The Instigator
Sivispacem08
Pro (for)
Losing
61 Points
The Contender
TheLibertarian
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

The Democrats will win the presidency in 2008.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
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: 12/11/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,317 times Debate No: 248
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (40)
Votes (43)

 

Sivispacem08

Pro

In the world currently around us, the GOP is looked on with a certain degree of discuss by the majority of America. even the most right-winged supporters agree that now is the time for reform. 2008 will be this time. The American public sent a message with the last Congressional elections by turning a Republican dominated Congress into a Democratic one. The same will occur in the 2008 election.
Another reason the Republicans will never win the 2008 election is due to the fact that they have no strong front runners to beat the heavy hitters in the Democratic party. No matter if your a supporter of Guiliani or Huckabee, it's very hard to imagine either of them beating out the heavy favorites in Obama or Clinton. they just don't have enough support from the general public because of the simple fact that they are Republican.
TheLibertarian

Con

In the upcoming election, as in all elections, there is massive debate on both sides, and the entire country is thrown into a loop in how the election will turn out. And while you feel that the country is ready for a change, and is predominantly Democratic, I have to disagree. You feel that many voters will shy away from a candidate just because "they are a republican", however the Grand Old Party has had a great deal of success in both raising voter turnout in future caucusing states, and in attracting citizens towards their views. Many democrats have turned voters away for having relatively shoddy and un-progressive views, such as Hillary's desire to invade Iran and Obama's desire to not have universal health care. On the other side, you have many strong candidates, who would guarantee America's safety, and would make our country a better place, with a great deal of voters knowing it. And while you are correct when stating that Giuliani is reasonably unconservative, the vast majority of the candidates, from Romney's desire to increase defense spending, Tancredo's wish to take serious action against illegal immigration, and Huckabee's unparalleled charisma and focus, you have a god four or five candidates that would all be much better at being president than Clinton or Obama. In addition, I must mention my personal favorite, Ron Paul. While he is relatively low on the polls, he is rising slowly but surely, and has not only obtained the most money in this quarter, but has had the highest profits from a single day political fundraiser ever in the history of our nation. You also are not taking into effect the vast voter base that is the Bible Belt, and with evangelicals at their highest number yet, a vast majority will vote for the most religious and for the one who will represent them the best, just as they have done in the pat two elections.
Debate Round No. 1
Sivispacem08

Pro

I think this debate between yourself and I is going to come down to the candidates themselves. Let's first look to the Democratic side where you first attack Mrs. Clinton on her stance to "attack Iran". You obviously have done little to no research or what research you have done is from a right wing source if this is what you believe. First off, the legislation you speak of has nothing to do with "attacking Iran". The legislation would give the "Revolutionary Guard" of Iran the label of a terrorist organization. this in no way shape or form guarantees an attack form the United states. In fact, it actually increases our diplomacy, not our ability to "attack". (http://www.politico.com...)

And as for your comment on Barack Obama not sponsoring a national health care system, your once again flawed in your interpretation. Barack Obama believes that there are many major flaws with our current health care system, and advocates a National Health care system. His own website even speaks of this. The only difference is, the type of national health care he advocates is different form the type that his main opposition, Hillary clinton, is advocating. (http://www.barackobama.com...)

Now for the Republicans. you already touched on the fact of Rudy Guiliani being very far left to be running under the Republican banner. This is going to be his main flaw. Rudy is Pro-Choice. Something that is a staple of the Republican party. No republican would ever win a national election while being pro-choice. Plus, his lack of any political experience besides being mayor will decrease his popularity in the long run as well.

With Mitt Romney, I hate to say it, but his religion is what will stop him. While I myself think it is ridiculous to not vote for someone based on their religion, sex, or race, the majority of the Republican people are located in the "Bible Belt" that you yourself mentioned. these hardcore Republicans TEND to be fairly narrow minded about things like this, and I wouldn't expect it to be any different for Romney.

We'll end with your personal favorite, Ron Paul. you've already mentioned that he isn't well known, but his popularity is rising. This is the EXACT reason he for sure won't even be the nomination for the GOP in 2008. He lack all of the top Republican like Romney, Guiliani, and the new breakout star, Huckabee. Speaking of Huckabee, the Republicans have already picked their potential wild card, and it's him. Ron Paul is sort of like Ross Perot. At BEST, he'll get close to winning it. But right now, Republican party is so split I can't even see him getting the nomination.

Finally, the one thing we can't forget is that President Bush is still in office. Bush, who at one point has had the lowest presidential approving rating EVER (26%) is not an asset to any Republican running. As long as they potential candidates still have any ties to Mr. Bush, they won't do to well.

Thanks for the debate!
TheLibertarian

Con

First of all, I would just like to say that many of your arguments make sense, but are wrong in the sense of what is going right now with their policies and the reactions from the public. I will first deal with each of the candidates, and then make some closing remarks.

Let's start with Hillary: She has said herself, that "all options are on the table when dealing with Iran...if they do not stop their nuclear program." (http://ezraklein.typepad.com...)In addition, she is EXTREMELY alienating, and unless she take advantage of Bill, which she really hasn't in the past, she will just end up pushing away a lot of potential voters.

Now Obama: Yes, he does have a National health care plan, as you and Ms. Lindsay have stated, but keep in mind, this is not a UNIVERSAL health care plan, just another form of medicare to help those disabled, which we are doing in essence right now. Also, while I sort of like him, and can say from seeing him speak live that he has amazing charisma and a way of knowing what the people want, a great deal of the voter base will be turned off from him either: 1) not having enough experience, 2) being African-American, or 3) having ties to Islam.

The rest of the dems aren't that noticeable, with maybe the exceptions of Richardson, (my favorite democrat) who has good policies and views, but has the personality of a dead fish, or Edwards, who is very religious, which will turn off some voters, and is for the death penalty, which won't help him.

Now for the right:

I agree with what you say about Romney, his religion will kill him, but he provides good points and adds them to the table helping the entire Republican base, and when it comes time to the actual election, not the primaries, those will help a great deal

Giuliani: Pretty much the same thing as Romney, as he is too liberal for most of the conservatives. But again, he adds good points, especially concerning defense, to the rest of the candidates, and knows how to protect our nation.

Hunter/Tancredo: These guys are relatively interchangeable, like Biden/Dodd, and they feel that we should greatly increase our defense budget and go deeper in Iraq and set up border fences. These two issues will attract a great deal of voters to the right, as people have been worried about our defense ever since 9/11, and these two will provide it. While they not be that good and not garnering that much attention, one of them will probably end up as a candidates running mate.

Now for Huckabee: This guy is exactly what the Grand Ol' Party needs, and he delivers in spades. He is exactly the thing the "Bible Belt" and America's big voters want: Really charismatic, deeply religious, VERY conservative on social issues, wants to limit the government, hates terrorists, and hates gay marriage/abortion. This guy will pull a great deal of voters out of the woodwork and will only strengthen the GOP.

And finally, Paul: In a vast amount of elections, the most recent probably being either the 1992 election where Clinton won, there is a major front runner who is leading the pack, and some random schmuck no one has heard about. Then, what happens? The underdog garners a great deal of public attention, has good policies, and wins the primaries and election. As you said yourself, America wants change, and a great deal of Americans feel this is the man to provide it.

In the end, the Republicans have far more executive experience than any of the other progressives, and while the democratic base will be split, the GOP base has two or three strong candidates who will pull voters towards them and end up winning '08.
Debate Round No. 2
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IraqWarVeteran 9 years ago
IraqWarVeteran
See "MarineCorpsConservative" doesn't really understand what the word "Conservative" means. It doesn't mean intervention or invasion. It also doesn't mean nation-building.

Please take the word "conservative" out of your screenname until you actually know what it means.

Maybe you'd like to change it to "Neo-Conservative".
Posted by tbarber001 9 years ago
tbarber001
i know...right..im voting for ron paul...

He might not win, but at least i can say i voted for a more decent guy than the rest of the candidates...

Huckabee is growing in support though...u should be happy.
Posted by IraqWarVeteran 9 years ago
IraqWarVeteran
Your right, that's because the Republican party forgot what "conservatism" really means.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
Ron Paul will never get the republican nomination with his views on the war.
Posted by IraqWarVeteran 9 years ago
IraqWarVeteran
Ron Paul would be even better, since he's the only true conservative. Don't believe me, compare his voting record to any of the other candidates.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
Huckabee would make a great president.
Posted by tbarber001 9 years ago
tbarber001
hey....u lame liberal...u forgot huckabee... :)

just thought id mention that....
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
Ok. Well even though I wish i could say that we have won over there i can't because we haven't yet. We are in the process. We are showing absolute progress over there and you cannot dispute that.

The Iraqi government is not ready yet to take on the responsibility of running a country under a democracy. They need guidance at its finest. Who is the finest at democracy? The United States. So this is why we cannot leave right now. Without Iraqs military the government cannot run properly. Without the U.S Military advising the Iraqi military they cannot run properly.

I already said that the administration did not say that sarin gas and mustard gas was a weapon of mass destruction but it definately is. Look up on it. Chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas can kill thousands of people in one attack. No Gen. Powell did not address this but we found it when we did go in which poses the question.... What other WMDs were there before we got in there? Iraq had plenty of time to get rid of them. There you go.
Posted by jordan.leckband 9 years ago
jordan.leckband
I would just like to say that if Obama was in fact elected, wouldn't that help our foreign relations tremendously? I mean, that shows Muslim countries that 1. We aren't afraid to elect a man that has a middle name (Hussein) that many in this country finds appalling, and 2. he has a Muslim background (although he is in fact a Christian, something else a lot of idiots get wrong), so our best bet with foreign relations alone is Barack.
Posted by IraqWarVeteran 9 years ago
IraqWarVeteran
First answer: Cav Scout 19D

Second Answer: You say that were making progress over there, I say we already made progress over and we won! We won back in the summer of 2003. And that was during my first tour. By the time of my second tour, the war was already over (the military once the combat part). Its the diplomats that have failed over there.

You want to say that were winning, while I say we won.

You are the defeatist while I say we already saw victory and your neoconservative administration keeps screwing it up, because they don't have the balls to force the Iraqi Government to do their job.

Is Sarin gas a form of WMD? sure is!

But was that what Bush, Rice, Wolfwitz, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld said that Iraq had during their leadup to war?

Answer that question!
43 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 QuantumBios 9 years ago
QuantumBios
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 afeinberg 9 years ago
afeinberg
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 smackattack 9 years ago
smackattack
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 The_Silent_Consensus 9 years ago
The_Silent_Consensus
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 jakehudspeth 9 years ago
jakehudspeth
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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 Kelley_Contends 9 years ago
Kelley_Contends
Sivispacem08TheLibertarianTied
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