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

Who was better for the Republican nomination? Ted Cruz (pro) or Donald Trump (con)?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Icy17 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 94907
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be taking the stance that Ted Cruz was a much better choice for the Republican nomination than Donald Trump. The debate will be organized as follows:

Round 1:
Pro: Debate outline Con: First arguments
Round 2:
Pro: First arguments Con: Counterarguments
Round 3:
Pro: Counterarguments Con: Additional comments/closing arguments
Round 4:
Pro: Additional comments/closing arguments (Con forfeits round)


Quick disclaimer: I am not a Donald Trump supporter. I loathe him and everything he thinks he believes. He is dangerous for the Republican Party, but so is Ted Cruz.

First off, Trump is simply the byproduct of years of underhanded, racist bellicose from conservatives. Ever since Reagan started his campaign at the site of three infamous Klan murders. He and his Republican predecessors campaigned on states' rights, forced bussing and now voter fraud. All of which is racist.

So my argument is this: the darkest night is just before dawn.

Trump is good for Republicans because he is the unfiltered racist trope that is their base. His Primary voters need to see him self destruct in order to understand the mistake they made.

Then we can get back to two productive political parties.
Debate Round No. 1


I, obviously, do not believe that Ted Cruz is dangerous to the Republican Party.

Reagan officially started his campaign with a formal TV announcement, and he later campaigned in seven miles west of Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the murders occur. Mississippi was a battleground state, so it is understandable why he would launch his campaign there. It had nothing to do with supporting the KKK.

I fail to see how promoting states' rights is racist. After inheriting a government that had expanded vastly starting with F.D.R. and never really stopping, he wanted to bring a return to federalism, where the states and federal government share power. The federal government over that time period was slowing assuming power that had belonged solely to the states. In the end, it creates a system to prevent tyranny and statism.

I'm not sure where you found that he supported segregated busing, so please provide a source. Although before assuming the presidency and early on in his presidency he held back from expanding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he later changed his mind. Also, he opposed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 because he felt it regulated the private sector and religious institutions too much, not because of racism.

Finally concerning Reagan, I don't understand how preventing voter fraud is racist. To vote, you should be able to prove you are who you say you are. In fact, some may say it's racist to assume only one race is committing voter fraud...

I agree with you concerning Trump somewhat. He is dangerous for the Republican Party. However, he did not come from racist conservatives. While there are some racist conservatives (just as they are racist moderates and racist liberals), the majority of his supporters are either authoritarian populists, uninformed voters who want change and see him as one that will bring change, or voters who see him as the only option aside from Clinton. I firmly believe that had he run for the Democratic nomination, he would have won or contested. Here's why:

His supporters are referred to as the "silent majority." That's because many have never voted, and many are independent. They were "stirred" by his bluntness and the difference between him and traditional politicians.

Trump is no stranger to flipping his positions. He has been a Democrat most of his life, and has supported a number of liberal policies in the past that he now claims to oppose. He has even changed his position during this campaign, and the most dramatic example of this was when he went from pro-life to pro-life with exceptions to pro-choice all in a matter of hours.

Trump is an opportunist. As shown by his various corporations, he capitalizes on weaknesses to become successful, and he does it well.

To combine the preceding three points, let me lay out the following scenario: Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani are all running for the Republican nomination, in addition to a few others. On the Democratic side, it is only Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb. There are several big name, powerful Republicans, but none on the Democratic side (this is what happened during the primaries; the Republicans had no big names aside from Jeb Bush, but the Democrats had Hillary Clinton and the prospect of Joe Biden). Trump sees the opportunity to win the Democratic nomination since he will have a better chance competing for that nomination. He keeps his main populist message, and remains authoritarian (as he is currently). He then changed minor things concerning his stances to match a more moderate-liberal voter population, such as: building a wall on the Mexican border, but granting amnesty to current illegal immigrants and not building a deportation force; pro-choice; and supports the 2nd amendment, but with an increase in waiting periods, more vigorous background checks, and higher fees. With this message, and the candidates he's running against, he then taps into the same voters he is currently with the Republican Party: people who have never voted before, independents, uninformed voters, or voters from either party who are mad at the system. His charisma and temperament would propel him about O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee, and he would compete with Sanders. In conclusion, what Trump has done to the Republican Party, he could do to the Democratic Party if the circumstances prior his announcement were different.

Ted Cruz was an excellent choice for the Republican nomination for several reasons.

First, he represents the return to federalism. He is a big advocate for states' rights and a balance of power, since the past twenty plus years have been a near constant expansion of the federal government.

Second, he is an honest politician that will stand by his values. When the Obamacare issue started, he filibustered for almost a day, and stayed true to not voting for it. When he lost the nomination, he did not endorse Trump, even though most politicians would have to land a spot in the Cabinet.

Third, he represents limited government. He wishes to limit entitlement programs, abolish Obamacare, abolish the IRS and establish a flat tax, take down regulations preventing businesses from doing business competitively internationally, and eliminate subsidies, which promote dependence and make it difficult for non-subsidized businesses to compete.


It's a longtime fact that Republicans have courted the racist vote. Ever since the Southern Strategy, developed by Lee Atwater. States Rights are code words for "for institutionalized segregation and racism".

Reagan continued Atwater's strategy, picking a location in MS so close to a race crime. That's been the tell-tell sign. Always come just close enough without touching it just to court the racist vote. And Trump is the purest form of that strategy.

With Trump's loss in November, Republicans have a chance to reset their party's base from blue collar, uneducated whites to a more diverse tent.

But my real argument is why Ted Cruz would be a horrific president. Not trying to bluster, but he has the same agenda as Islamic terrorists. He wants to establish the United States as a Christian nation, just as Isis wants to establish their caliphate.

Just a few Cruz quotes:
“No man who doesn’t begin every day on his knees is fit to stand in the Oval Office.”
“I want to tell everyone to get ready, strap on the full armor of God, get ready for the attacks that are coming.”
"Christians are suffering, Jews are suffering and other Muslims are suffering… What I’m saying is Syrian Muslim refugees should be resettled in the Middle East, in majority Muslim countries.”
"..nothing is more important than having people of faith stand up and just vote our values, vote biblical values and that’s how we turn the country around.”

And there are several hundred more along the same lines. Basically he's saying to hell with the constitution, I'll carpet bomb the Middle East, only allow Christians to enter the US, and pray for guidance on every presidential decision.

By the way: voter fraud is a non issue. The percentage each election cycle turns out to be .0006 of the electorate. What's racist are the regulations (which I thought Republicans hated). Gun permits are acceptable at the polls, college IDs are not. If you don't own a DL, which many minorities lack, you have go through several hoops in order to get the official voting ID from the state. One that costs the poor money and time they don't have. Yes, it's a racist policy.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.