The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: Ron Paul could have been a good President.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 24732
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




A formal Challenge to TakenUsername on whether Ron Paul could have been a good President. First round for acceptance only.


I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Good luck, Username. As a note, this debate is a Conservative vs. Libertarian clash, so if you are Liberal, or Progressive, keep that in mind when voting. Or turn your head.

1. Economic Policy
Ron Paul's economic policy can be explained in six words; lower taxes, lower spending, and smaller government. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, he regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes[1], making him a minority of Congressmen to do so. His 2012 "Plan to Restore America"[2] would cut five federal agencies, decreasing federal involvement. Finally, his promises to audit the Federal Reserve, would bring responsibility back to Federal Economics.

2. Foreign Policy
Paul's views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. Paul is quoted as stating "America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations", while advocating "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." This extremely close to what our founders wanted when they said: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." We can see, once again, a stable policy, one based off of our foundation, rather than personal vendetta.

Thank you, and...




First, I would like to note that this is not necessarily a Conservative vs. Libertarian clash. I would consider my self a Libertarian, but that does not mean I support Paul. The assumption that because I do not support Paul means I am not a Libertarian is wrong. I believe whole-heartedly is Free markets, personal liberty and responsibility, and vehemently disagree with progressive principles.

Second, I would like to know that my problem with Paul rests not on economical or government spending/size issues. I believe he would be a very positive force on both.

My problems lie in Foreign Policy/National Defense, as well as Abortion and other more specific issues. I will have to pick a few topics, seeing as though my space is limited.

National Defense

This is the biggest single issue I have with Paul.

The single largest threat to America's security at the moment is Iran. First I want to look at all the ways Iran is a threat, then I want to look at how Paul is unwilling to acknowledge, and ignorant of, the threat that is Iran.

1. Iran is developing nuclear weapons

Ron Paul has said that "there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, however, there is a mountain of evidnce to suggest otherwise. For example, in a Department of Defense report on Iran's military power, it states "
Iran continues to develop technological capabilities applicable to nuclear weapons." (

Some people, including Paul, have stated "Why should'nt Iran have nukes?" ( This is easily explained. Iran's leaders, including the president and the Ayatollah, believe in the twelth imam, and that he will only come when the world is engulfed in chaos. They also believe that they can trigger it. As states "No wonder,then, Tehran is fanatically comitted to acquiring nuclear weapons" ( Also, they have stated on multiple occasions that we, along with Israel, are thier enemies. (

2. Iran is training and funding terrorists

From "
Both directly and indirectly, Iran funds, trains and arms groups that share the regime’s stated goal of destroying Israel and the West... These groups include Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Iran also provides support to insurgent groups in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan which have inflicted casualties on American, British, Australian and other multinational forces."

3. Iran and Venezuela are building a joint missle base

Considering my previous point about Iran's nuclear program, it would be very worrisome if Iran would have missle bases in close proximity to the United States. From the Daily Caller "
On November 25th, the respected German journal Die Welt published a report that Iran and Venezuela agreed on October 19th to build a joint military base. That complex will include medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) like the Shahab-3 (range 1,200 miles) Those weapons will enable Chavez to make missile strikes South America... and, with the Shahab-3, even American cities. Longer-range missiles being developed by Iran will threaten all of the United States when they are installed in Venezuela."

4. Ron Paul denies Iran is a national security threat

Seeing as though national security is the most important job of the federal government, it is very important for presidents to acknowledge present dangers to the U.S.. Given my last three points, it is very clear that Iran is a national security threat. But somehow, Paul is ignorant enough to say that Iran is not a national security threat. (

Paul has said that he would'nt support a federal law against abortion, not because he supports abortion, but because it is a "state level issue". ( If you believe that abortion is murder, and that life is an inaliable right of every human being, why should it be a state issue? This is saying that states also have the choice to legalize murder.

Capital Punishment

Paul has said that he opposes the death penalty. (Page 32, 'Liberty defined', I will provide an exact quote if requested.)

The death penalty has proven to be a strong deterent for crimes "Our results show that capitol punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders." Thats from the American Econ and Law Review in 2003. I see that you have already debated FOR the death penalty in a previous debate, so if anyone wants an in-depth debate on that simply refer to that.
Debate Round No. 2


jbeaver212 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited this debate. Please vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.