The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

This house would vote Ron Paul

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,527 times Debate No: 20676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




I was never in the Ron Paul camp, but I was a fan. I used to find his ideas quaint. I am now at the point where I not only write off his political views, but the man with them. And it wasn't the racist rumors, or his denial of evolution that sent me over the edge; It was his analysis of the civil war and his idea to 'buy back slaves'. I can't do it anymore. I have not seen any convincing argument to vote for Ron Paul. Since he is so different from every other candidate, the burden of persuasion falls upon those in the Paul camp to show why anyone should vote for him. I will challenge anyone to put forth one. This debate will be a Socratic one. The pro must convince the voters that there are in fact good reasons to vote for Ron Paul. I myself can not see one reason to vote for him, because on balance other candidates or ideas would be more beneficial. I don't have enough characters to try and debate both President Obama and Ron Paul, but I do take the position that President Obama or Mitt Romney would be a better choice than Ron Paul for president. Round 1: Con gives opening remarks, Pro may put forth their Main points Round 2: Con rebuttals, Pro responds Round 3: More of the sameRound 4: Closing remarks Challenger, This should be an elevated discourse on Ron Paul's policies, an opportunity to change the minds of people. I've made this 4 rounds so we can have a more refined dialogue. This isn't so much a debate as a Socratic discussion.Thank you


I would like to thank my opponent for instigating this discussion. Like my opponent I've never been in the Ron Paul camp, but I like the idea of a more Socratic debate. Apparently this discussion is only supposed to be four rounds so I will post something random when round five comes up. In this round I'll keep things short. Basically I'll assert my entire case, which my opponent can then question wherever he pleases.

My basic contention is that the American political process is dead, with a oft-ignored constitution, a two-party structure with little ideological difference between the two parties, and a dangerous alliance between the government and big business. Ron Paul is perhaps the only viable candidate with a proven record of fighting back. He's consistent. He's contrarian. He's courageous. He frequently refers to the constitution. That's the sort of leader America needs, if one were to grant the premise that America is not currently on the right course.

In what ways is America not currently on the right course?

They're trillions of dollars in debt - and continuing to borrow more and more. This is unsustainable.

They have a federal reserve system that goes completely unaudited, known to issue illegal and secret loans. The federal reserve are not accountable to anyone and have a proven determination to abuse that position.

They give foreign aid and maintain foreign military bases that have created historical instability and continue to threaten world peace, at a great economic cost to themselves, while undermining their own and global security.

They have no jobs. Businesses have little incentive to take on staff because of moderately-high taxes and excessive regulation.

Tertiary education is largely unaffordable. Student loans are driving up the cost of education to a level where they are bankrupting America - and her children's futures.

America was once the land of the free. Now, American civil liberties are being intruded on more than at any time in history - and it's being done by America's very own elected representatives. This isn't just things like monitoring for signs of terrorism - it's things like the lack of right to work laws, and the overly-intrusive and carcinogenic airport security scanners long banned in the rest of the world. Indeed, the mere thought that the American government has moved to censor the Internet ... *censored*

The point is this: America is facing serious challenges. The Democrats and Obama have proven unable or unwilling to get things done. The other GOP candidates aren't offering something really different, they're not being radical. Every challenge America now faces is a reason to vote for Ron Paul.

I wish my opponent good luck for the coming rounds and look forward to an good, educational, and fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Well hes defiantly contrarian. I'd like to thank my opponent

Now is the winter of our discontent

We can add to that list many more things, multipliers of problems, and proposed solutions that carry problems of their own, its bleak.

Are we on the right course? I imagine Hamilton sitting at his desk asking the same thing; Presiding over a collection of states that were hopelessly buried in debt and a federal government with a similar disappointing GDP-to-debt ratio I sense he felt the same despair we feel now. I imagine that many were ready to throw in the towel at that point: farmers who wanted nothing more than a good harvest and healthy kids seeing their entire living threaten over what, politics? bankers and merchants who preferred the stability of the old empire to the constant crisis of the American experiment. Faced with an overwhelming amount of debt that makes our situation look pale in comparison, Hamilton did something unprecedented: he went to the states and said that the federal government would pay 100cents on the dollar of their debts. It would assume the debt of every state in the union at no cost to the states. This ballooned the federal debt, the interest payments alone amounted to half of the federal budget. he did this in the hope of turning a crushing headache of a problem into an asset. He showed the world that this small country could take on massive debt, and through boom and bust, war and peace, and bitter partisan politics not miss a single payment. This is what the full faith and credit of the United States means.

This is what gives me hope. These issues are not beyond the capabilities of our statesmen. The willingness to compromise, to bend principles, to put aside ideology for pragmatism; these the stuff of statesmen. Ron Paul is not that kind of man, would you agree? His supporters boast about him sticking to his guns, unwavering in face of everything opposed to his ideology. Of his 35 year tenure in congress, he has proposed 602 bills, of which only 4 made it to a vote, and only 1 became law. This not a statesmanship, this is not somebody willing to put pragmatism before ideology, to get things done. Congressman Paul constantly rails against 'Government inefficiency'.Collectively the taxpayers have paid Congressman Paul over 4 million dollars to produce one law in 35 years, this is the height of government waste.

The debt

I think the stronger argument isn't so much that he he would relieve it, but under his administration such a debt would have never been accumulated. This is something that you have to grant congressman Paul. His distrust of government would see the prompt dismantlement every government program 'unnecessary' and major reductions to other programs. Unfortunately that would mean tearing down the institution we've spent the last hundred years building. Yes Ron Paul would keep America within its budget and pay down the debt, does anybody find the notion of eliminating everything as a response to our budget as intelligent? I find it be the knee jerk response, something from a child who views the world in black and white and would be all to glad for a simple solutions like cut everything or cut nothing. A teenager can walk into the treasury and cut everything, this is not the idea born of profound thought. An important question, is Ron Paul the only person who is able to pay down the debt? This nation has had a national debt for over 200 years, why would we need to go to such drastic measures now? you might cite that debt is 100% of GDP, well it was 121% of GDP during world war II and we returned to stability without implementing ANY of the measures Congressmen Paul suggests, on the contrary we went the other way. The highest tax bracket was 90% and this was the period where we built those bases abroad. So why now do we need to reverse course?

Shutting down all bases abroad and ending foreign aid are not just budget cuts, their shifts in foreign policy; Could you elaborate on this? what would a Paul administration envision as the role of America? Perhaps an example of how a Paul administration would handle a current issue in the world differently than how the obama or past administrations.

This debt will be central to our discussion so I imagine we'll be revisiting it every round

The Fed

The Federal Reserve is audited, in fact. Every aspect of the Federal reserve is subject to audit by three(3) different parties. The Federal reserve is audited by

Government Accountability Office (GAO),Office of Inspector General (OIG), and an outside auditor that publishes its findings every year. Additionally, on December 1st, 2011 The Federal released all 21,000 loans made during the crisis of 2008 under the mandate of Dodd-Frank, a bill the Fed help to create. Ron Paul supports having been beating a dead horse for some time without knowing what their asking. Those 'secret' loans were part of a program that was created so banks can go to the fed and get a an emergency loan in confidence. This does not mean any bank could get a loan, criteria that ensured the banks solvency had to met like any other loan. On December 1st that information, along with the size and name of lendee were released; All 21,000 loans were paid back with interest.(2) Lets dispel those scary 'secret' loans. The federal reserve ran that program for banks to get a loan in confidence for the simple reason that if bank of America was seen getting an emergency loan, every bank and investment firm would shun bank of America for fear it was in dire straits. Bank of America may be solvent, but if it needs an emergency loan, and all other banks refuse to lend because market conditions are unstable(a panic) then bank of America would risk missing a payment, and that would cause a run on the banks. This otherwise solvent bank would collapse should a panic arise. This avoidable, thus the program. Now if you were to have transparency, it would render the entire program obsolete as no bank would be stupid enough. I believe they used to publish the records after five years, but as I said on December 1st 2011 all 21,000 loans were released, these were included.

What about the Federal Reserve does Ron Paul think needs to be changed?

American Education
I remember when Ron Paul openly talking about the federal goverment having no business in the public school business entirely, but that was last eletion and maybe hes toned down for this election, so i went to his website.

You'll find that Ron Pauls plan for education is to give tax credits for 'home schooling'. Now I am puzzled, how is Ron Paul going to make tertiary education in america more afforadable?


What taxes and regulations do you speak of? Is Ron Paul in favor of no taxes, smaller taxes? and regulations, I've heard him in debates say that industries were capable or regulating themselves. Could you talk about what Business in america would look like undera Paul administration?

America was now once the land of the free
45 years ago a black man could not sit in the same section of a white man, I seriously doubt America has gotten less free. Is Ron Paul unhappy with the progress of civil liberties? was there a period where we had these freedoms, what does Ron Paul view as the period to get back too?

Getter' Done

In one term The president has staved off a depression, ended a war, and is winding down another. These are huge issues that on their own have thousands of books and experts, these are not small feats. What would congressman paul do to 'get things done'? Examining his record of 35years, I'm skeptical to say the least.

I'd like to thank my opponent again. this is alot to cover , You can answer some in different rounds if the characters run short. I hope for an educational next few rounds

With that said, I yeild back
The floor is yours




I'd like to thank my opponent for his responses. I'm very glad that both of us agree that the United States currently faces some serious challenges, which demand serious solutions. Like my opponent, I will spend most of this round talking economics.

Imagine spending $10,000 every second. That's enough to buy yourself a house every minute, a new car every few seconds - all of your material desires would essentially be fulfilled. At the end of the day, you will have spent only $864 million. At the end of the year - a whole year of spending $10,000 every second, you still would not reach a trillion. After two years, you would still not reach a trillion. It takes about three and a half years of spending $10,000 every second to reach that $1 trillion of debt. Last time I checked the federal debt was in excess of $12 trillion. And the worst of President Johnson's debt? A mere $2.6 billion (less than $25 per capita at the time). Our fictional $10,000 a second spender could reach that sum in less than three days. Surely the present crisis is much worse than Johnson's!?

Now imagine if Johnson had compromised, or bent his principles. Imagine if he had paid only 75c a dollar on debt to satisfy all the debt-conscious congressmen. Imagine if he had missed only one payment in order to pay for something somebody else thought was more important, as a compromise. Do you not agree that the power of Johnson's example lies not in his compromising and bending of principles? It lies in his resolute, firm and unwavering resolve to get the job done, and get it done right, does it not? As an aside, Johnson's policy only took away $0.1 billion of the debt and is generally considered to be a failed experiment by historians.

So only four of Paul's bills have made it to a vote - and yet congress are the very same people who put the United States into this mess. Surely this is proof that Ron Paul is not a man to create troubles, unlike those who have had their bills and with them, destroyed America? To say that paying a salary to a man who has been proposing solutions to all the problems created by the hundreds of other senators is the "height of government waste" makes little sense to me. In that case, you might as well claim the best government is to pay a salary to each of a set of congress-clones who all agree with each other - and who work together harmoniously to bring America to greater ruin. Is that your conception of a utopia?

What we've seen over the past few years from Obama is a very Keynesian approach to the deficit. Bailouts and big spending, all in the manner of America's World-War-II economy. What we have also seen is the failure of these policies. That's why we need to reverse course. Just as debt has continued to balloon, so too have many of America's poor remained poor, America's poverty increased, and America's income gap not significantly affected. My opponent is free to think Paul's measures childish and unprofound, but the question isn't complicated and doesn't require a degree to understand. When in debt, you pay it down. To pay more towards the debt, there is less available for other stuff. It’s that easy.

Foreign Policy
An example of a foreign policy direction Paul would have handled differently would be not invading Iraq. An example of a current issue Paul would handle differently is not giving foreign aid to Israel. Ron Paul's vision for America's part to play in the world is for the federal government to mind their own business and not police the world. I could elaborate on this, but do not have enough characters.

Federal Reserve
Yes, the Federal Reserve is partially audited. The problem is they are still allowed to withhold information under certain conditions. The audit the fed legislation my opponent refers to was Ron Paul's invention, although only a watered-down version ever made it to the vote. What it revealed was that not only were trillions of taxpayer dollars spent keeping banks (who had caused the crisis in the first place) afloat, but that loans were also made to foreign governments without the consent of congress. And even if the American people know some of the details of what they're doing, they're powerless to stop them. There is literally no control and no oversight over the institution.

Ron Paul provides a solution. He wants a complete audit of the fed and congress to regain control over it. In the long term, he wants to end it.

My opponent claims not bailing out banks would cause a run on the banks. Maybe ... and maybe the banks just shouldn't have been doing risky loaning in the first place, which they have every incentive to do if they're just going to get bailed out again afterwards. Regardless, if somebody really needs to be bailed out, the American government already has that power. Obama has done it several times. Do you really require a separate institution when another is already doing a good job? Especially when that other institution operates in secret and without any checks or balances on their power?

Aside from home schooling, something that has needed tax credits to be associated with it for some time, Ron Paul's plan is to end federal student tertiary loans. This will mean tertiary institutions will need to start charging what students can afford, not the government. That will reduce the cost of getting an education, while saving the government lots of money. So it's a win-win, right?

Ron Paul is in favour of smaller taxes. That's good because it creates jobs, as businesses have more money to put towards wages.

Under a Paul administration, business in America would be very similar, except that they'd no longer have all those special powers you and me are not entitled to. Indeed, most laws pertaining to giving businesses, or classes of businesses, special rights or responsibilities would be removed, and instead, they would have to pay much greater respect to the property rights of other people and businesses (because that’s where the lawsuits inevitably end up in these cases). In return, markets would essentially be free.

Civil Liberties
While it is true American society has progressed in many respects, particularly with regards to equality, American legislation is now intruding on the civil rights of everybody, not just a select group. Ron Paul's plan isn't to go back to any period - it's to go forward. The next period must be that American legislation intrudes on NO civil liberties. I gave a number of examples of such civil liberties last round, so why does my opponent refuse to answer them?

Getter' Done
Obama has not staved off a depression. The depression continued long into his term. Today, the economy is showing some signs of recovery, but that's hardly Obama's doing. That's the natural swing of the business cycle. And yes, he has ended a war - well behind his own and his predecessor's schedule, and only at the cost of trillions of needless US dollars and hundreds of servicemen's lives. And yes, he is winding down another - again well behind his schedule, and again at a higher-than-expected cost and death toll. Obama has been a failure at following through his own policies, as well as dealing with new crises that come up from time to time.

It's fair of my opponent to be sceptical, but as president, Paul would have two significant constitutional powers to get things done even if all of congress and the senate were against him - executive orders and the power of veto. I don't believe that everybody would oppose him, simply because if he was somehow to win the republican nomination and beat Obama, it would be an amazing miracle that would knock the socks off all his opponents. The presidency is a significant bully pulpit, but with Paul at the helm, every politician would be crazy not to fear the sudden unexpected mass libertarianisation of American voters. So how, exactly, could Paul possibly fail to get stuff done any more than Obama?

That concludes my case. I'm glad that I managed to fit it all in!
Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to thank my opponent once again for producing some debate and some exciting clash.

I understand the scenairo i9s illustratign how how big a trillion dollars is.

I don't understand if johnson is real or still part of that fictional scenario, there are two presidents named johsnon(lyndon and andrew)

Either way it doesn't affect what i'm about to say, but if you could clear that up i'm be much obliged. The united states has never defaulted on his debt. it has never missed a payment, no president in history has ever suggested doing so.


The sitatuion where johnson pays .75 cents on the dollar as a 'compramise' is so fallicious it honestly bears no merit. Your talking about a defualt. As if a guy reasonable enough to compramise on an issue is rudderless and therefore sussipatble to relquishing his reason to every demand and request. Are you seriously saying this? by your response, it seems you accepteed and gladly so, the defintion of ron pauls approach to polocu: never waivers, nver gives in. You want sombody who doesn't compramise?

-waht if president kennedy had shared that view, imagine the cuban missle crisis with a president whos unwilling to barge? you'll recall that we avoided NUCLEAR war by compramising with the russians so that everyone could save face and wake up alive the next morning.(russia would remove its milles from cuba, and the U.S. would remove its jupiter missles from turkey)

-Recall what happened durring the treaty of versaille where the french and british were unwilling to compramise. We got a treaty that that marched us back into a World War 30 years later.It set the stage for a humilated and empoverised peoplet to adopt a extreme alterantive: a tyrannical dictator who nearly completeed his extermination of a people.A failure in policy because the britsh and the french were unwilling to compramise with the germans, with wilson.

-even today, we fight in libya and worry about syria because at versaille the eroupean powers ignored T.E. lawerence's(of arabia) plea to let the middle east establish its own borders. The sectarian violence, the racial tension, the constant war is all a result of the treaty where nobody wanted to compramise.

how can you say that comramise makes a man weak or stupid?

You see the stuborness in man as a viture, to forgo progress to satsify his own idelodely. This not a a ruler who has his people's interest in mind, this is a mind preoccpied with his own.

Now ron paul has shown in 35 years in congresss that he is unwilling to give ground to make real progress.

you say congress put us in this situation and its a good thing he was not a part of it?

the united states is the largest economy in the world and even with our current predicament were stil doing very well, if he can't take blame for the problems in todays america then he take credit for its progress either. One law in 35 year: Ron Paul wasn't a part of moving the country forward.

Ron paul started his term in 1979, since then he has to no mesurable effect prevented us, steered us clear, from the problems we face today. it doesn't matter if he good ideas. Its not his job to lecture the country for the sake of a lecture, it doesn't matter if hes right; as a congressman his job is to get results. He has been in congress almost as long as President obama has been alive and still can not as statesmen change policy. hes an advocate, not a statesman, and certaitntly not an executive

how does a supporter reconsile this?

furthermore, with regards to his plans for taxes,education, federal reserve: The power to change all that lyes with congress, not the executive branch. If Ron Paul wants to see lower taxes he is in the branch of goverment that can do that. How is it logical to vote for a man who wants to leave his job, where he can change tax policy, to vote him into a job where he can't? The president can't make these laws in fact all he can do is veto laws. Ron paul can not sit at the helm of the presidency and change tax law, or the federal reserve, he ALREADY sits in a position to those things and can't. its illogical. The things he wants to do are lye within the relm of congress, not the exectuive branhc, how does this make any sense?

The Fed

See what i mean about a dead horse.\

I feel like my statement was largely ignored

your making 3 claims are outright false:

1.All finical records are realeased, even the ones that were supposed to be lent in confidence were realesed, it is fully audited not by one, but by three different auditors. All their records, tranascations, even what they said during the meetings are realsed for for public record.


3.There is control and oversight, I already specified the GAO,OIG, and an outside auditor(currently Deloitte and Touche)

to say nothing of the president appoitning the members and congress calling on the fed chair to testify(35 times in 2008)

Congress doesn't have control over monetary policy, and it is designed that way. An indepent Fed is the best way to ensure long term goals are not snagged by short term political objectives(Which by the way did occur when congress set monetary policy)

Those loans made to banks had to meet criteria, as i said, and ALL loans were paid back with interest.( to the treasury)

And it is a misunderstanding of economics to say that these banks should just make safer bets; Solvent banks can collapse in the midst of a panic. The panic of 1907 is a great example of the near collapse of banks that had no bearing on their solvency. If these banks are allowed to collapse, as ron paul would have advocated, millions americans savings, 401ks, pensions, would dissapear. As if that wasn't bad enough, commerce would come to a screeching halt as the finicial insituition that survived the meltdown would rebuild themselves(waiting forr the fire to complety destroy the forest before a seed can grow) If you think its quaint to start again, keep in mind that while we're waiting years(the depression toook 10years for example) the rest of the world is floursing. Our inventors and entrpunors would flock to othere stable countries where CAPITAL was still being lent to start their business, to build their inventions. America falls behind, and all for what?

We bailed out the banks, not because we particualy lik bankers, but because it is benifical for americans and the country on a simply cost-benifit anylisis.

How does this all fit with Ron paul?



I thank my opponent for his continued rebuttals. Con has failed to respond to most of my points, so it seems we're stuck with economics. Since the debate has really become a one-issue debate, I'll rebut my opponent point for point.

"I don't understand if johnson is real or still part of that fictional scenario"
The president Johnson I referred to in my trillion-dollar-analysis was the same one my opponent tried to use as evidence in round 2 - Andrew Johnson. The United States may never have defaulted, but then again they've never been in so much debt before. This is uncharted territory - and that's just the federal debt! Johnson could pick up the state debt, but can America really afford that now? I believe they can afford their own debt, but believe it or not, if you keep creating debt indefinitely you will eventually default. You need to stop the spending and save the dollar if you want to pay down the debt - and isn't that exactly what Ron Paul is proposing?

"waht if president kennedy had shared that view... Recall what happened durring the treaty of versaille where the french and british were unwilling to compramise..."
I could argue all of these - Kennedy had an uncompromising resolve to remove all of the missiles from Cuba, a principle he stuck to at all costs, and the treaty of Versailles hardly caused German poverty, as you will recall the USA was also in great poverty at the time, as was Great Britain. Libya is not in the Middle East, and Syria's violence is not because of a border dispute but unhappiness among their own people with the government regime. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. A compromise on fiscal policy inevitably means that, since Paul's policy is to reduce the debt, the government will be spending more money it doesn't have. That's not like the treaty of Versailles or the Cuban missile crisis - this is the American government ruining the future economic prosperity of their own country through creating more and more debt, which is going to be harder and harder to pay off because the process of creating money also creates inflation. Is that something America should be compromising about? Should America be compromising about their own constitution? Should America be compromising about their future?

"This not a a ruler who has his people's interest in mind, this is a mind preoccpied with his own."
Well, Paul hasn't been elected yet. But define "people's interest," please? How is it not in people's interest to reduce the deficit, have more jobs and experience peace. I agree that all these things are in Paul's interest, but surely they benefit everybody else as well? It's not like his policy is to pay Ron Paul's debts, give Ron Paul jobs and bring peace to the house of Ron Paul.

"One law in 35 year: Ron Paul wasn't a part of moving the country forward."
True (although he worked closely with Regan), but I see the last 35 years as mostly a failed opportunity. Before that, America was the fastest growing economy in the world, the number one economy in the world in terms of GDP, and one of the most equal societies in the world (although to be fair, the rest of the world was pretty unequal back then). Today America has lost all but one of those titles (highest world GDP), but they're pretty close to losing that title to China. Had they listened to Ron Paul, maybe things would have been different.

"hes an advocate, not a statesman, and certaitntly not an executive"
Well, if he advocates the right messages, maybe he should be an executive. The trouble with being a statesman is that a horde of congress people who believe the wrong messages can over-rule you. As a president it is more difficult to be over-ruled in that way. As an executive he can get results in a way he was unable to as a statesman.

"with regards to his plans for taxes,education, federal reserve: The power to change all that lyes with congress, not the executive branch."
The same criticism could have been made of Obama - when he ran for president, he advocated big tax and educational changes, despite the fact he was already a senator. Why did he run for president? Three reasons, two of which I've made already. First, the presidency is a bully pulpit. Second, the president can veto. Third, the president can introduce legislation. In this way Obama could get through, for instance, his healthcare plan without even having the support of most of congress. If Paul were president, he could do likewise.

"All their records, tranascations, even what they said during the meetings are realsed for for public record."
Wrong. The Fed is free to set the scope of their own audits because of a last-minute addition to Ron Paul's bill by the senate (see history of the bill here: Even the Fed's own website admits they set the scope and frequency of all of their audits: I ask my opponent to show us where what was said during the meetings when they gave out trillions in illegal, secret loans is available for the public record.

Indirectly, yes it was. By issuing more American dollars, that's a tax on the American people through a reduction in purchasing power of each US dollar.

"There is control and oversight, I already specified the GAO,OIG, and an outside auditor"
Who can do what - ask the federal reserve to reverse a loan they have already made? How is that even possible!? The worst any of these boys have ever done to the fed is wag their finger and give them a stern look while Ben Bernanke chuckled to himself.

"Congress doesn't have control over monetary policy, and it is designed that way."
Actually, the founding fathers designed it so that they do. Their policy was reversed at the turn of the century - but it isn't as though the economy was doing poorly up to that point. Indeed, the federal reserve has created a 97% reduction in what a dollar can buy, while under the control of congress, inflation was actually relatively stable, even during recessions.

"ALL loans were paid back with interest."
Almost none of the $16 trillion of secret loans had any interest attached and almost all has never been repaid, or even partially repaid. See

"Solvent banks can collapse in the midst of a panic."
But when banks are solvent, there is much less chance of a panic because the banks have the money they need. The 1907 panic was primarily due to a loss of liquidity by New York banks (, something the Fed is entirely powerless to help, and since the banks collapsed and were illiquid, that almost always means they were also insolvent (the only other alternative is that the directors all broke the law by ignoring the going concern principle, which I'm pretty sure didn't happen).

"How does this all fit with Ron paul?"
Ron Paul has the best policies to ensure America is restored to the great nation it should be.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you once again

"I don't understand if johnson is real or still part of that fictional scenario"

I wrote hamilton in the second round...Maybe thats what you ment.

"The United States may never have defaulted, but then again they've never been in so much debt before. This is uncharted territory "
thats false. this is from my own round 2:"you might cite that debt is 100% of GDP, well it was 121% of GDP during world war II and we returned to stability" so we've been in in a worse debt situation before, and we returned to stability without implmenting the measures Congressman paul advocates for.

"Johnson could pick up the state debt, but can America really afford that now?"
you ment hamilton, but we don't need to worry about state debt. The states are prohibited from defict spending, they can't borrow money to pay for their budget. They aren't allowed to issue bonds for their budget. i relise your from new zealand so little stuff like this is probably overlooked, btw your knowledge of american goverment surpasses the majority of american citizens, but its important to note that state debt isn't an issue anymore.
The hanilton example was used to illistrate the vast capablities of our statesment(and to a lesser extent an example of the federal goverment intervening for the greater good)

"Kennedy had an uncompromising resolve to remove all of the missiles from Cuba"
you used the word 'uncompramising' as to sugggest kennedy solved the cuban missle crisis by standing firm. Well, he didn't. He removed the jupiter missles from cuba. Your ignoring this because its inconvient to your point. Theres no way around this: kennedy and krushev came to a compramise so both sides could save face and come out alive. your wordplay is not argument.

"the treaty of Versailles hardly caused German poverty"
Then you have a misunderstaning of history. The reperations germany was forced to pay (269 billion gold marks, equivelant to 50% of all the gold ever mined in history)1 broke the back of the fragile german economy. You'll recall they hyperinflated their currency(wheelbarrel full of marks) and went bust. in their despair turned to a madman. "The Nazis rose to power on the empty stomachs of the German people".

Your also wrong about the american depression. The stock market crashed on sept 4, 1929; The treaty of versaille was signed in 1918, so your a decade off. The united states was doing well during those years, the roaring 20's. germany muddled along but by 1930 she was done. In 1931 germany stopped paying reparations. You may find it concidentall that the german collapse and the great depression are so close together; there was huge amounts of foriegn lending from american banks to the german banks to keep the dog and pony show going. It finally came to an end.
Interstly enough, the federal reserve refused to bail out the banks; thus we suffered through 12 years of depression in order for the "free market" to correct itself. (btw, unemployment rose to 25%. I'm appalled at people who say that our current 8.5% is an "Obama depression" its a convientatly igornant statement, one that has no appreciation for what a depression means. 8.5% is by no stretch 25%)
The point here of course is that the french and british refuesd to compramise with wilson and the germans for the sake of pragmatism. Their uncomrasming demands were stastified, without listening to reason, and it lead to terrible policy.

"Libya is not in the Middle East, and Syria's violence is not because of a border dispute but unhappiness among their own people with the government regime"

North africa and the middle east. Lybia is unstable because of tribal warefare. There no nationalism for 'libya' these were lines that were drawn by eroupeans and they in no way reflect the people living within those borders.The same is true of the middle, where countries with opposing differencse:religious, ethnic, race, sects are huddled together and called a nation. This is outragoues. The constant tension in the middle east stems from the articial countries made after WWI and WW2 that are having to deal with people who are not in any way intersted in living under the same rule. This political science. you can see a map of north africa, does it look funny to you, don't the lines seem convientaly drawn in rectangles and squares?
The point is that if the powers that be were willing to listen to reason and compramise, we would have avoided the chaoes that resulted in 'nations' fighting interally. E.G. iraq has sunni,shia, and kurds: whoever stuck these three together had no idea what they were doing.

Ron paul is not the only candiate who is for cutting the deficit, every candidate is. Infact the congress and the president already cut huge numbers of goverment jos, and the president has outlined a plan to cut 4 trillion in 12 years. your mistaken to think ron paul is the only person that seeks to cut the deficit and pay the debt.

"This not a ruler"
Ron paul has been in power for 35 years, hes made one law. A congressman can do many things, Congressman charlie wilson(texas) was instrumental in the fall fo the soviet union. Please don't say only a president can make change.
The fact is that Ron Paul is so stubborn hes unwilling to make any progress unless his 'libertarian' idelogy is completly statstified. This isn't falacious, you know its true. An exective must be willing to put the greater good ahead of his own idelogy, to make hard calls everyday. Ron paul is an acedmenic pushing an idea, not interested in the real running of the goverment.

"Had they listened to Ron Paul, maybe things would have been different"
We didn't listen to ron paul and it got us into the richest most inovitve nation on earth. We should continue not to listen if thats your logic. Ron paul did nothing to grow our GDP, and equality? Ron paul thinks cival rights imposed by the federal goverment are a federal infrigment on states rights. Again, this isn't somedoy who did ANYTHING to further cival rights. We listend to martin luther king, we listened to upton sinclair, to harriet beecher stowie; these people made real and lasting change.

"hes an advocate, not a statesman, and certaitntly not an executive"
Winston churchill got results despite "horde of congress people who believe the wrong messages"
lincon got results despite this, congressmen charlie wilson did too.

An advocate puts forward a message as an ideal, a statesman understands the art of the possible and the compramise for the greater good. Under a paul adminstation it seems very likely he would continue as he has in congress: lecturing policy while unwilling to come to terms with political realities. I think america should have an exective that understands whats real and whats acedemic. A person bent on his own idelogy that is unwilling to compramise does not belong in a goverment that survives by it; it is a quaility better suited to a despot.

"with regards to his plans for taxes"
President Oabama wasn't trying to change goverment all thatmuch, for example he had no problem with thefederal reserve or taxes even, just minor things that he could push his fellow democrats to pass. Ron paul wants to drastically alter goverment, and he can only do that in congress, My logic still stand.
Btw, ron paul has reapidly said executive orders were an abuse of power and he wouldn't use them

i won't waste the characters reapiting it. the federal reserve is audited and those 21,00 loans were paid back with interest.
the information is here;
your 'source' was a blog and was utterly falacious. 16trillion? please.

it wasn't. The 'money printing' wasn't lending, that was qe1 and qu2, nothing to do with the loans. Sir your making up things.
btw, every loan was paid back.

"federal reserve has created a 97% reduction in what a dollar"
utterly false. In relation to gold, not inrelation to other world currencies or goods and services. falcious

Currency was stable? your spewing nonsense. panics were widespread.



I thank con for continuing to provide some interesting clash.

I must admit that I made a mistake in citing Johnson's debt. Turns out con was talking about Hamilton. I apologize for the confusion. Hamilton's debt was US$54 million - a measly 1/46th of Johnson's debt, which is in turn only a tiny portion of a trillion dollars, which is about 1/12th of US federal debt. US population at the time (1790-91) was at least 3,900,000, leading to a per capita debt of just under $14, close to half the per capita debt in Johnson's time. So Hamilton's debt situation was even better than Johnson's, whose debt situation I have already shown to be better than your current position.

With that clarification out of the way, allow me to continue with more point for point rebuttals.

we've been in in a worse debt situation before
Even if that's true, you don't want to be put into that sitation again. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to actually reduce the deficit. You cannot keep increasing the deficit or you'll end up like you were during the great depression.

I suppose this war of words could go on a long time. Needless to say that with Ron Paul, you won't need to worry about all that, because Ron Paul would take his missiles out of all foreign countries and thus eliminate the need for compromise. Indeed, the cold war probably wouldn't have happened if it had been for Ron Paul's foreign policy. It was US interventionism in Europe that sparked it, after all.

Hyperinflation is not caused by debt. It's caused by printing money. The germans printed money to pay their bonds. All this is something Ron Paul opposes, for as he notes, paper money has never been officially legalised in the United States anyway, and this problem could not have occured with a gold standard.

American depression
Of course I'm a decade off from the German recession, but the cause of both recessions was the same problem. Too much spending with too little money leading to too much borrowing and too much debt, leading in one case to mass unemployment and in the other to the destruction of the currency. The point is that with Ron Paul, you won't need to compromise with this either.

Libya was not independant from Italy until 1951, so this was long after Lawrence of Arabia. Nevertheless Ron Paul supports the rights of all states to self-determination, and therefore you cannot blame him for a policy he never supported.

Yes but Syria's violence is not sectarian. Syria's government is not being targeted by any religion or creed or ethnic group. It is being targeted by a broad cross-section of their population. Also Iraq was not randomly drawn up after the treaty of Versailles, but has existed more or less continuously since the 6th millenium BC, and has always had many religious groups living there. People of all manner of cultures have been living on that plot of land ever since the days when the fertile crescent was the place to be.

the congress and the president already cut huge numbers of goverment jos
If you accept the principle that cutting government jobs is cool, then how about cutting five government departments?

the president has outlined a plan to cut 4 trillion in 12 years
4 trillion from the baseline, not 4 trillion from the current $12 trillion. The deficit will still increase under Obama, just as it will with all of the other GOP contenders.

Please don't say only a president can make change
No, but being a president helps. Story time. In Ancient Rome, two brothers, known as the Gracchi brothers, who had the power of veto over the senate (Rome's equivalent of congress) used that power to veto everything the senate did, even the mundane day-to-day things, until they had their way. The revolution they sparked eventually led to greater changes than the senate had achieved in 300 years. I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul would or should adopt this tactic. I'm just saying that the power of veto, in the hands of somebody with a bent ideology, is much more likely to effect change than simply the power of a vote in congress.

An exective must be willing to put the greater good ahead of his own idelogy
That assumes that the ideology is not for the greater good. As far as you've been able to prove, Ron Paul's ideology is for the good of everybody.

We didn't listen to ron paul and it got us into the richest most inovitve nation on earth
No, that's what you already were before Ron Paul. As I mentioned last round, the United States is starting to fall behind because you're no longer listening to your founding fathers, your constitution, and the wise old men (cough - Ron Paul - cough) who back them up.

Ron paul did nothing to grow our GDP, and equality
That's because nobody listened to him. He voted the right way, he did the right things for America, so don't blame him for the ignorance of the rest of congress.

this isn't somedoy who did ANYTHING to further cival rights.
That's also because nobody listened to him. When people start listening, change can come. If elected, people will listen to Paul.

A person bent on his own idelogy that is unwilling to compramise does not belong in a goverment that survives by it
The real question is - should it survive by it? Or should it stop the idle talking, end the disiveness properly, and actually get stuff done? US executives have been "compromising" America's future for far too long. The government would do well to have a vision, which necessitates an ideology, not compromise.

I won't waste characters either. My opponent is wrong about the fed.
Con posts a source that says the federal reserve is audited. It does not say the federal reserve is fully audited, which is what I asked for. There's a big difference between the two, since I already provided a source from the fed's own website admitting they set the scope of their own audits.
My opponent also contests my source as being a blog. Well, the "blog" is run by the Tea Party, who also posted this shorter news story on their main website: Major business magazines and papers also ran the story, such as here:

Sir your making up things.
I'm not talking about qe1 and qu2, those are publically declared. I'm talking about the other $16 trillion the fed magically conjured out of nothing.

97% reduction ... In relation to gold, not inrelation to other world currencies... falcious
So you admit a gold standard would be 97% better? Or would you like to explain how this is fallacious?

Winston churchill got results...lincon got results...charlie wilson did too.
Churchill managed to do absolutely nothing while he was not in the executive. Lincoln did little in congress except argue with Douglas and give a speech at Copper Union. Charlie Wilson got much done, but that's because almost all of his policies were the opposite of Ron Paul's - sell weapons to the Taliban. Either he gets something done or Ron Paul does, you can't have both in an adversarial legislature. Wilson's policies are the reason so many American servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan.

President Oabama wasn't trying to change goverment all thatmuch.
I think most Obama supporters, when they held their "Change" placards, thought they meant meaningful change, not minor tweaks to the same old policy, did they not?

Btw, ron paul has reapidly said executive orders were an abuse of power and he wouldn't use them
No, he said that executive orders have been abused to take over of the role of congress. But he has often said, for example, that he will immediately bring all the troops home. That's an executive order. It comes from the executive, it's an order, and Ron Paul would do it.

Currency was stable? your spewing nonsense.
Yes there were panics - there are always panics. But currency rarely lost much of its value until the fed came along in 1913.

I wish my opponent very good luck for the final round.
Debate Round No. 4


Lesterfreeman forfeited this round.


So, yeah. Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 4 years ago
I had too many characters and couldn't cut it down in time. 12,000 charcters. =(
Larzthe loser, i guess you have won this
Posted by Lesterfreeman 4 years ago
lol get really emotional at the end, larzthe loser my badd i didn't mean to come off so cranky. i'm enjoyng this debate. Thanks again for taking the debate, the frst debate where i wish i had more than 10,000 characters per round.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
Huh, sorry, I thought you had meant Johnson as he also paid off state debts and was actually a president - so you mean Alexander Hamilton? Sorry for the confusion. I'll admit my fault at the start of the next debate round. My rebuttal should work for both of them, though.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 4 years ago
I'm a bit confused on the johnson thing, the example i gave was of hamilton, is that what you ment?
Posted by Lesterfreeman 4 years ago
The changes in font looks like i copied and pasted, but i didn't. I wrote that.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago

Usually, 'this house' is used in debate topics.

It basically means whatever teh affirmation wants it to mean.

'This House' could be referring to the US Federal Gov
'This House' could be referring to the Republican Party

It all depends. Of course, if PRO uses an abusive definition, such as defining 'This House' as, literally, his house, CON is allowed to run a 'topicality'.

Just take a debate class/course....
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
I'm interested to see how this plays out.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
What does "this house" mean
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
I don't match your criteria for this debate, nor would I have the time to dedicate because of Student Congress and the SAT. However, claiming that, "Mitt Romney would be a better choice than Ron Paul for president," appears ridiculous to any informed and intelligent person.

Mitt Romney: flip flops on many issues (sometimes the day following a statement), receives the most lobbyist campaign contributions, is essentially Obama on socialist policies.

Romney vs. Obama would be the right side of the corporate robot vs. the left side of the corporate robot.
No votes have been placed for this debate.