The Instigator
texans14
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Marco Rubio should be the next president of the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 56515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

texans14

Pro

Rubio is a moderate senator willing to see views from both sides. Also he is one of the few Republicans that thinks immigration laws should be less strict. He would be the first Hispanic president.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing against the following resolution:

Marco Rubio Should be the Next President of the United States


Because my opponent has instigated the debate and is affirming a positive statement, he has the burden of proof to demonstrate to us conclusively that Marco Rubio should be the next president.

I will begin by rendering what my opponent must achieve in order to win this debate. Then I will provide a response to his opening contentions. Finally, I will provide my own arguments as to why Rubio should not be the next president, and will continue these in the rounds to come.

My opponent must defend the following syllogism:

P1: If Marco Rubio possesses (x), (y), and (z) criteria, he should be the next president.
P2: Marco Rubio possesses (x), (y), and (z) criteria.
C: Therefore, Marco Rubio should be the next president.

The burden, of course, is not only in defining those criteria, but in establishing why those would make one fit for the presidency and how that would differentiate Mr. Rubio from, say, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lee, Mr. Bush, or any other possible contenders for either the GOP primary, or if we want to be daring, the Democratic primary. My opponent must be able to establish his points beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, he cannot win this debate.


Pro begins by stating that "Rubio is a moderate senator willing to see views from both sides."

There are a few problems with this initial assertion. First, what is "moderate?" Is that not relative depending either on his possible opponents or based on the views of the populace? Is this not attemping to establish objectivity with a subjective term? I, for instance, wouldn't consider Rubio a moderate. For instance, he doesn't believe in man-made climate change in spite of the whirlwind of scientific data, doesn't support abortion rights, is for massive tax cuts, signed the Norquist pledge, refused to raise the debt ceiling--which would send the global economy into shambles--supporting Florida's voter suppression tactics, is against gay marriage, "doesn't know" how old the Earth is, is a co-sponsor of the Blunt-Rubio amendment which would allow employers to deny birth control to their female employees, etc. That doesn't sound very moderate to me. [1]

At the same time, Pro has not demonstrated to us why, even if Rubio could be considered a moderate--to anyone--this would make him uniquely qualified to be the president. Jeb Bush, by many metrics, is more moderate than Mr. Rubio. Why would my opponent choose Mr. Rubio over Mr. Bush?

My opponent then claims that Rubio is "willing to see views from both sides." First, he hasn't provided us with any examples. Second, he hasn't explained why this would qualify someone from president. Third, he hasn't explaiend why this quality is unique to Rubio such that we should consider him over another possible contender.

1. http://tinyurl.com...

Pro then states that "Also he is one of the few Republicans that thinks immigration laws should be less strict."

First, Pro must be able to connect this point to why Rubio should be president. Indeed, he appears to be much more reasonable on immigration reform than many others in his party. However, there are Democrats who are even MORE reasonable on this. At the same time, there are Republicans who have backed off immigration reform and have attacked Rubio for supporting what they called "amnesty."

Second, Rubio showed quite a lack of conviction when it came to immigration reform which caused him to seem like he was, at best, pandering to his base in the process.

For instance, back in October 2013, a spokesman of his said, "a series of individual bills" on immigration reform could be a better way to approach the issues than a comprehensive bill. He called it "more realistic." Bear in mind that this was FOUR MONTHS after the bill he had help to create had passed the Senate. This was a major flip-flop on his end and demonstrates that he cares more about appealing to his base than about doing what he once thought was the right thing. [2]

Rubio also, at one point, threatened to vote against his own bill if Senator Leahy's amendment had gone through, which would have allowed same-sex rights--that is, the government would need to recognize same-sex marriages if one spouse was an American. [3] This not only demonstrates, again, a lack of commitment to actual immigration reform and appealing to his base, but his firm opposition to equality for gay Americans which should be guaranteed under the 14th amendment.

2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...


My opponent then claims that "he would be the first Hispanic president."

This is true. However, surely my opponent is not suggesting that merely being Hispanic qualifies someone for being the next president of the United States. He needs to connect this point to why Rubio should be president. For instance, Julian Castro is also Hispanic. Why shouldn't he be president instead of Rubio?

I will now, briefly, offer my own case since I'm running low on characters.


C1) Rubio is against same-sex marriage.

Marco Rubio has stated that he opposes same-sex marriage, and that society "shouldn't tolerate it." [4] He called it a "less-than-ideal family structure." However, he must be wholy ignorant of the research, which has demonstrated conclusively that gay parents are just as qualified as straight parents [5][6], a view which even the American Psychological Association has endorsed [7]. In fact, Abbie Goldberg, a psychological at Clark University, argues that gay couples may be BETTER parents. She said, "[gay couples] tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents." [8]

Rubio has not only supported discrimination against gay couples, but is at odds with the American public. For instance, about 59 percent of the American people believe that gay couples should have the right to mary. [9]


4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...

C2) Rubio panders to his base regularly and demonstrates a lack of conviction

I demonstrated this earlier with his flip-flops on immigration reform.

C3) Rubio is either ignorant of science, or doesn't care

First I pointed out his mistakes on gay couples raising families.

Next, though he eventually clarified his position [10], he was once asked hold old the Earth was, and responded "I'm not a scientist, man." [11] He immediately mentioned the Bible in his answer--which, by the way, isn't scientific--and attempted to downplay the science, though the science on this subject is pretty unequivocal. This is another example of Rubio pandering to his base.

The most recent Rubio controversy had to do with climate change. He denies that humans are causing climate change, even though 97.1 percent of findings and papers on the subject from actual scientists conclude that human beings are contributing to climate change [13]. I think this is an important issue to address, as climate change is one of the most significant threats to our way of life and our economy, and Rubio isn't even willing to accept the facts of it.

10. http://tinyurl.com...;
11. http://tinyurl.com...
12. http://tinyurl.com...
13. http://tinyurl.com...

C4) Rubio is an economic extremist

Rubio boasted that he refused to raise the debt ceiling [14], even though not lifting it would have catastrophic effects on the economy [15]. The WSJ called this "brinkmanship." I call it pandering to his base (again). He also was one of 18 GOP Senators to vote against a bill ending the government shutdown and lift the debt ceiling[16].

14. http://tinyurl.com...
15. http://tinyurl.com...
16. http://tinyurl.com...


Conclusion
There are more issues that I hope to touch on, but unfortunately I run low on character space, so I will bring those arguments up in later rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
texans14

Pro

Same sex marriage is a very controversial topic these days. It's ok for some people to be against it. And dude, the fact that he is an economic extremist is good. Obama hadn't cared about the economy enough in the last few years! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a liberal socialist who has no regard for the economy and is trying to take away my hard earned cash. And about what moderate means? Moderate means that he is willing to compromise with the democrats. He worked on a series of bills with Michael Bennett of Colorado, who is a democrat. Rubio is willing to compromise, so he's electable. By the way, who will the Dems run that can also be electable?
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Many of my arguments have been dropped.

Let's review.

Opening syllogism of what my opponent must prove:
-dropped

Rubio panders to his base and demonstrates a lack of conviction
-dropped

-The fact that moderate is (1) subjective and (2) there is reason to think that Rubio isn't in fact moderate
-dropped my arguments on this, though he briefly addressed why he believes Rubio is moderate

-How any of these qualities--even if his moderate--mean that he should be elected president
-dropped

-How any of these qualities make Rubio and not any other person who bears either some or all of these qualities qualified to the next president
-dropped

-Arguments regarding immigration reform and Rubio's flip-flops
-dropped

-Argument that, even if Rubio would be the first Hispanic president, that this doesn't provide us any real reason to support him over, say, Julian Castro
-dropped

-Rubio is either ignorant of science or doesn't care
-dropped

-Rubio is either ignorant of the research being same-sex relationships or doesn't care
-dropped

-Actions regarding the debt ceiling and the shutdown
-dropped; my adversary has only commented that it is "good to be an extremist" and that "Obama doesn't care about the economy," both of which are unfounded assertions on his part


I will now address his arguments. Bear in mind, though, that Pro bears the burden of proof. Therefore, he must be able to defend his opening claims, connect them to why Rubio ought to be president, and refute my points.

Pro states that "Same sex marriage is a very controversial topic these days. It's ok for some people to be against it."

Pro completely ignores the statistic I provided showing that about 59 percent of the country supports same-sex marriage. How does that bear out the notion that it's, as he says, a "controversial issue?" He completely ignored the argument I provided that this is an issue of equality and equal protection under the 14th amendment, one that Rubio has paid a blind eye to in order to pander to his base--in much the same way he has with immigration reform.

Pro states, "And dude, the fact that he is an economic extremist is good."

This is, of course, a bare-assertion fallacy. He cannot demonstrate that this is true, cannot demonstrate why, contrary to the research and the data I have provided, Rubio would oppose raising the debt ceiling--which demonstrates a great deal of brinksmanship and betrays an ignorance over how the economy actually works--AND he cannot now defend his contradiction. He claimed early, and goes on to claim again, that Rubio is a "moderate." Now he's admitting that he's an economic extremist. Which is he? Rubio cannot be concurrently a moderate and an economic extremist.

Pro states, "Obama hadn't cared about the economy enough in the last few years!"

I think Pro was attempting to use this as his justification for why Rubio would be justified being an "economic extremist." However, not only is this bare-assertion fallacy on his part completely irrelevant, but factually inaccurate. As the person with the burden of proof, Pro must be able to demonstrate his claims beyond a reasonable doubt. And while I have provided evidence for my positions, he has provided none for his. At the same time, this claim about the president "not caring about the economy" is ludicrous and in fact particularly interesting. It's interesting because the Republicans, Rubio included, have been blocking him every chance they've had virtually each and every time he's tried to implement a measure to fix the economy. On top of it all, by voting against the debt ceiling and contributing to the government shutdown, it is much more likely that Rubio, not Obama, doesn't care about the economy. Pro's claims are flat-out wrong.


Pro states, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a liberal socialist who has no regard for the economy and is trying to take away my hard earned cash."

There are a number of claims here. First, a socialist is someone who believes in government-run business--completely. Obama is not a socialist. Heck, there are socialists who look to Obama and are absolutley astounded at how conservative he is--caving on tax cuts, implemeting the GOP healthcare plan, caving on the public option, not prosecuting Wall Street bankers, etc.

Second, virtually everyone is a socialist if you believe in something as basic as public police or fire forces, or even the Pentagon. Those are government-run businesses, and therefore socialistic.

Third, he claims that Obama is "trying to take away [his] hard earned cash." Of course, he is speaking of taxation. Let's bear in mind, of course, the plethora of tax cuts implemented by Obama--18 small business cuts, extending all of the Bush tax cuts in August 2011 when the Republicans threatened not to lift the debt limit (which is how the sequester was born), making about 95 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent, etc. Next, we need to acknowledge why Pro's claim is nonsensical. In order to have a government, we need to collect taxes. That's called the social contract, and it's been written about extensively in the philosophical literature. No matter how you frame it, the government is going to need to collect taxes. It's merely a matter of how much. Rubio, I can assure you, would cut taxes. In fact, Rubio, in endorsing the Romney-Ryan ticket, endorsed higher taxes for Americans earning under $250,000 and lower axes for Americans earning above $250,000. How is that right?

Then, of course, we also know that this is argument from Pro is irrelevant as to his case that Rubio should be president.


Pro states, "And about what moderate means? Moderate means that he is willing to compromise with the democrats. He worked on a series of bills with Michael Bennett of Colorado, who is a democrat. Rubio is willing to compromise, so he's electable."


There are a number of potential bare-assertion fallacies in this piece, but first I will syllogize both of Pro's arguments.

P1: If Rubio has compromisd with the Democrats, he is a moderate.
P2: Rubio worked on a series of bills with Michael Bennett of Colorado.
C: Therefore, Rubio is a moderate.

Of course, he has provided us with no reason to buy this argument--having already admitted that Rubio is an economic extremist--and no examples of compromises that Rubio has made with Bennett that would qualify him as a moderate. Most important, my opponet has not connected the dots. Even if Rubio could be considerated a moderate, why would this matter? Why does this mean he ought to be president?

He goes on to provide what I think is a possible, though by no means conclusive, answer to this question. His argument is effectively the following:

P1: If Rubio is willing to compromise, he is electable.
P2: Rubio is willing to compromise.
C: Rubio is electable.

So he suggests that willingness to compromise--by the way, I'm still looking for him to address the debt ceiling negotiations or Rubio's flip-flops on immigration reform--makes Rubio electable and therefore he should be the next president. Not only is this a bare-assertion fallacy--I'd love to see some poll numbers suggesting that Rubio in fact is electable--but this doesn't bear out the case. If (x) is electable, it does not follow that (x) should be president. He needs to expand on his case.


Pro poses a question: "By the way, who will the Dems run that can also be electable?"

Of course, this is irrelevant to our resolution, but I will address it anyway. Here's his answer: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, possibly Joe Biden, and quite a few others.
Debate Round No. 2
texans14

Pro

texans14 forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited without responding to my arguments or fulfilling his burden of proof.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
texans14JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff and poor supporting of stance from opponent
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
texans14JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
texans14JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
texans14JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF & outmatched.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
texans14JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con provided well-sourced arguments and Texans dropped all of Con's contentions.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
texans14JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. Arguments and sources because Con presented a coherent and sourced case. Pro presented some assertions and some falsehoods (that Con pointed out). As always, happy to clarify this RFD.