The Instigator
Advidoct
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
JasonMc
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States (continued)

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: 1/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 2311
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (10)

 

Advidoct

Pro

I dont feel that Ron Paul Paul is well qulaified to help America where we need it the most; national security, and especially the economic crisis.
Other than that, there isn't more for me to argue since the last turn was mine in our last debate.

You're up my friend!
JasonMc

Con

Continuing from where we left off, you stated that "I don't see how Ron Paul's interest in economics makes him an expert on the economy. Mitt Romney not only has an interest in the economy, but he has genuine experience. His career was, in a word, the "economy". Ron Paul not only has no genuine experience in the economy, but as clear as I can see, he doesn't have ANY experience in the economy. I definitely have to say that I feel Romney is much more qualified to fix our economy and I think, aside from most Paul supporters, most people agree even if they don't support Romney."
"Endorsements don't qualify a candidate for this kind of job though. A candidate MUST HAVE experience. Ron Paul may have economic ideas that many support, but that does not mean he has the experience to execute them. If they economy were to have an awful reaction and collapse, would Ron Paul have the know-how to fix it? I don't have enough faith in the miniscule experience to give him that chance."

- I argue that Ron Paul has far more than just an interest in the economy. Politically speaking, Paul has more economical experience than Romney, only his is at the federal legislative level instead of at a state executive capacity. Though I agree that endorsements alone do not qualify a candidate for the presidency, Paul's experience as well as endorsements from multitudes of prestigious experts in the economic field speaks loudly for Paul's economic principles.

I agree that a candidate MUST HAVE experience in the economy, but I argue that the candidate MUST HAVE experience in more than the economic field alone. If you apply this logic to military affairs, Romney is in now way qualified to be commander in chief because he has no military experience.

The Bush Administration is totally lacking of military experience, which explains all of the "unforeseen consequences" of the war, such as the Iraqi insurgency. Those within and around the government with military experience advised against thrusting our nation into war in the first place, as well as The UN, and every country in the Persian Gulf. Like Bush, Romney is out of touch with the military and the vast majority of Americans. Ron Paul not only is against the war and is therefore potentially appealing to the majority of Americans, but he also gets more donations from active military personal than any other candidate.

"Its not the exact details that I need to know to understand what kind of effect those changes would have. A major economic change would have to be carefully made because an economy is a fragile things. A change of any kind would have to be made with caution, because any kind of change would have consequences that could be bad. My point is that a weakening economy does not need earth-shaking changes because it may not be able to absorb the shock of a new system. Romney wants to help the economy grow and expand. That's how you make a healthy economy. You increase production, create jobs, and encourage entrepeneurship. Growth is the key. Ron Paul wants to essentially give our economy a limit. He wants to bottle it up for safety. That's not a successful and vibrant economy. That's just a safe one."

- If you knew more about the details of Paul's economic plan, you would know that he doesn't advocate simply turning the economy upside down and dumping it on its head. What he is advocating is legalizing the gold standard and giving the Fed competition in order to deal with the run-away inflation that's plaguing our economy. Paul even admits that the gold standard had some shortcomings in the nineteenth century, but goes on to say that it could be handled much better. Run away inflation is the primary reason we are slipping into recession, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a plan to deal with it. In fact, he's the only candidate who mentions it in the first place.

"Leaving Iraq will not make our country safer. The terrorists hate us. They want us dead, and whether or not Ron Paul is right about it being our fault, they will follow us home. They wanna fight and they don't care where the battle is. Lets not forget who attack who first.
If we leave Iraq, Al Qeada will declare victory and rally all of its supports. Recruitments will shoot through the roof, and they will come to fight the US within our borders if they have to. Im not saying there will be battles in the streets, but they will attack us with bombings, random shootings, and other attacks of terror. Bring the troops home would be bringing the fight home. That's not making America safer. That's making me worry if I'll make it home from the grocery store alive. We need to finish the fight on foreign soil, not start over on our own."

- The attacks on 9/11 were committed by a hand full of Saudi thugs. How will our military presence in Iraq prevent another couple dozen extremists from entering the country? Granted, we haven't had an attack on American soil since 9/11, but that's not because we've kept the extremists so tied up with our military presence that they can't spare a couple dozen more radicals to fly across the pond to strike us.

The people who are claiming that the terrorists are going to follow us home are the same people (lacking of military experience) who claimed that Iraq had WMDs, links to al Qaeda and 9/11, and that they were an eminent threat to our national security. They try to paint this picture that extremists will follow us back in droves and terrorize our cities. The problems of today are not going to be solved by those who created them.

Even if terrorists wanted to follow us home, if our military was actually protecting this country instead of being spread all over the planet like butter, they wouldn't be any more of a threat than they are right now. In fact, we would be much safer. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been battling each other for centuries, and they will continue to do so whether we're there or not. It's far more likely that, if they continue to fight, they will go back to fighting each other when we pull out. The true threat to our national security is maintaining our presence overseas which gives the extremists incentives to continue the blowback the CIA mentions in the 9/11 Commission Report.

"Lastly, I don't want the United States to be known as the country that invades other countries...and then leaves them a mess. We broke Iraq, now we need to buy it ( or a better way of saying it would to fix it)."

- Unfortunately, it's far too late for the US to save face on that one. Our CIA has declassified information under the Freedom of Information Act going back to the period between the end of WWII and 1983 about American activity in foreign countries. There is a very long list of regimes our CIA has helped overthrow, assassinations, coups, etc, and many of these countries ended up war-torn. Vietnam would be one of the most blaring examples. It is because of this meddling in Middle Eastern affairs our enemies believe we struck first, and have continued the blowback mentioned by the CIA.
Debate Round No. 1
Advidoct

Pro

"I argue that Ron Paul has far more than just an interest in the economy. Politically speaking, Paul has more economical experience than Romney, only his is at the federal legislative level instead of at a state executive capacity. Though I agree that endorsements alone do not qualify a candidate for the presidency, Paul's experience as well as endorsements from multitudes of prestigious experts in the economic field speaks loudly for Paul's economic principles."

- The difference, however, between legislative experience and executive experience is huge. Ron Paul learned how to pick out the good ideas from the bad ones. In that respect, he understands what may be good for the economy. His lack of executive experience however is what I feel makes him less qualified to revive our economy. Ron Paul has never had to manage an economy. He has only helped decide how it should be managed. Romney however, not only has helped decide how an economy should be managed, but he has manged one. He knows what to expect. He knows how the economy changes and reacts to certain stimuli. Romney has hands-on experience that Ron Paul just doesnt have.

"I agree that a candidate MUST HAVE experience in the economy, but I argue that the candidate MUST HAVE experience in more than the economic field alone. If you apply this logic to military affairs, Romney is in now way qualified to be commander in chief because he has no military experience.

The Bush Administration is totally lacking of military experience, which explains all of the "unforeseen consequences" of the war, such as the Iraqi insurgency. Those within and around the government with military experience advised against thrusting our nation into war in the first place, as well as The UN, and every country in the Persian Gulf. Like Bush, Romney is out of touch with the military and the vast majority of Americans. Ron Paul not only is against the war and is therefore potentially appealing to the majority of Americans, but he also gets more donations from active military personal than any other candidate."

- I will give you that Romney is not the most experienced candidate when it comes to military, but Ron Paul is no Eisenhower either. His only military experience is that a flight surgeon. That hardly resembles that of a field commander. Being entangled with the military myself, all I can say about Ron Paul's experience is that he learned how to take orders, not how to give them. He never had to command a battle, or lead troops into a conflict. He is no more qualified to command our military than Romney. The only jump Ron Paul has on Romney militarily speaking is that Ron Paul could surgically operate on wounded soldiers. If thats the case than I give the trophy to Romney who has at least commanded the Massachussetts State Gaurd...

"The attacks on 9/11 were committed by a hand full of Saudi thugs. How will our military presence in Iraq prevent another couple dozen extremists from entering the country? Granted, we haven't had an attack on American soil since 9/11, but that's not because we've kept the extremists so tied up with our military presence that they can't spare a couple dozen more radicals to fly across the pond to strike us.

The people who are claiming that the terrorists are going to follow us home are the same people (lacking of military experience) who claimed that Iraq had WMDs, links to al Qaeda and 9/11, and that they were an eminent threat to our national security. They try to paint this picture that extremists will follow us back in droves and terrorize our cities. The problems of today are not going to be solved by those who created them.

Even if terrorists wanted to follow us home, if our military was actually protecting this country instead of being spread all over the planet like butter, they wouldn't be any more of a threat than they are right now. In fact, we would be much safer. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been battling each other for centuries, and they will continue to do so whether we're there or not. It's far more likely that, if they continue to fight, they will go back to fighting each other when we pull out. The true threat to our national security is maintaining our presence overseas which gives the extremists incentives to continue the blowback the CIA mentions in the 9/11 Commission Report."

- I will give you that the 9/11 attacks were executed by Saudi thugs, but thats not the only group we are fighting now. We have the whole of radical Jihadism writhing with hatred. Now, if one terrorist group was pissed enough to attack us before we agitated radical islam, how hard would it be to believe that all of these terrorist groups would strike now? Im not talking about 9/11s either. Im talking about biological warfare, cyber-hacking such as firesales, and violent riots from domestic supporters. This will follow us home on way or another, whether we are fist-fighting Osama Bin Laden or texting "stfu" to his cell phone.

"Unfortunately, it's far too late for the US to save face on that one. Our CIA has declassified information under the Freedom of Information Act going back to the period between the end of WWII and 1983 about American activity in foreign countries. There is a very long list of regimes our CIA has helped overthrow, assassinations, coups, etc, and many of these countries ended up war-torn. Vietnam would be one of the most blaring examples. It is because of this meddling in Middle Eastern affairs our enemies believe we struck first, and have continued the blowback mentioned by the CIA."

- Its obvious that the United States as screwed up both in the distant past and within the last decade. That doesnt mean that we need to keep up the trend. The worst possible outcome we could have in this war is to have walked out leaving Iraq with less stability than it had before, and leaving it to an inevitable civil war that will cost the lives of millions of people. We would be dooming all of the middle-east to decades of incredible violence even greater than what they are feeling now. Worst of all...that would come back to haunt us. If we leave the job unfinished now, we will just be back to finish it later.
JasonMc

Con

"The difference, however, between legislative experience and executive experience is huge. Ron Paul learned how to pick out the good ideas from the bad ones. In that respect, he understands what may be good for the economy. His lack of executive experience however is what I feel makes him less qualified to revive our economy. Ron Paul has never had to manage an economy. He has only helped decide how it should be managed. Romney however, not only has helped decide how an economy should be managed, but he has manged one. He knows what to expect. He knows how the economy changes and reacts to certain stimuli. Romney has hands-on experience that Ron Paul just doesnt have."

- Ron Paul maintains that a president has no place managing an economy, because he advocates a free market. Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama, etc all offer change, but in the end they just want to tinker with the current system, which has landed this country in a recession. We need real change, and we're not going to get it from the very methods which landed us in this predicament in the first place.

"I will give you that Romney is not the most experienced candidate when it comes to military, but Ron Paul is no Eisenhower either. His only military experience is that a flight surgeon. That hardly resembles that of a field commander. Being entangled with the military myself, all I can say about Ron Paul's experience is that he learned how to take orders, not how to give them. He never had to command a battle, or lead troops into a conflict. He is no more qualified to command our military than Romney. The only jump Ron Paul has on Romney militarily speaking is that Ron Paul could surgically operate on wounded soldiers. If thats the case than I give the trophy to Romney who has at least commanded the Massachussetts State Gaurd..."

- What I can say about Ron Paul's experience is that he operated on wounded soldiers during a foreign conflict, some of which didn't make it. He's seen the horrors of war first hand; enough to make him think twice before sending thousands of troops into a foreign conflict to die needlessly. Mitt Romney has no such experience.

"I will give you that the 9/11 attacks were executed by Saudi thugs, but thats not the only group we are fighting now. We have the whole of radical Jihadism writhing with hatred. Now, if one terrorist group was pissed enough to attack us before we agitated radical islam, how hard would it be to believe that all of these terrorist groups would strike now? Im not talking about 9/11s either. Im talking about biological warfare, cyber-hacking such as firesales, and violent riots from domestic supporters. This will follow us home on way or another, whether we are fist-fighting Osama Bin Laden or texting "stfu" to his cell phone."

- If you read the 9/11 Commission Report, and what it says about blowback, you'll realize that extremists are not trying to come over here to kill us just because we're free and prosperous. We've now killed over 1 million Iraqis, built bases on their holy land, put military dictators into power and then imposed sanctions which starved hundreds of thousands of people over the course of a decade, etc. They view us as crusaders because we're occupying their lands. Those people just want us gone. If we bring our military back home to our country and spend trillions on infrastructure and defending our borders instead of funding our foreign empire, we would be much safer because the extremists will loose the incentive to maintain the blowback, and our military would be here defending us.

" Its obvious that the United States as screwed up both in the distant past and within the last decade. That doesnt mean that we need to keep up the trend. The worst possible outcome we could have in this war is to have walked out leaving Iraq with less stability than it had before, and leaving it to an inevitable civil war that will cost the lives of millions of people. We would be dooming all of the middle-east to decades of incredible violence even greater than what they are feeling now. Worst of all...that would come back to haunt us. If we leave the job unfinished now, we will just be back to finish it later."

- Maintaining our presence in Iraq is keeping up the trend. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, and we're only perpetuating the mistake by lingering. Now that we've passed the mark of over 1 million Iraqis killed, it doesn't make sense to say that if we stay, that we'll prevent millions from being killed. I'd say one way or another there's going to be an ongoing war in Iraq, and regardless of when we leave, the Iraqis left alive will fight over whatever's left. It is a fallacy to believe that the US can go anywhere in the Middle East and kill millions of people in order to get them to conform to the "democracy" that we are pushing on them. The only thing we're going to accomplish is producing more instability in the region, and more blowback, which further endangers our country.
Debate Round No. 2
Advidoct

Pro

...
...
...

So Mitts out...

He made a good choice though. He took one for the team and I am very impressed with the way he went down with honor and went down making Huckabee look like a self-interested jerk.

I'll lend this win to you my friend...
Good Debate!

Im gunna go cry in a corner now and figure out where to go now...

Im not much of a McCain fan anymore...I really dont agree with Ron Paul's Politics...and I truly dislike Huckabee...so I guess its McCain...
JasonMc

Con

I definitely agree that it was a good debate, however, I wish that you would've defended your stance on the war in round three if for no other reason than to hear rational opposition to my views.

I'm not exactly sure whether or not to be happy that Mitt is out. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, the best chance he has to continue his campaign is to keep McCain from receiving the majority of the delegates and getting the Rep nomination. I don't know if Paul and Huckabee together can keep that from happening.

Even as an ardent Paul supporter, I'm highly skeptical that he can pull off a win, but I will remain totally supportive and optimistic right until the very end. The main thing, aside from winning, that I would like to see happen is for him to be able to stay in the race until the GOP convention so that the mainstream media will no longer be able to ignore him and keep the people of this country from hearing what he has to say.

Thanks for a good debate!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Advidoct 9 years ago
Advidoct
after the news that is

ill be back in full throttle pretty soon
Posted by Advidoct 9 years ago
Advidoct
naaa dude i wasnt throwing in the towel cause mitts not a candidate anymore...
i was just politiced out...
Posted by shutterbug13 9 years ago
shutterbug13
"Now, if one terrorist group was pissed enough to attack us before we agitated radical islam, how hard would it be to believe that all of these terrorist groups would strike now?"

We've been agitating the people in the middle East for decades. Long before the attacks on 9/11. One could argue that the interfering practices of other nations are precisely what made them "radical".

You both did decent jobs, however.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
*sigh* Advidoct, just because Romney is out didn't mean that your debate had to fall apart. You easily could have had my vote. I'm sorry that you threw in the towel. Good job, Jason.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 SamuelAdams 9 years ago
SamuelAdams
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 shutterbug13 9 years ago
shutterbug13
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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 Gao 9 years ago
Gao
AdvidoctJasonMcTied
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