules that I had laid out, I am going to introduce no new arguments this round. I will however respond briefly to the points you make and try to keep with the rules I have laid out.
Rallies: Rally sizes do not determine much, take Bernie Sanders, he had drawn huge crowds, but that doesn't mean that he has a foreseeable path due to the nomination due to a tough fight over black votes in the South, which favor Hillary.
Pro-life: You case that Cruz is more pro-life than Rubio because he has gone to the Supreme Court to argue cases and Rubio has only proposed legislation is faulty. Cruz was a solicitor general before running for Senate, Rubio was a Legislature, to base that Cruz is more pro-life because he was able to go before the Supreme Court and argue and Rubio was not is not a fair comparison since they both came from different legal realms.
And now I would like to thank my opponent for a lively debate and a respectful one, and would like to once again pose a question. Although debating the Conservative Merits of a Republican Candidate is very important, how does comparing them and contrasting them advance the idea that one is more electable than the other?
And with that thought I leave it up to the voters. Thank you again.
Now, the reason we are discussing there Conservativeness is because the GOP is the party of conservatives. This is a primary to see who will return their values. You are correct that a legislative and judicial comparison is like apples and oranges. But Cruz was a legislature and a lawyer. He has fought for Conservative values in two branches of government, and now asks us to allow him to do the same in the third.
Rubio is a life long politician. He is not able to be elected. This is the year of the outsiders, and Rubio fits the bill for the complete opposite. Cruz is more electable because of his outsider status.
Cruz has the poll numbers, he has the rally size, and he has what the voters are looking for. He has what Rubio has and more. He is, the most electable candidate of the two.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheChristian 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple reasons. For starters, Hanspete's sources are more reliable. He also listed overall more, and made few grammar errors, if any. Most importantly, he wrote multiple paragraphs to rebut points, without making the debate too long and hard on the eyes
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.