The Instigator
GlennBeck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Rand Paul will win the 2016 presidential election

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 5 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 76295
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

GlennBeck

Pro

Rand Paul is the only candidate to restore the country.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.

The resolution today makes an affirmative statement predicting the future - stating not that Rand Paul *should* be the next president, but that he will be. In other words, in order to actually prove this claim, PRO would need to have either a crystal ball or some extremely substantive poll data proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Rand will win.

However, he provides us with nothing of the sort - he only says that Rand is "the only candidate to restore the country." Obviously this is an opinion, and he personally favors Rand. However, this does not mean that Rand *will* win. Support of one person does not necessitate that any event will actually happen, and obviously people's chosen candidates - including Rand's father, Ron - have in fact lost.

Therefore, PRO cannot fulfill his burden of proof.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
============================================================
>Reported vote: banjos42 // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: :)

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb.
============================================================
Posted by Almec 1 year ago
Almec
Is this whether he will win the nomination/Election or if He is the best candidate?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
GlennBeckResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sole argument presented in R1 is, as Con notes, an assertion that says Rand Paul *should* become President since he would do good, etc., while Pro's *actual* burden of proof is to demonstrate he *will* become President, not just that he "should" or "ought to" become president. Support does not imply ultimate conclusion. This fails to fulfill Pro's burden of proof, thus Con negates. As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
GlennBeckResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con points out, Pro's single assertion is an *ought* statement (Rand Paul ought to be President because he can restore the country), not an *is* statement (Rand Paul *will* be President), so Pro's single line doesn't even attempt to prove the resolution true.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
GlennBeckResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con made an argument.
Vote Placed by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
GlennBeckResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never made an argument only presented his opinion. THis means he failed to uphold his BoP.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
GlennBeckResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove that Rand Paul will win the next election, thus the failed BOP means Con wins the argument point.