The Instigator
silvertechfilms
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
leojm
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points

Rick Santorum

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 12 votes the winner is...
leojm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,023 times Debate No: 33236
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

silvertechfilms

Con

Rick Santorum is mental.
Here is Dick, I mean Rick Santorum's plan if he is "elected"
-Wants to ban porn.
-Wants to merge religion and state.
-Wants to stop all abortion.
-Wants to ban all birth control.
-Thinks global warming is a myth.
leojm

Pro

All the stuff he is doing is great. I'm glad he want's to outlaw porn. I think it's wrong. Wan't to watch porn, find yourself a girlfriend who could care less what you do to her. Religion and State were supposed to be together when this country first began. There is no separation of church and state. Abortion is not radical either. If a girl doesn't want a baby then don't get in bed with a guy and have sex. It's just that simple. You have no right taking away a baby's life just because of your own irresponsibility. Same with birth control, it ties in very well with abortion. Don't have sex and you don't need all these things, and if you do have sex and get pregnant at least give the baby to an orphanage where parents can adopt them that they can't have children of their own, like my parents they adopted me because they couldn't have kids of their own. Global worming is a myth. Do you remember that huge snow storm we had? Well that's when we needed the global worming and guess what, it wasn't there. Humans cannot control the weather only God can. There is no way we can stop rain, snow, sleet, and other weather conditions. It has never been proven. Even scientists themselves say its not possible. Al gore paid them to keep their mouth shut. This is a website of some proof.

http://news.investors.com...
Debate Round No. 1
silvertechfilms

Con

How dare you think you have to right to take away someone else's freedom to do something just because you don't personally agree with it. Religion and state were never suppose to be joined, NEVER!. Lets review the constitution shall we, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Right there. So if they were to mix religion and government, What religion? Only the religion you support? If they merged all the religions, they would all contradict each other. Many people don't believe in any god at all. The government cannot be biased, and yet they still continue to do so. What if someone is raped? Is that girl forced against her will, something that wasn't her fault anyway, to go through all of that pain. How are we suppose to support all of this kids. Look at orphanages in America, they terrible. Why do you think the SPCA spays all of their adopted and saved animals? So that more won't end up like them. Humans are the most over populated species on Earth. Also, at least learn to spell the theory you deny. Its warming, not "worming". What about your God? Do you have any evidence for that? No, you don't. Global warming has much evidence, So does evolution, and there is many science behind those, and non behind God, and yet you still wan't everyone to accept that as fact without applying any real science to it. Saying God exists because of 2500 book is ridiculous, thats like saying the force is real because Star Wars said it was. Also, the Bible has been reinterpreted over the years, countless times.
leojm

Pro

You obviously don't know your history. The founding fathers found this country on religion. This country began with God being the center. They are trying to separate church and state. But they are supposed to be together. Without God wouldn't have have what we have now. There wouldn't be such thing as religion here. Why do you think they use a bible to swear for people to tell the truth? Because its church and state. Here is a website that talks about separation of state and church in the 1700's which was the start of United States.
http://www.christianity.com...
Abortion is wrong too. If your mom aborted you you wouldn't be right here debating me. There are alternatives if you want to get pregnant. Or have sex with a guy. You need to understand that There is life in that girls womb, not something to take lightly. i give thumbs up to all those girls who decide to give birth to their baby and give it to the orphanage. That's the right thing to do. Every living thing has a right to life no matter how small or developed it's still a life. Abortion is murder. I will defend others on other rounds because there are 5 rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
silvertechfilms

Con

The words "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. It was written in 1892. "In God we trust" was added to coins in 1864 and added to paper currency in 1957, replacing "E pluribus unum". The only thing mentioned in the constitution states that the government shall make no law favouriting a religion. The american government has an archaic control technique that persists even to this day, and is a prime example of how religion hypocritically melds with government. Many founding fathers criticized religion and God, some where even atheists. Some examples are; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and many more. If you were raped, I guarantee you wouldn't want to have the child. You wouldn't want to go through that pain of child birth. I have cluster migraines, also called suicide headaches. They can be worse than child birth, I know what the pain feels like. There is no God now, and yet we have religion.
leojm

Pro

"Many founding fathers criticized religion and God, some where even atheists. Some examples are; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and many more."
This is wrong. http://christianity.about.com...

"There is no God now, and yet we have religion." (where is the proof)
This is proof that God exists. (You can't argue against the news.)
http://www.foxnews.com...
This is also proof from discovery channel.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com...'s_ark.htm

Back to the subject of Rick Santorum. Rick Sanctorum is a conservative like me. He believes the same things and issues I believe in. Here is a life history of Rick Santorum. http://www.archives.com...

This is a a website that proves your point is wrong; that religion and state should be seperate. (read it before you comment the next argument) http://www.allabouthistory.org...
Debate Round No. 3
silvertechfilms

Con

Just because many people believe in something, doesn't make it real. Many people believe in Father Christmas, Does that make him real? It doesn't prove that there is a God, it just proves that people believe in.

http://www.allabouthistory.org...
this is a biased christian website, not reliable information from actual historians.

You can't deny the fact that america is not a christian nation, as I stated last time "The words "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. It was written in 1892. "In God we trust" was added to coins in 1864 and added to paper currency in 1957, replacing "E pluribus unum". The only thing mentioned in the constitution states that the government shall make no law favouriting a religion."
leojm

Pro

"http://www.allabouthistory.org...... this is a biased christian website, not reliable information from actual historians."
First of all it is a reliable source because it's .org. Second of all you haven't argued on my arguments which tells me you can't defend your statement. You haven't mentioned anything about separation of church and state. I have proof that God is real, by giving the source that they found Noah's ark. It is true because it mentions it in the Bible, and it's exact measurement as it's written in the Bible. Do you have proof that God doesn't exist? You also haven't defended your point of how the founding fathers were atheists. I have proof of many of the quotes that the founding fathers said, and every single one mentions God. From the previous round you said this; "I have cluster migraines, also called suicide headaches. They can be worse than child birth, I know what the pain feels like." What does this have to do with abortion, and to prove my point you have never given birth to a child therefore you don't know the pain. Turning back to Rick Sanctorum which you are avoiding. He is a good conservative, his visions of what he want's to do makes perfect sense. He backs up his evidence. He has a great way of explaining his point in such a way that it changes peoples minds. Keep in mind you wanted to debate on Rick Sanctorum and everything he is for. But to point your arguments out; you haven't really talked about his views on what Rick stands. Instead you are focusing on defending the stuff that you believe is wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
silvertechfilms

Con

Just because the domain name has .org in it doesn't make it reliable, anyone can get a .org domain name. Faith doesn't require proof. The Bible also says that if you get divorced, the woman should be stoned, It says you shouldn't mix fabrics, It says you shouldn't eat shell fish, It says you says you shouldn't boil goat milk. If God is real, then he is unwilling, he is a failure, He doesn't want to help against evil, He made us, then blamed us for what we do. Well, he made us, If he can see things before they happen, why wouldn't he see all the terrible things that happen and prevent them?

Cluster migraine are worse then child birth, Therefore I do know the pain woman go through.

Rick Santorum constantly changes his mind on opinions.

Just because they find supposed pieces from Noah's ark, doesn't prove that God exists. It just proves people believe in him.

God is a fantasy.
leojm

Pro

FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO READ ALL OF THIS DEBATE, THIS IS THE SUMMARY OF MY ARGUMENT.

1.Abortion/Birth control
a. It"s wrong.
b.It"s murder.
c.No one has the right to take someone"s life away because of their irresponsibility.
d.If you don"t want to get pregnant then don"t have sex with a guy.
e.If you do get pregnant at least give your kid to an orphanage. (many parents who can"t have kids will be glad to adopt one)
f.When you grow up you will regret what you did when you were a teenager.

2.Separation of state and church
a.This country was built on Christianity. (Catholic)
b.Yes, all of our founding fathers were Christians.
c.There shouldn"t ever be separation of church and state.
d.Most of the founding fathers quote involved God.

3.God is real.
a.There is proof that God is real.
b.National Geographic had found clear proof that God exists.
c.The Bible may have been translated so many times, but to support my argument there is a museum that holds all the real recordings of the writings from Jesus"s time.
d.National Geographic found Noah"s ark on a mountain. It is exact measurement as it said in the Bible.

4.Global warming does not exist.
a.Whoever live is the United States up in the north, you would understand where I"m coming from.
b.We had a huge snow storm about 2 years ago. We wanted global warming that day, but guess what? There wasn"t global warming.
c.We humans cannot control sleet, rain, snow, and other weather conditions, only God can.
d.The politicians don"t know anything about science. The scientists know about science, and they proved that there is no such thing as global warming. The scientists were paid to keep their mouth shut.

5.Rick Sanctorum
a.He is a conservative.
b.He knows his stuff and he did research.
c.He has a great way of changing people"s mind.
d.He knows his history, which not many politicians do.

6.Porn should be illegal.
a.Porn is just gross and wrong
b.You want to watch porn find a girl who doesn"t care what you do to her.
c.Porn is for people who don"t care about what happens to their future.

My sited sources.
a.http://news.investors.com......
b.http://www.christianity.com......
c.http://christianity.about.com......
d.http://www.foxnews.com......
e.http://www.arkdiscovery.com......'s_ark.htm
f.http://www.archives.com......
g.http://www.allabouthistory.org......

POINTING MY OPPONENTS MISTAKES AND WRONGNESS.

1.Porn
a.After my argument on this subject he never said anything about it again.
b.He avoided this subject.

2.Abortion/Birth control
a.He mentioned it once or twice.
b.He uses examples that have nothing to do with abortion.
c.After I placed my argument on this subject he never defended his point of view.
d.He didn"t use sited sources.

3.Global warming
a.He mentioned it once.
b.He never went back to this subject.
c.He didn"t have any sources proving that global worming existed.

4.God doesn"t exist.
a.He didn"t have back up information on his statement.
b.He mostly used his opinion.
c.He made a statement that our founding fathers were atheists. (No proof once again)
d.He defended his point by his own opinions.

5.Rick Sanctorum
a.This debate was supposed to be about Rick and his views.
b.My opponent avoided this subject.
c.Whenever I brought up the subject he never defended against it.

6.Separation of State and Church.
a.He used one example from the constitution.
b.He didn"t understand what the constitution was really meaning.
c.Once again my opponent had no cited source.
d.My opponent mostly argued about this subject than any others.

7.Cited sources
a.NONE
b.He use quotation marks but I didn"t know where he got that from (website)

PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS IN ROUND 5.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
medic0506, thanks for understanding. I used that source because it proved my point. Overall I think this was a great debate. :D Good job my opponent.
Posted by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
What makes Fox an unreliable source for that story?? Was there an error in their reporting?? If the facts were reported accurately then it's a perfectly reliable source. I wouldn't exactly call National Geographic or the Discovery Channel unbiased sources, by any stretch, but if what they are being used for is reported accurately then I'm not going to penalize a debater, or not give them credit, for using them as a source.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
OK, thanks, but anyways I also had another reliable source to back up the information. Now it's the last round i will do what you advised me to do. Your input was great. Thanks for all your help. :D

To: Talib.ul-Ilm
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 3 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
Sorry, but Fox News really is a joke. Anyone who looks into the criticism of Fox News and their bias will see that. But it can still be a source depending on how you use it.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Fox news is more conservative than other news, and any way i have other proof to back up that. National Geographic.
Posted by enclave101 3 years ago
enclave101
Fox News is not a resource it's a joke!!!!
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 3 years ago
Greematthew
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 did not seem to defend his arguments at all, and very much like an ill-informed repubicanophobe.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't like Rick Santorum, I really don't. However con's concluding point about the man was "God is a fantasy." While both wondered off topic, pro attempted to get it back on topic before the final round which was in essence throwing a bone to the oppoment; which was of course rejected. Sources: Again, instead of making his own case (by including some sources to support the resolution), con attacked one or two of pro's many sources, but only enough to discredit those sources, instead of enough to flip them. Conduct was worse from con (as he started the personal attacks), but I've already counted such against his argument (and it was not significantly worse).
Vote Placed by LegalizeLiberty 3 years ago
LegalizeLiberty
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments and had better conduct.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really didn't argue about Santorum's qualifications for president, but got sidetracked on various rants. Pro had the relevant evidence. I think Con had the burden of proof as Instigator, and he really made an affirmative case despite calling himself "Con."
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: 'You can't argue against the news.'
Vote Placed by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall Pro had a better argument. Con seemed to get side tracked throughout the debate. This being said; because Pro was affirming the resolution, Pro had the BOP, which I felt was lacking. Thus arguments are tied. Conduct goes to Pro, because of the ad hominem attacks on Rick Santorum, as well as the pointless attacks on Christianity
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full disclosure: I like Rick Santorum. I don't support all his views (especially his more socially conservative views), but I think he is a good person and more often than not our views overlap. There are real arguments to be made against some of his socially conservative views; however, Con makes none of them, and instead insults both Santorum and Pro. Pro had some good arguments, while Con had essentially none - Pro was marginally better at spelling, but to avoid votebombing I will not give any points. I will also not vote either way on RSes. Overall, Pro wins.
Vote Placed by NIGHTMARE 3 years ago
NIGHTMARE
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used many sources, and gave the over all better argument in this debate. Also had better spelling and grammar, in my opinion.
Vote Placed by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was his own worst enemy in this debate. He used no sources, point to Pro. Con called RS a "dick", and made a snide comment about Pro's spelling error, while making several mistakes of his own in the same post. Those things combined with the general hostility in Con's comments gives the conduct point to Pro. The only contention that Con even came close to winning was church and state, and even there he depended on asserting his own interpretation, rather than using sources to help show that his position has merit. Con tunneled on church and state, and God, and didn't engage much with Pro on the other issues, while Pro made valid arguments. Con offered no support for his claim that RS is "mental" and came off sounding like an angry liberal, rather than a serious competitor in a debate. Easy big win for Pro, as Con didn't even come close to meeting his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by William.Burnham 3 years ago
William.Burnham
silvertechfilmsleojmTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con due to pro's advertising. Pro argued case better. Con got sidetracked and started spinning his wheels kinda.