The Instigator
shabuzie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Ron Paul for President 2012

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,408 times Debate No: 19954
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

shabuzie

Pro

Ron Paul si the most consistent conservative who understands our nations problems and he is the only candidate who has follow thro0ugh and he takes he oath of office very seriously. He is unique and is different from the other candidates in a positive way. He wants to end the Federal Reserve end the aggressive wars and the current imperial presidency. He follows the constitution and has been saying the same thing for the past 30 years. He has never changed his viewpoints to get votes and he understands monetary policy. He understands free markets. A person cannot drink themselves sober and no person can borrow their way out of debt and neither can our government. He is America's last hope for real change. I say that with the utter passion.
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for the topic as well as the opening argument.

Since the resolution for this debate is so vaguely made, I am put in a position where I as the opponent must debate according to what I make of the resolution. Within this debate rounds, judging from my opponents first round, I must assume that we are debating one of these two resolutions:
1.Resolved: Ron Paul is the best candidate for the 2012 election
2. Resolved: Ron Paul has the best policy in regards to today's issue.

Following this, the burden of proof falls on my opponent to show us that Ron Paul is the best candidate for the presidential election of 2012.

With this said, Its time to debate!
=======================D

Ron Paul although an excellent candidate has some flaws that when looked upon carefully could be fetal to the point of costing him the election. These issues located in his policy involves his Abortion policy, his foreign affairs policy, his views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights, and finally, Paul wants to erode the power of voters by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. All these are some of the fetal flaws that adds to the fact that Ron Paul is not and cannot be the best candidate for the 2012 election and the future of the United States. {1}

Contention One: Abortion Policy.
Though I respect his views on abortion, it simply isn't the best policy for the majority of American population. Ron Paul is pro-life. He says that he developed his views on abortion during his practice as an OB/GYN. Paul's official website states that: "[D]uring his years in medicine, never once did [Paul] find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. While many Republicans want to limit abortion to life-saving procedures, Paul believes even this extreme exception is unnecessary based on anecdotes. {1} While this is a personal anecdote and deserves to be respected, a thorough look at this statement reveals several flaws. Flaws such as the fact that many abortion are caused not because of birth control defects, but because of health problems directed at both the mom, the child, and sometimes both.
A Web Md article of February 2011 lists the top causes of abortion in the United states. Inability to support or care for a child, causes such as:
To end an unwanted pregnancy .
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. {2}

A look into this list reveals that a lot of abortion performed in the United States is caused by issue that could have led to potentially fetal ends if the birth of the child would have been commenced. Following his policy, no form of abortion would be carried out in the United States including those needed to save ones life. This extreme level of anti-abortion policy is a flaw that contributes to the reason why Ron Paul cannot be seen as the best candidate for the election nor can his policy be seen as the best for the United States's current issues.

Contention two: Foreign affairs.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."{3} he latter went on in stating that "We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact{3}

Looking at these two sentences, its quite easy to say that Ron Paul is suggesting that the United States military involvement in the world, is the cause of so much hostility from many countries. Implying that we should use diplomatic policies to solve all our problems without ever using military force. Come on, lets come back to reality, the fact is that before the United States ever engages a country, it always tries to use diplomatic policies; however, these interaction almost always end up in using military forces. Saying that we should avoid using military force, is equivalent to saying that since you stole all of my life savings, killed my family, and took my girlfriend, I should try to talk to you and even if you hold a gun to my head, do noting about it. Due to the united states position and the power it holds in the global community, it is almost impossible to solve all our problems using diplomatic policies at all times. To support this argument, a textus article stated that "Diplomacy is basically a process: the interaction of states and other international actors to reach a common objective or to solve a dispute. This interaction is achieved by unilateral intervention and negotiation. It excludes the use of force but not the threat to have recourse to measures of constraint and, within the framework of the UN or under the latter's authority, to force."{4}

"The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said."{3} A problem facing the United States today, is what should be done to veterans brought home from Afghanistan. If these troops comes back to the United States as of now, it would be detrimental to the United states economy. Without a job, these troops are forced to either stay jobless, or depend on the government for provisions. Due to our economic situation, the government is now unable to properly give these soldiers the necessities of life without increasing taxes or cutting funding from a department. Ether way, its safe to say that bring home troops in such an accelerated rate will hurt our economy. "Also...jobs. Our returning troops need jobs. They also need our support."{5}

Contention three:fundamental rights, and finally, Erosion of voters power by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

"Over the course of history, the American people have amended the Constitution to provide greater power to voters and to enhance democratic participation. The Fifteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of race (although it took nearly a century to make this a reality). The Nineteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of sex. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment allows persons who have reached the age of eighteen to vote. Furthermore, the Seventeenth Amendment allows individual voters of each state to elect US Senators directly. Previously, the Constitution delegated this authority to state legislatures."{1}

Paul believes that eliminating the seventh Amendment would protect states against the national government. This policy is highly flawed as
1. The 17th amendment is a tool for individualism and democracy as a whole.
2. The speculation that the 17th Amendment is responsible for the federal government growth is highly flawed. The fact is that the federal government has only grown because the4 people believe the federal government to be capable of issuing decisions that the state government simply cannot issue.

For these reasons, Ron Paul is unfit to be the next president or even the better candidate for the 2012 election.

Sources:
{1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
{2} http://women.webmd.com...
{3}http://www.cbsnews.com...
{4}http://textus.diplomacy.edu...
{5}http://www.psychologytoday.com...

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
shabuzie

Pro

I respect your responses but before I can attempt to solve them or before I can begin the refute your responses you need to understand the root problems of these topics and how Ron Paul has the rational and a conscience to fix them. Here me out.

His views on abortion address many issues that a person must face before they perform an abortion but most people get abortions because they don't want to deal with the mistake they committed. Therefore men and women should never put themselves in this position in the first place. They should be smart but most people seem to think that because they screwed up an alternative must be reached. But what about the child? does the mother get permission from the fetus to end its life (rhetorical question) of course not! Who became the judge and who has been granted the authority to take the life away? That decision is made between the doctor and the patient. Therefore the baby has no say. My conclusion along with Mr. Paul's is that doctors/patient have the power to overstep the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. "If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the constitution." So tell me whats the difference between killing a baby one minute before birth or killing a baby one minute after birth? there is no difference, one action just takes place a minute before the other but the result is the same in both situations because they both do equal harm. But a mother can be charged with murder if she kills her child. This should apply to abortion as well. I understand that people don't always make the right decisions but another person shouldn't have to suffer or be killed before they even get to experience life. Natural causes should determine how long someone lives not another person's decision. and women die from child births still but it is very uncommon. men and women should make a better decision since a girl can't get pregnant by herself. it starts with a choice. The only exception i could see abortion being appropriate is when a girl is raped then i could see a child being aborted but it is a pretty mighty power just to end someone life on command. Its like a person begging for their life right before someone kills them except a baby can't plead and has no voice. Its immoral in my opinion.

The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Given the year it was ratified in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve was established can't mean anything good came from the 17th amendment. This amendment was a provision which superseded article 1 section 3 in the constitution. Given this power and how Ron Paul is a strict unconstitutionalist exemplifies proof in how he takes his oath very seriously and he believes the constitution should not be manipulated in this manner or any manner. But this is whats happens. Just like its illegal to not pledge allegiance. or how burning the flag is against the law. Freedom of expression is abridged. or the patriot act which prohibits people freedom of speech. Have you heard of SOPA? or the National Defense Act? They've crafted a bill that turns America's military against its own people and suspends habeas corpus. Martial law in unconstitutional.

As for bringing our troops home. This is an excellent solution to resolve hostility because of our meddling affairs in other countries. do you honestly think our troops are in the middle east to spread democracy? its just a noble lie- an excuse that our government uses to manipulate the public to justify its actions when in reality the one percent is profiting from the war. Construction companies benefit from this the most. Haliburton, Betchel and Pearson are just some, but the major ones that are most talked about underground and over the internet since thats the only place intelligent and vigilant people will talk about them. Has it ever crossed your mind why the censor Ron Paul? or why they are already talking about him running for a third party or even questioning him running for a third party? Even when he said that he will not run for a third party if he doesn't win the GOP. He wants to bring the troops home because it is unsustainable. If you have ever done research on empire, lets say Rome for example. "Though the crossing of the Rubicon is considered the seminal event in the fall of the Roman Republic, militarism has already been in place outside of Rome itself. The destruction of the Republic came as a consequence growth and expansion of Roman military power throughout the Mediterranean region. Today's military and CIA efforts are almost totally unrestrained by the U.S. congress." One can also look at Germany in 1923 during the Weimar Republic. That government wanted to fund the war by entirely borrowing which led to hyperinflation. The reason why the United States has not experienced this since the Confederate states between 1861-1865 is because the United States is the reserve world currency. Other countries must create currency equal to the dollar. It took 4,200,000,000,000 to make one dollar in December 1923. This was the result of "borrowing" to pay for the war. Borrowing just meant printing money(Germany borrowed money from France too) but anyone that understands inflation understands that you can't spend your way out of debt. You or I can't, so why does this allow the government to do so? it doesn't. But that is the misconception that most people don't understand. So if debt isn't a good indication that we should pull out of the middle east, surely there are moral reasons which justify a pull out. There is so much involved with these aggressive wars which are preventive. When the troops return home there are obligated to a job or they will receive one priority over another person. A good start would be to bring back the job here in the U.S. instead of having them in other countries but the reason why they ship jobs overseas is because it is much easier to pay someone in china to do it. Immigrants that come here for labor jobs take the jobs away from people who don't want to work those jobs because of low wages. Those are too examples how people in the U.S. are unmotivated. The jobs lie here, its just people are to damn unmotivated to care and would rather suck off the government for economic purposes. it the victim mentality that people develop.

Read Liberty Defined by Ron Paul. The sentences is quotes are from this book.

Ron Paul is the real deal. Seriously people need to open their eyes. People say Ron Paul is a nut but people are to ignorant to sense this genuine man. Its disappointing.
wierdman

Con

I applaud my opponents's confindence in Ron, however this debate is not based on personal opinion, but on core evidence and fact.

RE-REBUTTAL

By opponents biggest attack on my abortion contention was that Ron Paul's abortion policy deals with the issue of preventing the abortion of a pregnancy caused by irresponsible citizens. While this is partially true, my opponent completely neglects the fact that Ron Paul's abortion policy prevents any form of abortion including those required to save the mothers life. {1} Now not only is this unconstitutional as it gives the federal government the power to cross the line between governmental issues and our personal life, it also denies us the ability to make life saving decisions, thus completely destroying our already limited liberty.

My opponent talks about morality in which he ask the question, "Who became the judge and who has been granted the authority to take the life away?" This question is one asked virtually every time the question of abortion is brought up; however, just like most questions, this questions one without an answer free of controversy. Following Paul's policy, we are giving the federal government the power to decide the ultimate answer to this question.

In his last rebuttal, my opponent makes this statement "My conclusion along with Mr. Paul's is that doctors/patient have the power to overstep the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." This statement proves that my opponent does not fully comprehend Paul's policy towards abortion. His policy is to abolish all form of abortion and his only justification is a personal anecdote which I proved wrong in m first AC. please read my first evidence and please read the full article.

"So tell me whats the difference between killing a baby one minute before birth or killing a baby one minute after birth?"
This statement is absolutely absurd for the reason being that abortion does not occur one minute before birth, but at most 20% weeks after pregnancy(very rare) {2}. At this state, the baby is not considered a child or even a human being(according to many pro abortion activists), it is considered a fetus. And to answer your question, the difference between killing a fetus and a child, is the fact that the parents choose to keep the child rather than perform an abortion. Both action cannot be of equal weight as one (scenario A) s of personal choice, so the amount of grief expressed or even felt for the abortion is far lesser than that of scenario B(one minute after birth)

Since my opponent is clearly pro life, lets examine some scenario's:
Scenario 1: A fifteen year old girl is raped. She becomes pregnant, and chooses the option of abortion only to find out that abortion has being outlawed by Ron Paul. She goes home crying and with no other option, delivers the baby. She takes the baby home and looks at him/her. With pure hatred in her eyes, she puts the baby down on her couch and goes off to drink in the kitchen. The baby starts to cry and she yells across the room SHUT UP! This makes the baby cry even louder. She gets up, grabs a knife, walks to the living room and starts to stab the child. With each stab, she yells SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!...When she is done, the baby is dead with multiple stabs across his chest.

"As for bringing our troops home. This is an excellent solution to resolve hostility because of our meddling affairs in other countries."

Even if we bring back our troops, there is no guarantee that this would decrease the hostility between the United States and other countries. The fact is that bringing back troops will not serve as a solution to global hostility. As long as we remain a global power, there is no way to avoid hostility with a rival nation. Bringing back troops will no longer keep enemy troops at bay, but it will allow them to come to the U.S where they now have the ability to harm the United States both economically and physically.

"The jobs lie here, its just people are to damn unmotivated to care and would rather suck off the government for economic purposes. it the victim mentality that people develop."

With a 9.4 unemployment rate, its quite fair to say that the problem lies in the amount of jobs and the economic state, rather than the people. U.S. adds jobs, but it's hardly enough to accommodate the United States population as a whole.{3} Bringing back troops will only increase the Unemployment rate within the United States.

"The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Given the year it was ratified in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve was established can't mean anything good came from the 17th amendment. This amendment was a provision which superseded article 1 section 3 in the constitution. Given this power and how Ron Paul is a strict unconstitutionalist exemplifies proof in how he takes his oath very seriously and he believes the constitution should not be manipulated in this manner or any manner."

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. Abolishing this would mean that the United States population has no say in terms of who goes into power. Abolishing the 17th amendment will destroy the republican ideals that served as the foundation to our nation. {4}

Sources:
1}http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
2}http://www.abortionno.org...
{3}http://www.seacoastonline.com...
{4}http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
shabuzie

Pro

shabuzie forfeited this round.
wierdman

Con

Due to my opponents forfeit, my arguments still stands and I have nothing to attack.

Thank you and vote Con =D
Debate Round No. 3
shabuzie

Pro

shabuzie forfeited this round.
wierdman

Con

My opponents inactivity within this debate can only be translated into a complete forfeit of the entire round and thus, please extend all my arguments and please take in account of the in-activities.
Debate Round No. 4
shabuzie

Pro

OK. I'll state my case to prove your arrogance. I was on vactaion with my family in Hawaii so I couldn't reply to the debate. But if you don't mind and totally disclose this argument I would like to refute your falicies.

You admitt that citizens do iresponcibly concieve children. Your argument on the abortion policy was that abortion is necessary to save a mothers life. You then quantify this by saying "Now not only is this unconstitutional as it gives the federal government the power to cross the line between governmental issues and our personal life, it also denies us the ability to make life saving decisions, thus completely destroying our already limited liberty. My argument: If your truly understand freedom and liberty you would understand that less government intervention is the ultimate solution to regaining our freedom. It is morally illegal to take away ones life without their consent. That is essentially murder. People are punished by law if convicted guilty. Abortion violates natural rights as a human being. If nothing else abortion should be left to the state whether abortion is legal/ illegal in their state.

As Ron Paul said "Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But its been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says no abortion, it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order."- Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 7, 2008.

Ron Paul has been against abortion since the 60s when he witnessed it. He explains "In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.-Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 1 , Apr 19, 2011

The Roe vs Wade is harmful to the constitution "The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 , Apr 1, 2008

I was reading The Revolution by Ron Paul on the flight back to Seattle. I thought it was apropiate to state the federal involvment in abortion is unconstitutional since its a state issue.The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When i asked this question:"Who became the judge and who has been granted the authority to take the life away?" is was using a sacratic method. You go on saying that Ron Paul's policy permitts "giving the federal government the power to decide the ultimate answer to this question." But frankly Ron Paul is abiding by the constitution like every president is obligated to do but never actually will fufill this promise. Ron Paul illustrates this by following the Tenth Amendment. If you believe that its ok to take life away without the others consent then you don't deserve freedom yourself. You might want to do a little more research before you use rationale to say Ron Paul's policies are limtless and unconstitutional. Its an insult to his intellegence and mine for that matter!

"So tell me whats the difference between killing a baby one minute before birth or killing a baby one minute after birth?" As stated above, this was normal abortion in the 60s. Personal choice is compatible with a free society but what I emphasize is that "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin. If you take away someone elses freedoms by not even allowing them to live you buy an abortion so nothing becomes of a pregnancy you don't deserve freedom or liberty. How do you construe this quote? You could even say bills like the Patriot Act or the Senate Bill S. 510 Food Safety Modernization Act Vote Imminent: Outlaws Gardening And Saving Seeds pose a threat to America. My opponent continues by saying "Scenario 1: A fifteen year old girl is raped. She becomes pregnant, and chooses the option of abortion only to find out that abortion has being outlawed by Ron Paul." This argument is falicy since Ron Paul (if elected president) cannot mandate any abortion policy into federal law. Ron Paul simply wants the government to stay out of the abortion topic entirely. "Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion? A: "The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide." This is Mr. Paul's views, which doesn't automatically make it a law.

Your attempts to refute my statement "As for bringing our troops home. This is an excellent solution to resolve hostility because of our meddling affairs in other countries." illustrates your ignorance towards inflation, and exucutive powers to name a few. Going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan violates the constitution; as if it were a blank peice of paper. Iraq was an undeclared war. And to combat terroism requires according to the previous president and members of congress a bill like the patriot act which usurps government power and undermines the first amendment of freedom of speech. other ridiculous bills like the s 510 - Food Safety Bill undermine property rights of an individual and exacerbates a person's well being by limiting the type of food they eat
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for the quick reply.

It is morally illegal to take away ones life without their consent. That is essentially murder. People are punished by law if convicted guilty. Abortion violates natural rights as a human being.

This statement made by my opponent supports my case entirely. It is morally wrong to kill a human being without there consent; however what happens when two the survival of one life conflicts another. Ron Paul's abortion policy does not answer this question, rather it states that the life of the child be valued above the rights of the mother thus upholding immorality as defined by my opponent as it takes away ones life {the mothers} to save another. Since Paul's abortion plan does not fully answer the question of why should we value one life{the child's} over another{the mother}.

If nothing else abortion should be left to the state whether abortion is legal/ illegal in their state.

This also conflicts with my opponent's position as it states that Ron Paul should not have the power to decide on an issue so controversial and influential.

As Ron Paul said "Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

While i agree with some aspects of this statement, we must take in account that taking away the ability to decide on an issue that affects ones life in such a drastic level, is also taking away there civil liberty. In valuing the babies life over the mother, we are essentially devaluing the meaning of liberty. Either way, stating that one cannot perform abortion even in cases where it is necessarily to save ones life is also taking away ones liberty.

"I was reading The Revolution by Ron Paul on the flight back to Seattle. I thought it was apropiate to state the federal involvment in abortion is unconstitutional since its a state issue.The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If this is so, then why is Ron Paul's policy to completely eradicate abortion? While my opponent states that Ron Paul wants this power to go to the state, he provided no evidence to support this claim. I on the other hand provided multiple sources supporting the idea that he wants to eradicate all abortion. Please read my first and second speeches.

"Your attempts to refute my statement "As for bringing our troops home. This is an excellent solution to resolve hostility because of our meddling affairs in other countries."

Ones again, it is impossible to avoid hostility with other countries as we are a power nation and as such must act as a power nation in terms of global activities.

VOTERS
1. I met my burden of prove by showing the flaws in Ron Paul's policy.
2.My opponent did not properly address my 17th amendment argument {he simply brushes over it}
3. My opponent did not address the my issue of economic turmoil if troops were brought back
4. My opponent did not attack my global power argument
5. My opponent did not attack my foreign policy argument.
6. My opponent did not provide evidence supporting his key argument in abortion
7. My opponent's inactivity
8. My opponent did not meet his burden of prove in showing that Ron Paul is the best candidate. This involved showing us that Ron Pauls policy was better than other candidates policy (compare).

Thank you and I Wish my opponent the best in future endeavors.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
lol, just kidding. I understand that you were busy.
Posted by shabuzie 5 years ago
shabuzie
I'm working on it wierdman! I promise I will not disappoint you (:
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
This is sooo stupid! I was expecting a really fruitful debate from someone passionate about Ron Paul stands, and this is what I get.....*sighs*
Posted by kabylewolf 5 years ago
kabylewolf
I would love to be part of this, and even attempt to debate. But i am for Ron Paul for those exact reasons, and I know literally nothing of his short comings. I almost just want to try my hardest to find something negative.

But alas there is a much better suitor than I who will come eventually
Posted by Defensor-of-Apollo 5 years ago
Defensor-of-Apollo
Conservatism often serves a double meaning. One meaning the generalized views on the political spectrum, more accurately on the four quadrant one. The other is conservatism in general where "back to basics" is the idea. In the latter sense, I would say that is what is meant, although I have yet to read his post.
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
Lolz. If no one takes this after a couple days who really wants it I will. But I hope you get a good opponent.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
he's a libertarian not a conservative. He is for legalizing all drugs, for letting gays in the military, his gay marriage views have not been talked about, and he hasn't proclaimed his abortion positions. he is a libertarian, not a conservative, He is a good candidate. I prefer Newt or Santorum.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
shabuziewierdmanTied
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: Even setting aside the fact that Pro left the debate and forfeited a couple rounds, he still dropped Cons arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
shabuziewierdmanTied
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 forfeited 2 rounds and focused almost exclusively on the abortion aspect of the debate rather than defend Ron Paul across the board. many of Con's arguments were uncontested and con used 9 sources compared to pro's 0....
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
shabuziewierdmanTied
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 Forfeited a couple rounds and dropped some of CON's arguments