The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
libertarian
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Someone who is socially libertarian but economically lassez-faire should not support Obama.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,856 times Debate No: 7442
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

wjmelements

Pro

I am of course referring to the libertarians.

Libertarians typically believe that government should not run the lives of people. They tend to favor liberty and choice as well as economic freedom.
They do not favor government expansion.

On the other hand, Obama supports:

1. Cap and Trade
2. Gun Control
3. Central Planning

Cap and Trade- a government sanctioning businesses and issuing taxes based from their emissions

Gun Control- a government sanctioning the use of firearms

Central Planning- a government controlling the growth and activities of companies for a purpose

I don't see why a libertarian would support Obama. My opponent will present his case, and I will negate it and then present my full case in round 2.
libertarian

Con

Let's look at the personal reasons of why I decided to support Obama for president. It is, of course, true that I am socially libertarian and fiscally conservative. Obama is very much not a fiscal conservative.

The opponent does not realize my options.

First of all, Nader is not even an option because he has no chance of winning and I disagree with most of his points fiscally. He also seemed unprofessional based on his website. His views were even more fiscally liberal than Obama's.

Secondly, Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, had no chance of winning. He supported the PATRIOT Act, which I think is a reason in itself to oppose a candidate as does any Libertarian. He sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, which disallows equal rights to same-sex married couples even in states where same-sex marriage is legal. He also ran a bad campaign and seemed like a poor leader.

Thirdly, McCain is hardly a fiscal conservative. He supports stimulus packages, voted over 50 times for higher taxes, and he supported vastly more regulation for businesses. Also, I think McCain's foreign policy is illogical, unlike Obama's. The Bush policy, that they themselves eventually abandoned, of not talking to enemies cannot and will not ever work. This is horrible for our soft power and will lead to a world full of militarism instead of diplomacy. McCain, also, supports the Iraq War, which is also terrible for our soft power and costs billions in debt. The unnecessary war is incredibly immoral. Over 105,000 people have died because of this war for no good reason. I cannot support a candidate who supports this war. Also, McCain also supports the federal income tax. McCain is also incredibly anti-gay. He opposes same-sex marriage, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The Libertarian Party supports gay civil rights. Moreover, McCain would tip the Supreme Court into something very conservative, which not only renders the constitution meaningless, but makes it impossible for gays and lesbians to finally be extended their civil rights at the federal level like they have been extended them in California, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Finally, Obama is fiscally not conservative. Additionally, neither is McCain. Therefore, my options are between two fiscally non-conservative candidates.

McCain's foreign policy stance is important and ridiculous. Obama's stance is realistic and safe. This stance also is Libertarian. This statement from the Libertarian Party themselves opposes the Iraq War and McCain's foreign policy: "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

On gay issues the Libertarian Party agrees with Obama: "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

So, if I must choose between two fiscal non-conservatives, I will certainly choose the fiscal non-conservative who supports logical, safe foreign policy and civil rights for all despite sexual orientation As should any Libertarian.

Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

I contend that supporting Obama is not a choice between McCain or Obama. It is a choice between supporting Obama's actions or opposing them (see below definition).

My opponent has conceded that a libertarian would not support Obama's economic policy.

My opponent's argument is that libertarians agree with some of Obama's social policies and that libertarians do not agree with McCain.

The second argument does not matter in this debate, as I have already pointed out.

I would like to argue against my opponent's logic with a metaphor:

-A man is walking through the woods. He is a little hungry, and all he can eat is a poisonous herb. It supplies a little nutrition, but it will kill him. However, because it is half healthy, he consumes it. He dies.

Alternative:

-A man is walking through the woods. He is a little hungry, and all he can eat is a poisonous herb. It supplies a little nutrition, but it will kill him. However, because it will kill him, he moves on and finds something else to eat.

Just because one agrees half-way with a politician isn't a reason to support him.
support- to advocate http://dictionary.reference.com...
A libertarian would not advocate Obama because of Obama's anti-libertarian policies, including:

1. Cap and Trade
2. Gun Control
3. Central Planning

There is no reason to advocate something that directly conflicts with some of your key principles. Such beliefs lead to the rise of the Nazis. The Nationalist-Socialist Party was meant to draw in support from all people because conservatives were nationalist and liberals were socialist. So, there was something everyone could support. However, having something half-way is not enough to advocate.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and urge a PRO vote.
libertarian

Con

There is an inherent flaw with my opponent's logic: there is not a choice between Obama and nobody while there is simultaneously not a choice between Obama and a more preferable candidate. In my case, I very much did not want McCain to win the election. My reasoning is that Obama and McCain both are fiscally liberal and will both be detrimental to the economic well-being of this country. To use my opponent's metaphor, if my choices are between two berries that could be deadly, the smarter decision is to choose the least lethal berry of the two.

Also, the opponent is incredibly idealistic. Few Americans ever find a candidate with whom they agree with all their positions. I am an American who supported, advocated Obama. I very much was vested in his victory. I owned an Obama T-shirt and wore an Obama button. I admit that I do not agree with Obama's fiscal policy, but I also disagree with McCain's fiscal policy. My point is that I disagreed with both's fiscal policy, but also seriously did not want McCain to enact anti-gay equality legislation, continue the failed Bush foreign policy of the silent treatment, continue the Iraq War, or destroy the Supreme Court and the Constitution for upwards of 30 years to come. So while I do not advocate, support all of the policies of Obama, I do advocate and support Barack Obama's candidacy for president.

I do disagree with Obama on cap and trade, gun control, and central planning, but these policies are severely less important to me, personally, than the Iraq War, gay discrimination, the nation's soft power, and the balance of the Supreme Court. Besides, the Supreme Court already ruled on gun control so Obama will have little effect on that anyway.

Your Nazi point is, frankly, ridiculous. Supporting candidates who you only partially agree with does not lead to Naziism unless, of course, that candidate is a member of the Nazi Party or happens to be a Nazi. Hitler was vegeterian, breathed, and did not enforce gun control, which are all things in which I believe. However, none of these are leading to a slippery slope of Naziism.

My conclusoin is this: my opponent now understands that I do not support Obama or McCain on fiscal polcy. Both are liberals. However, I do support Obama on Supreme Court nominations, gay equality, foreign engagement, and the ending of the Iraq War. These points are all VERY important to me. In fact, these issues are more important to me than economic policy. Indeed, they are even more numerous. There is no reason to conclude that economic policy outweighs these four policies, which are extremely important. So while I do not support all of Obama's fiscal policy [or McCains'], I do support Obama, the candidate as a whole for his other policies.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

Support means to advocate.

You either advocate Obama or you don't.

The multiple choice does not read:
1. Who do you advocate?
A. Bob Barr
B. John McCain
C. Barack Obama
D. Ralph Nader

It reads:
1. Do you advocate Obama?
A. Yes
B. No

The debate is over whether libertarians should support Obama or not.

"I am an American who supported, advocated Obama."
This debate is not "No libertarians support Obama"

"I do advocate and support Barack Obama's candidacy for president."
That's not what this debate is about.

"I do disagree with Obama on cap and trade, gun control, and central planning, but these policies are severely less important to me, personally, than the Iraq War, gay discrimination, the nation's soft power, and the balance of the Supreme Court."
But we all agree on something with someone. The libertarian party has many problems with Obama, and his plans to control the American economy greatly concern them.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com...
http://www.capitolhillblue.com...
http://www.upi.com...

"However, none of these are leading to a slippery slope of Naziism."
No, but that is how the Nazis came to power.

"I do support Obama on Supreme Court nominations, gay equality, foreign engagement, and the ending of the Iraq War."
But real libertarians do not.
Gay Equality- Obama has done nothing about it
Foreign Engagement- Obama has changed his mind, and plans to stay in Afghanistan (which Libertarians oppose)
The ending of the Iraq War- Obama does not intend to end the Iraq War, he intends to drag out the time we stay there and he intends to leave a permanent force behind
Supreme Court Judges- the Libertarian Party fears that Obama's new picks will threaten economic rights

Again, I remind my opponent that the debate is not over supporting Obama over McCain, the debate is over supporting and advocating Obama despite large, gaping differences in opinion on most fronts.

I would like to remind my opponent that he is NOT the Libertarian Party, though he finds himself to be part of it.

Again, I urge the audience to vote PRO because there are many differences between Obama and Libertarians.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
libertarian

Con

In my opponent's world, no candidate would ever be supported by Libertarians or any human being. Nobody is 100% a perfect candidate. I support Obama, the candidate. I also disagree with some of Obama's views. That is what this debate is about.

Gay issues are important and Clinton has already met with gay groups in the secretary of state's office and Obama pledged to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell recently. He hasn't done much about anything because his candidacy is new. He has not changed his mind though.
http://washblade.com...
http://www.newser.com...

Obama has not changed his mind on foreign policy. He still agrees with me and the Libertarians.
http://www.cnn.com...

Obama has not changed his mind on Iraq. He still agrees with myself and the Libertarians. Now, you're just resorting to lies.
http://news.yahoo.com...

Obama does not agree with my economic policy views, but he does agree with other views relating to the Supreme Court that prove far more important.

Naziism is a way far reach for this argument. Nazis also gained office with the support of the country, as in our nation, still no naziism.

Anyway, I admit my support for Obama is completely justified as a Libertarian, because he agrees with my social views, which are far more important. Indeed, if we are to look at this realistically, as if there were more than one candidate as there is in real life, my only options are among fiscal liberals. I support and agree with Obama because of his foreign policy views, which I very much admire. I advocate Obama's gay equality stances, which are the most important issue to me in any election. I very much agree with Obama's idea of withdrawal from Iraq as well. Indeed, I advocate Obama's candidacy and think it is exactly what this country needs after eight years of destructive Bush years.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Con says, "I do disagree with Obama on cap and trade, gun control, and central planning, but these policies are severely less important to me, personally, than the Iraq War, gay discrimination, the nation's soft power, and the balance of the Supreme Court." Destroying the economy and eliminating property rights with central planning is less important than gay discrimination? So North Korea would be okay, overall, if they allowed gay marriage? Absurd. I'd rather see marriage abolished altogether than suffer central planning. North Korea is clearly on the side of terrorism, so another plus for them with respect to Iraq.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Atheolibcon 5 years ago
Atheolibcon
wjmelementslibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
wjmelementslibertarianTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
wjmelementslibertarianTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Hikaru 5 years ago
Hikaru
wjmelementslibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 5 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
wjmelementslibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementslibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
wjmelementslibertarianTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by libertarian 5 years ago
libertarian
wjmelementslibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13