The Instigator
b3rk
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Ron Paul will be elected President of the United States in 2008.

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: 5/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,904 times Debate No: 4034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (16)

 

b3rk

Con

Ok, so I live in North Carolina, a state that as you all know just finished with its primaries. Of course, the primaries didn't really matter anyway, because John McCain has officially secured enough delegates that, barring a major felony arrest and/or death, he WILL be the republican Nominee, according to party rules.

Thing is that before, during, and after the primaries, continuing until today, there are plenty of unshaven weirdos hanging around intersections holding giant "RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT '08" signs. I even saw a guy whose ENTIRE HOUSE WAS COVERED IN THEM!

I'm already pretty confident that these people are crazy. Ron Paul has been mathematically eliminated from the Nomination process, and according to supreme court precedent that means he is not allowed to get on the ballot as an independent either. This means his only chance is the write-in vote. However this cannot occur in any of the following states

ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, INDIANA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPI, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WYOMING

because these states either don't allow write-ins or the deadline for filing has passed.

So, I want to debate someone who thinks that, assuming of course that John McCain will live through the election at least, Ron Paul will be elected. The burden will be on them to demonstrate that all the people who are still campaigning for Paul aren't complete crackpots.
libertarian

Pro

The people who are still campaigning for Ron Paul are very excited about the candidate. The entire Libertarian, especially, likes Ron Paul. The nomination is still very possible to be opened up. If you're forgetting, John McCain is old. He refuses to release his medical records and has constantly avoided the questions with postponements. It is very likely that John McCain, the oldest candidate in all of US history to be nominated, will (unfortunately) die before the convention. Old people die. It's just what they do. McCain will die before the convention of some horrible disease. Period. It is more likely for him to do than to not die by my calculations. He has and/or had skin cancer. It came back once (or more) already. He refuses to release his medical records, which leads me and many other Americans to believe he has a disease. If John McCain does not die before the convention, I will be a lot more surprised than if he survives that long. McCain will die and the nomination will be opened back up.

Huckabee is a loony tune who once had a chance at winning but annoyed the party by staying in so long and proved that he cared more about himself than the Republican Party. Republicans will not elect him now.

Romney has proved to be a quitter by quitting so early and the party will not nominate a quitter against a fighter like Hillary or Obama.

Giuliani will not get nominated because of his poor political strategies.

Thompson will be the only formidable candidate against Paul.

But the Libertarian Party will use all its resources to get Paul in office. The Republican Party wants and needs a moderate Republican, which is proved by the McCain nomination. So they'll pick Ron Paul, who is great on fiscal conservativeness. Paul will be able to argue that they need a fiscal conservative during a recession that can transcend party lines. He will be nominated. And can move onto to compete against the Republican nominee.
Debate Round No. 1
b3rk

Con

I'm very disappointed, Libertarian, that you didn't even read my opening argument.

You said:
"If you're forgetting, John McCain is old. He refuses to release his medical records and has constantly avoided the questions with postponements. It is very likely that John McCain, the oldest candidate in all of US history to be nominated, will (unfortunately) die before the convention."

But in defining the terms for this debate, I clearly said:
"I want to debate someone who thinks that, assuming of course that John McCain will live through the election at least, Ron Paul will be elected."

Clearly, you should never have accepted this debate.

However, I'll address what you said anyway, just for the sake of argument.
"McCain will die and the nomination will be opened back up."
McCain may have had cancer, but not everyone who has cancer ends up dying from it, especially if they have already survived it once. Skin cancer is one of, if not the, most common type of cancer, and hundreds of thousands of people have lived healthy lives after beating it.
As for not publishing his medical records, why would he? He isn't required to, and the only people asking him to are people like you who want him dead. I don't think I would publish all my personal records in those circumstances either. I don't think Paul published his records, although of course he IS a doctor (lol) so I guess he might know better than the American Public. Hmm, I wonder if John McCain has a good doctor?
Oh yeah, and he also survived five years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton. I know he must be really stressed out, what with all the competition he's facing for the republican nomination from Mr. Paul, but I'm pretty sure he can make it through another three months at least.
All in all, the chances seem much greater that a crazy Ron Paul zealot will assassinate him. So, assuming that happens...

"Huckabee is a loony tune who once had a chance at winning but annoyed the party by staying in so long"
Ron Paul has stayed in much longer, and I don't think Huckabee is commonly perceived as being that much more Loony than he is. Either way, I believe the Huck still has more delegates, and he has Chuck Norris.

"Romney has proved to be a quitter by quitting so early and the party will not nominate a quitter against a fighter like Hillary or Obama."
Wait, so if you quit too early, you're a quitter, if you stay in until you're mathematically eliminated, then you stayed too long and you're selfish, but if you stay in long after the majority of the delegates have voted for other candidates, you win? That logic may seem sound to you, but I think you might be affected by a little thing called the "self-serving bias".

Anyway, Romney still has more delegates than Paul, so the convention would be inclined to choose him first.

"Giuliani will not get nominated because of his poor political strategies."
Ok, maybe, but he STILL got way more votes than Dr. Paul in the states, and was at one point considered a front runner. Paul has never gotten that much support, anywhere.

"Thompson will be the only formidable candidate against Paul."
Um, no. Thompson was never a formidable opponent against anyone. I do believe, though, that he would still win over Paul just through name recognition.

"But the Libertarian Party will use all its resources to get Paul in office."
Well, if the Libertarian party has so many "resources" then why didn't Ron run as a registered Libertarian? He would have a much better chance of getting on the Ballot that way. Truth is, though, that he didn't, because he knew would still lose to a Republican, which demonstrates why he will never get the nomination over a prominent party member.

"The Republican Party wants and needs a moderate Republican, which is proved by the McCain nomination. So they'll pick Ron Paul, who is great on fiscal conservativeness. Paul will be able to argue that they need a fiscal conservative during a recession that can transcend party lines."

The thing is that Ron Paul isn't really that moderate; he and his supporters are very radical. In fact, the only reason he still has any support is because many conservatives are afraid to go with a moderate like McCain.

However, this support is so negligible that even here in the North Carolina primary, which really had no impact on the election and thus had a ridiculously low turnout, Paul didn't even come close to winning any delegates. If he can't even drum up support among people that supposedly share most of his beliefs, how is he ever going to "transcend party lines"?

"He will be nominated. And can move onto to compete against the Republican nominee."
I'll assume you meant to say the Democratic nominee... I don't think you're THAT crazy. Anyway, to win this argument you have to actually explain how he will BEAT the democratic nominee as well.

So, in conclusion, my opponent has GIVEN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that RP can be elected without McCain's death. Even if McCain dies, he hasn't given adequate justification why Paul would be chosen before the two other candidates that have more delegates than him. And even if Paul gets the nomination, my opponent has not given any reasons why RP would beat the democrats in the general election.

Although I admit this topic was one-sided from the beginning, I did accept the possibility that there might be some esoteric way I was unaware of that RP could become the president. If there is one, though, my opponent certainly has not brought it up, and thus I urge you all to make the obvious choice and vote con.
libertarian

Pro

Okay. I am prepared to debate this. I will continue my arguments about the obvious death and present new arguments.

I. Why You Cannot Choose The Other Debater's Argument (Even Pre-Debate)
You CANNOT choose the other person's arguments. My opponent tries to tell you and I that he doesn't want to face or doesn't think he can beat John McCain's death arguments. Well, he can't decide my argument. If this was so, every debater would do this. They would run any plan and simply say they don't want to hear winning arguments and list the arguments. All of debate would turn into this where the first debater would say what he didn't want to hear. Imagine if Bush before press conferences said "I don't want to hear that the economy is bad." I think by now we all agree on the fact that no debater can decide what arguments he wants run. That is just too much courtesy.

II. The Inevitable Death

Opponent>>> McCain may have had cancer, but not everyone who has cancer ends up dying from it, especially if they have already survived it once. Skin cancer is one of, if not the, most common type of cancer, and hundreds of thousands of people have lived healthy lives after beating it.
Me>>> Not everyone after falling off of a building, or being in a fiery plane crash dies either. But here is a guy who won't tell us about his health and is super old. Any bloke with common sense will presume that John McCain will die, especially if he has cancer, that came back, is old and won't tell us about his health.

Opponent>>> As for not publishing his medical records, why would he? He isn't required to
Me>>> As a political candidate, you are expected to show thee records unless you have something to hide. Hillary hid her tax records and we found dirty money and a lot of money generally after claiming to connect so well with the poor. McCain is hiding his medical records because he is hiding something. He obviously has no provacy issues. He's running for president and showed his tax records.

Opponent>>> Ron Paul has stayed in much longer [than Huckabee]
Me>>> But he got so much attention about how long he stayed in, the GOP is sick of him.

Opponent>>> Either way, I believe the Huck still has more delegates, and he has Chuck Norris.
Me>>> There are a lot of races left in the Republican Party. A lot of ways to overtake the Huck, who the GOP is sick of.

Opponent>>> Wait, so if you quit too early, you're a quitter, if you stay in until you're mathematically eliminated, then you stayed too long and you're selfish, but if you stay in long after the majority of the delegates have voted for other candidates, you win?
Me>>> No. That's not what I said. All things should be in moderation. Romney quit WAY too early back in February. Huckabee quit way too late.

Opponent>>> Giuliani has a lot of votes.
Me>>> HA! Who is stupid enough to choose a political candidate who can't play politics well? Would you choose a baby to be on your football team? If they can't play, don't pick them. And you keep making the same arguments. Come up with something better.

Opponent>>> Um, no. Thompson was never a formidable opponent against anyone. I do believe, though, that he would still win over Paul just through name recognition.
Me>>> You conceed that Thompson is not even a factor. But Paul will beat him in a race between the two because they've decided on a moderate Republican.

Opponent>>> Well, if the Libertarian party has so many "resources" then why didn't Ron run as a registered Libertarian?
Me>>> The Republican Party has more resources than the LP. The LP has little resources compared to the GOP, but if they build their resources. Two sources telling you the same thing: VOTE PAUL!!! will ultimately decide the better choice in the vast majority of voter's minds. And both their resources combined, the second and third biggest parties will sweep the nation!!!

Opponent>>> The thing is that Ron Paul isn't really that moderate; he and his supporters are very radical. In fact, the only reason he still has any support is because many conservatives are afraid to go with a moderate like McCain.
Me>>> This is a ridiculous statement! Paul is a Libertarian first. He believes in liberal social issues. Show me some proof showing Paul not being a moderate and PLEASE some proof of his supporters making assumptions. If you want to win this debate, stop making assumptions and tell the truth.

Opponent>>> If he can't even drum up support among people that supposedly share most of his beliefs, how is he ever going to "transcend party lines"?
Me>>> NC is one of the worst states for Paul! What views do they share?

Opponent>>> Anyway, to win this argument you have to actually explain how he will BEAT the democratic nominee as well.
Me>>> Paul is a fiscal conservative in a recession with Democratic influences culturally while supporting many smart economic plans.

III. McCain's Inevitable Felony
Politicians commit crimes on the time. Whether political or not. McCain has committed a crime and WILL commit another.
A. The first crime will be an affair that was commited to a lobbyist. There is strict evidence for this as I will present. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
First, the day the affair broke, McCain was avoiding reporters, which is uncharacteristic. A story has broken about McCain not voting for Bush, which is ridiculous considering his extensive campaign work for Bush. He chuckles when asked questions about it. He avoids no questions about it. Secondly, he lied about the true story. One day in September of 2002 he admitted that the lobbyist called him about the FCC but in 2008 he said the exact opposite that he never spoke to Paxton about the FCC. Thirdly, the paper that broke the story says that they have all the facts and stood by it. Fourthly, in his 2000 campaign, his staff is on record telling him to distance himself from her during the campaign. If nothing was going on between them why would the campaign be so worried? It is evident that the affair is true.
B. He has a raging temper. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
McCain has been on record as having a raging temper. He even conceeded it in his book. He said 'My temper shows when people insult my dignity and honor.' This is bound to happen in a general election. He is also on record as holding grudges. He can let his temper loose at anytime on any person.
C. John McCain will be charged with a felony before November 7th!!!

IV. Paul will win
- Ron Paul has the support of two parties!
- His other opponents are unformiddable as I explained in section II.
- McCain will loose the nomination soon, inevitably.
- Paul is a conservative on fiscal matters when the recession is the number 1 issue. Why would America vote for somebody who is the #16 most liberal senator and does not have sensible economic plans compared to Paul's? America has outlined their number 1 concern: the recession.

Please vote for the better debater
Debate Round No. 2
b3rk

Con

b3rk forfeited this round.
libertarian

Pro

Even though my case may seem less likely at a glance, I've proven that is not only likely, but inevitable for Ron Paul to be the president in 2008. I've proven why people would suddenly vote for him, that John McCain will die, which is a valid argument, and that he will get a felony. These are inevitable. Paul will be president in 2008. And my opponent has conceeded the final round after seeing my newest arguments. My case is more logical, and frankly inevitable.

Vote PRO for the better debater!
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Because I have a life. And I also don't care. Plus, I'm also right, and I know that neither you nor any other libertarian on this site will except the truth. I know after this you're going to post another dumb comment about why you believe I'm wrong, and that's fine, but I'm removing this from my watchlist, so forgive me if I don't bother to read it or reply.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Libertarians are not apathetic. They are people who have researched this third party. Democrats and Republicans are often apathetic and go by whatever they hear from friends and relatives and pay little attention. If these people did care, a lot more of them would be Libertarian.

If my form of debate is useless, why have you lost?

And why have you declined my debate challenge(s) if you're so confident?
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Be accountable! You lost! Despite how noble you are with your own vote [which you could have used or not]! A win is a win and therefore:

A LOSS IS A LOSS!!!
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I've taken this topic into a debate resolution:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Also, BTW... Libertarian views aren't popular because Libertarianism is correct on everything. They are popular because most people are apathetic. Most people in America live their lives without ever leaving their home state- they have no sense of proportion or economy, so it makes sense that they wouldn't want to contribute to or aid a federal government that, if they are lucky, will never interact with them personally. Don't inject your personal views into a debate on political philosophy; generalizations are generally useless.
Posted by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Wow. I love how cocky you're getting about this debate...
I forfeited a round, and you're still only winning by two votes, one of which is of course your own. I have not voted for myself yet (I never do). Anyway, I have time issues right now, and I'll debate you when my life slows down a bit. You'll have to find someone else to pontificate to until I get back :)
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
I second that notion......................
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I believe most republicans and democrats are closer to libertarians than they are to thier own party. Most sensible democrats are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Most sensible republicans fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If everyone vvoted their beliefs instead of their parties, I believe the Libertarians would be able to take 2/3 of each party. Most democrats aren't for socialism, but freedom of lifestyle. Most conservatives aren't for telling you what you can do in your bedroom, but for keepin government small and taxes low.

"Stay out of my personal life AND out of my wallet" is the only position consistant with personal freedom. It resonates with most democrats and most republicans.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I believe most republicans and democrats are closer to libertarians than they are to thier own party. Most sensible democrats are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Most sensible republicans fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If everyone vvoted their beliefs instead of their parties, I believe the Libertarians would be able to take 2/3 of each party. Most democrats aren't for socialism, but freedom of lifestyle. Most conservatives aren't for telling you what you can do in your bedroom, but for keepin government small and taxes low.

"Stay out of my personal life AND out of my wallet" is the only position consistant with personal freedom. It resonates with most democrats and most republicans.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Libertarians should not be the only party, but they should be a major party in the United States. They are right almost 100% on issues. I'm not crazy. The two party system, with two equal parties that constantly disagree and do nothing for the American people-- that's crazy! If you want to debate with me on ANY Libertarian issue, I will debate you and win. Just look at this debate.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
b3rklibertarianTied
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 Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
b3rklibertarianTied
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 Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
b3rklibertarianTied
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 timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
b3rklibertarianTied
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 revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
b3rklibertarianTied
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 cheezhero 8 years ago
cheezhero
b3rklibertarianTied
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 b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
b3rklibertarianTied
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 cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
b3rklibertarianTied
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 GenEd 8 years ago
GenEd
b3rklibertarianTied
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 Smartboy105 8 years ago
Smartboy105
b3rklibertarianTied
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