The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Libertarians should find a new leader to advocate there views

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 20350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)




Current Leader advocating there views, Ron Paul
New leader who could advocate their views, any other libertarians who is not Ron Paul

This is not a debate over wether his supporerst should vote for him this GOP election but rather in reference to future election, both presidential and congressional for that matter.

Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law.

This here is that one law he actually had sucess with in 14 years of his service in congress

As you can see, its a incridebly unimportent pass that has next to nothing to do with advocating 'liberty'.

Even if Ron Paul agree's with everything you yourself believe, or even you started to believe what you do because of Ron Pauls preaching it, you should look to get a new person to advocate it who's not Ron Paul to put your suppot behind. When electing someone to represent you, you need a leader who can, you know lead the change you want in washington.

If they cant do that, then there just another talking windbag.

Do you want the federal reserve audited, so does Ron Paul, but he's a failure for getting that to ever happen

Do you want us to get back on a Gold Standard to back the dollar bill, so does Ron Paul but he has been a failure at getting these things to get done.

Next time you get to elect a consistant libertarian to stand up for your views, its most rational for you to give a new libertarian the chance to advocate them. Ron Paul has had his chance for 14 years and has shown he is not the leader you need to usher 'liberty' back to America.

And once he is no longer in Congress Ron Paul can still do what you like him doing, talking in videos on youtube and saying what you want him to say in media interviews (thats all he's manages to do now sitting in a congressional seat). meanwhile the new libertarian you vote to congress can give his effort at actually making the comprimises needed to bring in the change you want that Ron Paul is always talking about.


Pro makes the mistake of assuming legislative success is the only measuring stick of a person's ability to advocate an idea. Is it unimportant that 75% of people now want a full audit of the Fed?[1] Does it not matter that Ron Paul has inspired a youthful movement that will carry on the principles of individual liberty?[2] What about the partial audit of the Fed, Ron Paul is responsible for, that found out the Fed loaned over $16 trillion to banks when the national debt was just over 14 trillion.[3] Minds must change before legislation changes and Ron Paul has done more for Libertarianism in that sense than any other person. In a Washington Post article, Conservative Charles Krauthammer wrote, "Paul was genuinely delighted because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party" and "For libertarianism, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last."[4]

Debate Round No. 1


Alright, you have convinced my Ron Paul should remain important with your points, however the resolution still holds that Libertarians should get a new leader in advocating there views because the fact of his lack of bills passed in congress is still something that matters with any politician.

Success matters when it comes to who your sending to office to get the job done and it seems the only defense related directly to that fact is ‘minds must be changed first…’ or in other words he needs more people on his particular niche on his side of the isle. This is a week excuse considering the numerous political figures out there who have had to work in state or federal legislations that have more people on the other side of the isle than there own and they still get more of what they want done than 1 bill. (many of the other presidential candidates left right now are actually good examples of such, Santorum worked in a state with more democrats than republicans, so did Romney, and Gingrich was speaker of the house while a democrat held the Whitehouse.)

According to their parties official website there are only 154 elected offices period held across the united states. If Ron Paul has so affected the new generation of young voters, why is this not showing up more significantly with offices being held? People generally know when talking about politicians you have to trust what they have done more than what they say (this holds true for any political party) before getting behind them.

So does it not make sense that some new leaders from the party need to start stepping up to replace some of the older ones? In the local areas where Libertarians do hold an office of some kind its established enough that there is a base of voters that will elect on to office. But there time in office is not very capitalized; at best people like Ron Paul manage to neutralize one vote. And that kind of thing can really matter when you have more of your kind in power but otherwise, it’s the productive record that can really stand out for what one does in office. Current key figureheads like Ron Paul though have shown they are incapable of establishing such a record, that out of all the things they want pushed the status remains much as it was before. Since supposedly Libertarians are conservative surely he could have found something to compromise on to get there support in backing one of those key issues for him?

The fact that minds are not changed yet of other people in congress or those that elect them into office yet is why its so important other newer leaders are ‘placed on the field’ to advance their cause. Since the field is stacked with players from other teams, scoring any runs is going to take someone who can figure out how to play ball with them if that analogy makes sense to you.

Right now Ron Paul is the only thing close to libertarian that you ever hear anything about on the news. On a national scale, I’m not seeing any other players spending significant time on the field. How long must Ron Paul wait playing with no teammates and not working with the teams dominating the field right now? Plus he is a very old man, who knows how long there is for a replacement key player will be flat out required to be found rather than spend time on the field at the same time as Ron Paul himself.

So in summary…

1) I concede Ron Paul should remain important

2) I maintain the resolution though that a new leader should still be found.

3) Getting stuff done is still very important

4) Having ANOTHER leader up there with Ron Paul would make things easier for Ron Paul.



E.BurnumIII forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Well it seems my opponent has forfieted, He appologised but did not say what happened. I can guess though he had a busy weekend like I did. I thank him for contacting me though about the forfeit as that means he has greater honor than most of the members on the site that forfiet there debates and never post again. This is because when you make a commitment it is a matter of honor that you do all you can to keep it and you say something when you prevented from getting your debate in on time for whatever reason.
Prospective future members thinking about joining this site to start a debate or accapt one that are skiming through this debate on this sight right now after discovering it I want to you to read this..... your honor is a stake when you start something. it does not matter that this sight is not the center of your world or you have a so-called-life, or your just thinking about doing one debate for fun or a school assignment. you start something you need to finish it. there is a three day period between rounds most of the time its not hard to keep up with most the time, and it is ruder than troll killing a debate to just quite and leave your oppoenent hanging without a word.

because my opponent does have honor though he didint leave me without a word and any who are skiming his past debates to see if he is prone to forfiet before accapting his debate challenges I want you to not hold this one against him since he did have the honor to contact me after the forfiet. This shows that he does not quit out of apathy toward a debate topic, its just when stuff happens sometimes.

That out of the way this is the final round and I have no case persented by my opponent in the form of rebutal or further points to contend. So I will just leave off with a few concluding thoughts.

I made the debate specifically hopeing to shine light on the seriousness of not having a sucessfull record should have on a canadite even from the perspective of there own supporters.

and while we have been left with good cases made that he should still be activly speaking out for his views on 'liberty' its still safe to say what the resolution says, that he should basically be replaced.
That sounds kind of heartless and as if it sugest he should not actively speak out no more but this is not the case with politics when I speak of 'replaceing' someone as the key head figure.

Sarah Palin still speaks out for Tea Party core conservative values but we would be kidding outselves if we say she hasnt been replaced as key media figurehead for the movement. she kind of was early on as it was shortly after her failed presidential bid and there was still a lot of lingering support for her as a leader. But that has pretty much all gone by now with her not running again and people like michel bachman who actually did run.

Palin is actually a perfect example of what I have tried to say with this debate. she's not really the key figurehead of whatever you want to lable her political views as though she kind of was at one time. she still speakes out but the Tea Party movement has benifited from attaintion moving away from her and more to other people advocating conservative views and approaches different from Obamas such as Paul Ryan who seems to archatect anything that actual gets talked about in congress or the various charismatic people that have ran in the GOP primary. More people taking such a central role in carrying the torch of a side in politics helps keep it alive and growing espically when some of the first become 'damaged goods' like Palin in how the media jumps on her for non-issue related things like knowledge of history and things like that. when its not carried on to other leaders people could start just throwing what her positions were out the window with a 'well that was just her and you know she wasnt very bright'. but anyone can see its not just her and people like Paul Ryan, Tom Cobern, Chris Christy, Bob Mcdonald, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum, cannot all be just discounted as 'stupid'.

The comments in the comment section of this debate actually testify that not everyone even cosiders Ron Paul a real libitarian, but as of now he is the only guy put up to the plate in presidential primaryies. Its time to cycle through to someone else just like it was time to cylce away from sara palin. people try and discount paul because he is zany or has trouble articulating his case in debates, kind of stammers or goes off topic, or is a much older man, why not try his son out for a change, why not serch for another libitarian who does articulate the cause better (or differently and just see if it works better)

Those of you that support Ron Paul, one day whether anyone likes it or not Ron Paul will 'burn out' from the political game or from spending so much money on campaigning or for health or family reasons and retire, or he will just flat out die one day (that also happens to everybody eventually) and if the fire is not passed on to someone else before it burns out in him, then it dies with him and what he has started will have to start again as if from scratch. From my own life experiences I know thats true, that the torch must be passed by lighting anothers torch befor the first one burns out. I have seen people try to get apprentaces in my familey to pick up what they themselves have already quite long ago and it has never has worked out for them.


First, I would like to apologize again for missing the previous round and I appreciate Pro's understanding and nice words.

Pro makes some good points but he misses the boat. Libertarianism is not a new philosophy. It has been around for years yet there has never been a person to bring it as close to mainstream as Ron Paul. There is even a Libertarian political party that offers candidates every election but none of them have had any real success. It is not as easy as pro seems to think to inspire millions to follow a political philosophy. You can't just pass a torch to the next person and expect them to garner the same respect and devotion from the people has Ron Paul. What separates Ron Paul from others is his nearly unmatched knowledge of economics. His years of warning about creating money out of thin air and debt have been validated by our current economic times.[1]

In a world where libertarianism is considered "fringe" and "kooky" of course Ron Paul wouldn't have legislative success but what Ron Paul has been able to do is start to break down that barrier. After this much progress has been made, why change anything? Then you run the risk of being counter productive. If a bad football team drafted a quarterback and that quarterback took the team from a losing season to a game away from the playoffs, the coach wouldn't change quarterbacks in the last game.

When Ron Paul dies the message won't be lost with him. His thousands of videos on Youtube will still be here. The millions of young people who now support the cause of liberty will greatly influence the political world. The Republican party platform will be filled with libertarian principles. The days of Keynesian prominence will be over.

Conclusion: It is unnecessary and possibly counter productive for libertarians to change leaders. It would be a needless gamble.

Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
@GORGIAS: an untested player is better than a tried and tested loser. unless of course losing is your goal.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
@Daedalus : anyone. even if there a new face on the political field. mulligan-ing a dud hand is better than continuing to try and play with your dud hand every round.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
@16adams: I'm not saying he should not be an advocate, I'm saying a new leader should be looked to among libertarians. If politics were a game, its fine that Ron Paul plays the game but another libertarian needs to be given the chance to try 'winning' for their team.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
gooossshh, evvverryyy body is a spelling nazi these days.

the libertarian error is now fixed, so is my failure at spelling failure too.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
you misspelled libertarian
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
I'll accept this debate on Sunday.
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
I wouldn't exactly call Ron Paul a leader and advocate for libertarianism. He's just the next best thing as far as major political icons go.
Posted by GORGIAS 4 years ago
So wait let me get this right. Libertarians should choose someone without bills presented to the house, rather than someone who's bills never passed? Am I comprehending your point?
Posted by Daedalus 4 years ago
my question is who would you suggest instead?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
my question is why should he not be an advocate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF, S
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF