The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Ron Paul Supporters should find a new leader to advocate there views

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,465 times Debate No: 20297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




This is not a debate over wether his supporerst should vote for him this GOP election but rather in reference to future election, both presidential and congressional for that matter.

Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law.

this here is that one law he actually had sucess with in 14 years of his service in congress

As you can see, its a incridebly unimportent pass that has next to nothing to do with advocating 'liberty'.

Even if Ron Paul agree's with everything you yourself believe, or even you started to believe what you do because of Ron Pauls preaching it, you should look to get a new person to advocate it who's not Ron Paul to put your suppot behind. When electing someone to represent you, you need a leader who can, you know lead the change you want in washington.

If they cant do that, then there just another talking windbag.

Do you want the federal reserve audited, so does Ron Paul, but he's a faulure for getting that to ever happen

Do you want us to get back on a Gold Standard to back the dollar bill, so does Ron Paul but he has been a failure at getting these things to get done.

Next time you get to elect a consistant libitarien to stand up for your views, its most rational for you to give a new libitarien the chance to advocate them. Ron Paul has had his chance for 14 years and has shown he is not the leader you need to usher 'liberty' back to America.

and once he is no longer in Congress Ron Paul can still do what you like him doing, talking in videos on youtube and saying what you want him to say in media interviews (thats all he's manages to do now sitting in a congressional seat). meanwhile the new libitarian you vote to congress can give his effort at actually making the comprimises needed to bring in the change you want that Ron Paul is always talking about.


ron paul wants to legalize marujuana.... i rest my case! :)
Debate Round No. 1


But he is a total failure at getting anything like that done. he cant work with the rest of legeslature enough to get more than one bill passed how is putting him in the white house going to help that.

you like him because he wants to legalize marujuana, fine, but he's never going to get it legalized. case closed. you need to put your support behind a poltician who wants to legalize marujuana who's not Ron Paul, who can actual lead others in power to get that done.

I would say I look foward to my opponents response, but truthfully I'm just thinking I should have put some resrictions on who could accapt this debate now.


OK, ron paul is great and he can legalize pot... look at california if california can legalize marujuana whats to stop the rest of the states from joining in, when ron paul suggests it? thats what i thought and what are you trying to say.... i dont swing for your type i like females ;)
Debate Round No. 2


He cant legalize pot, he never even got a bill on legalizing pot to the floor of congress to get voted on, When he gets to the white house and has the power to sign a bill to legalize pot, it will still never pass through congress for him to sign, and neither will anything else in our nation that he wants to do. he cant veto things but that a destructive power to keep things from happing not a creative power to cause things.

the things he will be do will be related to our forces over seas, but legal pot, not going to happen. Gold standard? still not going to come back. Presidents have to learn to work with those across the isle and for Ron Paul thats every single member of congress.

But this debate is not really about getting Ron Paul to the white house, its about Ron Paul being the man his supporters put up in the race to get to the white house.

core conservatives had like 4 people in the race trying to get behind, some are better options than others. Moderates have about too people they could get behind. Gingrich was in there for people who are both old and stupid in the race to get behind.

Libitarians right now have Ron Paul. Other Libitarians exist, all I am saying with this resolution is another one is needed to be found to take Ron Pauls place, one who can work with those of a different view in compramise to get key victories for his own libitarian views. Romney knows how to do that and has sucess with that for his own moderate conservative views, Santorum has had success with that for his social conservative views, Ron Paul has had no success, you should find someone else to who wants to legalize pot to get behind that can actualy compromise with other people in power.

There is line that divides leadership and windbaggery, and it is time for libitarians to recognize wich side Ron Paul fits on. and its not leadership.


iTROLLLOLOLOLOLOLOL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
Last comment I will ever post on this debate - Marauder, you're repeating the same argument I've already addressed. It's a fair argument. I may disagree, but it's fair to argue it. The topic is not about advocating libertarianism. It's about advocating Ron Paul for President (the views of Ron Paul's supporters). Ron Paul was not successful not because he couldn't champion his ideas, but because nobody agreed with him at the time in the senate. That's not his fault, but that's the topic. It's still far too absurd for me. Debate it with somebody competent. Set a minimum percentile if you're worried about trolls. I hope you find someone to argue with who actually gets you.

But also know that I am both extremely hurt and threatened. I challenge you to a debate and if you decline, I demand that you rectify your thoughts at once and don't slander me online.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
seriously, you should have just accepted the debate instead of giving arguments in the comment section and create a troll account to take not really argue the topic.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Larzlouzer was my shorthanding your name, I think you made the troll account a few days ago, to snooty to accept the debate yourself wanting to insult the topic and prevent it from being actually debated.

'support' in the form of just being a windbag of opinions is not worth half as much as actually causing what you want to happen.

leadership needs more than just being articulate about your opinions, it calls for fighting to gain actual ground for your cause and not giving it back. when Ron Paul dies the Libertarians will be no closer to having there way than they are now. Teddy Roosevelt may have not gotten everything he wanted changed in our government, but he gained the ground of our Nation no lounger acting so isolationist anymore, ending the hold the Monroe Doctrine had on politics.

How is it in 14 years a man cant find a way to get one significant thing he wants done out of all the numerous things in his agenda? surely he could have made compromises of some kind to get the Federal Reserve audited? that's not even a huge 'radical' kind of thing democrats or republicans would not want to go anywhere near.

a real leader who was actually competent at 'supporting' his cause would have gotten a push for an audit all the way through.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
Who is Larzlouzer? Sounds like he's trying to imitate me poorly. I'll take great pride in taking down that larzlouzer fellow.

Check the dictionary. Advocate means "A person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy." Nothing about actually getting it done. No other definition was provided in your case. That's why lawyers are sometimes called advocates. Furthermore, the debate isn't about whether the views are right or wrong. Have they been tried and failed before? That would make the views wrong regardless of who advocates them. Besides all that, you yourself admitted Ron Paul has done something about his views - sponsor 620 bills. And even besides that, as I said two comments ago, at best the problem is the political process, not Ron Paul, so why can Ron Paul not support/recommend his own views? Why should Ron Paul not be a leader in advocating his own policy? Does every politician need a sock puppet in your world?

I think pro should have made the motion of this debate "If elected, Ron Paul is likely to be an ineffectual president" or similar. That would have been a good debate. Unfortunately the resolution is so worded as to clearly insult Ron Paul and make intelligent argument nigh-impossible. If someone can argue this intelligently let me know.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
I know, it makes me cry.

I'm thinking TROLL was a duplicate account made by Larzlouzer.
Posted by debateme 4 years ago
Con's account has been closed
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
I know my political process just fine, and historically there have been 'do-nothing presidents' like Jimmy Carter and especially Millard Filmore who is yearly remembered on his birthday for having gotten nothing done.

I specifically chose the term 'advocate' as it can denote more than just a spokesperson, but someone that actually does something about what they speak for. advocating something means you have a goal of having whatever your advocating happen. So someone like Dave Ramsey is a good advocate of financial responsibility as he not only talks about why being out of debt is good, he gives a plan that has success with his own money and thousands of other people.
Someone who talks about fiscal responsibility but themselves is in debt and offers no solutions or solutions that were tried and failed is not a good advocate for their view of fiscal responsibility.

a leader is more than a spokesperson. they do have to be spokesperson for what they lead in but if they don't cause change then that is all they are and its time for someone else to take a crack at it.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
I thought a troll might take this. You need a pretty twisted mind to consider this debate.

"yes he can be blamed for loosing because if he wants to lead a revolution against the system then his leadership needs to have success."
How much success did any historical revolutionaries have before they came to power? It was because they had no previous political success that they were revolutionary. As I said, that no members agreed with his bills shows that Ron Paul was different from every other political leader, and therefore he is the best advocate (synonym: spokesperson) for their views. As I understand it, Ron Paul does have a few solutions (cutting federal agencies, budgets and taxes) that go further than any other candidate in the GOP field. But the debate is not about whether Ron Paul is revolutionary or not. It isn't about whether he is or has been a windbag. The debate topic is, to paraphrase, whether or not Ron Paul should lead and advocate the Ron Paul movement, with Ron Paul's ideas and Ron Paul's followers. I stand by my claim that this topic is too absurd to even debate. Ron Paul is the best advocate for the views of Ron Paul, just as you are the best advocate for your views, and I am best for mine.

"how is putting him in the white house going to help that."
Because he'd be the president, not Dr No sitting in the corner of congress shouting "hey, look at me". Besides that, Obama ran on a platform of being able to bring people together and not even he's succeeded, so clearly even moderates cannot get everything they want done. Putting him in the white house would, however, allow him to do stuff like repeal unbalanced budgets and stop what he calls "nation building" immediately. He could also sign executive orders like Obama did. To claim that a president could get nothing done, even if nobody else agreed with them, is frankly ignorant of your political process.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Pro's political party is the "Tea Party Patriots." Ron Paul is called the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Whoever accepts this debate will most likely win the spelling and grammar point.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro insulted me and believed I was posting as a troll because I still don't get this debate. Nobody has ever insulted me in this way and I feel absolutely upset and heartbroken that anybody would ever dare to call me a troll. In future I will never again offer constructive criticisms of the wording of topics - I never insult debaters, that's just low. Criticizing topics is fair. My opponent is slandering me with neither evidence nor truth on his side and doesn't deserve the win.