The Instigator
LandonWalsh
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Richard89
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Ron Paul is a better nominee than John McCain

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,745 times Debate No: 1638
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (19)

 

LandonWalsh

Pro

Both are veterans, both have military support, but I contest.
Ron Paul is a better republican nominee than John McCain.

(I want to debate scottberman this, but i'm already debating him i'll do so later... anyone else want to give it a try?)

I will use my positional statement as my opening argument and allow my opponent to go first. Good Luck.
Richard89

Con

Well for starters I would like to point out that I am not a supporter of either candidate, but I firmly believe that Ron Paul is the worst presidential candidate in the Republican Party for numerous reasons. However, I will try and narrow them down to some of the more condemnable ones.
Ron Paul is a turncoat Republican at best. He has betrayed his party and embraced ideas and positions ranging from liberal to radical. He ran against his own party in 1988 when he became the Libertarian presidential candidate while remaining a registered Republican. More recently he has gained support from both radical conservatives and mainstream Democrats for his opposition to the war on terror and the war in Iraq as well as his continued opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. In national debates he blames the U.S. for instigating acts of terror by its presence in the Middle East and basically calls terrorists freedom fighters in one debate. He also supports radical Isolationism and wants to abandon all U.S. bases around the world as well as severing all "entangling alliances." Something this man needs to realize is that trying to pacify terrorists is the last thing that will keep this country safe, and that withdrawing from the rest of the world will leave us more vulnerable than ever to terrorist attacks.
Here at home he has attempted to legalize hemp production and decriminalize drug use as well as abolishing the Federal Reserve and reinstating the use of the gold standard claiming that it represents stability for the economy when historically gold values have been anything but stable and although inflation is a serious problem gold is not the answer. To see for yourself I recommend looking at the gold values chart provided by Global Financial Data. There you will see that although gold has indeed gone through very short periods of level value it remains one of the most unstable sources of investment.
John McCain brings strong leadership qualities to the table with his strong stands on national security and foreign policy. I believe he has the determination and the experience needed to keep this country safe from our enemies. However, his main problem area rests in his rather weak position on immigration which has been a problem for Republicans for decades and for that reason I have decided I cannot support him. But let us not forget that one of the greatest Republican presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, made that same mistake. I will be looking forward to reading your response.
Debate Round No. 1
LandonWalsh

Pro

"Ron Paul is a turncoat Republican at best. He has betrayed his party and embraced ideas and positions ranging from liberal to radical."

Since when do we treat our political parties like tribes… They are political parties with political platforms. For one year Ron Paul left the Republican Party for the libertarian party, not because he has changed his views or beliefs… In fact, he has never changed his views or beliefs. His views are what the Republican party was founded on and it is this party that has betrayed its ideas and positions. Dr. Paul has not betrayed his party, his party has betrayed him and our country by embracing leftist big government, empire building, and aggressive war and occupation.

"More recently he has gained support from both radical conservatives and mainstream Democrats for his opposition to the war on terror and the war in Iraq as well as his continued opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act."

Radical conservatives? Social or Fiscal? I can tell you right now that radical social conservatism don't support Paul because Radical social conservatism is fascism. Radical Fiscal conservatives? You mean laissez faire Capitalists? Well, you caught me there, but why would laissez faire capitalists be against this war… Well, from a moral economic standpoint… maybe it is because theft through destructive global assertion… called Neo-Conservatism… That takes something good like capitalism and use twisted foreign policy to manipulate the foreign market, essentially stealing from other nations and using taxpayer dollars to accomplish these goals… It is the mixture of imperialism and crony-capitalism, (and crony-capitalism being a mixture of socialism and capitalism) commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, which tend to be more authoritarian than hard right.

And maybe the moderate Democrats are against this occupation because they fail to accept war propaganda, and because they see this war for what it truly is… Not a War on terror, but a War of Terror, and a war on American civil liberties here at home.

"In national debates he blames the U.S. for instigating acts of terror by its presence in the Middle East and basically calls terrorists freedom fighters in one debate."

No, he has said very plainly… our actions have consequences… Children understand this.

Seriously, watch this… www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgav80cpbg

"He also supports radical Isolationism"

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).

Ron Paul has supported a non-interventionist foreign policy not just because it is morally right and gives the best outcome, but because the founding fathers themselves advised it.

Managed trade is economic nationalism, protectionism, and selective isolationism (NAFTA, CAFTA, ect..)

"and wants to abandon all U.S. bases around the world as well as severing all "entangling alliances."

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.- George Washington

And with 9 trillion in debt, plus 56 trillion due in entitlements…. WHY THE **** do we have operational bases in France, Germany, and Korea.

"Something this man needs to realize is that trying to pacify terrorists is the last thing that will keep this country safe, and that withdrawing from the rest of the world will leave us more vulnerable than ever to terrorist attacks"

If that was true, then our actions would not of quadrupled terrorist recruiting.

"There you will see that although gold has indeed gone through very short periods of level value it remains one of the most unstable sources of investment."

Not in American markets because there is constant market tinkering and the price reflects that. Gold is and has always been one of the most boring investments and when not moved by currency inflation, moves a bit like wal-mart stock… And everyone knows how unstable wal-mart stock is… (Sarcasm) If gold was unstable, it wouldn't of been the world currency for 6000 years. You cannot ever manipulate the true value of gold, only the value of what it's exchanged for.

"John McCain brings strong leadership qualities to the table with his strong stands on national security and foreign policy. I believe he has the determination and the experience needed to keep this country safe from our enemies."

The only problem is, the true enemy is ourselves. No nation or terrorist has the power to destroy us, but the cost of the military expenditures abroad, coupled with 60 trillion in debt and entitlements will destroy this country, and Ron Paul is the only one willing to take drastic measures to keep that from happening.

"his rather weak position on immigration which has been a problem for Republicans for decades"

Agreed

"But let us not forget that one of the greatest Republican presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, made that same mistake."

Reagan was all talk and no show… although I don't blame him… he was good till he got shot… After he was shot he quickly turned into a big government republican.
Richard89

Con

I am not questioning his record. While I disagree with most of his positions I respect his consistency. However, I maintain that by choosing to run against his own party instead of running for it he did nothing less than attempt to undermine it. Though I agree(as would any Republican) that our government needs to be reduced, Ron Paul's reduction plan is nothing more than a massive government implosion. As to your claims of empire building, aggressive war, and occupation(a claim so common among Libertarians), they are completely unfounded. America has been attacked and she has responded defensively, but instead of waiting for them to attack us again we have brought the fight to their back yard(the "aggressive war" claim). Another deadly weapon we have brought against the terrorists is the spreading of freedom and democracy through regions where this concept was formerly unheard of(the "occupation" claim). I'm afraid I can't address your "empire building" claim as it is unclear what you are referring to. We are not expanding our nation, we are, however, creating new and better ones. We are not "asserting" our nation values "and they are definitely not "authoritarian". In fact these countries have gladly embraced this opportunity at a bright new beginning. Libertarians have sided with liberals to paint our efforts that keep this nation safe as darkly as possible and-more often than not-distort the truth to meet their own agendas.
"Maybe the moderate Democrats are against this occupation because they fail to accept war propaganda, and because they see this war for what it truly is… Not a War on terror, but a War of Terror."
Well, first of all I would like to point out that it is the liberals and not the moderates that speak out the loudest. Many moderates are in fact for the war on terror. A "war of terror"...I'm just not sure how to address this because not only is it a baseless claim but also highly offensive. It is something that should be expected out of the mouth of a brainwashed college student who believes in the 911 "cover-up", but not from one who claims the title of a Republican.

"He has said very plainly…our actions have consequences"
No, that is not all that he has said. If it were he would not be such a controversial figure. You may interpret it that way, but I suggest that you refer to the December 12th debate. Mr. Paul's arguments were particularly odious on this occasion.

"Ron Paul has supported a non-interventionist foreign policy not just because it is morally right and gives the best outcome, but because the founding fathers themselves advised it."
Well first off let me say that although I highly revere our founding fathers we must keep in mind that they were thinking in 18th century terms...not 21st century terms. In the modern world it would be impossible for America to simply withdraw into herself and watch world events unfold. Without our global presence terror cells would be able to thrive and prosper without fear of opposition. Isolationism also be a devastating blow to freedom around the world. Without the assurance of our aid many small democratic nations that have relied on our support would be quickly overcome by the tyrannical forces surrounding them.

"WHY THE **** do we have operational bases in France, Germany, and Korea."
Although I agree that we could easily afford to close several of our international bases(i.e. France), but other bases have proven crucial to us in both the war on terror(Germany) and providing support and training to one of our closest allies(Korea). Whether or not terrorists recruiting has increased or not I don't know, but I do know that we have not sustained another Islamic terrorist attack in this country since 911. I would say that that speaks rather well for our foreign policy. Pacification is NEVER the answer to terror.

To continue on the gold issue, however, we must first remember that gold is a commodity with an arbitrary value which is subject to manipulation as is any commodity. The price of gold rises and falls as it becomes dear or common, hoarded or circulated. Binding a nation's money to gold is to bind it to the fluctuations in volume and price. In the last three years alone gold has fluctuated within a $261 value spectrum. And finally, even if we were able to fix a gold price that is consistent with market values(a nearly impossible task in and of itself), it would be possible for the gold to be drained from reserve by demanding exchange of currency for gold. The U.S. Constitution allows the government to issue currency by fiat. This is a sound system as long as the volume of currency issued is carefully controlled to be directly proportionate to the nation's production. Unfortunately, the government has not kept to this system. if it had we would not be having such rapid inflation and would also most likely not be having this debate.

"No nation or terrorist has the power to destroy us, but the cost of the military expenditures abroad, coupled with 60 trillion in debt and entitlements will destroy this country, and Ron Paul is the only one willing to take drastic measures to keep that from happening."
I think you have far too much confidence in this nation's invulnerability. Major threats such as China, Iran, and even-to an extent-Russia would like nothing better than for us to retire into a shell of isolationism where we would be far more vulnerable to their unhealthy prospects for this nation. Ron Paul's strategies would leave this country's security in shambles.

"Reagan was all talk and no show"
Let's begin shall we? When Ronald Reagan took oath in January 1980 he inherited the disastrous remains of the Jimmy Carter administration, America was a declining power. In Central America, totalitarian allies of Fidel Castro had conquered Nicaragua. Abandoning their promises to protect civil liberty, the Sandinistas were creating a Stalinist state in which the Communist party would be the living god in the "liberation theology" of a servile state church. Other Communists were fighting a war for the same goal in Central America. In 1983, a hard-line Stalinist seized power in a coup in Grenada. Today, Thanks to Ronald Reagan, Latin America is freer than it has been since the days before the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Spanish Empire. Ronald Reagan was among the very few visionaries who foresaw a better world. Challenging the Soviets to an arms race, halting Soviet expansionism everywhere, and reasserting the moral superiority of freedom he destroyed the evil empire and liberated Europe from the oppressive Communist yoke. Reagan's most enduring success was in tax policy. When he took office, the top federal tax rate was 70%-a rate sure to discourage entrepreneurship by unfairly confiscating well over half the earnings of creative risk-takers. Reagan left office having lowered the top rate to 28%. Government control of political speech in the media in the form of the "fairness doctrine" was abolished, allowing AM radio stations to begin employing hosts who specialized in political commentary. During his time in office Reagan turned the Republican Party into a conservative party, although I'm afraid many Republicans seem to have lost their way. Reagan left us a legacy of conservative values and American freedoms that we still enjoy today, and I am proud to call myself a Reagan conservative.
Debate Round No. 2
LandonWalsh

Pro

LandonWalsh forfeited this round.
Richard89

Con

Well, I guess you just weren't able to get back with me. However, if you wish to continue this debate where we left off I am more than willing to take it up again. If not then I hope you will reconsider your position on Ron Paul. He is a man that endangers this country by embracing ideas that - while possibly beneficial for this country in 1789 - are radically incompatible with 2008.
GOD BLESS
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
Of course we should be anti-war. That is not the issue. I don't think any American loves war, but we have been attacked. We are not the aggressors, Islamic radicals are. So would you suggest that we just sit around waiting for the next attack? Our actions so far have kept this country safe. And because of this fact many people don't seem to realize that we are truly AT WAR. We go about our lives the same as we did before the attacks and never stop to think why it is that we are able to live in such security? Because of the peace this country enjoys some have turned on the Bush administration and accuse him of waging a war of greed and personal interest instead of necessity. The most common claim now is that we went into Iraq for the oil. America seems to have severe short term memory loss. I think it would do everyone a lot of good to watch the 911 attacks again. Maybe it would help refresh their memory on why we are really over there.
Posted by SirJDCroix 9 years ago
SirJDCroix
"...War and Revolution are always bad business."

- Ludwig von Mises

A true conservative is always anti-war, since war is simply the destruction of natural resources and channels from which trade and business can be conducted.

War only serves to expand the total breadth of the State.
Posted by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
Sorry about that man... I've been away for a while. (I run 4 meetups for Ron Paul in Arkansas) If I can find some more time I definatly want to finnish this out.
Posted by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
The only problem with that, Statesman, is that Communist Russia never attacked us or else we would have gone to war. Radical Islam has declared war on us and has attacked us. We have taken the only possible course. I would also point out that this is a war unlike any other in our history and, therefore, requires different strategies. However, I don't want to get into a miniature debate down here as it seems to violate web policy.
Posted by Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
Oh, I forgot. Ron Paul for President 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
Reagan was a great president as you pointed out Richard89. However, I think that you miss the point that bringing down the Soviet Union, the greatest accomplishment attributed to Reagan, was not done through war. It was done by building up U.S. defense here at home and letting communism run it's natural course. Which is what we should do in the Middle East. Stand back and let radical Islam destroy itself.
Posted by GeoffG 9 years ago
GeoffG
Deathnote, are you a Truther?
Posted by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
Yeah RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]TION!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]T
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ally93 9 years ago
ally93
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 FreedomPete 9 years ago
FreedomPete
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 Chickago 9 years ago
Chickago
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
LandonWalshRichard89Tied
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