The Instigator
Valladarex
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Salohcin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Rand Paul Should Be The Next United States President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,426 times Debate No: 73096
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (72)
Votes (4)

 

Valladarex

Pro

Introduction

Welcome!

This is a debate on who should be the next president of the United States. This debate will be focused strictly on the policies between 2 major candidates/potential candidates. I will accept a debate with a supporter of a major candidate or potential candidate from either major party. Major Candidate/Potential Candidate will be defined as the politicians that are included in the following poll:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com...

Qualifications

Since I have been unable to find a debate for more than a month, I have removed all requirements to debate, except for the one below.

I have had too many debates where my opponent does not end up finishing the debate. I ask that my opponent make sure that there is no predictable reason that he or she may not be able to complete every round in this debate.

If you meet the criteria and would like to debate, go ahead and say so in the comments. I will accept whoever is most qualified within a few days.

Guidelines

*I have modified the original debate because I had a hard time finding someone willing to accept it.*

There will be 5 rounds, 72 hour response period, and 10,000 character limit. Burden of proof is shared.

1st round is for acceptance by my opponent and announcing what candidate he or she will be supporting.

The next rounds will be focused on the following topics:

2nd Round:
-Economic Policy

3rd Round:
-Rebuttals for Round 2
-Foreign Policy
-National Secuity

4th Round:
-Rebuttals for Round 3
-Social Policy

5th Round:
-Rebuttals for Round 4
-Conclusion


The goal should be to convince the audience that, on balance, our candidate is superior to the other's candidate on policy, even if not superior on every major issue. This means that we can focus on specific issues that we find most important, while also taking into account and addressing the other subjects.

I emphasize to the judges to vote not on who you would prefer be president, but on who made the best arguments in the debate.

I look forward to having a great debate!
Salohcin

Con

Hello, I shall be debating in favor of Senator Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party.
Debate Round No. 1
Valladarex

Pro

Introduction

To start off this debate, I will be detailing the differences between Rand Paul’s and Bernie Sanders’ economic policies. I believe that the evidence will demonstrate that Rand Paul’s economic policies are superior in nearly every way. The two main topics I will be focusing on are trade policy and tax policy.

Free Trade

One of the most important policy positions Bernie Sanders holds is the limiting of international trade. He has demonstrated through his time in office that he is strongly against free trade, and supports a protectionist trade policy. He has voted against free trade agreements with Central America, Australia, Singapore, and Chile. (1)

Rand Paul, on the other hand, is an avid supporter of free trade and all of the benefits that come along with it. As evidence, in 2011 he voted for free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. (2)

The policy of free trade has been one of the most significant causes of economic growth and global prosperity. The principles of free trade are well understood and accepted by the vast majority of economists, and they are simple enough to explain.

Free trade is beneficial because:
1. It leads to a more efficient allocation of resources.

The term used to describe the efficiency increases as a result of free trade is called the gains of trade. Below is a graph to help visualize how the gains of trade works. (3)

Or another way to look at it, one can analyze how tariffs effect the supply of a product in the graph below. (4)

2. Free trade leads to increased innovation

Opening up trade with countries full of unique individuals with their own ambitions, backgrounds, expertise, and ideas leads to increased competition and innovation that greatly benefit the advancement of technologies that benefit society.

As the Heritage Foundation explains, “Free trade is the only type of truly fair trade because it offers consumers the most choices and the best opportunities to improve their standard of living. It fosters competition, spurring companies to innovate and develop better products and to bring more of their goods and services to market, keeping prices low and quality high in order to retain or increase their market share.” (5)


3. Free Trade Benefits the Consumer

This is a very important point, as the cost of living for all Americans are directly affected by the prices of commodities. The reason why free trade benefits the consumer is because the efficiency gains and increased competition leads to lower prices of goods.(6)


4.
Other benefits of Free trade include: (7)

  • Enhances the domestic competitiveness
  • Takes advantage of international trade technology
  • Increase sales and profits
  • Extend sales potential of the existing products
  • Maintain cost competitiveness in your domestic market
  • Enhance potential for expansion of your business
  • Gains a global market share
  • Reduce dependence on existing markets
  • Stabilize seasonal market fluctuations

As you can see, the benefits of free trade are abundant, and Bernie Sanders’ economic policy would be detrimental to the expansion of this very beneficial policy. Rand Paul is the clear choice when it comes to trade policy.

Tax Policy

There difference in philosophy between Sanders and Paul arre enormous.Sanders believes in a progressive taxation system that taxes the wealthy at a very high percentage of their income, while Paul supports a flat tax system that keeps taxes low for all citizens.Rand Paul is for less regulation while Sanders is for more.Here's why Paul’s flat tax plan would be better for the country than Sanders’ plan.

Rand Paul’s tax plan (8):

Single, flat tax rate: 17%

Currently, many people, especially the wealthy, tend to spend a great deal of money and time avoiding taxes as it can allow them to keep more of the money they earned. The complexity of our tax system allows for people to find all kinds of ways around federal taxes, which can even make it cost effective to pay someone to reduce one’s tax burden. The incentive to find a way around taxes increases proportionally to the tax percentage the government demands. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find a way around it.

When our tax code is nearly 74,000 pages long, there is room for a lot of loopholes that people can take advantage of.

The image below shows how large the tax code has grown over time, and it will continue to get more complex over time at this current rate. (9)

There is evidence that simplifying the tax code using the flat tax can be effective, and actually increase the government’s revenues.

In 1996, Russia began having serious revenue problems, so the IMF suspended its program in the country. Russia was having an inflation issue, and the taxes were high enough that people were willing to find ways to avoid paying them.

As a result, Russia decided to implement a 13% flat tax system and also removed their corporate tax rate completely. What followed baffled many people, as the tax revenue actually increased after the tax code was replaced. The flat tax is still in use in Russia today as it ended up being a successful way of generating revenue for the government. The image below shows how the tax revenue increased after the flat tax was implemented. (10)

The simplification of the tax code would remove loop holes used by special interests to bring their tax rates down to below current levels. It would increase efficiency, encourage more investment, and leave more money in people’s pockets to spend in the economy.

Business income: Businesses would be subject to the same 17% rate.

Keeping a low tax rate on businesses is important for encouraging the startup of new businesses and keeping businesses here in the United States. Businesses have left the United States as a result of it being more cost effective to move elsewhere, due to the excessive taxation burden the government places on them.

Investment income: Capital gains, dividends and interest would be tax free.

Encouraging investment is a must for growing an economy. Taxes on investing removes the incentives to do so, which slows down growth. These taxes are something that Sanders is fond of.

Economic Freedom Zones: For cities with enormous poverty problems, Rand Paul proposes to enact economic freedom zones, where taxes are cut sharply to encourage investment and development. This would greatly help poor people find jobs and work their way out of poverty.

Sander’s tax plan is this:

Tax carbon and methane emissions that cause global warming:

Taxing carbon and methane emissions is one of the fastest ways to slow down economic growth. Currently, fossil fuels make up about 81% of the energy consumption, as can be seen in the image below. (11)

Taxing carbon emissions would artificially increase the cost of energy usage in every from. This raises the cost of living for all citizens of the country, and would be especially burdensome on the poor. The fact that poor people use a higher percentage of their income on energy means that this carbon tax would effectively be a regressive tax on the nation’s poor individuals.

And what are the benefits? There is no evidence that taxing emissions will have a significant effect on global climate change. Global warming is a massive problem that is indeed caused by fossil fuel usage, but there is no alternative that is as cost effective that would work today. Removing barriers to entry into the market by reduce regulations and red tape and creating a business friendly environment is a more practical method of removing our dependence on fossil fuel.

Also, the fact that energy is a demand inelastic item means that people will still tend to buy the fuels even if they are more expensive.

This graph helps visualize how gas will still be in use even if the price is risen through excessive taxes. (12)

Raising income taxes on the Rich to 90% (13)

This idea is far to the left of most politicians in this country, and would likely never get passed through congress any time soon. But the fact that he supports this type of tax without realizing there would be massive consequences is alarming. This tax would inhibit the ability of the wealthy to expand businesses, hire more people, and invest into the economy. It would decrease the incentive for wealthy people move to the US, stay in the United States, or increase their incomes. It’s something that would tank the US economy.

Tax capital gains and dividends of the wealthiest 2 percent at the same rate as ordinary income

Not only does Sanders want to tax the income of the rich at extreme levels, he also wants to tax the capital gains of these Americans at high levels. Problems with this include the following (14):

Increasing the Capital Gains tax would encourage companies to pay dividends on profits rather than reinvesting their profits in factories, equipment and technologies that are the lifeblood of our economy.

A high capital gains tax has the effect of slowing economic activity. Owners of assets will have a tendency to hold on rather than sell due to the large tax consequences of selling.

Taxing the increase in value of capital is a double tax because the value is based on the future earnings that are expected to generate.

Conclusion

As I have limited time and space, I cannot dive into other important economic topics right now. To summarize my points this round:

Rand Paul’s economic plan would lead to more free trade, less taxation, more investments, more job growth, business expansion, and overall economic prosperity.

Bernie Sanders’ economic plan would lead to less international trade, higher taxes, less investment, less job growth, higher costs of living, business outsourcing, and overall economic stagnation.

The facts and statistics have shown that free markets, low taxes, and less regulation leads to the most amount of economic growth and increases in the general welfare of the population.

This is why the presidential candidate best suited for promoting a desirable economy is Rand Paul.

Sources (All 14 sources can be found in link):

http://www.multiurl.com...

Salohcin

Con

Salohcin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Valladarex

Pro

It appears that my opponent is one of those people that makes an account, accepts a debate, then never comes back to the site again. This is what I feared would happen once I opened up the debate for anyone to accept. How disappointing.
Salohcin

Con

Salohcin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Valladarex

Pro

I hope someone out there is willing to actually debate this topic with me. It's frustrating that I put all the time into making these arguments for nothing.
Salohcin

Con

Salohcin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Valladarex

Pro

Vote Pro.
Salohcin

Con

Salohcin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CASmnl42 2 years ago
CASmnl42
Off topic to Valladerex - sorry to post here, but you don't accept PMs. I've reopened my War on Poverty debate if you are still interested
Posted by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
Also, It`s almost impossible to think of someone better than rand paul who would run and has a chance.
Posted by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
I dobout I can come up with anyone half-way decent who has a chance to win. Hillary clinton, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Berdie sanders all aren`t very attractive options
Posted by Valladarex 2 years ago
Valladarex
Since I've had no luck finding anyone, I've opened the debate for anyone to accept. Please don't troll.
Posted by billden55 2 years ago
billden55
This is pointless because no one can accept it, this debate will end before it gets accepted.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
I want to run several K's on this topic but I would also really like to read this as a regular debate.
Posted by Valladarex 2 years ago
Valladarex
Who is the candidate? I can't think of a single candidate who isn't aligned to any party and also has a chance at winning. If you happening to be talking about the "Independent" Bernie Sanders, he is running as a Democrat and is also included in the poll that I'm going by, which makes him an option.
Posted by ConceptEagle 2 years ago
ConceptEagle
So that requirement is solely based on how good of a chance the candidate stands at getting elected, right?
What if I prefer a candidate that has no alignment to any party but is gaining popularity?
Posted by Valladarex 2 years ago
Valladarex
The candidate must be from a major party because I want to the debate to be between candidates that have a realistic shot at winning. Minor party candidates don't have a realistic chances at winning. I'm sure there are many great minor candidates that have great policy positions, but I don't want to spend so much time and effort on researching comparisons between a major candidate and an unelectable one.
Posted by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
Accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
ValladarexSalohcinTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture of the match
Vote Placed by Nac 1 year ago
Nac
ValladarexSalohcinTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
ValladarexSalohcinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because of Con's full forfeit. Arguments to Pro since he was the only one to present any arguments in the entirety of the debate. And, as always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
ValladarexSalohcinTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff