The Instigator
LandonWalsh
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
C-Mach
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Mike Huckabee is Radical, Dangerous, and bad for America

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (20)

 

LandonWalsh

Pro

"Violence only spreads more violence. Peace isn't the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means. That doesn't apply here. In this case, it's the U.S. government creating conflict." -Ron Paul supporter

"So why is this a bad thing? There has to be conflict in order to bring about the End Times. You do want to hasten the coming of the End Times, don't you? I guess if you aren't supporting the Huckster, you'll have a lot to lose when that happens." - Mike Huckabee supporter

Huckabee's supporters want to:

Impose Christianity on Americans.
Bring about the "end times"
Attack Middle Eastern nations to hasten the "end times"

The Mike Huckabee Forums posts a set of pictures that show Chuck Norris kicking our Constitution and being upheld by God's Hands for it!

Everyone I know calls him Tax Hike Mike in Arkansas, I just call him dangerous and insane.
C-Mach

Con

Even though I do not support Mike Huckabee in the race (I support Tom Tancredo), he is not dangerous and insane. Yes, I know, he's an evangelical Baptist, but still, he wants to eliminate the IRS. He is not insane as you state.
Debate Round No. 1
LandonWalsh

Pro

Thanks for joining this debate, but I was kinda going for Mike Huckabee supporters rather than a argument of what is and isn't crasy and dangerous.

Well I guess to when this I'm going to have to explain what I consider Radical and Dangerous.

I consider expanding government power, dangerous.
I consider imposing beliefs, Radical
I consider the totalitarian elements in his political believes, VERY dangerous.

Tax Hike Mike is socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
I'm a Libertarian, which means I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative.
Republicans are normaly socially and fiscally conservative
And Totalitarians are socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

Politically, Mike is a big government totalitarian, radical and dangerous to liberty in America.
C-Mach

Con

He's not evil, but I do see where you're going with you're statement. You are right about the thing about totalitarianism. Anyway, I see that you copied this from your last debate on this subject (good for consistency in your argument, but bad for people who think that this is a "chain" thing). He might and probably will raise taxes, but he's not evil.
Debate Round No. 2
LandonWalsh

Pro

Sure I did... If no one can prove a statement wrong, why not say it again... I've got plenty more to dish out... I'm just looking for a strong Huckabee supporter give a strong debate.

Huckabee has a both Dangerous and Radical political standing.

If I was to say what an evil person was... I would best describe him as a person who STEALS other people's Life, Liberty, and Property. Huckabee is a Big-government, Pro-War, Anti-personal liberty, Serial Taxer. So, evil...

The evil people are those who inflict totalitarianism on other people.

Think of a single bad thing one person can do to another without being able to use the word STEAL in the description.
C-Mach

Con

C-Mach forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by thinkingduck 9 years ago
thinkingduck
I am not a Huckabee supporter, but it makes a weak argument to conflate one Huckabee supporter's wish to hasten the "end times" with the actual candidate's stated policy or intention. I don't believe any mainstream candidate (nor president Bush for that matter) wants to wage war to bring about Armageddon. To illustrate the disconnect between supporters and candidates, Ron Paul recently accepted a donation from a white nationalist, but doesn't intend to honor the contributor's agenda. I think likewise Huckabee would be glad to have support from a spectrum of evangelicals, but this doesn't obligate him to carry out any strange agenda of theirs. I don't think Huckabee would impose his faith on others, anymore so than a social justice Democrat might raise taxes to provide food or shelter for "the least of these." He is not the most exceptional threat to libertarian ideals in this regard.

Furthermore, Huckabee's recent speech indicates he wants to take a much softer approach with Iran, breaking with the current administration's tone. He uses religious rhetoric to suggest America should act more considerately as part of a "family of nations." This makes him one of the least hawkish of the Republican candidates.

Considering these two thoughts, Huckabee by himself is not worth being singled out as a threat against libertarian principles.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by DrewM 9 years ago
DrewM
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mikedapimp 9 years ago
Mikedapimp
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by hellstorm 9 years ago
hellstorm
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Thegodddfather 9 years ago
Thegodddfather
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by teev 9 years ago
teev
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by hybrid76 9 years ago
hybrid76
LandonWalshC-MachTied
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