The Instigator
QuantumBios
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Fuego
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Will America Be Safer and more Prosperous under a Ron Paul Presidency?

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: 1,399 times Debate No: 216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (12)

 

QuantumBios

Pro

To begin, I have to admit that when I watch and listen to this man speak, I don't feel as though I'm listening to a "politician". In videos I've watched from 20 years ago (--- ---), up to videos put out yesterday (--- ---, his position has integrity, is consistant, principled and wise. His explanations for positions cannot be trimmed down to to convienent soundbites, but rather needs time to have the logic expressed. His views on Liberty have re-awakened the American Spirit, and are motivating people to come together and participate like we haven't seen in this country, ever. People are learning and educating themselves about fiscal policies, economic models, market forces, the Fed, foreign policy, etc. This is all being injected into the publics' concience now, and people are waking up. Pressure from above and below isn't going to work anymore.

His stances on holistic medicine and an individuals responsibility for themeselves have been popular for years, (--- ---) only the politicians ignore the public and allow themselves to be lobbied. There is no dirt on this man. He is a true American patriot, among the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

I believe Freedom and Liberty are positive messages, or, as George Washington stated, "Liberty, once it takes root, is a plant of rapid growth." With the people of the world now using the internet to group together under common beliefs, I believe that by electing Dr. Paul, the United States could spread the idea of freedom and liberty much better than with guns and armies, under the pretense of "Making the world safe for democracy".

And forget about his monetary policy. Tie the dollar to a price range for gold, and we're set. I do believe there may be a short period of hardship during transition, but in the long run, we'll be much better off. Other countries would invest in us again, if Americans can ever stop the Fed from printing money to pay for illegal wars. The Greatest Scam EVER. (--- ---)
IMHO ;-)

Even tho this is my first debate, don't wear the kid gloves. ;-) Bring it.
Fuego

Con

To begin, I will attempt to deconstruct your argument into its basic points.

I am not certain what you mean by the idea that America will be "safer". You reference several ideas, including the idea of drugs (or simply marijuana) as an issue of personal liberty, the idea that Paul is bringing people together behind the nebulous idea of the "American Spirit".

Your core argument here, however, seems to be that by electing Paul, we can spread democracy and the ideology of liberty more effectively than by using military force, which could theoretically create a "safer" United States, because we would no longer intervene in other parts of the world.

Finally, you state that through the gold standard "other countries would invest in us again", and America would become more prosperous.

To begin my counterpoint, I would like to note that were Ron Paul president of the United States, and if he was to institute the policies that he has promoted throughout the campaign, America would both face an economic and international political crisis that would be exceedingly difficult to resolve. Let me break this down.

First, Paul's economic policy. He is a big supporter of the gold standard, which you claim would increase foreign investment and stabilize the value of the dollar. I assume that you mean that this means that we will reduce inflation significantly. However, through a gold standard, all that would happen is that the price of our currency, which we both agree is an important asset, would be tied to an arbitrary figure, the price of a commodity. How much would it make sense to tie the value of the dollar to the price of wheat? How about oil? None of these make sense, and they are the same as tying the value of the dollar to the price of gold. Rather than having the ability to manipulate our economy through reason, we would surrender that to the gold market, which essentially has no meaning. I would agree that the policies of the Fed have at times been detrimental to the United States economy, but I would ask, which would you rather had control of the economy, an American institution, or the market for gold, which could easily be manipulated by foreign powers?

Second, your idea of "spreading freedom and liberty much better than with guns and armies". Paul's international policy is, while not isolationist, at least strongly noninterventionist. While I agree that wars in foreign nations are not the way to go, I would argue that as the lone global superpower, the United States must exercise some form of control worldwide, if only because we should not allow ourselves to be trounced by China in a few years. International diplomacy is key for the United States today.

Finally, your argument about Paul's "philosophy of liberty" and the benefits it might bring to the American people. Paul seems to talk quite the libertarian argument, stating that the federal government doesn't have the authority to do this or that, such as outlawing marijuana. However, what you must realize is that although paul supports federal nonintervention in state matters, he essentially would leave the states to their wishes. Rather than being a libertarian, Paul is a state's rights advocate.

Historically, however, the worst abuses of liberty by government in America has been by state governments, and until the 14th amendment states could and did violate the bill of rights on a regular basis. Paul does not actually advocate the strong liberty that is proclaimed, merely that states should be free of federal influence. I believe that this is one of the most important distinctions.
Debate Round No. 1
QuantumBios

Pro

Please, allow me to retort! ;-)

Returning to the gold standard, which would be done over a period of time to ensure economic stability, would attach value to an item that has been valued for thousands of years. Experts have studied this The way our money system is devised now, appears to me, to benefit the government and private banks more than the citizens, due to an International Foreign Policy that ignores our Founders advice. The American People do not want war. We are trying to send that message to the world by electing this man. I, for one, understand that his shift in policy will require some hardship, but I believe the model is sound and I believe that gold will retain it's value.

But another question is, how will the rest of the world react to our country picking this man as our leader. How will the citizens of other countries react? Will they be happy for us, glad we were able to unburden ourselves and our future generation with mounting debt? Will they try and follow our example and create a free market society with minimal governmental interference? i believe that the collective sigh of relief that the world will breathe when we elect this man will manifest itself in an avalanche of global support. We are reigning in a currently rogue government.

I agree that America "as the lone global superpower" (not really actually) should flex it's muscle once in a while. I mean, we have camoflagued tanks to use, not sit, right? ;-) how about forming a small volunteer "international" force that could be called upon for specific in/out missions? There are ways to promote the value of life without sending anyone who objects on principle. I believe that there are soldiers out there who feel like it is their job to protect people, and they should be allowed to join a coalition -if they want to- and without benefits and money from the taxpayer. (I mean really, America could equip a delta force like the world has never seen) I agree. Let soldiers be soldiers if there is genocide occuring in a third world country, but let them go voluntarily, and limit it to 5,000 or so. But define the mission, start and end. Personally, I think Dr. Paul might object to that, but I digress.

I believe that we would be inherently safer from "terrorist" attacks if we stopped meddling in the affairs of other nations. "We will never be destroyed from the outside, if we fail, it will be because we did it to ourselves." - A.L. That whole line about fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them here is a TV SOUNDBITE, meant to stick in your head and keep you scared. If we're gonna get hit by a nuke, it's probably gonna be from "the big club" , -------------------- not some guy in a cave or in the ground. (did you hear about the documentary coming out? Supposedly found the body? Ha.) It's because we're over there on behalf of BP, Exxon, etc al.

Finally, regarding your statement about Paul's advocacy of states rights, I believe you are correct. Government cannot legislate virtue and morals on a federal level in a free society. We are a nation of immigrants, a melting pot of cultures, religions, and ideas. We have to learn to respect the individual, and not the "group" they are from. This would allow the people of a region to have a voice again, instead of getting their marching orders from Washington.

I believe that we are just beginning to realize our potential living in a free society, and that once we can free ourselves from corporate greed, instill fiscal responsibility in our financial institutions again, educate the public and allow the voice of the people to be recognized and heard, our potential to make the world a better place is unlimited.

America needs a change, America wants a change.
Fuego

Con

Fuego forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
QuantumBios

Pro

He will be a President that the people believe in and love. I do not want to have been a member of the generation of people who allowed our liberty to be stripped away. On a personal note, I'm doing this for my son more than for me. It's the good fight my friend, come and join us.
Fuego

Con

Fuego forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by jathan 9 years ago
jathan
Anytime! I think that only recently Ron Paul fully explained that approach. I would youtube his discussion with the Mad Money host if you have not already.
Posted by QuantumBios 9 years ago
QuantumBios
Thanks for clarifying that, I should stated that better, and couldn't find a way to edit the comment... Thanks!
Posted by jathan 9 years ago
jathan
Let us be clear, Ron Paul does support a gold standard and he has suggested the best way to accomplish this goal would be to legalize a currency (backed by gold) that would compete with the dollar. This would be no different from the dollar competing with the Euro, the Pound, the Peso etc.

Second, if you completely remove the income tax the federal budget now would be equivalent to the federal budget of ten years ago. Income tax accounts for, roughly, a third of the federal budget. Also, the income tax is completely unconstitutional so this should be a moot point.

Finally, suicide terrorism and terrorism in general is only successful if the populace related to the movement supports it. Middle-Eastern terrorists must be supported by a sizable segment of that population. Otherwise, the movement would fail from lack of funds, volunteers, support etc. You can easily remove the rationale for support by removing the US. The 9/11 commission report mentions this, and there is a great book entitled Blowback (after this concept) that explains it far better than I.
Posted by QuantumBios 9 years ago
QuantumBios
Also, it must be noted that Ron Paul DOES NOT advocate a return to the gold standard, but supports at least a partial backing of some sort of standard, and at the very least, would simply like to remove the fed's influence to 'cure inflation with more inflation'
Posted by QuantumBios 9 years ago
QuantumBios
A link to Alan Greenspan discussing a return to the gold standard. http://www.gold-eagle.com...
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
I do not think that Ron Paul will make America safer by any stretch of the word. Ron Paul is the only candidate that is promising troops home about as soon as he takes office. Not even Hillary Clinton could promise that. In a recent debate, not one of the three top Democrat candidates could promise a complete evacuation of Iraq by 2013. Ron Paul is definitely the only Republican candidate saying this. He gives the impression of being an isolationist and our enemies in the middle east are only going to jump at an opportunity like that. If we leave Iraq at its current unstable state, they are only going to follow us home. I don't know about you, but if we have to have this war, I would rather have it there.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I support what Ron Paul claims to support in general. But I highly doubt Ron Paul is being honest. He says he wants to abolish the IRS, in order to get rid of taxes- but how exactly does he intend to fund the government? There are nontax ways to go about it, but he has not recommended any. Even if you eliminate taxes, you still need someone to administer the collection and accounting of revenue by whatever new means, who but the IRS agents would do it?

State's rights are an absurdity for someone claiming liberty, as Fuego points out. Rights belong to individuals, not some level of government.

The gold standard is in fact valid and non-arbitrary (it is the only substance I know of that fits the objective requirements of a stable currency- it does not degrade, it can be brought to uniform quality, and as a luxury demand for it is unlimited. Foreign powers cannot "easily manipulate" it in any way I can see. However, Ron Paul has not made clear how he intends to transition from fiat to gold. Simply declaring the fiat currency invalid right off the bat for example, WOULD be disastrous.

Ron Paul's pacifism is innately at odds with securing liberty in a world in which people do, in fact, whatever the liberals say, "hate us for our freedom." See Sayyid Qutb, the philosopher who inspired Al Qaeda and several terrorist groups in Egypt.

Also, perhaps most important, Ron Paul is Christian. Worship of a man who surrendered voluntarily to die is innately at odds with the self-interest from which capitalism grows. Contradictions for ordinary citizens need only create patholoigies, but a deep contradiction in the mind of the most powerful man in the world is a time bomb waiting to go off.
Posted by robzilla180 9 years ago
robzilla180
More prosperous, maybe...
but more safe? I don't think so. He's got the same policy on the War in Iraq as Hilliary Clinton. I don't think that he's going to be more helpful in the War on Terror.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 Buckshot 9 years ago
Buckshot
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 james94 9 years ago
james94
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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 bhman31289 9 years ago
bhman31289
QuantumBiosFuegoTied
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