The Instigator
TheParadox
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Ron Paul is the best candidate in the current GOP race.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,232 times Debate No: 17386
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

TheParadox

Pro

Resolved: Ron Paul is the best candidate in the current GOP race (for the 2012 presidential election).

Rules:
  • I am giving CON some leeway for his/her argument. CON can either propound on the faults of Ron Paul's policies, OR compare him to another candidate in the current GOP race.
  • If CON is going to compare Ron Paul to another GOP candidate, he/she must be in this list:
Mitt Romney / Herman Cain / Tim Pawlenty / Rick Santorum / Newt Gingrich/ Michele Bachmann / Sarah Palin / Rick Perry


Definition of "best": ...that Ron Paul's policies will be better than those of other candidates in helping America recover and thrive.

I look forward to an excellent, informative debate.


thett3

Con

Accepted. Good luck to my Opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
TheParadox

Pro

I look forward to a good debate, CON.
** If CON could clarify whether or not he will be comparing Ron Paul to another GOP candidate in the race or find faults with his policy, that would be great.

• Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is ultimately the best for America.

All of his colleagues in the GOP race supports an interventionist policy one way or another when it comes to foreign relations. In the CNN GOP Debate that took place in June of 2011 @ New Hampshire (link included), when Ron Paul was asked about his unique view of pulling out of Middle East, he gave a comparison to China. Right now, China is investing in various nations around the world to build basic infrastructure (prominently in African nations) in exchange for oil deals. Yet, America is acting unnecessarily as the self-proclaimed police of the world. After spending billions per year in this volatile region, what have we truly achieved? Tens of thousands of civilian deaths, injuries, and refugees. Further political instability. Aggravating the terrorist threat. A plethora of American soldiers dead.

I agree - the US should selflessly be involved in a war if it will ultimately save more lives than kill, and if its pros will outweigh the cons. Unfortunately, this war in Middle East is qualified for neither requirements of a just war. And now, President Obama has recklessly jumped into Libya - without congressional (and thus, constitutional) approval.

Ron Paul's message is a comprehensive one: "Pull out of the region, and focus getting our own nation back on track." If we are going to efficaciously assist these nations gain independence, we must do so after achieving domestic stability. It is time America takes off the police badge for awhile, and realize that there is a superabundance of problems at home that needs to be dealt with - immediately. Focus on getting the $1.3 trillion dollar debt reduced; stop outsourcing and recover American jobs; and make our economy thrive once again.

• Ron Paul is a politician of integrity and honesty, and is not a facile, hypocritical one like the rest of the GOP candidates.

Here is a short (but meaningful) video that reveals the hypocritical, equivocal nature of the forerunner, Mitt Romney. For instance, he says that he is strictly "pro-life," but in another advertisement, he claims that abortions should be legal and safe in the US.


Here is Tim Pawlenty's public denunciation of "Romneycare" and Mitt Romney himself:

Yet, when he was asked to expound on his criticism of Romneycare in the New Hampshire debate, he made a flagrant sidestep, avoiding the question.

Michele Bachmann's asinine rhetoric - including claiming that America is heading towards a "gangster government" and that "not all cultures are equal." ** As an important note, this woman believes that creationism should be taught in school alongside evolution.


Herman Cain firmly states that he will not hire an Islam to his cabinet if he becomes elected as the President. His reasoning - Islam and Sharia law do not belong in the American government, quote "just like Christianity." Yet, this man has said that America can recover "if we believe in God" in his own announcement for the presidential bid:


Check Ron Paul's voting records, and you will see that he has persistently defended his ideologies and political stances throughout his 12 terms in the Congress. Whether you agree or disagree with Paul's views, you should respect him for his political honesty - something that is missing in the other candidates, who either flip-flop or repudiate their views entirely just to procure more votes.

• Ron Paul is a champion of the Constitution.

It always flummoxed me that both parties love to flaunt their efforts to guard the Constitution - yet Dr. Paul has been considered a "fringe candidate." The Constitution is quite simple - it is a layout for the American government to follow, and it has proved itself valuable - after all, America has become the #1 nation in the world. So what is so confusing about following it? For instance, limited federal government. The Constitution gives powers that haven't been exclusively assigned to the Federal government to the state government. This means - gay marriage, prostitution, drug use - all of them should be voted on by the constitutents of the state. The government does not have the powers to decide these matters. Keep the government out of personal liberties!
Another interesting fact is that Ron Paul is the only politician who seems to value liberty. America was founded on liberty. It was built upon this freedom - freedom from Anglicianism and monarchy of the Great Britain. Ron Paul promotes fundamental liberties that all people deserve. Unless the Founding Fathers were seriously misguided, freedom leads to happiness.


• Ron Paul has a comprehensive illegal immigration policy, while other GOP candidates do not.

It is ineluctable that all GOP candidates support reducing the number of illegal ailens in these nation and keeping them out. The problem is - how? All others except Ron Paul cannot offer a comprehensive policy, except deportation. However, Dr. Paul's policy is simple and likely to be efficient: eradicate amnesty for illegal immigrants. Right now, America spends billions on providing health care, education, public services, social security, and welfare to illegals. As well, they are given jobs - something 13 million unemployed Americans would like very much. Dr. Paul says:get rid of all of them! Stop the welfare. Stop allowing employers to hire them - and make the penalty more severe. Spending millions on building a border and hiring more "advanced security systems" will be futile effort unless America deracinates amnesty.

There are no other GOP candidates who hold such a clear-cut plan to mitigate the illegal immigrant conundrum.


----------------------
For these reasons, I strongly urge that voters vote PRO, and support Ron Paul for 2012.

I look forward to CON's argument.






thett3

Con

For clarification, I will NOT be comparing Ron Paul to another candidate, rather, I am showing how his policies are not in the best interests of the United States.

**Note, some of my Contentions seem to condradict yours, I am not refuting your case yet.

=Case=

C1. Ron Paul's isolationist policy would destroy U.S. hegemony.

Ron Paul has a strict isolationist policy, advocating bringing our troops home from all parts of the world and not getting into pre-emptive warfare.[1] While this sounds compelling to begin with, in todays world it simply is not feasible. Indeed when the U.S. had an isolationist stance (Pre-WW1, and between the wars) it was mostly a self sufficient country who neither relied on the world for anything, nor was relied on. By the contary, today the U.S. is the worlds sole superpower, a net oil importer, a net importer in general, and the U.S. military is the most used by the United Nations for peacekeeping. In his book, Brzezinski writes:

"The combination of oil and volatility gives the United States no choice. America faces an awesome challenge in helping to sustain some degree of stability among precarious states inhabited by increasingly politically restless, socially aroused, and religiously inflamed peoples. It must undertake an even more daunting enterprise than it did in Europe more than half a century ago, given a terrain that is culturally alien, politically turbulent, and ethnically complex. In the past, this remote region could have been left to its own devices. Until the middle of the last century, most of it was dominated by imperial and colonial powers. Today, to ignore its problems and underestimate its potential for global disruption would be tantamount declaring an open season for intensifying regional violence, region-wide contamination by terrorist groups, and the competitive proliferation of weaponry of mass destruction." [2].

Indeed the U.S. now has no choice but to intervene sometimes to protect its interests. Furthermore, the U.S. is seen as an unbeatable military power to the world, to totally withdraw from every nation around the world would not only destroy that image, it would also destroy much of the truth to it. Think about it, how much easier would the second world war have been to fight if we already had troops stationed all over the world ready to respond at a moments notice?

I reserve the right to bring in more evidence and arguments for this point.

C2. Under Ron Pauls leadership, nothing would get done.

SPA: Ron Paul's positions have little support among politicians.

Although this is a hypothetical resolution, reality still applies to it. So even if, by some miracle, Ron Paul managed to be elected president of the United States, he would have very little ability to achieve his goals. Indeed, he clashes with his own (Republican) party on many major issues, such as interventionism, capital punishment, Marijuana, same sex marriage, prostitution, and even opposed the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden which had huge support among both parties, and the public.[1] For these reasons, much of what Ron Paul wants done will be rejected by the Republicans in Congress. As for the Democrats, Dr. Paul disagrees with them on many issues as well such as immigration, abortion, taxation, and social security. So his goals would not be supported by the Democrats. He also has many obscure and unorthodox opinions supported by practically no one, like his support for a return to the Gold standard[3], which is completely infeasible not only because there is only about 5-7 trillion dollars worth of Gold in existence (158,000 tonnes)[4], but even if the Gold standard WAS possible, it wouldn't be possible in the United States due to Dollar hegemony and the vast amount of USD reserves away from our shores.

SPB: Ron Paul would veto too many bills to make true progress.

Ron Paul adheres very strictly to the Constitution, indeed he states that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." [1]. While this sounds at first like an excellent position to have, we live in a world that our founders could not have even imagined. While we surely should not do anything prohibited by the Constitution, sometimes we are faced with choices that our founders could not have even have imagined, and in a Common-law society like ours anything that is not prohibited is permitted.

C3. Ron Paul is too old.

This point is self explanatory, so I'll make it short. If Ron Paul won the election, he would be 77 years old in 2013. The average lifespan for a white male in the U.S. is 75.3 years.[5].

C4. Ron Paul would be disliked by the rest of the world.

Of course we must put the United States first, but Ron Paul takes this to the extreme, advocating a withdraw from all international organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, and the International Criminal court. The U.S. is currently the sole superpower, and a rapid withdraw would greatly upset the balance of power in the world (if my Opponent disputes this I will go into more detail later.) and while we must put our own interests first, it is not in our best interest to antagonize the rest of the world.

I negate the resolved and look forward to my Opponents reply.

=Sources=

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership
3. http://www.nytimes.com...
4. http://www.coinweek.com...
5. http://aging.senate.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
TheParadox

Pro

TheParadox forfeited this round.
thett3

Con

I'm going to do a very quick refutation of his case.

Non-intervenionism


This directly condradicts my first contention, so if my Opponent decides to not forfiet and actually debate than I feel this will become a very important part of the debate.

So now I'll point out the flaws in his reasoning. Firstly, he's comparing the U.S. to China saying "China is investing in various nations around the world to build basic infrastructure (prominently in African nations) in exchange for oil deals. Yet, America is acting unnecessarily as the self-proclaimed police of the world." He has provided absolutely no evidence for this comparison, but let's assume it's true. My Opponent clearly does not realizethat A) China has very little power projection, even if they wanted to intervene militarily it could not. and B) the kind of intervention China is doing is still intervention, with Ron Paul we wouldn't be doing it. He also makes a pretty common statement about the U.S. acting as the "self-proclaimed police of the world." First, almost all U.S. military actions in recent years have been UN sactioned, and even more have been multilateral actions! This is just an anti-american slur that has no justification to back it up.

"what have we truly achieved?" Two pro-western democracies in the islamic world, tousands of terroists dead, al-queda crippled, Osama Bin Laden killed, increased infrastructure in two poor countries, and increased U.S. hegemony by detering Iran. You mean besides all that?

"Further political instability" I am not sure what my Opponent is trying to say, but if he's referring to the recent democracies uprisings in the islamic world, that greatly benefits us, and them. So he's conceded that the USA was involved in this, now he must explain why democracy is a bad thing.

I agree that the Libyan war is unconstitutional, however that is the actions of President Obama, a democrat. Furthermore, while this wouldn't happen with Paul in charge, much worse things would.

My Opponent condradicts himself here, stating that we must "Pull out of the region, and focus getting our own nation back on track." Yet he then says that we must "If we are going to efficaciously assist these nations gain independence, we must do so after achieving domestic stability." ...so what he's saying is that we SHOULDN'T withdraw until the job is done? I agree, we shouldn't. Ron Paul disagrees. This statement supports my side.

"It is time America takes off the police badge for awhile," More unfounded anti-american rhetoric.

"Focus on getting the $1.3 trillion dollar debt reduced; stop outsourcing and recover American jobs; and make our economy thrive once again." I agree these are problems that must be addressed, but I don't see how securing U.S. interests abroad harms this. Seems like it would help it to me. Furthermore, I don't think Ron Paul would be good for the economy because of his obscure economic beliefs (like Gold standard, and doing away with the federal reserve.).

My Opponent attacks the other GOP candidates, but since I've chosen the route of attacking Paul's positions, I feel absolutely no need to respond.

"Whether you agree or disagree with Paul's views, you should respect him for his political honesty" I should, and I do, but that doesn't mean he would be a good president.

Constitution

"For instance, limited federal government. The Constitution gives powers that haven't been exclusively assigned to the Federal government to the state government." Like it or not, (and I certainly do not like it) since the war between the states, the federal government has increased its power to a huge degree. Since WWII, it has increased even more. We long ago reached the point where states were not independant anymore, and we cannot go back.

Gay marriage is aready decided on by the States. The Federal Government did pass the Defense of Marriage act, recognizing marriage as one man and one woman, but this is only because the federal government provides benefits to married couples. States can, and some do, decide to give marriage to homosexuals.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to regulate commerce. Prositution and drug trafficking are both commerce.

Immigration

My Opponents whole statement here is flawed. He states how Ron Paul (and apparently Ron Paul alone) doesn't support paying healthcare and education to illegals. No one does. The problem is, it's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a legitimate immigrant, and an illegal, and no one wants to exclude immigrants from these programs. He states that Ron Paul will somehow cause a mircale and keep illegals from flooding our borders, reducing the need for a border fence. 1. As long as there is work here, Mexicans will come and try to get it. 2. As long as there are drug users here, Mexican drug cartels will continue to cross the border to secure their interests.

Extend all arguments, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
TheParadox

Pro

TheParadox forfeited this round.
thett3

Con

Why does this always happen? Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheParadox 6 years ago
TheParadox
Oops, I guess the link didn't come out right.
Here's the video of a brief interview of Herman Cain, where he states that he will not feel comfortable hiring an Islam to his cabinet, if elected as the POTUS:
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
in my second round, presuming I still have characters can I refute your case?
Posted by TheParadox 6 years ago
TheParadox
I can't seem to edit my debate. I forgot to add the Debate Set-Up:
Debate Set-Up:

Round 1 - Acceptance of Debate (No arguments/contentions)

Round 2 - Constructive Speech

Round 3 - Rebuttal

Round 4 - Rebuttal / Conclusion (No new contentions)

Thanks.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
TheParadoxthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Heg Impact. Nuff said. : )
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
TheParadoxthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
TheParadoxthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunate forfeit, it would have been a good debate.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 years ago
ApostateAbe
TheParadoxthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
TheParadoxthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff