The Instigator
PoeJoe
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
l2jperry
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points

Ron Paul is a God

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,326 times Debate No: 1056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (24)

 

PoeJoe

Con

Ron Paul was born August 20, 1935 in Green Tree, Pennsylvania to his mortal mother and father, Peggy Paul, and Howard Paul. In the same year of 1957, Paul graduated Gettysburg College with a bachelor in biology, and married Carol Wells. They presently have five children, and eighteen grandchildren. In 1961, he attained a medical doctorate from Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, South Carolina. He was then drafted, and between 1963 and 1965, he served as an active duty flight surgeon during the beginning of the Vietnam War where he achieved the rank of captain. After service, he came back home as an ob/gyn at numerous hospitals delivering more than 4000 babies.

His first stable political job began in 1978, as a representative for Texas' 22nd district. In 1984, he ran for senate but lost. He returned as a full time doctor. Then, in 1988 he ran for president as a libertarian, but not so surprisingly, he lost. Since, then he has been in and out of congress.

Paul has never voted to raise taxes, believes that we shouldn't bomb other countries, believes in a stable budget, and is a strong constitutionalist. He has practically swept almost all of the online polls, won numerous text-in votes conducted by FOX after the debates, has authored more than ten books. But. Although definitely the best candidate. It is my strong belief that Ron Paul is not a God.

----

Here are some of my strongest points summarized:

1) He was born to a mortal mother and father. It is my belief that there is not enough evidence to prove he is a God.

2) All of his awesome-ness, although hard to conceive, probably could be replicated by mortals.

3) Although he has helped the creation of more than 4000 humans, there is no evidence that he ever did so solely on his own.

4) How could he have created the universe before he was born.
l2jperry

Pro

Agreed that he is by far the best candidate. :-). This will be fun though. According to www.dictionary.com, a definition for God is "a supreme being according to some particular conception." Therefore, Ron Paul is the God of the 2008 Presidential Election.
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Con

Perhaps it was foolish of me to not clearly define the word "God" as the instigator of this debate. I was actually referring to the word when it meant something to the effect of, "The creator of the universe; All-knowing; All-seeing; All-capable; etc." However, that being said, it is still fairly easy for one to argue that Ron Paul is not a "God", even in the terms of, "a supreme being according to some particular conception".

A few glaring words shined, almost burning my eyes, asking me to study them. One of those words was "supreme". Princeton defines the word as:

� greatest in status or authority or power
� highest in excellence or achievement
� greatest or maximal in degree; extreme

Acknowledging that consensus has been on the grounds that Ron Paul is the best candidate, it is not necessarily so that he is the most supported. In other words, a fine postulate it is to know that Ron Paul is the best candidate, but for a supreme to be supreme, we learned that he must be the "greatest", the "highest", the most "excellent", and the most "maximal in degree".

Putting it simply, if Ron Paul was truly "supreme", he would be supported by many more fellows like ourselves. The fact that the highest, un-internet conducted poll only gives him a 9% chance, does not help his case.

Secondly, what my opponent failed to do in his last round, was to give any notice to my arguments above. This puts him way behind in the debate, and gives my a head start.

This is where the debate stands:

� My opponent has failed to bring but one argument to the table, clearly defeated by the above.
� I have brought four basic arguments to the floor that my opponent seems completely unaware of.
� Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn.
l2jperry

Pro

Again dictionary.com gives for the word "supreme."

2. of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc.

Which is open to a matter of opinion based on a persons own beliefs.

You have stated yourself "Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn."

By saying this, you have agreed that Ron Paul is in fact of the highest quality of the 2008 candidates. Therefore making him the God of the 2008 candidates, or presidential election as I stated prior.

As for the polls, the phone polls often don't even list Ron Paul's name and define him as "other." And usually they only phone Republicans. Ron Paul has a lot of support from independents and democrats making the polls very much open to mistakes. (We will see on the third!)

Bottm line, God is open to interpretation, therefore what God is; is also open to interpreatiton. And by the defintion I gave for "God." that you did not define in the beginning, in my interpretation Ron Paul is in fact the God of the 2008 Presendtial election.

Now admire my photograph with Dr. Paul and succumb to defeat. :P. lol.
Debate Round No. 2
PoeJoe

Con

Your argument was quite muffled out, so let me show you, and the audience what you implied.

Pwn = God

Huh?!?! Whenever I win a debate, do I become a god? 'Nuff said... or not...

Your whole argument is based off the idea that opinion is everything. However, this absolutely not true. What we must look at, is how many people support him, and if there is truly enough support for him to be the "highest", and most "maximal in degree", therefore allowing him to be supreme, and therefore a God.

I put out the 9% statistic, and how my opponent attempted to counter argue, was by saying that he wasn't listed. However, he was. I was referring to future markets who are completely unbiased and clearly include Paul. What my opponent did here, was to blankly utter out statements in which he had no idea what he was talking about. Don't do this again in the debate, or future debates. Please.

A note I'd like to point out at this time, is that my opponent has yet to address all but one of my five arguments. We are standing at a standstill because of this, and I do apologize for my short response.

This is where the debate stands:

� My opponent has failed to bring but one argument to the table, clearly defeated by the above.
� My opponent seems completely unaware of four of my beginning arguments. He appears to be stalling.
� Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn.
l2jperry

Pro

Since God has many definitions, and you did not clearly define what God was in this debate, I took it as I saw fit. For that reason, I don't need to respond to your points. I only needed to define the word God and put it to use in a way where Ron Paul can be a God. But because you are so insistent...

According to the Bible, Jesus and God are one.

1.)He was born to a mortal mother and father.

- Jesus was born to a mortal mother. (If you believe in Christianity)

2.) All of his awesome-ness, although hard to conceive, probably could be replicated by mortals.

- Jesus was mortal. Does a God necessarily have to be mortal? Again, it's open to interpretation.

3.)Although he has helped the creation of more than 4000 humans, there is no evidence that he ever did so solely on his own.

- This is if you believe in monotheism. Many people believe in Theism, in which case there are more than one God, each God representing different things. Not all God has to create human life. God of Water, God of Fire, God of War, God of the 2008 Presidential election, etc.

4.)How could he have created the universe before he was born.

Again, you clearly leave out the possibility in the belief of Theism. What about Greek Mythology where the God's where born from other God's after the creation of the world they lived in?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reference to you saying that "Ron Paul is the pwn." is to point out that you believe he is supreme as well as I.

As for opinion, I disagree, Opinion IS everything. There are many different beliefs about God and Religion. But that is an entirely different debate...

It is not a question of support, look at the the different religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Although they believe in the same God, they believe in different ways of worship, prophets, etc. Is one of them more right than the other because they garner the most support? I don't think so, it's a matter of a persons own belief. And if one wanted to believe in Theism, they could say that Ron Paul is the God of Freedom, Liberty, etc.

And for the polls, I do know what I am talking about because I have recieved phone calls as my mother is a registered Republican, they have listed Ron Paul as other! You did not state where you source for the poll was, therefore I can not be held responsible. In all though, it's irrevelant because the most support does not determine which God(s) is/are correct.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWO MORE THINGS:

YOUR TITLE FOR THIS DEBATE COUNTER YOUR POINTS, ALL YOUR REFERENCES POINT TO MONOTHEISM, BUT YOUR TITLE IS "RON PAUL IS A GOD." IF YOU HAD WANTED TO TALK ABOUT JUST ONE GOD, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID "RON PAUL IS GOD." YOU DIDN'T, THEREFORE THIS DEBATE SHOULD BE ABOUT THEISM.

I realize this is a silly debate, and Ron Paul wouldn't want to be referred to as a God. :). That is all. By the way, this is my first debate, so thank-you PoeJoe for the posts!
Debate Round No. 3
PoeJoe

Con

I'd love to go down paragraph by paragraph to analyze your response, and I will, but there are five main faults in your entire argument that I must point out first. They are as follows:

1) It is true that I did not define the word "God" in my first round, as you so kindly point out so many times. However, I do stick to your definition after your first definition. It is you who is flopping definitions in and out to help prove your point. Please stick to the definition that seems to be the most central in this debate.

2) Once agreeing upon our central definition of "a supreme being according to some particular conception", we can now see that Ron Paul must be "supreme", in order to be a God. Then looking at all the definitions of "supreme", we then realize that Ron Paul does not fit the criteria on many terms including his chances for becoming elected President of the United States of America.

3) It is true that opinion may add the sum to tip the scale, but what really matters is the base of the grains. By that I mean, if all professional debate were mostly dictated by opinion, then consensus would never be reached, and there would be no point in debating in the first place. Granted, this is not a professional debate, but it still holds true that you must lie on what is given: facts, statistics, evidence, etc. You say this is your first debate so it is decidedly pardonable, but remember this in the future.

4) The term for having many Gods is "polytheism", not "theism". The word "theism" leaves the amount of God(s), ambiguous. To get something so basic in a debate wrong show lack of research on the subject. It is not so that you shouldn't have taken this debate up, but perhaps one should have known what one was talking about. You showed lack of knowledge when it came to the odds Ron Paul, speaking blindly which one should never do, and now again, you get basic vocabulary wrong. This, unlike the above error I pointed out, is not forgivable. You must always know what you are talking about in a debate. Never speak blindly about something you do not know what you're talking about.

5) The title. My intention for this debate was humorously motivated. You know that. I wouldn't have used the 1337 word "pwn" if it weren't. Taking that into consideration, we now see it would have been rather odd for me to use the title, "Ron Paul is God". Would you rather tell your favorite athlete that he/she "is a God", or "is God"? This argument was not thoroughly thought out.

I now will seek to analyze your unformatted ramble out. But really, please format your arguments like I do. It leaves a better impression with the audience, and makes it easier for them to read. They already take their time reading it, and yet you won't even give them such a slight courtesy? How rude.

First paragraph:
This is one of the many times you are changing around the definition of the word "God", while I've stayed true to your original definition. It is quite confusing to read, and to keep track of what different definition you swap in and out. We have come to the sole definition of, "a supreme being according to some particular conception", so please stick with it.

Third-Fourth paragraph:
So I believe you are know flopping to the Christian God? Okay. Even still, Ron Paul had two mortal parents, not a single godly drop of blood in him. In Jesus' case, he was at least half God, and some would even argue up to full God. I ponder why you would want to flop to the Christian God, even when your point is completely baseless. 0% God, is a lot different from 50+%. Can you show me your math here?

Fifth-Sixth paragraph:
No, no, no. Jesus was ‘half' mortal. Using Princeton again, we see that there are just two main definitions (and more variations there of).

� person: a human being
� subject to death; "mortal beings"

Using the first definition, it is obvious that he was only half mortal, and using the second definition, it is obvious that he did die, but that could be explained by his half human side discovered by the first definition. Either way, Jesus was at least half un-mortal, therefore debunking your argument.

Seventh-Tenth paragraph:
You again seek to swap the definition of the word "God". It is impeccable that we stay with the central definition that we have decided on, and picked by you! I think we've gone over your misuse of tactic here to show your blatant incoherencies. Lets move on.

Eleventh paragraph:
What l2jperry is doing here is twisting around my words in his favor. This is downright wrong. Consensus has not been reached, and I never said that Ron Paul was supreme. That was part of my whole point! Ron Paul is not a God, because he is not supreme, because the definitions of supreme set up conditions where he would need to be at the highest rank, which he is obviously not, because of my 9% statistic, that my opponent blindly mistook, which he should never do in a debate, leading me on this rampant rant. Phew!

Twelfth-Sixteenth paragraph:
What my opponent does here, is accomplish three of his repetitive errors all at the same time. Not only does he state the all debate is all opinion, but he also misinterprets the title of this debate, while swapping the definition of the word "God" again! I don't need to go through these repetitive errors again, do I?

So that gets me back to be able to have my own arguments. They are summarized as follows:

1) For Ron Paul to be a God, upon our agreed definition, he must be supreme. Looking at the definitions of supreme, Ron Paul must not be supreme. To be supreme he must have be the "top ranked". This is obviously not so.

2) To be a God, he should be able to be on the top of the polls with a finger snap. It is most likely that if he was a God, he would snap his fingers to do so. This only implies that Dr. Ron Paul is not a God.

3) If Ron Paul was a God, he would be "top ranked", and therefore could have easily overturned "Roe vs. Wade". He has not done so either because he is a liar or not a God. I think both l2jperry and I could both agree that he is not a liar. Therefore he must not be a God.

This is where the debate has gone so far:

� My opponent has failed to bring but one argument to the table, clearly defeated by the above. All he has done so far, is just counter my many arguments, which again, by the above, still stand true.
� I have introduced two more arguments to the table, noting again that my opponent has but one.
� Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn, which by no means makes him a God.
l2jperry

Pro

I will try to more organized this time, I wasn't aware people took this website so seriously. My motivation is to gain some knowledge. Therefore I would appreciate it if you would stick to the arguments instead attacking myself or my debating style. Give me some credit for taking up this debate, I don't believe too many would have.

Now to go through the points you made against mine.

1. You say you stick to the definition after I had given one. Why do you then insist on me answering your first four points when 3 and 4 are related to monotheism? Especially when the definition I gave relates to the possibility of there being more than one God.

2. You say Ron Paul does not fit the criteria for supreme. I believe that this is where opinion comes into play. The definition I have for it is "2. of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc." (www.dictionary.com)To me, these are all opinions from an individual. Therefore it is up to the individual to determine what is supreme. A Fred Thompson supporter would believe Fred to be supreme. A Rudy fan would believe him to be supreme. That's just the way it goes.

3. Agreed for the most part. Evidence should be used, but they should be used to back up an opinion.

4. I apologize, polytheism would have been a better word to use, but theism isn't completely wrong, considering it can also mean polytheism or monotheism. Still, thank-you. I learned something new, which is my main motivation for being here. From now on, I will use the word polytheism to describe a belief in more than one God.

5. My only point for referring to the title was to show the lack of my ability to understand where to take the point because I couldn't tell what you were getting it. It wasn't clear whether you were talking about one god, or more than one.

As for your remarks about Jesus, I agree, but they do not matter because we are talking about polytheism.

IN CONCLUSSION:

I believe that it may be possible to distinguish Ron Paul as a God. My main reason for this is because people believe whatever they want to it when it comes to Gods and what is supreme. I would say that Ron Paul is the supreme candidate who represents freedom, liberty, and a limited government. And because those issues are important to myself, to me Ron Paul is the God of the 2008 Presedential Candidates.

TO THE AUDIENCE:

Sorry if the way I wrote my responses was deterring to you. That was definently not my intent. I apologize, seeing as how I was apparently being rude.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by deluvit 9 years ago
deluvit
I absolutely love this =]
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
No hard feelings. Good debate guys.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Dapperdan, thanks for your comments. I'll try to be less arogant in the future.
Posted by BrianFranklin 9 years ago
BrianFranklin
"In 1961, he attained a medical doctorate from Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, South Carolina."

LMAO, Duke is in NORTH Carolina!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
You weren't rude perry. Poejoe was. Your responses were organized. Poejoe's were not. *Casts Vote* Gj Pro.
Posted by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
This debate has made my day.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
The Pro is "pwning" right now. To be a God by ANY definition of god, is to be god. The pro has pointed out that Ron Paul could be considered the god of many things if viewed in a particular light, and I see no possible way to counterpoint that with the route the Con currently seems intent on taking.

Yes, I read the entire debate, this is no joke. There is absolutely no problem with him changing definitions around -- trying to point out his definition changing gets you nowhere, cite the above. Poejoe, stop considering yourself superior and stick to the debate. I feel the Pro has presented his arguments just as well as you have. Tell him how to debate somewhere else. Don't bother self-congratulating yourself at the end of every post -- let people take the debate for what it is, without your arrogant updates.

I also believe PoeJoe is completely messing up his definition of 'supreme' when using it as an argument.

"· greatest in status or authority or power
· highest in excellence or achievement
· greatest or maximal in degree; extreme"

Those are 3 [i]different[/i] definitions that can be used for supreme. Ron Paul would not need to fall into the category of all 3 of those definitions, just 1, to be supreme.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
HOLLYCRAP!!! SOMEONE TOOK THIS DEBATE UP!!!
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Here's some text so my comment is at least 25 characters long, even though all I wanted it to say was "Lol."
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
??? This is a really wierd debate.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by JOE76SMITH 9 years ago
JOE76SMITH
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by scottschilkey28 9 years ago
scottschilkey28
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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 
Vote Placed by richguy_69 9 years ago
richguy_69
PoeJoel2jperryTied
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