The Instigator
labarum
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Presdiential debate

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 2 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,258 times Debate No: 62185
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

labarum

Pro

The 2016 elections are upon us. Both Hilary Clinton and Rand Paul have stepped down in light of two new candidates. I will be taking a conservative position so it is suggested that someone on the left take this position. Each round will be as so

2. Economics
3. Foreign policy
4. Domestic issues
5. Environment
thett3

Con

Alright, I will play Hillary Clinton.

I look forward to my duel with Rand Paul.
Debate Round No. 1
labarum

Pro

America, home to the strongest economy in the world. In recent years, we have seen this nation crawl through a near crippling recession and an ever growing debt crisis. If I am to be elected, the economy shall be my first and foremost priority. The first and Immediate step towards economic prosperity would be to lower the corporate income tax from our current 35% to 11%. This is, without question, a radical cut. Many may claim that such a cut would be disastrous to our economy. However, such a tax rate is already in place in the nation of Ireland ( 12.5%) If one is to look at Ireland's economy, you will quickly see that Ireland is now the fastest growing pharmaceuticals and technological economy in Europe. Such Corporations as Google, have placed their European HQ in Ireland for the very reason of their very low Corp tax rate. Of the ten largest pharmaceuticals companies in the world, nine of them have an HQ in Ireland. In the last ten years, twenty major US corporations have moved abroad to the emerald isle. In light of all of this massive success that Ireland has obtained, much of it at the expense of the American people, it is only reasonable, nay imperative that we must take up their example, not only as to mimic them, but to rival them; and bring back the corporations that we have lost overseas, and possibly attract more forign business.
As to America's great natural resource abundance that God has so thankfully bestowed upon us, we must exploit it. Most Americans believe that most of the oil that we consume comes from the middle east, this would be false. Nearly 40% of all fuel used in the US comes from home. With untapped massive natural oil reserves in Alaska, and small but numerous oil deposits scattered throughout the Midwest, I believe that we can do even better. I believe that if we allow our business both big and small, to fracking into these deposits across the nation, we may be able to reach 60% oil independence. It would be counter productive to ban fracking, as many people across this nation would want, and it would be ignorant to do so on claims that have been discredited by nearly every expert to have delved into the matter. Fracking provides us the opportunity to produce more oil products, and with more oil being produced at home, we will be able to drastically cut back on our imports from foreign nations.
Another thing that I will attack is America's spending problem. America spends over 800,000,000$ dollars on health and human services, 600,000,00$ dollars on defense, and 600,000,000$ dollars on education. If I am to be elected president, then I will institute reviews on money distribution and performance rates on all of these programs, and many more. I will systematically cut from the budget what is not being used or misused. Note, that for education and defense and I will not cut any employees. I would then systematically place this new found money in any new or under financed project of the US government.
To also curve over spending and artificial interest rates, I would dissolve the Federal reserve. The Federal Reserve has stood since it's beginning only to serve "to big to fail banks" and a few notable European families. They have created a monetary monopoly and have caused this nation to go into recession on more than one occasion. In place of the Fed, I would set up a national bank system to monitor banknote supplying entities. Banknote supplying entities would be supplying the same banknotes at the same price but independently of the federal or state government. The National bank system would keep these entities in check so as to keep the system from becoming to over or under supplied.
I have presented what I will do if I am to become president, I do hope that you, the voter, may share in my view of the future. I await my opponents response.
thett3

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages, and sentient creatures of all kinds, I'd like to welcome you to the very first 2016 presidential debate! Give yourselves a big pat on the back for doing your civic duty and a thank you is in order to my opponent and to Debate.org for making this all possible.

Like most Americans, I share my opponents vision of a capitalist society. I, too, support the idea of lowering the corporate tax rate to increase our global competitiveness and with a few constraints, I'm very excited at the prospect of developing our energy resources here.

But there's a key difference between my opponent and I, and that difference lies in what our former president Bush termed compassionate conservatism.

*Crowd boos* I know, I know, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

*Crowd laughs*.

While capitalism is by far the greatest economic system, flaws in it certainly exist and there exists a legitimate place for government involvement in the economy. A great example is Welfare and food stamps--an issue my opponent is extremely vague and lukewarm on. Capitalism without compassion leaves people to starve in these hard economic times, and that's not what we need. Like it or not people are hurting and if we don't offer them a hand up, in their desperation they may be forced to do whatever is needed to feed their families. My heart goes out for our nations poor, and I firmly advocate maintaining most of the system we have. Oh, there'll be a few changes once I'm in office to be sure. Food stamps will no longer cover garbage like soda and fried foods, and welfare recipients will have to prove that they are willing to work--and work they shall. The infrastructure of our nations cities is deteriorating rapidly and all the while we have a large group of unemployed workers. I can't seriously believe that I'm alone in putting 2 and 2 together.

To pay for this, I would first note that infrastructure investment is almost always a good idea. We'll get more in tax revenue as infrastructure improvements strengthen the economy. Moreover I will cut frivolous spending--my good friend Senator Coburn releases an annual wastebook revealing large amounts of embarrassing and, frankly, shameful programs that are nothing but pure and unadulterated waste. Before anything else, this kind of thing stops. Immediately. I would also cut agriculture subsidies. This is an unpopular position but the government intervention in the food industry has gone on far too long. Let our nations farmers decide for themselves what to grow. I will also cut corporate welfare--as President, I will veto any bill that comes to my desk subsidizing a corporation unless I'm given an extremely compelling reason not to. Corporations have enough money, they don't need to be reaching into your pocket to get even more.

My opponent and I disagree on the Federal Reserve as well. While my speech time is limited and I won't respond directly to what he said, I will note that the Federal Reserve is necessary to prevent market failures. Oh yes, market failures exist my friends. If you don't believe me, try buying a 10 pack of hot dog buns.

*Crowd laughs*

I say that in jest but in all seriousness something as simple as that really does show how mistakes can happen. Now of course my administration isn't going to go around mandating things as small as that, but the Federal Reserve is necessary to correct market failures and I firmly stand with the economic experts when they argue that the Federal Reserve was vital in keeping our nation afloat during the recession. Even more importantly, to change our Dollar right now would be an absolute disaster. Not only would it be an incredibly terrible move because our Dollar is the worlds biggest reserve currency and we shouldn't throw that away, but doing so would completely undermine the credibility of our nation. If we suddenly decided to change our currency system and paid our debtors back in now worthless federal reserve notes, no one would ever loan to us again. That's unfair to our creditors who invested in the United States and it's unfair to the American people because our word is our bond. However absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Federal Reserve will be audited by my administration and I hope to make this a regular occurrence.

A more balanced approach is needed. Thank you.

*Crowd roars it's applause*
Debate Round No. 2
labarum

Pro

America, the most prominent player in world politics today. In the past two administrations, we have seen either rushed and uncertain wars, or weak peace's with malevolent powers. Under my administration, America would adopt the Eagle plan. The Eagle plan would be the embodiment of the Teddy Roosevelt's statement " speak softly, and carry a big stick." details of the plan are listed below

MIDDLE EAST:
The Eagle plan dictates emphasis of military, economic, and espionage focuses on this region. Israel, being our only ally in the region would be heavily backed by our aid to both it's military and secret services. If it is discovered that the money that we provide is not being used for either of these purposes, the money will be retracted. In times of intense conflict, with permission, we may be able to send troops to Israel in order to support it's sovereignty.
The Eagle plan also dictates heavy espionage into every region in the middle east. Spies will be placed in both known and suspected radical groups in order for the US to monitor these groups and search for suspected evidence of aggression against American interests, or allies. If such aggression is confirmed beyond doubt, a sting operation is taken against the group eliminating both their leadership and operations. If a government is caught taking such actions, deliberation between myself and my defense council will decide the proper actions to be taken.
If a rebellion is staged in a nation that is hostile to US or allies beyond doubt ( such as ISIS), then military operations ranging from airstrikes, to ground invasions may be taken
If a civil war breaks out between a government and rebel forces, my administration will only support groups that uphold democratic principles and human rights. If both sides are lacking this, then neither side sill receive my administrations support.

China:
The Eagles policy towards China will emphasis economics. It has been shown throughout history, that nations with strong trade agreements will seldom go to war, for risk of economic collapse. By strengthening our trade relations with China, it is likely that we can avoid any conflict in our proceeding future. However, some level of espionage will always be present in China, as a form of back up in case of possible dangers. If the PRC is to take any military action against the ROC, we will swiftly come with military support along side of the ROC.

Russia:
The Eagle policy towards Russia will be shifting as time goes on, and only depending the situation. In the beginning, we will keep a strong watch on Russia, via espionage. My administration has held that any action against Russia, be it economic or militarily, over the Ukraine crisis would be unnecessary and costly to both sides. However, if Russia is to expand any further into Easter Europe, without permission of said region, diplomatic actions will quickly take under way. If diplomatic actions fail and Russian aggression into Eastern Europe is still prominent, I will convene with my defense council on what course of actions to take against Russia, war will certainly not be ruled. If we are able to avoid such military actions all together, I will attempt to strengthen economic ties between our two nations. Goods in exchange for services and vise versa. The goal, is to reach a point of economic dependency between our two nations that it would be unwise and unfavorable to go to war. This will resemble much like the relationship that we have with China today. Sanctions are incredibly unlikely to ever be taken against Russia, as they hurt both our and their economy, and create a boogie man for their people to rally against.

EU:
In the Eagle policy, the US will retain a strong diplomatic and economic tie to the EU. If economic ties can be strengthened, we will not hesitate to do so. This may go without saying, but under no circumstances ever, will we take on the Euro...EVER!

General military threats:
If any region that is not directly mentioned by the Eagle policy becomes a problem, militarily, if peace cannot be brokered, I and my administration will immediately dispatch our armed forces to the area of conflict. If an individual group is causing these problems, quick sting operations will be used to completely wipe out leadership, and as many members as possible. If a nation not mentioned above declares war, our armed forces will immediately neutralize all missile and other ballistic capabilities of that nation. Second, airfields and infustrcture will be targeted. Third, leadership will be targeted. Fourth, economic producers and factories will be targeted. fifth, full ground invasion. Under no circumstances will civilians ever be intentionally bombed.

I await my opponents response
thett3

Con

Friends, countrymen (and women, don't worry feminists, big daddy Thetts got your back), comrades. Now we get to the most important part of the debate as it's the aspect the President has the most control over, indeed an almost dictorial level of control. But should it be?

Whle my positions on specific foreign policy issues are important and I'll certainly explain them, what's *far* more important in the long run is maintaining our system of checks and balances. Foreign policy changes and the issues we're discussing right now may not even be relevant halfway into the term we're fighting for. What's far more important is to understand the philosophy of each of us and choose which is preferable.

The two most recent presidents have exercised unprecedented control over our military to the that they just barely skirt the line of constitutionality. This kind of thing will end under my administration. There will be no military intervention unless congress approves it and if our country is going to enter a war, I intend to win it. No more of these nonsensical linguistic abominations like "humanitarian intervention" or "nation building". If we have to use our military muscle to secure our interests and safety then so be it, but pretending like we aren't is just dishonest and makes us look like cowards.

I am not a not a non intervenionist. Far from it, in fact. But I do not intend on spending a single penny or sending over a single servicemen if I don't have a damn good reason to do so. The current administration is arming Syrian rebels, and for what? What do we gain by arming and training a force that may not even win and, if they do, will radically alter their goals to account for being in power as soon as they gain it? Have we truly learned nothing from our history? Why do we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot like so? Vote for me as I'm the only candidate willing to change the status quo.

Our soldiers deserve better. We deserve better. We can do better, and as President I'm going to make that happen.

Foreign Aid is another thing I would change. A small portion of the Federal Budget it may be, but far too often it ends up in the hands of our enemies. It's a moral abomination that we're taking money out of the pockets of our workers and sending it over anti-western enemies like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States must remain the worlds foremost power. History shows the danger of multipolarity and I do not intend to allow this to happen during my presidency. The United States will stand strong against tyranny wherever it stands.

I will offer my unconditional moral and, congress willing, material support to the nation of Ukraine as it struggles to put down insurrections by militants in its borders. There is no use pretending and I will not because I'm not a coward: It is my position that if Russia attempts to forcibly expand its borders, they will be met with a United States military response. Allowing the aggressor nation to dictate the terms is a recipe for disaster and I will not be this countries Neville Chamberlain. If Russia's nationalism has to be checked with violence, it's best to be sooner when we hold every advantage than later as our hegemony slips through our fingers. But it won't come to violence. The only reason Russia has gone as far as it has is because Putin knows that the current administration will allow it. Quite frankly, our official response of sanctioning a literal handful of Russian officials was an embarassment.

The China threat is overhyped. Our interests and our destinies are linked together as our economies feed off each other. Any grappling for control in East Asia between our two countries will be fought using soft power because economic ties make war between our two countries pretty much impossible. Like my opponent, I'm dedicated to defending our ally Taiwan should they suffer a Chinese attack. Anything less than a full blown military response would be essentially ceding the area to the Chinese--but really, what are the odds of that? If we want a good relationship with China, the best way to do it is to increase ties to make war even less profitable, not spew hawkish rhetoric. My opponent and I, thankfully, seem to agree on this.

Indeed lucky for you my fellow Americans, we seem to agree on most specific issues of foreign policy. Since I'm incapable of being wrong, this means that no matter who you elected the immediate foreign policy effects will be good.

*Crowd laughs*

There are, however, important philosophical differences. As I explained in the beginning of my speech, what's more important is not our specific positions on a certain situtaion because situations change. What's important is how we derive these conclusions and how we plan to implement them.

I'm the only candidate who has expressed these things with a high degree of clarity.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
labarum

Pro

To speak of domestic issues in our nation, one must be prepared for a barrage of opinions and responses. I and my administration are the ones whom will be speaking of domestic issues tonight, and we hope that after practice in the real world, that the barrage of opinions and responses will be positive and trending.

Affirmative action:
America is the freest nation on the planet. Unlike many nations, we do not " judge our fellow man because of the color of his skin, but of the content of his character"- MLK. However, since the late 60's, we have done exactly that. Perhaps in the late 60's and early 70's affirmative action was a good thing, since our nation just when through such a dramatic change, but we are no longer in the 60's and 70's; It's 2016, we have progressed far beyond that thinking. Now men and women when applying for a job can be unfairly discriminated against because of their race, gender, ethnicity, or creed, instead of being chosen on their actual skill. Ask yourself, by choosing certain people to hire for a job based on race, gender etc. do we not also discriminate? Do we not commit the same atrocious acts of the mind that segregationists did in those old days? If we are to create a truly fair society, we must look past our skin and our gender, and more towards our ability and skill.

Abortion:
If it was not obvious to begin with, I am stern pro-life. Many pro-abortion advocates say that the " fetus" is not a human being, or is simply a lump of tissue and can be killed without morality. This is absolutely false. The "fetus" is a human being, fetus is just the stage in our lives when we are inside of our mother uterus and are attached to her. Just like Babies. We do not count babies as being a completely separate species just because they are not fully developed now do we? On that note of us being attached to our mother, abortion advocates state that since the fetus cannot live on it's own that it is not a human being. Technically speaking, no human can live on it's own until about the age of 6 or 7. Without a guardian of some kind, we are doomed to die. Now you may be wondering how pro-life I am, like if I will be willing to let rape victims abort their babies. I am afraid that I would not allow this. This may seem cruel, but one must ask yourself " why punish the child, for the sins of the father?" The unborn child was completely innocent of the crime and therefore deserves to live. The rapist deserves the full force of the law. Although I am a stern pro-life member, I will leave the decision to either keep abortion legal or illegal to the states themselves.

Unemployment and poverty:
Too many people in modern America have been struck by the creeping specter of poverty and unemployment. Far too often, we see people whom have reached these lows , simply wallow in it and not try to rise again. I and my administration shall make a change to all of this without spending billions of dollars on wasteful stimulus plans, and instead push the unemployed to find a job. If a person, becomes unemployed, they may be able to receive unemployment benefits for up to one year before being cut off. After this one year mark has ended and they are still unemployed, they will receive a letter in the mail once a week with a job application form for a near by business. For welfare recipients, I understand completely the plight that many of them have gone through (my family has gone through welfare at one point in time) I understand that sometimes the work that your doing is just not enough to sustain yourself and your families, and I am willing to help those in these situations. However, in exchange for this tax payer money, you must pass a drug test administered once a month. I will also limit what food stamps can buy such as no alcohol, or pot. To make doubly sure that tax payer money is being properly used, I will create a welfare fraud department in which to try and detect citizens whom are trying to abuse the system for their own personal gain. For those families that are in poverty but are but a few short dollars away from being able to accept welfare, they will be able to go into a welfare center and discuss their situation with the managers of that center. If the managers agree to their plea, that family will be able to receive welfare, if not, no welfare.

Gun rights:
I believe, as do a majority of Americans, that a way and ability to defend ones self is an essential freedom that we must protect. We have seen across the nation that cities that have allowed their citizens to legally carry their weapons have far less crime as compared to cities that don't. I am for my fellow country to carry assault rifles knowing full damn well that the danger that they pose has been over hyped in the extreme in the media. I am for our teachers being armed in school in order to protect against any possible maniac that may attempt to enter.

Gay marriage license:
I am against this for two reasons. The first, being religious. The second is the stupidity of the whole matter. Substituting the word 'marriage license' for the word ' human right'. Never the less, I will leave it to the states to decide.

Border protection:
America, for the past twenty years has been invaded by unwanted citizens of our southern neighbor. We have made utterly disgraceful attempts at trying to prevent this incursion of illegal immigrants. If I am to be elected, I will bolster our border patrol forces with both funding and supplies. I will push for state legislature to allow volunteers commanded by border patrol officers to patrol along side them. I will use any spare many that is not being used to try and build and electric fence across our border, so as to try and prevent illegals from crossing. I will not support amnesty for anyone whom crossed our border above the age of three. I will also cut the price for a visa into our country by a fifth. I have heard many complaints that our visa is too expensive, perhaps by cutting it's cost by a fifth, legal immigration would seem more appealing than illegal.

Drugs:
There has been a rising movement in the last few years to try and legalize drugs. I shake my head in disgust at what we have failed to learn from our own time with these life ruining substances. Drug legalization advocates point out that dozens, and in some cases hundreds die each year from the drug cartels violent actions to keep up their drug profit and that by making drugs legal, people murdered by the cartels would be all but gone. This may be true, but that does not mean that something won't take it's place. By allowing drugs to be sold legally on the open market, people will be far more enticed to purchase these items. Once someone has used these items, there is a very high likely hood that they will become addicted to them. With addiction comes desperation, with desperation comes depravity, with depravity comes death. Many drug advocates say that the new drug industry would be heavily regulated by the FDA and that the drugs on the market would not resemble the drugs on the street at all. Because we all know how well regulations work in preventing companies from making something harmful...*coughs awkwardly*... and that is seldom ever.

Death penalty:
I am so much a supporter of the death penalty, as I am observant of its necessity. The penalty does not deter people from committing crimes as I am aware, however, the reason for the death penalty is to prevent people from committing further murders in prison. Jake Hodgins ( if I remember correctly was his name) was sent to jail in Washington state ( a death penalty free state) for the charge of murdering two people. While in prison, he was recruited by the Aryan brotherhood. He carried out twenty two more murders in prison on behalf of the Aryan brotherhood. People whom have shown their ability to murder in civilized society, are more than capable to do it in the barbaric society of prison. Therefore, in order to protect the members of our correctional facilities, we must put down those deemed to dangerous to live.

I am about to run out of characters, so I will give it to you. On our final round
thett3

Con

Fellow countrymen, our differences in domestic policy are the greatest and I think I have a good shot of convincing you all that my policies are better.

Let's start with drug laws. There is very, very little compelling in favor of drug prohibition. These are a set of draconian, wrongheaded, and frankly racist laws that have done more damage to our society than perhaps anything else in recent years. Setting aside for a moment the sheer absurdity of treating our citizens as children incapable of making their own decisions, let's just look at the effects these laws have caused both in our country and outside of it. Outside of it our policies have forced the drug trade underground, leading to governments such as Mexico literally going to war against the cartels. As I speak over 100,000 people have died. Drug laws in the United States are selectively enforced against African Americans who are four times as likely to get arrested for a drug crime as whites are despite roughly equal rates of usage. Communities have been absolutely destroyed as fathers are kept in prison for nonviolent crimes that are not crimes. Our prison population has absolutely exploded, costing society billions, and rates of drug use still remain stubbornly high. No, there's not enough time in the world to say all the bad things about the drug war that need to be said, but as President this won't happen. I will get these laws repealed and if congress will not allow it with the American peoples mandate I will pardon every nonviolent drug offender. It's the right thing to do.

Speaking of prisons, while I have no power at the state level I will reform federal prison. Offenders will be do menial labor inside the prison in the case of violent offenders and outside of it in the case of nonviolent ones, with all income they make going straight to their victims or their victims families. Solitary confinement will be abolished as the cruel and unusual punishment that it is.

As for the death penalty, it's a great option to have and I support it wholeheartedly but let's face it: our system needs some serious reform. The fact that we have people on "death row" for decades is absolutely absurd, unacceptable, and a mockery of justice. Executions ought to be swift and painless. I will, congress willing, get rid of lethal injection and replace it with the firing squad because the firing squad always works. Moreover, in his excellent opinion circuit judge Alex Kozinski argued that if we are going to kill a man, we ought to kill him as a man instead of pretending as we do with lethal injection that it's some legitimate and clean medical procedure. It's not. It's a very serious penalty that should be taken seriously, and if we can't stomach that we shouldn't have a death penalty.

On abortion my opponent is so far right that it defies belief. It is beyond cruel to force a young woman who was raped to keep the child. No, like most Americans, my position on abortion is pretty moderate: it should be allowed during the first trimester, and banned after that. A woman should have a choice if she wants to carry the fetus to term, although at some point you have to make a decision on what's reasonable. A hardline pro abortion stance, for example, would allow abortion untill the very moment the fetus exits the mother allowing for atrocities like partial birth abortion. This is the price of complete consistency. At some point to satisfy our sensibilities we have to be arbitrary and the first trimester is a good time.

Gay marriage should certainly be legalized if we are going to have marriage be recognized by the government at all. Why would we not give these couples federal benefits? It seems like a no brainer to me, and my administration will recognize and support gay couples. There's no point in living in the past.

It's reasonable to support limited gun control in the form of background checks, but there's no point in trying to delude the American people who are much too smart for that--the chances of getting any bill like this through Congress is remote. The NRA is an incredibly powerful lobbying group and it's extremely unlikely that any gun control legistlation will survive getting through Congress and if it does it will be weakened to the point of being worthless. If you don't like that, vote for campaign finance reform. No, the real issue to look at here is mental health. Look, I'm not going to stand here and say that the advances in technology allowing for more powerful firearms haven't made a difference, because they have, but the people of the past had access to some pretty powerful weapons as well. After World War Two, anyone could mail order semi automatic weapons used in the war like the Gewher or the M1 Garand. These wouldn't be as effective in a mass shooting as an AR-15, but they would do. And yet, these things didn't happen. Guns are but a minor issue--the real issue is what drives a person to such madness that they would murder their fellow people in such a pointless and terrible way. And that's what is far more important to figure out.

My opponent and I mostly agree on the economic issues regarding welfare, which is good.

Building a border fence is a waste of time and money, and once Latin America gets back on its feet after we end the drug war there won't be nearly as many migrants coming from our Southern neighbors anyway. Human desperation drives these bold people to leave behind everything they know in search for a new life here and we have to respect that on some level. Part of the reason we have so many migrants is because our drug policy is so destructive to life down south as drug cartels literally control vast swathes of the country.

Debate Round No. 4
labarum

Pro

labarum forfeited this round.
thett3

Con

My opponent fled from my amazing speeches. But uhh...environmental protection is good
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Woah, Stephen, did you just say you'd audit the bloody thing? Do I need to pull out the papers for you?

We'll talk later....
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Lol, abolish the Fed. Oh, yes, let's go back to a fixed quantity of money, too. That'll be great.
Posted by Hanspete 3 years ago
Hanspete
This is a funny debate!
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Ok. Labarum is Hitler and Thett is Stalin. Go.
Posted by labarum 3 years ago
labarum
How about we argue as two opposing conservatives, your actual views against mine. You can be the Bush to my Reagan
Posted by labarum 3 years ago
labarum
How about we argue as two opposing conservatives, your actual views against mine. You can be the Bush to my Reagan
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Well I'm not a leftist but I'll argue as one for the purposes of the debate. President thett the democrat. Has a nice ring to it.
Posted by labarum 3 years ago
labarum
No, we are playing as ourselves
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Oops, I misread that Hillary Clinton stepped down. I thought that said stepped UP. Frankly this would be funner as Clinton vs. Paul I think but I'll just argue as a generic democrat.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
I'm really busy with school. I'll do it if nobody has picked it up by tomorrow.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 3 years ago
Contra
labarumthett3Tied
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: Con had pretty good speeches, and Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
labarumthett3Tied
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