The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Some Ron Paul supporters are too out of touch with reality.

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: 1/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,717 times Debate No: 2310
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (24)

 

blond_guy

Pro

I could debate and argue for years with a Ron Paul supporter. But the thing is, unlike most of the gullible youth, I will never be convinced about Global Warming, 9/11 being an inside job, the Federal Bank is a scam, or any other conspiracy theory. Sure the government lies to us. Sure there are sometimes rigged elections. Maybe even one of those theories indicated above is true. However, Ron Paul supporters tend to believe incredible (as in unbelievable, not credible) "stories".
clsmooth

Con

You point out three things you say make Ron Paul supporters "out of touch with reality."

1. Global Warming: The most damning evidence for man-made global warming in An Inconvenient Truth is that chart demonstrating the relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures. The problem is, the chart lies. It implies that C02 causes higher temperatures, when in reality, higher temperatures cause CO2 of the non-man-made variety. All of the man-made CO2 accounts for less than 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. These are facts; not opinions. The truth about global warming is that the consensus is not nearly as solid as the Left says it is. Yes, a majority (not 100% or even 95%) of scientists believe that the Earth is warming; and a majority (not even close to 100%) of them believe man is PROBABLY (though not 100% guaranteed) to be the case -- this is the real "consensus," and it is barely, if at all, any more solid than the scientific "consensus" that said we were going to enter a new Ice Age back in the 1930s. Ron Paul and his supporters doubt Global Warming dogma and see its use by the Left and Fascist Right as a tool for expanding government and curtailing liberty. You do realize, however, that Ron Paul is 100% AGAINST pollution, right? Under a libertarian property-rights regime, the maximum allowable pollution would be 0%. Hence, global warming -- if it is man-made -- would be abolished overnight.

2. 9/11 an "inside job": Ron Paul does not believe this and neither do the vast majority of his supporters. On the other hand, backers of other Republican candidates tend to believe the equally false notion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction -- despite the fact that even Bush now admits both are false. The backers of Democratic candidates, on the other hand, are in love with widely discredited economic policies that have been proven harmful and/or unworkable both in theoretical and practical terms. Thus, when compared to the supporters of other candidates, I would say Ron Paul's followers are the LEAST divorced from reality -- even though I do admit that we have the bulk of the 9/11 crazies in our camp.

3. The "Federal Bank" is a scam: Um, it is. And if you don't think it is, then you don't know how the Federal Reserve System works, or what it is.

Long ago, Milton Friedman advanced the "theory" (it's pretty ridiculous to call it that, since it is fact) that inflation is a "monetary phenomenon" -- i.e. increasing the supply of money is what causes price inflation. This is now widely accepted among economists and laymen -- far more so than global warming is among scientists. But as truthful as Friedman's inflation outlook was, it neglected the other half of the equation -- when new money is created, it is NOT redistributed among the current holders of money in proportion to the money they had before the monetary expansion. If it were, then inflation would serve no purpose at all -- prices would go up, but each person's purchasing power would also go up in relation to the prices, and thus, remain the same. But that is NOT what happens.

When new money is created, it is first held in the hands of the bankers (virtually all banks are members of the Federal Reserve System). They get to use this new money first -- created out of thin air -- before it loses its purchasing power. They extend loans to customers, with the bulk of these newly created dollars going to the wealthy (who are more "credit worthy" than the middle class or especially the poor). What's more, the largest borrower on Earth is the federal government itself. Its spending is unrestrained in the age of fiat-money central banking, since the Federal Reserve itself will always buy its bonds, write it a check, and create the new money out of thin air. Where does this money go next? To the various "industrial complexes" of America, most notably, the military industrial complex. Who foots the bill? The taxpayer, but more onerously, the low- and middle-income earner, who does NOT benefit from the expansion of credit, and the pensioner.

The Federal Reserve System IS A SCAM, and it IS the cause of the growing gap between rich and poor. If you care about poverty, now that your candidate John Edwards is out of the race, you should join the R3VOLution. Start by reading Murray N. Rothbard's THE CASE AGAINST THE FED. It dispels all of the bogus anti-Fed conspiracy theories and goes right to the heart of the matter -- the Federal Reserve System is a system for covertly redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

My point was not to have a debate on those topics. My point is to tell people and ask them if they agree that Ron Paul supporters go too far in believing all these theories.

1) "Yes, a majority (not 100% or even 95%) of scientists believe that the Earth is warming"

------ They all believe the Earth is warming! That is not the point in question. Why do you think Ron Paul does not stand a chance in the primaries and in the election? Because he's the only one there against the Global Warming theory. And that scares the hell out of people. We're not about to let New York disappear for him and his supporters to realize that something needs to be done about Global Warming. (Please don't go on telling me that Ron Paul does stand a chance, because I've heard that one a million times too, but the numbers don't show it)

2) "even though I do admit that we have the bulk of the 9/11 crazies in our camp."

------ Those are the ones I'm referring to and trust me, there are many. If I put out a debate saying "Al-Qaeda blew up the towers" most likely a Ron Paul supporter would take me on saying the government did it.

3) You gave me the talk that I've heard for so long. But the point of this debate is that Ron Paul supporters are consumed by conspiracy theories and the most radical arguments being said out there. There will always be theories. I could make up 100 theories but probability is they won't be true. So many well informed people will refuse to vote for Ron Paul because he will "flip the country upside down". (I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to flip that national debt upside down and turn it into a positive number ;)) But reasonable people who look only at facts, usually don't believe more than 2 of Ron Paul's conspiracy theories.
clsmooth

Con

What theories? Man-made global warming is the THEORY. Questioning or doubting that theory is not a "conspiracy theory." Look up the words "conspiracy" and "theory" in the dictionary. Doubting the official man-made global warming theory is neither a "conspiracy" nor a "theory."

Ron Paul does not believe in any 9/11-related conspiracy theories and neither do the vast majority of his supporters. Like I said, a much larger number of Bush supporters (spread among the other Republican candidates) actually believe equally outlandish things -- that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and/or that there really were WMDs but Saddam refused to use them (why?) and there's been a media cover-up -- DESPITE the fact that Bush has admitted to the contrary!

And finally, Ron Paul's critique of the Federal Reserve IS NOT A THEORY AT ALL, and not a "conspiracy theory" in the least. Was Ludwig von Mises a "conspiracy theorist"? Come on! Dr. Paul offers a factual critique of the Federal Reserve and an economically sound plan to restore sound money in line with the Austrian school of economics -- one of the most respected free-market-oriented schools of economic thought. Where is the "conspiracy theory" here?

Now on to the points:

1. Yes, the Earth IS warming currently -- just as it WAS cooling in the 1970s. Not 100% (or 95%, etc.) of scientists believe this is a consistent, sustaining pattern that we will see in the years to come. And in fact, I'm pretty sure that the Earth has been cooling the past few years.

You then go on a hysterical rant about "losing New York."

WHO IS DIVORCED FROM REALITY HERE?

2. The fact that the tiny minority of Americans who believe 9/11 was an "inside job" support Ron Paul means absolutely nothing in terms of his validity as a candidate, and in no way reflects upon the integrity or intellect of the vast majority of his supporters who do not believe this. This is the classically fascist tactic of "smear by association" you're employing here. I could reverse it and say that the Communist Party USA supports the Democratic Party for electoral purposes -- does this mean ANYTHING at all as far as Democrats are concerned? No.

3. In what I presented to you, where is there a "conspiracy theory"? That is literally how the monetary system works. It is a fact that you can affirm in any basic economics textbook. The Federal Reserve System redistributes wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich and government elite. This is the all-encompassing issue of our time -- how could it not be? The Federal Reserve System is used to expand the monetary base in order to fund wars, unconstitutional government programs, and steal from the poor to give to the rich. The fact that you aren't concerned about this issue -- the fact that ANYONE cannot see this for the all-encompassing issue that it is -- reflects poorly on the sanity of non-Ron Paul supporters; not the other way around.

You say that "reasonable people" don't believe "more than two of Ron Paul's conspiracy theories." Can you please tell me what two of these supposed theories are? I'm unaware of any "conspiracy theories" that Ron Paul believes in, and if you can show them to me, I will revoke my support for him immediately.

In summary, your arguments have literally no basis in fact and only serve to highlight your ignorance about the issues at hand and Ron Paul in general. Hopefully my efforts here will serve to correct some of that ignorance.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

blond_guy forfeited this round.
clsmooth

Con

"SOME Ron Paul supporters are too out of touch with reality."

Of course this is true. But the arguments advanced by my opponent imply that LOTS of Paul supporters are "out of touch." Through my arguments, I believe that I've shown it is my opponent who is out of touch with reality. Vote for me!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
I changed my stance on the matter. I believe in this special case, the ignorance of Pro outweighs Con's admittal. Added, he seems to vote on personal opinion, and I shall give him a taste of his own medicine.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I think you have to judge the debate and the strength of the arguments more so than merely the truth of the debate title. For example, the title of this debate "SOME Ron Paul supporters are out of touch with reality" is obviously true. It is also probably true that "SOME supporters of Barack Obama are White Nationalists." I bet there are at least two Neo-Nazis who support Barack Obama for some counterintuitive reason. Still, the implication of Pro's argument was that MANY or even MOST (certainly a large number) of Ron Paul supporters were "out of touch," and yet through his arguments, he showed that it was he who was out of touch. So vote for me!
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Just to clarify: I'm not against what Defenestrator said, as he is right. This is just the way I think debates should be voted on.

Online, as long as the arguments are readable, delivery has no real weight. However, rhetoric is a important part. There is a slight difference between rhetoric and arguments though, and both make up about 1/3 of the debate. The other third is the burdens and resolution. I have to give a slight edge of importance to the latter part of voting because rhetoric and arguments usually lead back to the resolution. Therefore, were I to vote, I would probably have to vote Pro, as Con conceded the resolution. However, Con is a good debater, and hands-down, better than Pro (at least in this debate). So therefore, I won't be voting.

Honestly, it wasn't a great debate. The resolution and opening post was shaky, and I disagree on some of the things clsmooth said. However, Con is definitely knowledgeable, and I usually find myself voting for him. I would have in this debate as well, but he conceded the resolution.
Posted by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
I honestly don't know who to vote for in this debate. The bar was set so low by Pro that it was very easy to get him to meet his burden of proof, Con even admitted to that in his final statement, so I should vote for Pro just based on that if we were in the American format of debate; however, in the international parliamentary style of debate, delivery and rhetoric are equally important and Con clearly argued circles around Pro; therefore I have to give the nod to Con despite the fact that technically Pro met his burden of proof.

Also on a side note, clsmooth, I declined your debate offer earlier because I support both Obama and Paul (as well as other candidates to various extents). I only have Obama on my profile because I had to pick one and at the time I was picking my hot button issue was civil liberties and I felt that Obama would protect those out of the candidates that actually have a legit chance of winning.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
If you're going to miss a round, provide a reasonable explanation, or I will vote you down!
Posted by libertyforall 9 years ago
libertyforall
You're wrong blond_guy.....
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by out_n_proud_HINDU 9 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 RonPaul08 9 years ago
RonPaul08
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 khaylitsa 9 years ago
khaylitsa
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 Logos 9 years ago
Logos
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 Curlz31 9 years ago
Curlz31
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 FreedomPete 9 years ago
FreedomPete
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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 fresnoinvasion 9 years ago
fresnoinvasion
blond_guyclsmoothTied
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