• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

99% of the people you know ≠ 99% of the country.

How many votes did he get in the last election? 10,000? 100,000? Would you say more than a million? ;)
 
THE LSAT and undergraduate GPA are still the best predictors of how one will do in law school. SInce you obviously have no personal experience with applying to or getting into top law schools you are spewing BS based on your desire to defend Obama and ignore the fact that most blacks who are accepted into top law schools would not be accepted if they were white or Asian and had the same score.

http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/archive/v75/75_2/Rothstein75-2.pdf

Nearly two-thirds
of black law students—including nearly all of the less qualified students
who would bear the brunt of any mismatch effects—would not
have attended law school at all without affirmative action. Preferences
are even more important at the most selective law schools, where black
enrollment would decline by 90 percent under race-blind admission

oops
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

You have yet to provide any evidence that Obama actually benefited from affirmative action. Until you do? Nothing more than penis envy.
 
How many votes did he get in the last election? 10,000? 100,000? Would you say more than a million? ;)
It's funny how you engage in appeal to popularity in this post, yet attempt to call out another poster on appeal to authority in the very next post. ;)
 
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

You have yet to provide any evidence that Obama actually benefited from affirmative action. Until you do? Nothing more than penis envy.

on the penis envy. .. you've gone to far. :p

But for him to say Obama benefited from affirmative action.. that is a testament to the effectiveness of the program. Props to Obama for overcoming the odds as a minority.
 
It's funny how you engage in appeal to popularity in this post, yet attempt to call out another poster on appeal to authority in the very next post. ;)

Here is what I said:

Yeah, the only baggage he has is that 99% of the country thinks he's somebody's crazy uncle.

Now look up what an appeal to popularity is. Wait, don't - I'll explain it to you: An appeal to popularity would be something like this:

Yeah, the only baggage he has is that he is somebody's crazy uncle because 99% of the country believe he is.

Now, I know it seems inconceivable to you that your Messiah avec les cheveux blancs would be somebody's crazy uncle(I'm not sure, does he have brothers?) but face it kid, he's unelectable because of the kind of **** he spews and how the overwhelming majority of the country sees him regardless of whether you are on the left or right.

I mean if I was at a family party and Ron Paul was my crazy uncle and he was in the back screaming about how we need to stop eating healthy food, I'd avoid him too. On a normal basis he may not sound crazy but when he gets them grits in him....
 
Last edited:
on the penis envy. .. you've gone to far. :p

But for him to say Obama benefited from affirmative action.. that is a testament to the effectiveness of the program. Props to Obama for overcoming the odds as a minority.

What else would you call it when the only possible way that a black man could be more successful than you is if he was given a helping hand?
 
Here is what I said:
Yeah, the only baggage he has is that 99% of the country thinks he's somebody's crazy uncle.
You referred to the wrong post, champ. Readin' iz hared!

Seriously, you should not post without adult supervision. :lamo
 
How many votes did he get in the last election? 10,000? 100,000? Would you say more than a million? ;)

Ron Paul received 0 votes in the last Presidential election. And you haven't explained what makes Ron Paul a crazy uncle. I don't think any of his policies are crazy.
 
Ron Paul received 0 votes in the last Presidential election. And you haven't explained what makes Ron Paul a crazy uncle. I don't think any of his policies are crazy.
I have a feeling it will involve something completely logical and rational like alleged penis size. :roll:
 
You referred to the wrong post, champ. Readin' iz hared!

Seriously, you should not post without adult supervision. :lamo

Holy crap, this is more serious than I thought....

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exceptions

Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one.

Democracy is based on appeal to popularity. As a means of determining the truth of beliefs, it is fallacious (see consensus reality and wikiality). Democracy does not obviate this; it merely makes the fallacy irrelevant as correctness is defined by popularity in its case (possibly subject to constitutional restrictions).

Argumentum ad populum explains how some democracies (e.g. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy) have fallen victim to the tyranny of the majority.

In other words, you have failed basic reading comprehension. If I say, the majority of the country is in disagreement with Ron Paul's ideas and thus will not vote for him. This is VERIFIED by the number of people who for him.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul received 0 votes in the last Presidential election. And you haven't explained what makes Ron Paul a crazy uncle. I don't think any of his policies are crazy.

His blind promotion of free trade is for one thing something most people are against on the basis that in the 21st century, free trade has more ramifications than Ron Paul is willing to admit.

He believes the U.S. should do business with companies who provide jobs in Darfur. Now, on the surface that doesn't seem like that big of an issue to most people. Only that these companies are providing jobs to the same Arab majority who has conducted a genocide in the country. I don't want my government giving tax breaks or supporting companies which give jobs to countries carrying out genocides. Now I'm sure neither does Ron Paul, but his inability (well no, it's cause he's too busy thinking about the greatness of the free market) to see that by allowing these companies to operate freely he is indirectly helping to fund a genocide is quite ridiculous.

That is what makes him crazy in my opinion. He's so busy sucking on Thomas Jefferson's dick to realize that Thomas Jefferson would have **** his pants if he had to deal with the type of complex economy we have today. I mean what was the U.S.'s main industry back then? Slavery? Cotton? That wouldn't even crack our top 100 industries today in terms of complexity and social ramifications. Seriously, he's crazy because of his unwillingness to see that purism is not always the best solution. ****, it's not even the best solution most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Just have to sit there and agree with President Obama.

Not to mention mostly everything else.

You have to be crazy to think that Romney would argue against Obama's bonus depreciation, low interest rates, extravagant R&D credits, payroll holidays, extravagant corporate subsidies and a huge boost to demand via stimulus and its $300 billion tax cuts.

I'd love to see someone here argue that the market didn't like the low interest rates and stimulus.
 
His blind promotion of free trade is for one thing something most people are against on the basis that in the 21st century, free trade has more ramifications than Ron Paul is willing to admit.

He believes the U.S. should do business with companies who provide jobs in Darfur. Now, on the surface that doesn't seem like that big of an issue to most people. Only that these companies are providing jobs to the same Arab majority who has conducted a genocide in the country. I don't want my government giving tax breaks or supporting companies which give jobs to countries carrying out genocides. Now I'm sure neither does Ron Paul, but his inability (well no, it's cause he's too busy thinking about the greatness of the free market) to see that by allowing these companies to operate freely he is indirectly helping to fund a genocide is quite ridiculous.

That is what makes him crazy in my opinion. He's so busy sucking on Thomas Jefferson's dick to realize that Thomas Jefferson would have **** his pants if he had to deal with the type of complex economy we have today. I mean what was the U.S.'s main industry back then? Slavery? Cotton? That wouldn't even crack our top 100 industries today in terms of complexity and social ramifications. Seriously, he's crazy because of his unwillingness to see that purism is not always the best solution. ****, it's not even the best solution most of the time.

Ron Paul is against Congress delegating it's powers on the matter to the President and is against NAFTA and the WTO. He would not support any sort of special treatment to those companies, I do not know why you think otherwise. Not to mention as it stands now, many of those companies are SUBSIDIZED with taxpayer money. What about China? They are involved in human rights violations; should the government stop companies from trading with China?

Your second paragraph isn't based on anything. I don't recall him ever citing Jefferson as an economist who influenced him. Maybe over abolishing the central bank, but Ron Paul is a million times better than Dodd or Frank. We are trillions of dollars in debt, continue to spend, are losing the ability to produce ANYTHING and yet Ron Paul's ideas are crazy? So is free trade the only problem you have? That is what makes him nuts? Yes, lets have companies stop trading with companies from countries with human rights violations, see how well our economy does then.
 
Ron Paul is against Congress delegating it's powers on the matter to the President and is against NAFTA and the WTO.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

He would not support any sort of special treatment to those companies, I do not know why you think otherwise. Not to mention as it stands now, many of those companies are SUBSIDIZED with taxpayer money.

Only that is not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that allowing them to operate in the U.S. and receive free roam while they help fund genocides, which as I'll explain later is not simply a 'human rights violation' is the complete anti-thesis to what our government was founded upon.

What about China? They are involved in human rights violations; should the government stop companies from trading with China?

I'm all for it though admittedly, unlike Ron Paul, I don't actually advocate it because it is unrealistic. See what I'm getting at? Ron Paul is not a realist. He lives in the 17th century and thinks the rest of us are there with him.

Your second paragraph isn't based on anything. I don't recall him ever citing Jefferson as an economist who influenced him.

Is that some sort of ****ing joke?

Entangling Alliances

Entangling Alliances

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

As President Bush addressed the United Nations last week, I could not help thinking we have become incredibly mired in the "entangling alliances" another President George – George Washington – warned against. Sadly, many in Washington and the media seem to consider UN approval of our war plans far more important than a congressional debate on the matter.

America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war.

I’m disappointed that the President has chosen to further entangle the American people with the United Nations by rejoining UNESCO. For decades UNESCO has promoted its anti-American "education" agenda with our tax dollars. President Reagan was right to withdraw America from the politicized and corrupt UNESCO, especially since American taxpayers funded a whopping 25% of its budget. Our new promised financial commitment to UNESCO is at least $60 million annually. Given our present economic problems and immediate national security concerns, we surely cannot afford to send even more taxpayer dollars to the UN – especially to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans.

Worst part about it is he even attributes it to the wrong person.

Maybe over abolishing the central bank, but Ron Paul is a million times better than Dodd or Frank. We are trillions of dollars in debt, continue to spend, are losing the ability to produce ANYTHING and yet Ron Paul's ideas are crazy? So is free trade the only problem you have?

No. His solutions are the problem. Not free trade, it's his SOLUTIONS to the problems which are the problem.

That is what makes him nuts?

His position on abortion, gay rights, US military bases etc.

Yes, lets have companies stop trading with companies from countries with human rights violations, see how well our economy does then.

Ah yes, here is where we see your extremist logic and your complete inability to notice the difference between a human rights violation and a genocide. Genocides are human rights violations not all human rights violations are genocides.

Example,

China telling a few Christians to piss off every now and then? Human rights violation. I'm opposed to it but I do not think that means stopping companies trading with them. Sanctions, declarations etc are all acceptable forms of descent in such case.

The government of Sudan hunting down Christians and killing them indiscriminately through proxies? Not the same thing at all. Not even a little bit. I mean sure both are human rights violations but they are not equal.

See where I'm getting at? It's this ridiculous version you Libertarians have of the world which scares most people who've actually been outside of the country on something more than a family vacation. The fact that you live in a world of black, claim you also see grays but forget about the fact that most people see in color is what makes your ideology so unappealing.

I'm not opposed to our government doing business with France even though they have banned Burqas. I'm not opposed to doing business with Egypt even though they subjugate religious minorities in some of their cities. I mean those are all human rights violations but I do not think they warrant stopping trade with those countries. I do however think a certain line needs to be drawn on how much we tolerate for the sake of good-clean capitalism and that is what you Libertarians along with your Messiah don't seem to understand. That in an ideal world you could probably stand opposed to everything you disagree with. However in the real world being a purist is NOT a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Me! Oh wait; I’m not a republican or a candidate of the Republican Party in 2012. :doh
 
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

You have yet to provide any evidence that Obama actually benefited from affirmative action. Until you do? Nothing more than penis envy.

Waiting for you to explain how he got into Harvard Law with no honors. He has let everyone know that he did well at Harvard Law so its not like he has some policy against disclosing his academic record when it suits him. Why won't he let people know what he did at Occidental and then Columbia? DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT IF HE HAD HIGH HONORS AT COLUMBIA WE WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT?

Obama would not have been accepted into Harvard Law as a White Man with a B to B+ average. I have known over 100 Harvard Law students (Yale had dozens accepted each year plus a bunch of us who went to other schools in that top 10 class) and In a 7 year period I never heard of a white male with less than a 3.7 getting into Harvard Law.

That you deny that his race was a major factor for someone with a mediocre academic record (especially in light of the competition) is just a case of Plain denial on your part and you never dealt with that Chicago LR article I posted noting that if affirmative action was eliminated 90% of the blacks at top schools would not have been accepted.
 
Ron Paul owns all in debates.
 
Ron Paul owns all in debates.

Nah .. libertarians actually fail miserably when they are forced to actually deal with the implications of what they say about zero government. In fact republicans favourite economic policy (re: deregulation) has been an utter disaster.. never mind what it would mean to Americans if the government was privatised and democratic powers of the people wilted in favour of the corporations who would take public services for profit.

Libertarians sound nice on the face but the reality is that they fail miserably in practice. In a debate all you have to do is force them to explain exactly what it means to have a telephone booth government.
 
Nah .. libertarians actually fail miserably when they are forced to actually deal with the implications of what they say about zero government. In fact republicans favourite economic policy (re: deregulation) has been an utter disaster.. never mind what it would mean to Americans if the government was privatised and democratic powers of the people wilted in favour of the corporations who would take public services for profit.

Libertarians sound nice on the face but the reality is that they fail miserably in practice. In a debate all you have to do is force them to explain exactly what it means to have a telephone booth government.

Libertarians dont advocated for no government. Please try again
 
Libertarians dont advocated for no government. Please try again

Whats this? Suppose libertarians want to regulate the finance industry or risky deep sea oil drilling? Protect consumers? They don't want to privatise government services to the private sector? They don't want to limit the governments powers and destroy the value of the vote? I mean basically they want to turn the government into something that is basically ineffectual which in turn makes your democracy a farce. Want more public apathy about democracy turn your government into a yes man for corperations and the "free market".
 
I would argue your approach to Darfur is the simple and unrealistic idea. Bush strengthened sanctions on U.S. business-Darfur relations. Why is this the solution to such a horrible problem? As a result, other countries have stepped in to take the place of the US.

I recommend reading this article to get a better idea of the situation...

BBC NEWS | Africa | US sanctions 'won't help Darfur'

Again, your "solution" does not help the people of Sudan and is not realistic to the world we live in.

The article you cited was about military conflict. In other words, trade with other countries, but no alliances.

What do you think his stance on abortion, gay rights, and US military bases is? Nothing about his stances in these areas is extreme. I believe they are more reasonable than the views held by the majority of politicians
 
Whats this? Suppose libertarians want to regulate the finance industry or risky deep sea oil drilling? Protect consumers? They don't want to privatise government services to the private sector? They don't want to limit the governments powers and destroy the value of the vote? I mean basically they want to turn the government into something that is basically ineffectual which in turn makes your democracy a farce. Want more public apathy about democracy turn your government into a yes man for corperations and the "free market".

Our government is already a "yes man" for corporations. We do not live in a free market. You think federal bailouts of banks is something libertarians advocate? Yes, deregulate companies, but not all regulations are bad. How is limiting government destroying democracy? And where is this democracy you speak of?
 
Our government is already a "yes man" for corporations. We do not live in a free market. You think federal bailouts of banks is something libertarians advocate? Yes, deregulate companies, but not all regulations are bad. How is limiting government destroying democracy? And where is this democracy you speak of?

True, but further concessions won't make it less compliant.
 
Holy crap, this is more serious than I thought....

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In other words, you have failed basic reading comprehension. If I say, the majority of the country is in disagreement with Ron Paul's ideas and thus will not vote for him. This is VERIFIED by the number of people who for him.
So your point was that, since he didn't get a large number of votes in the last election (which isn't even true, as he garnered +70% of the vote in the last election for Congress; he wasn't on the presidential ballot in 2008), he must be crazy. Appeal to popularity would not be a fallacy if you had said people believe he is not fit for the presidency or something similar. But saying that he is crazy because nobody votes for him is ridiculous.

Anyway, I don't know why you are so against him. He's all in favor of legalizing marijuana.
 
So your point was that, since he didn't get a large number of votes in the last election (which isn't even true, as he garnered +70% of the vote in the last election for Congress; he wasn't on the presidential ballot in 2008), he must be crazy.

No. That would be an appeal to popularity. Which is what you keep straw manning my arguments as. Are your parents home? Can I have a talk with them? I'd like to know why you're so ignorant when it comes to fallacies.

Appeal to popularity would not be a fallacy if you had said people believe he is not fit for the presidency or something similar.

You mean like saying people won't vote for him because they think he's crazy? Well I guess not.

But saying that he is crazy because nobody votes for him is ridiculous.

Which is what I said. Here is my post again:

Yeah, the only baggage he has is that 99% of the country thinks he's somebody's crazy uncle.

Now explain to us all how saying 'the only baggage he has is that 99% of the country thinks he's crazy' is the same as saying 'the only baggage he has is that he's crazy so 99% of the country won't vote for him' - I'll explain to you the key word here : thinks.

Anyway, I don't know why you are so against him. He's all in favor of legalizing marijuana.

If I were a one issue voter like yourself - who only needs the approval of Ron Paul to be in favor of it - then yes - I guess that would be a reason for me to like him.

Seriously, your arguments have been destroyed. You tried to play the fallacies game with me and lost. What was it you said a few pages ago?

Readin' iz hared!

:)
 
Back
Top Bottom