The Instigator
Gdougie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Libertarian_Jacquelyn
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Ted Cruz 2016

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Libertarian_Jacquelyn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 88419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Gdougie

Pro

I will be arguing that Ted Cruz should be the next republican nominee and/or president.

If you are a republican, you can argue that Ted Cruz should not be the republican nominee.

If you are a democrat, you can argue that Ted Cruz should not be the next president.

First round is acceptance.
Libertarian_Jacquelyn

Con

I hereby accept this debate, and wish my intellectual adversary the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Gdougie

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for generously accepting this debate.

Ted Cruz is the only fit candidate, for any party, to be president of the United States. Ted Cruz is the only true conservative running for president, and is one of few true conservatives in Washington, D.C. He has demonstrated this numerous times, for example, he led the fight against Obamacare and voted no on the spending bill that funds Planned Parenthood.

Ted Cruz is a strong Christian, who bases his votes and policies based on the Bible and Christian faith. He understands that this nation was built on the idea of Christianity, and that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote such documents as the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. He also fights for religious liberty, something that is being hijacked by Liberals who believe they are above the law. He opposes issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, which are big issues to republican conservative voters.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate who speaks truly to voters, and does exactly what he says he will do.

Ted Cruz is a supporter of Israel, and wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem on his first day in office.

Ted Cruz also wants to open a investigation into Planned Parenthood on his first day in office, and expose all the harm that organization does.

In all, Ted Cruz should be the republican nominee and president of the United States because he will bring power back to the people, and make this country as pleasant as possible for future generations to come.

I now await my opponents response, thank you.
Libertarian_Jacquelyn

Con

Thank you, Pro.

Second Round Arguments:
_____________________

(1) To begin with, Ted Cruz must be assessed based on three major things that should go into a presidency: leadership, principle and merit. What I will attempt to prove is that Cruz does not fulfill any of the above leadership components that a president ought to adhere for the role of president. To prevent misconstruing of terms therein, I will define them clearly:

Leadership - the act of being capable of maintaing a dominant position in a society so as to enable it to strive.
Principle - being consistent in terms of personal convictions towards any particular issue in the world; this can be social, political, economic or something else.
Merit - the credibility one has behind attempting to uphold a certain role; their experience; their qualifications.

(1a) Quite simply put, Ted Cruz is simply too foolish to run for president. In numerous interviews, as well as video footage of him in Congress, Ted Cruz has it made it evident that he does not believe in climate change, nor that humanity's decisions to invest in fossil fuels contributes to it.

In the following link is a video by which Ted Cruz explains that he 'believes in science' and therefore denies global warming: https://www.youtube.com...;. Meanwhile, well over 70% of world environmentalists believe that global warming, through studies and peer-reviewed research reports, is in fact real and can be (has been) contributed to by humanity in great numbers. This will be cited later.

(1b) Ted Cruz is an evangelical Christian, therefore he believes in rejecting the constitutional liberties of those who his religion enables him to. He, among many other GOP politicians, believes genuinely in the 'War on Christianity'. That somehow a massive stigma is being faced by Christians throughout the U.S, and that legislation allowing gay marriage and civil unions, etc. is somehow an infringement on his rights as a Christian man. What he fails to recognize is that a majority of Americans are Christians themselves. While Christians in the U.S have dropped by eight percentage points in approximately seven years, the fact still remains that 70.6% of Americans are Christians. The rise of the irreligious or generally uncaring population pertaining to faith is on the rise, but this does not necessarily mean Christians are at an all-time low. In fact, Christianity is the least threatened religion in the U.S, falling just behind Judaism in the 'most respected religions' survey. Results had shown that while Jews got 44% of the support from the nation, labeling them the most respect, Catholicism (most popular christian U.S denomination) landed itself at 37%. Surprisingly, at the very bottom remained Muslims, who had 5% less approval in public opinion than atheists did.

(1c) As I had briefly mentioned, Ted Cruz stands against gay marriage because he apparently has a religious obligation to feel that way. But what he fails to understand is that he is falsely practicing his own religion. The Bible that Christians follow is the New Testament, the story in which Jesus Christ (the supposed son of God) is sacrificied for the giveness of sin, and is resurrected to bring miracles and forgive. He ends up in Heaven alongside his "father", but his death had enabled sinners (i.e all humans) to become free of sin if they had chosen to repent. Therefore, sins from the Old Testament were made null. For instance, in the Old Testament, there are rules that are absolutely ridiculous and abitrary.Yet, these sins were all nullified by the coming of Christ and his preceding death. Why then, if Jesus died to forgive those who sin (apparently everyone) shall homosexuals in particular be persecuted? There is no reasonable justification.

(2a) Ted Cruz opposes some of the most basic rights and privileges of human beings. He stands for the idea that gay people should be unable to marry, that somehow atheists are a threat, and that none shall serve the U.S more greatly than the religious. He has made claims that no atheists should be trusted in a high position of office.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro's Arguments
_ _____________

1. "He has demonstrated this numerous times, for example, he led the fight against Obamacare and voted no on the spending bill that funds Planned Parenthood."

Pro is clearly not aware that the organization of 'Planned Parenthood' attempts to help women prevent abortions, by providing them decent contraceptives when they need them so as not to get pregnant in the first place. Pro is clearly unaware that Planned Parenthood has been firebombed, shot up, and attacked by radicals from the far-right who have been supported and cheered on by numerous GOP politicians. His comprehension of the monstrous demonization of employees at PP is utterly sickening. In fact, if you even look at PP's website, it clearly states that only 3% of their services are actually helping women who request an abortion. Yet, Ted Cruz has the gull to deprive this clinic of its resources. Not to even mention the contributions to medical science by donating the tissue of fetuses to doctors and nurses across the nation.

2. "He understands that this nation was built on the idea of Christianity, and that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote such documents as the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights."

Pro seems to lack a basic understanding of just who the forefathers of this country were. The founding fathers were not a bunch of Christians gathering around to cultivate the world's largest Christian nation. In fact, the forefathers were Deists who had no solid concept of a higher power, and who did not feel aligned with any particular denomination of any religion. A few had been Christian, but most were Deist. This also fails to account for the First Amendment, and the clause of separation between church and state [secularism] which calls for no particular establishment of a law based on the establishment of a religious dogma. Therefore, Ted Cruz's religion is immaterial in terms of his qualifications for POTUS.

3. "He also fights for religious liberty, something that is being hijacked by Liberals who believe they are above the law. He opposes issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, which are big issues to republican conservative voters."

At this point I would like for Pro to refer to the argument I made earlier about same-sex marriage, so that they can understanding by refusing to give people their basic constitutional rights is a mockery of our constitution and a detriment to the evolution of our society in every respect possible. Fighting for 'religious liberty' does not equate to passing legislation on the premise of religion while de-escalating the status of other religious groups [minorities].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources
(1a) https://www.youtube.com...
http://climate.nasa.gov...

(1b) http://www.pewforum.org...
http://www.pewforum.org...

(1c) http://rationalwiki.org...

(2a) http://www.christiantoday.com...

Rebuttal sources:

1. http://www.newyorker.com...
https://www.plannedparenthood.org...

2. http://www.britannica.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Gdougie

Pro

I would like to think my opponent for debating this topic with me, and for providing intellectual arguments. However, I believe some problems can be revealed in my opponents arguments. My opponent has stated,

"What I will attempt to prove is that Cruz does not fulfill any of the above leadership components that a president ought to adhere for the role of president."

The leadership components my opponent noted were leadership, principle, and merit. I will reassure the voters that Ted Cruz does posses these components.

Leadership

As I have stated before, Ted Cruz has led the fight against Obamacare (which my opponent failed to argue against) and voted no against the spending bill that funded Planned Parenthood when his republican colleagues voted yes to keep their U.S. Senate seats.

In 2013, Ted Cruz stood on the U.S. Senate floor for just over 21 hours filibustering Obamacare. If his republican colleagues actually wanted to do what is right for their constituents, they would have supported him. I believe this shows leadership, in the case that Ted Cruz holds a leadership position as a senator, and being able to maintain a dominant position in society as my opponent has defined as leadership. (A)

Principle

Ted Cruz has the most principle of any candidate running for president. His record proves it. When Ted Cruz says he is going to do something, he is going to do it. Just as I have stated above, Ted Cruz voted no against the spending bill that funded Planned Parenthood. Senator James Lankford (R-OK) stood on the senate floor and cried as he talked about the Planned Parenthood videos, and then proceeded to fund it when the time came. This is Washington, D.C. at its best. However, Ted Cruz proved that he holds principle when he voted no, just as he intended/said he would do. (B)

Merit

The argument that Ted Cruz does not hold merit is interesting. Here are just some of the areas Ted Cruz has worked:

-Clerk under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1996)
-Worked on George W. Bush's presidential campaign (1999)
-Texas Solicitor General (2003-2008)
(C)

*Note: These are just some examples where Ted Cruz shows examples of leadership, principle, and merit.

*************************************************************************************
I would now like to address some of my opponents arguments referring to climate change, Christianity (Religious Liberty), and gay marriage.

1. Climate Change

My opponent has stated that Ted Cruz "believes in science" and therefore does not believe in climate change. Here are the facts regarding climate change:

-In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica, as well as in the Great Lakes.
-In 2014 many areas saw record snowfall.
-In 2014 we saw many areas that were effected by the "polar vortex", where record low temperatures were recorded.
(D)

Yet, my opponent insists that global warming/climate change exists. The science and facts are listed in link (D), I believe this is just some of the facts that Ted Cruz takes as the science behind the false climate change claims. My opponent notes that well over 70% world environmentalists believe global warming. So I ask my opponent, can these world environmentalist possible be wrong just like any other scientist?

*Note: These are just some facts, click the source below to see all facts.

2. Christianity

My opponent raises a interesting point on religious liberty and that Ted Cruz among other politicians believe in a "War on Christianity". My opponent stated,

"That somehow a massive stigma is being faced by Christians throughout the U.S, and that legislation allowing gay marriage and civil unions, etc. is somehow an infringement on his rights as a Christian man."

The fact is Ted Cruz is not upset that gay marriage and civil unions were made legal by certain states. The issue is that the supreme court overstepped their boundaries in legalizing gay marriage in 2015. This expresses his concern for how corrupt Washington, D.C. is becoming, where certain branches of government are overstepping their constitutional boundaries. (E)

People like Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky to same sex couples, are the one's who are effected by these laws. The issue arises when U.S. citizens are arrested for believing in a certain faith, in this case Christianity (hints the "War of Christianity").

3. Gay marriage

I always find it interesting when atheists, such as my opponent, try and act like they understand the Bible and Christian faith.

"But what he fails to understand is that he is falsely practicing his own religion. The Bible that Christians follow is the New Testament, the story in which Jesus Christ (the supposed son of God) is sacrificed for the giveness of sin, and is resurrected to bring miracles and forgive."

The fact is that Christians, such as Ted Cruz, do believe in the ENTIRE Bible. For example, homosexuality is classified in the Bible in both the old and new testament.

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act." -Leviticus 20:13 (old testament)

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (new testament)
(F)

Therefore, as a Christian, Ted Cruz is correct understands his own religion whereas my opponent, as an atheist, does not understand.

***In regards to my opponents question:

"Why then, if Jesus died to forgive those who sin (apparently everyone) shall homosexuals in particular be persecuted? There is no reasonable justification."

There is justification to why homosexuals are sinners. For example, if you lie and ask God for forgiveness you will be forgiven. However, homosexuality is different because you are constantly living in sin, and without confessing this sin you cannot be forgiven.


*************************************************************************************
I will now comment on some of my opponents remarks regarding Planned Parenthood, our founding fathers, and religious liberty.

-Planned Parenthood

Ted Cruz supports the defunding of Planned Parenthood strictly because they perform abortions. Why should Americans that disagree and think abortion is immoral pay taxes to an operation that kills innocent children? I encourage my opponent and others who support abortion to watch the Planned Parenthood videos. (G)

-Founding Fathers

My opponent notes that I seem to have misunderstood who the founding fathers were. Let me make clear that I did not state at all that the founding father's were Christians, I said they based this nation on the idea of Christianity; therefore, the Bible.

-Religious Liberty

The U.S. constitution does not guarantee the right of gay marriage. Ted Cruz does not de-escalate other religious groups; however, he wishes to protect Christians whose rights are being hijacked by Liberals.

(A)http://www.theguardian.com...
(B)https://www.youtube.com...
(C)https://en.wikipedia.org...
(D)http://www.globalclimatescam.com...
(E)http://www.cnn.com...
(F)The Bible
(G)https://www.youtube.com...
Libertarian_Jacquelyn

Con

Thank you, Pro.

Third Round Rebuttals

(1) Ted Cruz does not in fact fulfill the roles of leadership, principle and merit, contrary to what Pro has stated in the previous round.

(1a) Pro has not accurately demonstrated something a leader would do. While it is true that Senator Cruz has religiously fought against PP and Obamacare on the Senate floor, with a 21-hour filibuster, this is not necessarily a demonstration of leadership. What Ted Cruz did was fight against a) a clinic that helps women prevent abortions [hence the name 'planned parenthood'], and also b) stood up to fight a bill that has been destructive to the U.S economy and taxpayer. It is true, certainly, that many have suffered because of the Affordable Care Act, but what Cruz did was not leadership - he stood alone in that filibuster, and only in terms of American voters [not in legislators] does he stand with others in the fight against Obama's healthcare plans. In fact, Ted Cruz is actually quite the opposite of a leader. Ted Cruz, like many career politicians in the U.S, has a strong record of flip-flopping; which goes to stand for the fact that he only chooses to lead a particular fight when it bears convenience to his public opinion ratings or when he understands that it gives him stamina. He flip-flopped on marijuana, ethanol, Obamacare, and a plethora of other issues debated in the U.S, that I will link evidence to in the sources below.

(1b) Ted Cruz has no principles nor merits, he flip-flops, outright denies facts, and even decides that at the end of the day no matter what must be said to get himself support can afford to be said before the audience. Ted Cruz even capitalizes on controversies to slam his opponents for momentum. Cruz has even changed his position on immigration many times depending on majority support of either side, or the audience presented before him. He does nto demonstrate principle in this sense, and in fact has contradicted himself many times to gain the support of others. Someone with principle will advocate their ideas regardless of whether or not they gain support because of it. The positions that Ted Cruz has held, in which had been mentioned by Pro, do not immediately give him merit. A long-time member of public office, Bernard Sanders, and even Hillary Clinton, could be called veteran politicians with merit based on time in office, but they are not. Simply because what experience they do have was destructive.

(2a) Pro is arguing that global warming is a hoax, which really does not all-in-all come as a surprise. They make the argument that it may just be possible that more than 70% of climate scientists around the world are wrong, whilst reinforcing these talking points by using a website with an outright bias in its very name? The globalclimatescam website obviously holds an outright bias against climate change sciences in order to prove something, but why Pro felt citing that [instead of something more objective] is beyond me. I would like to refer Pro, as well as any voters watching this debate, to a previous debate that took place on this very website, where the topic of human-provoked climate change had been discussed. The person advocating that it did, won with a massive landslide in votes, and used data collected in graphs, as well as numerous articles, to support such a contention.

(2b) After a quick search I was able to confirm that Pro is correct, the Bible does consistently condemn homosexuality in the New Testament and Old Testament. But what Pro is glossing over is that many sects of the Christian faith have become more socially progressive, and began to accept homosexuals as equal human beings. According to Pew Research, an overwhelmingly increasing number of Christians and Churches are becoming more aligned with the status of society, that is in being accepting of homosexuals and recognizing their rights. 70% of American catholics support homosexuals, where the percentages used to only be 58%. This makes Ted Cruz a radical minority of Christians whose Evangelical values may in fact stagnate his ability to work with others. In fact, the percentage Evangelicals hopped from 26 to 36%.

(2c) Pro is, by answering my question, enabling me to follow up. And my response to his answer is this: if an individual cannot justify imposing God on others, nor the existence of God, they cannot use God as a pretext for discrimination of other people.

(3a) Planned Parenthood is not quite as 'immoral' as Pro is painting to be. As was previously explained, only 3% of PP's clinics operate to give abortions. While it is truly unfair to force taxpayers to fund the organization, it should still be supported if the government wishes to decrease the rate of abortions occurring in the nation - due to the mere fact that for the last four years America has sustained 178 in infant mortalities around the world. However, Planned Parenthood acts to give women contraceptives and prevent women from mistakenly having children to begin with [as in preventing undesired pregnancies]. Ted Cruz had the gall to outright deny the political and religious stances of the man who had shot up the clinic, blaming people of the transgender community for the attack.

(3b) Once more, Pro has ignored that a majority of the forefathers were Deists with no religious affiliation to Christianity. He has also ignored that thea claus of the Constitution explained that Congress shall establish no law on the foundations of religion - that it is wrong for the government to enact legislation because of religious values, as this is seen as an infringement of the First Amendment rights of Americans. By Ted Cruz wishing to use Christianity in law, and as a means to rally support for his campaign, he is therefore rightfully lowering the status of other religious groups while elevating his own as a Christian. And once again, there is no stigma that Christians face. It would be well-appreciated for Pro to prove that something like that exists, but it simply is not true. Christian's still make up 70.6% of the nation, with about 80% of Americans celebrating Christian holidays. In fact, across the seven dreaded 'Bible Belt' states, atheists cannot hold public office (legally).

Sources Cited

(1a) https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.politico.com...
http://www.politifact.com...

(1b) http://www.businessinsider.com...

(2a) http://www.debate.org...
http://www.ucsusa.org...
http://news.discovery.com...

(2b) http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.pewforum.org...

(3a) http://www.mediaite.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

(3b) https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.alternet.org...

I wish Pro luck in the next round, and thank them for this good-quality debate.



Debate Round No. 3
Gdougie

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for being consistent with posting arguments, and continuing to post arguments resulting in a good, quality debate.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

First, before I post my arguments/rebuttals, I would like to address one thing. I started this debate with the intent to debate that Ted Cruz should either be the republican nominee and/or president of the United States. In my opening argument I stated:

"Ted Cruz is the only fit candidate, for any party, to be president of the United States."

I ask the voters to remember this as they progress in reading my arguments.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now I would like to show that con is wrong in their arguments that Ted Cruz does not show leadership, principle, and merit. My opponent raises some interesting points that they claim backs their argument that Ted Cruz does not posses these qualities. Let me not, con used the following definitions in describing what leadership, principle, and merit consist of:

Leadership - the act of being capable of maintaining a dominant position in a society so as to enable it to strive.
Principle - being consistent in terms of personal convictions towards any particular issue in the world; this can be social, political, economic or something else.
Merit - the credibility one has behind attempting to uphold a certain role; their experience; their qualifications.

I will attempt to rebuttal con's arguments, while keeping it short and sweet to save characters for further arguments.

Leadership

Con exclaimed that I did not describe something a "leader" would do in regards to Ted Cruz. However, con defined leadership as "the act of being capable of maintaining a dominant position in a society so as to enable it to strive." I proved that Ted Cruz fulfilled this definition in my remark that Ted Cruz is a United States Senator (dominant position in society) in my round 3 argument. I supported my argument furthermore with specific situations where Ted Cruz expressed leadership. Apparently, my opponent does not agree that standing up against Washington, D.C. in an effort to stand with American citizens is leadership, but that consists of another debate...

Principle

Con argues that Ted Cruz "flip-flops" on certain issues such as immigration. The issues that he "flip-flops" on, I believe, are worth a debate on. I believe that people can change there minds, and do not have to be totally consistent, meaning, if you see one thing at one point and see it another a few years later, it should be okay to "flip-flop". And who says you cannot "flip-flop" another time? However, con's definition of principle is, "being consistent in terms of personal convictions towards any particular issue in the world; this can be social, political, economic or something else." I did prove that Ted Cruz had principle in that he stayed consistent in terms of his personal convictions (in this case it is a social/political issue) in my round 3 argument, by voting no on a spending bill that funds the murderous organization Planned Parenthood and also funds Obamacare.

Merit

Con's definition of merit is defined as, "the credibility one has behind attempting to uphold a certain role; their experience; their qualifications." This one is easy to argue because I literally laid out just some of the experience Ted Cruz has had in my round 3 argument. Con argues that just because Ted Cruz has help these positions does not automatically give him merit. However, in con's definition of merit it does not state when the quality of merit is obtained, as all it says is experience and qualifications (credibility) of a person.

**************************************************************************************************************

1. Climate Change

I appreciate my opponent trying to hold a climate change/global warming debate with me, but as I mentioned above this is a debate about Ted Cruz. In my opponents round 3 (2a) argument, Ted Cruz was not mentioned one time. I ask my opponent respectively to stay on the topic of Ted Cruz. I also respectively ask that my opponent to stray from directing voters to debates with no relevant purpose to this debate.

I do not wish to give any farther arguments to con's (2a) argument.

If my opponent wishes to challenge me to a climate change debate, I encourage them to do so.

2. Christianity

I appreciate my opponent for researching the Bible and realizing that they are wrong. However, once again Ted Cruz was barley mentioned in my opponents round 3 (2b) argument! I will take some time to rebuttal their arguments.

My atheist opponent once again thinks they know the Christian faith, and know what type of man Ted Cruz is. Just because some "Christians" are becoming more liberal as my opponent claims, does not mean all of the sudden the Bible is wrong. Christians, such as myself and Ted Cruz, still believe in the Bible and God's word, if that makes us "radical" then so be it. It remains true that homosexuality is a sin, and Ted Cruz is consistent on this belief (principle).

Once again, if my opponent wishes to challenge me to a gay marriage/Christianity debate, I encourage them to do so.

3. Planned Parenthood

My opponent pointed out in there round 2 (2a) argument that my climate change source was bias. However, my opponent failed to mention that they uses the Planned Parenthood website in order to back up all the "good" things Planned Parenthood does. And, in my opponents round 2 (2c) argument they once again failed to refer to the initial debate topic as Ted Cruz was only mentioned in the last sentence. The fact is, the reason why so many politicians, including Ted Cruz, oppose funding for Planned Parenthood is because they do abortions! My opponent says only 3% of Planned Parenthood facilities, which is correct. However, as long as Planned Parenthood is still performing abortions Ted Cruz will not support funding, no matter what good things Planned Parenthood actually does. If my opponent is suggesting that the man who shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic was a Christian, and Ted Cruz was defending him, they are wrong. Ted Cruz did not 'blame' anyone. My opponent uses the Washington Post as a source for that specific argument, talk about a biased (liberal) source. I will attach a link that accurately describes what Ted Cruz said. (A)

4. Founding Fathers

My opponent points out that I somehow ignored their remarks about how the founding fathers (not forefathers) were Deists and ignored the establishment clause of the first amendment. I actually did argue in my round 2 argument that I did not call the founding fathers Christians, rather, I said their ideas were bases on the idea of Christianity; therefore, the Bible.

My opponent is right that it is wrong to establish any religion according to the first amendment. However, my opponent is wrong in describing Ted Cruz's stance on the issue. Ted Cruz simply wants to protect American's religious liberty. He does not propose any federal legislation that promotes Christianity. The constitutions tenth amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
(B)

Therefore, the constitution prohibits any federal legislation regarding religion. Ted Cruz is a constitutionalists, so he would not propose any such legislation.
**************************************************************************************************************

I appreciate my opponent debating this topic with me.

To the voters, I ask that you please vote for me, and notice the quality of my arguments and relevance to the topic given.


(A)http://thinkprogress.org...
(Bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu...
Libertarian_Jacquelyn

Con

I thank my adversary once more for a respectful debate.

1. Addressing leadership is no easy task, but Pro contended that Cruz having fought religiously against the Planned Parenthood 'murder' organization is a sign of leadership (among the fight against ACA). I have disagreed with this contention, for the very sole reason that this undermines the fact that 97% of PP's functions are attempting to reduce abortion rates in the nation, and that the abortion clinics use the tissue of fetuses to further the comprehension of medicine and biology. While it shows some principle that Cruz had fought against ACA, as I had explained [and supported] with evidence, Cruz flip-flopped multiple times on the issue of Obamacare when it catered convenience to his efforts. Pro argued that Cruz did not "flio-flop" per say, but changed his stance on the issues based on newfound knowledge. While normally I would agree that such is feasible to contend, I would not agree considering that Senator Cruz changed his positions whilst still holding public office; and that such would deteriorate his ability to stick to one side of the argument and defend his positions while in power. This makes him an unreliable source of representation for the American people. In terms of merit, while the definition was not too precise, I am sure that [as mentioned before] the voters submitting a verdict here today would be more than sure of themselves that simply being in a position does not qualify oneself for presidency; take, for instance, the examples of Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio.

2. Climate change, once again, bears relevance entirely to the debate; if Ted Cruz should find himself rejecting science, in which might potentially preserve the life of earth - and instead invest U.S dollars into the fossil fuel industry for bigger surplus value turnout, this might prove that he lacks merit, leadership and morals. That where profit can be found, whether or not scientists must be ignored, Ted Cruz will do what he must to attain it. This is wrong, and will surely continue damaging the world and America as well. The evidence of man-made climate change is present in the previous rounds from the links I had pasted, and voters are free to examine its preponderence on their own.

3. Christianity, once more, is a broad and general idea - this in particular is why I wished to bring it up with a swift and blowing kick. However, the fact remains that if a large part of Cruz's campaign has been to help continue the sweep of homophobic values across the nation, he would likely use his power (e.g executive order) to attempt to undermine the constitutional rights granted to homosexual Americans by the SCOTUS. Not to mention that Ted Cruz is out of touch with a majority of Christians, and would therefore be considered a radical minority among those of that particular faith. While he is consistent with the [homophobic] teachings of the Bible, I would refer the voters to my previous statement, that if one cannot justify the existence of a God they cannot justify imposing such a being on others.

4. Once more, Planned Parenthood attempts to reduce the rate of abortions performed clinically within the U.S, and through such, hopes to preserve more life; taking this a step further, they use the tissue of fetuses to study stem cells, and such other, and preserve our knowledge as people of medicine to work on disease cure research and development of medicines. Without such important scientific assets to society, we would likely be quite farther behind in scientific or medical technology. Moreover, an imperative part of research and development is using samples of the deceased. Abortions can be justified if the mother's life is somehow in danger, or if they had been raped - both of those circumstances are likely to only eat up 3% of abortions nationally regardless.

5. Yet again, Pro is ignoring the fact that America's founding fathers did not condone and therefore did not base the foundation of America on any particular Christian belief. What Pro is saying is basically the same as saying a few Jews had sat together and founded a nation on Islamic principles. Such statements are illogical and should be readily discarded by any potential voters within this debate. Now, to address the [repeated] statement of Pro regarding, "religious liberty", once more, there is no evidence of Christians facing a stigma at the hands of irreligious or liberal legislators. If anything, stigmas [pertaining to irreligion/religion] would include those against many Atheists and Muslims in America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources cited:

3. https://www.youtube.com...

4. http://theweek.com...
http://www.motherjones.com...
http://thinkprogress.org...

5. http://quod.lib.umich.edu...
http://www.bbc.com...
https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SpentBrass 11 months ago
SpentBrass
Cruz FTW 2016!
Posted by Libertarian_Jacquelyn 11 months ago
Libertarian_Jacquelyn
I would not support him as the nominee nor in a general election. I am arguing against making him the nominee, and therefore oppose his campaign if he got it. Though I would not vote democrat. I would submit a vote to the Libertarian Party.
Posted by Gdougie 11 months ago
Gdougie
So you're opposed to Ted Cruz being the nominee, correct? And would support him in a general election?
Posted by Libertarian_Jacquelyn 11 months ago
Libertarian_Jacquelyn
As a libertarian who stands generally with the Republican Party.
Posted by Gdougie 11 months ago
Gdougie
To my opponent:

How will you be arguing? As a democrat or republican?
Posted by Rami 11 months ago
Rami
I just wish he would take more jabs a Trump.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by travis18352 11 months ago
travis18352
GdougieLibertarian_JacquelynTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro sounds like a cruz campaign spokesman or something. both had strong arguments but i feel con wins this one.
Vote Placed by Peepette 11 months ago
Peepette
GdougieLibertarian_JacquelynTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OVvqQ1fiihmjqXZe1pfNqA5DaofavCXiv0q7fx-JSPo/edit?usp=sharing