The Instigator
giuocob
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
vasilicus
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points

Should Mike Huckabee not be allowed to be President because he is an ordained minister?

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: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,513 times Debate No: 549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (12)

 

giuocob

Con

Just because Mike Huckabee is a minister doesn't mean he will let strongly Christian views influence his policy making. Many Presidents have been strongly Christian and not had their religion have a strong effect.
vasilicus

Pro

First, Mike Huckabee has stated that *blind* faith plays a very very important role in his decision making. It played an important enough role that he gave up a large part of his life to become a minister, why would he tone it down just because he's president? Many presidents in the past have let their religious views influence their decision making, although the stresses and powers of the presidency were not as great as they are now. But Mike Huckabee would be without a doubt the msot religious president in the history of American presidents, by far. And furthermore, he is the first president to publicly denounce the theory of evolution, proclaiming his ignorance for all the world to hear. This of course is in line with most of America, of which...

• 53% believe "God created man exactly how the bible describes it."

• Another 31% believe that evolution happened, but with God taking a guiding role.

He also says that our values should be based on the bible. However, literal translation of the Bible brings out messages of intolerance, division, hatred and injustice.

(Stop button just came in useful for once in my life - I clicked on a link by accident that would have deleted this whole argument)

I'm done for now I g2g
Debate Round No. 1
giuocob

Con

(Note to any viewers: Vasilicus and I are both atheistic/agnostic.)

"First, Mike Huckabee has stated that *blind* faith plays a very very important role in his decision making. It played an important enough role that he gave up a large part of his life to become a minister, why would he tone it down just because he's president?"

It probably wouldn't. If he was elected President, I'm sure he would pray to God for guidance in how to run the country, just as I'm sure many other President's did. Obviously, the existence of God has been questioned many times. If God does exist, Huckabee is doing the right thing in asking Him for guidance. If God does not exist, and Huckabee is receiving 'answers' to his prayers (which he undoubtedly is), they must be coming from somewhere. I think you'd agree that in the event of God's nonexistence, people draw the answers to their prayers from their own intellect and morals. In short, blind faith on a nonexistent deity means faith in oneself. I believe Huckabee's intellect and morals are excellent (though that's beyond the scope of this debate). You definitely cannot argue that Huckabee's intellect is inferior simply because he is a Christian, because many influential politicians and scientists have been religious.

"Many presidents in the past have let their religious views influence their decision making, although the stresses and powers of the presidency were not as great as they are now."

You can't tell me the Presidency is any harder now than it was two hundred years ago. If anything, it's harder, because the first few Presidents had to deal with setting up the basis of government.

"But Mike Huckabee would be without a doubt the msot religious president in the history of American presidents, by far."

Oh, I have many doubts about that statement. Several other Presidents (Benjamin Harrison, for example) had quite strong ties with the church. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"And furthermore, he is the first president to publicly denounce the theory of evolution, proclaiming his ignorance for all the world to hear."

We don't pick Presidents because they have scientific knowledge, we pick them because we think they'd run a country well. As I said above, Huckabee wouldn't be the first President to be deeply rooted in Christianity, and almost any other President would probably reject evolution when presented with the evidence. Would you have preferred he suppressed his views on evolution in the hopes of securing more votes? That would make him a scumbag.

"This of course is in line with most of America, of which...

• 53% believe "God created man exactly how the bible describes it."

• Another 31% believe that evolution happened, but with God taking a guiding role."

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

"He also says that our values should be based on the bible. However, literal translation of the Bible brings out messages of intolerance, division, hatred and injustice."

The verses you're talking about are few, far between, and generally swamped in the general message of the book, which is compassion for all mankind. In general, it's a very good book for somebody to base their morals off of.
vasilicus

Pro

"It probably wouldn't. If he was elected President, I'm sure he would pray to God for guidance in how to run the country, just as I'm sure many other President's did."

"You can't tell me the Presidency is any harder now than it was two hundred years ago."

No, presidency is harder now. 200 years ago you didn't hear the president being called "Leader of the free world". America is a world power now, not a small collection of 13 colonies. We're also tied down in the middle east, we've got an economic crisis, the dollar's value is getting smaller by the minute, huge national debt, illegal immigration. Right now is the hardest time ever to be president.

"Several other Presidents (Benjamin Harrison, for example) had quite strong ties with the church. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

You used wikipedia, you fail. Also the website you pointed me to doesn't say anything about Benjamin Harrison except that he taught Sunday school and that some nutter thinks he was in contact with the eastern church when he was elected. No other president has ever been an ordained minister.

"We don't pick Presidents because they have scientific knowledge, we pick them because we think they'd run a country well."

Blatant ignorance and blind denial of basic facts = not a good leader = not going to run a country well. So you're right, but that doesn't change what I was saying.

"Almost any other President would probably reject evolution when presented with the evidence."

Really? What makes you think that?

And I could spend the next 6450 characters with excerpts from the Bible to refute your final statement but I'd rather not, let's keep this simple.
Debate Round No. 2
giuocob

Con

I'd just like to remind voters of two things: first, this is not necessarily about whether or not Mike Huckabee would be a good president, it's about whether his religious ties would make him a bad one. Second, it has nothing to do about whether or not Christianity is right, so you shouldn't vote on that premise.

First of all, you didn't actually respond to my first paragraph, which is the one most closely related to the topic. Do you disagree with my reasoning?

"No, presidency is harder now. 200 years ago you didn't hear the president being called "Leader of the free world". America is a world power now, not a small collection of 13 colonies. We're also tied down in the middle east, we've got an economic crisis, the dollar's value is getting smaller by the minute, huge national debt, illegal immigration. Right now is the hardest time ever to be president."

I still disagree, but this is more or less irrelevant, so I'll drop it.

"You used wikipedia, you fail."

I used Wikipedia for the sake of simplicity and clarity. I also checked the listed sources to make sure the information was correct. If you don't believe it, you can check the sources yourself.

"Also the website you pointed me to doesn't say anything about Benjamin Harrison except that he taught Sunday school and that some nutter thinks he was in contact with the eastern church when he was elected. No other president has ever been an ordained minister."

Yeah, he's the only one with an actually degree in the church. But as the posted link showed, many other presidents were deeply religious. Mike Huckabee wouldn't be the first deeply religious president.

"Blatant ignorance and blind denial of basic facts = not a good leader = not going to run a country well. So you're right, but that doesn't change what I was saying."

I don't understand how you can assume that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is going to be a bad leader. Many of the great leaders of the 20th century (Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King Jr., for a couple examples) were devoted Christians. I don't know for sure whether or not they believed in evolution, but they were both definitely heavily influenced by the Bible. You can't possibly justify that assumption.

"Really? What makes you think that?"

Almost every other President in history was born and raised a Christian. People who have been taught the ways of Christianity for 30+ years don't usually make radical changes in their beliefs very easily. If Mike Huckabee had been raised in a different environment, surely he would consider evolution as a factual possibility.

"And I could spend the next 6450 characters with excerpts from the Bible to refute your final statement but I'd rather not, let's keep this simple."

No you couldn't. Every time you give me one verse from the Bible advocating cruelty and injustice, I could give you ten teaching love and harmony. I've actually read the thing.
vasilicus

Pro

Second, it has nothing to do about whether or not Christianity is right, so you shouldn't vote on that premise.

NOTE A: (Actually the only note) You exhibit poor debate skills by disregarding an argument every time I bring up a good point.

"First of all, you didn't actually respond to my first paragraph, which is the one most closely related to the topic."

I did respond to it. Read my message please. I went very in-depth.

"I still disagree, but this is more or less irrelevant, so I'll drop it."
See note A

"Mike Huckabee wouldn't be the first deeply religious president."

He would be the first ORDAINED MINISTER this is ridiculous amount of religion in his life. He gave up a large part of his time to become a minister and he has stated that he firmly believes that every word of the Bible is true. This includes everything listed on this website.

Exhibit A: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

"I don't understand how you can assume that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is going to be a bad leader. You can't possibly justify that assumption."

I didn't say that. I said anyone who blinds themselves to undeniable facts for the sake of ignorance is a bad leader, and evolution is an example. It also shows how Mike Huckabee lets his religion control his thoughts, i.e. because the Bible says Creation, Evolution must be a myth. Bible says one thing, common sense says another. Lets go with the Bible. How do you know he won't justify something in a time of war by saying "God will stop the sun in the sky so we'll be fine"?

"If Mike Huckabee had been raised in a different environment, surely he would consider evolution as a factual possibility."

"Well if things were different".... classic flawed debate argument. Things are the way they are now, Huckabee is a Christian Preacher nutcase who doesn't believe in evolution and thinks he can win the nomination based on his religion alone - and it's working. Sad. But if they were any other way we wouldn't be debating this topic.

----

"No you couldn't. Every time you give me one verse from the Bible advocating cruelty and injustice, I could give you ten teaching love and harmony. I've actually read the thing."

I've read both the New American Bible and the King James Bible. I'm taking that as a challenge, so here we go.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

Read. Comment. Thank you.
Good debate! Merry Christmas!
-vasilicus
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 7 months ago
Mharman
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 DrewM 9 years ago
DrewM
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 giuocob 9 years ago
giuocob
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 johngalt 9 years ago
johngalt
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 Tavadon 9 years ago
Tavadon
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 sdowling 9 years ago
sdowling
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
giuocobvasilicusTied
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 Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
giuocobvasilicusTied
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