The Instigator
redphalanx
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Karoz
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance

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: 12/15/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,076 times Debate No: 498
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

redphalanx

Pro

With the President's approval rating hovering around 30-35%, and with the Republicans facing near-guaranteed loss in 2008 with their "mainstream" candidates, the GOP is in dire straits. Unless it returns to its low-tax, less gov't, non-interventionism roots, it will be unable to win in 2008, unable to win the House or Senate, and become powerless at the Federal level.

Only by abandoning its failed policies, failed big-government solutions, and fully embracing Ron Paul, his movement, and his ideology as its savior can the GOP hope to survive as a meaningful political party.
Karoz

Con

The Republican party is NOT a Libertarian party.

The majority of the Republican party has completely different views than that of Ron Paul. So wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority should define the party?

It wouldn't make sense if a party was led by ideals the majority of it didn't believe in.

In my personal opinion, the entire 2 party system is flawed. The United States should adopt a system more like Canada, where there's a party for every combination of possible beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
redphalanx

Pro

Although I agree with you that the United States should adopt a more open political system (with multiple parties), we must face facts that such a system will NOT come overnight, or even within a few elections.

You have failed to noticed that I am NOT advocating a completely different approach for the Republican Party, rather that it return to its former positions. The Republican party USED to be the party of limited government. They USED to advocate low taxes. Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the Dept. of Education, as Ron Paul does. The Income Tax was, for many years, opposed by the Republicans (and a few radical Democrats such as Huey Long).

The Republican party has allowed itself, since roughly 1988 (based on what I know), to be dominated by Neoconservatives, converts from the Democratic Party that kept their fiscal beliefs. They have used the social-conservatives to push their agenda, that of the warfare state that Eisenhower (a Republican) warned us against.

They have abandoned the very things that have made the party what it was. People are abandoning the party in droves because of its hardline stances against abortion, for the war on terror and in Iraq, and their unwillingness to cut the budget and abolish the Income Tax

In 1976, the poeple of this country, tired of Washington and politics as usual, elected an outsider, Jimmy Carter, President. In 2008, the poeple of this county, tired of Washington and politics as usual, will elect an outsider, Ron Paul. If the Republican Party bosses fail to seize this rare opportunity to reconnect with the general public (not their party devout), they will be unable to win in 2008, unable to win Congress back in 2008 and 2010, and risk becoming insignificant and unimportant.
Karoz

Con

I think Ron Paul's views are better than those of any other Republican candidate, but that doesn't change the fact that unless the majority of Republicans vote for him he doesn't represent the majority of Republicans.

At the moment most of his supporters aren't actually Republicans. There's Anarchists, Socialists, Libertarians, Democrats, Neo Nazi's/Skinheads/KKK, and even a few Conservatives(But a smaller percentage than the rest of his supporters.).

Just because a group "should" change if they want to stay in power, doesn't mean it will change. That's like an Italian resteraunt calling itself a Chinese resteraunt, but it still only serves Italian food. If the majority of the party thinks one way, then that defines the party.
Debate Round No. 2
redphalanx

Pro

redphalanx forfeited this round.
Karoz

Con

In closing, I'd just like to point out again. I'm not against Ron Paul at all.

I just believe that the majority of the Republican party has to actually support him in order for him to speak for the rest of the Republican party. Because that's what an election is, where you're choosing someone that represents you and your opinions and at the moment most REPUBLICANS don't have the same opinions as Ron Paul.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Libertarians are not "isolationaists." They are capitalists. Capitalism is the exact opposite of isolationism. "Conservatives" are anti-capitalist mercantilists for war and protectionism. This immoral and intellectually bankrupt creed was discredited by Adam Smith in 1776. Mercantilism has been dead, as a viable ideology to any thinking man or woman, even longer than socialism and communism.

There are libertarians who are pro choice and there are libertarians who are pro life. But real libertarians agree that the issue is not for the federal government, either way. This is also the traditional Republican position -- i.e. overturn Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul, of course, has legislation that would do that, but so-called "pro-lifers" in the GOP do not support that legislation because they love the abortion issue. It helps rile up irrational people on both sides and distracts from the fact the GOP and Dems agree on all of the big issues -- i.e. Rooseveltian liberalism as foreign policy, the welfare state, the income tax, and the unconstitutional central bank -- all of these things are in direct opposition to Jeffersonianism; the ideology to which both parties pay disingenuous lip service.

The Republican Party of the 1920s through 1940s was strongly libertarian. Yes, the Old Right lost to Roosevletian welfare/warfare statism. But if your objective is only to "win elections" and not to win the battle of ideas, restrain government, or respect the Constitution, then I have a recommendation for you: NOMINATE BILL CLINTON. He's the only neocon who could beat his fellow-neocon wife. Otherwise, you need to nominate the Old Rightist Ron Paual!
Posted by republicangirl99 9 years ago
republicangirl99
Ugh!!! The Republican Party may share some view with Libertarians but we SHOULD not consider ourselves Libertarians. First Libertarians are anti government (some like anarchists) and isolationist. The Republican Party although are for limited government still believes that the government is there to take care of the things that the normal citizen can't for example the military. Also a lot of libertarians have the belief either way on abortion that the government should have a law against it per se. The Republican party is VERY pro life and we believe we should have a law banning abortion and the list goes on and on where we differ. So saying that "The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance" is irrelevant because we are our own party with our own set of beliefs and we have a STRONG backing. You libertarians may SCREAM louder like the Ron Paul supporters but the real question is WHO WINS THE ELECTIONS???? and we know the answer so we are the stronger party!!!!!
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Even though Pro forfeited a round, I still give him the nod. Con was not arguing the actual subject of the debate: The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance. Instead, Con was arguing the obvious, that the GOP base does not support Paul. This is the equivalent to saying the Whig base does not support abolition, when the subject was The Whig Party Must Support Abolition of Slavery or Else The Party Will Fade Away. The question is "MUST" not "does it"? One is a matter of opinion to be substantiated with logic. The other is a matter of fact to be substantiated with evidence.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Huckabee's "goal" is to raise $1.5 million in December. Ron Paul just raised $6 million in one day.

Huckabee is a liberal media creation. He was nowhere in the polls, nowhere in fundraising, but the media kept pushing it, and gullible Republican voters bought it. Now he's high in the polls, but nowhere in fundraising because a) The business community loathes him, and b) His supporters are not devout. In Iowa, for example, only 47% of his voters are "certain" to vote for him; while 88% of Ron Paul's supporters are certain to vote for him.

Ron Paul will win the Iowa caucuses, despite being the only Republican not in favor of more welfare for deadbeat farmers. And then what are you going to say?
Posted by Karoz 9 years ago
Karoz
"Who is Ron Paul? That should tell you what you need to know about him. No one knows who he is. He has no money and no media attention. You better get behind Romney, Huckabee or Guiliani - they have the attention of the press - those are your choices."

Erk.. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on both points. I've been watching lots of news on TV and it's nothing but Ron Paul and how much money Ron Paul has raised(Breaking several fund raising records.).

Unless of course by media you mean "FOX 'News'", but other than FOX every other news station has been recognizing him.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
What an idiot you are. Ron Paul raised $6 million TODAY. He has raised over $18 million this quarter. For the 4th quarter, he will probably have the most money raised of any Republican. No money? hahaha.
Posted by Ryuken1925 9 years ago
Ryuken1925
Who is Ron Paul? That should tell you what you need to know about him. No one knows who he is. He has no money and no media attention. You better get behind Romney, Huckabee or Guiliani - they have the attention of the press - those are your choices.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
1%? Where is he polling only 1%? He's polling 8% nationally. At this point in 2003, John Kerry was at 4% nationally. Wait until you see how much money Ron Paul raises today!

Oh, and why don't you take the guy's debate?
Posted by robzilla180 9 years ago
robzilla180
Wow...threats of unimportant-ness from a Ron "1% poll numbers" Paul...that's threatening...
Posted by alvinthegreat 9 years ago
alvinthegreat
Please define Libertarianism in your own words...and will you have to prove that the GOP will fail if they do not adopt libertarian ideals?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
redphalanxKarozTied
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 james94 9 years ago
james94
redphalanxKarozTied
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 Jones1 9 years ago
Jones1
redphalanxKarozTied
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 dlw7505 9 years ago
dlw7505
redphalanxKarozTied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
redphalanxKarozTied
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 wedoada 9 years ago
wedoada
redphalanxKarozTied
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 republicangirl99 9 years ago
republicangirl99
redphalanxKarozTied
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 clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
redphalanxKarozTied
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
redphalanxKarozTied
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 Nietzsche 9 years ago
Nietzsche
redphalanxKarozTied
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