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

Rand Paul for President 2016

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,360 times Debate No: 52019
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




-Paul supports cutting government spending, and lowering taxes.

-He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal.

-Paul says that American citizens have a right to privacy.

-He opposes the use of federal, state, or local government funds for abortion

-Paul opposes same sex marriage and he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

-Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education.

-Paul would oppose all gun control legislation, a position he says is supported by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

-Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care.

-Paul believes mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession should but eliminated but ultimately the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere.


-Paul supports cutting government spending, and lowering taxes.

You see, Rand Paul has quite a long plan for reforming the budget. To bad none of it actually helps the economy. If an expierienced economist takes a look at the numbers, they simply do not add up, and nearly everything hhe proposes increases the deficit. I'll read off directly from the pretext....... [1]

-Eliminates four departments: Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban 
Development, Education, and Energy;

Paul's support for eliminating these specific beauracracies is outrageous. The Department of Commmerce's whole job is to stimulate economic growth. By removing the department, they will impede government programs that increase economic growth, increasing the deficit. [2]

And don't even get me started on the other three departments. If you are unaware, the libertarians wish to privatize public education, and completely remove any public educational assistance [3]. This will lead to the untimely death of the economy. Public schooling is a right attributed to nearly every developed country. By removing public schooling, then we'll have less educated people to put in the workforce, and our economy will tank. [4]

The Department of Energy is an even greater loss, and a set back for progressive and green politics. The DE wishes to provide more alternative energies, and researches and promotes greener energy growth. The libertarians wish to actuallty increase our reliance on oil. How foolish can these people be? [5]

o Block grants welfare programs, e.g. Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, and child 
nutrition; and
What most day one economists think is that welfare is simply a leach on the economy. This is not true. Not only is it a right for our citizens to live above poverty level, it also boosts the economy. By helping citizens out of poverty, and putting money back into citizens wallets, the economy actually takes a boost. [6]

About 26% of people who get a welfare check get out of poverty within 2-5 years. This means that welfare is working. We are putting citizens back into the economy, where they can go off and become productive. [7]

As for foodstamps, they help us just as much. 14% of all our foodstamp money, a cost of about 80 billion, goes to Walmart. Walmart in turn becomes richer, investing more money back into the economy. That is the conservative argument, right? [8]

He also wishes to see the Child Nutritions Act of 1966 repealed as well. No people, this has nothing to do with Michelle Obama. This Act provides free milk, breakfast, and lunch (reduced cost) is provided by the government. I've been to a couple of schools, and the percentage of people who relied on this act looked like this.... [9]




Now those are the rounded numbers, but they're still not good in anyway. Without this act, children simply do not eat. And the Act can actually help the economy, because most kids can only pay at reduced costs. Meaning the government makes either 1.25$ or nothing.

o Prioritizes additional funding to national defense

Rand Paul must be the stupidest guy in Senate. Are you aware that 50% of the world's money goes into the military budget? We spend more on our military then the 15 nations behind us. Yes, we send more then China, Britain, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, India, Germany, Brazil, Italy, SK, Canada, and Australia on our military combined. 711 billion (raised/ don't have updated statistic/think its 780 b. now) is simply to much. Not even the GOP supports raising it, but keeping it the same. This actually raises the deficit. [10]

 -A low flat tax for individuals and corporations;
Sounds great, besides the fact that it will raise the deficit, the social inequality gap, and the power of corporations in government. Progressive taxes are the future, and no justification can exist for lowering the already small taxes on the rich. This also will tank the economy, while a progressive tax will save it. [11]

Eliminates capital gains, dividends, estates, gift and other savings taxes 

Waw?! So Pauls plan to lower the deficit is to remove taxes. These taxes go to multiple programs which help the economy. You can not simply remove our most profitable taxes, and expect to keep living in the same rich and priveleged country. This raises the deficit for a fact, and the theory that it will lower it in time is baseless and risky. [12]

I hope I proved my point simply by economics alone. And if it be a must, I will take my opponent on socially. But to conclude, Rand Paul is the worst economist in the world, and all his plans involve either raising the deficit or cutting government programs. Simply ridicoulous.












Debate Round No. 1


Bryanvw forfeited this round.


Extend Arguments
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Actually, since they are gov sites, remove all dashes after the link
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
To view the sources, remove all characters after the "m"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted each of Pro's points and was the only one to use sources. Also, Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 7 years ago
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- FF

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.