• 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!

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 67 55.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 45 37.5%
  • Neither

    Votes: 8 6.7%

  • Total voters
    120
That's the whole point though.
You're supposed to win using the best argument with facts.

Winning the voters is meaningless, if the voters are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, i think Obama could argue with Ron Paul fact v. fact. But winning the debate is meaningless if you don't end up being president.
 
how in the world do you figure that?

Shouldn't have said democrats but rather progressives.

Both parties are heavily representative of the early 20th century progressive movement.
Wilsonian war policy, both corporate and social welfare and a few others I'm not thinking of.

Tea Party members wants to keep the social programs costing us the most money.
 
Paul argues using factual information, while Obama uses emotive pleasantries.
He spanked McCain, Rudy and Hannity.
Obama would be a cake walk.

People can use factual information to create misleading comments or use facts and draw wrong conclusions. Paul does not impress me with his "facts".
 
People can use factual information to create misleading comments or use facts and draw wrong conclusions. Paul does not impress me with his "facts".

And while that may be true, you'd have to show that Paul was incorrect in his usage, which should be quite easy, if it were misleading or not true.
 
Most of the attacks on Paul are baseless and are usually veiled attempts at character assassination.

Is my saying he is nuttier than a fruitcake character assassination?
 
So basically, it's easy to ridicule people because they are different than you?

Different is ok, nuts is something else. Shall we take a look at a few:

-Abortion is murder.--only if murder means something other than murder. Can't change the definition of words for the sake of making a point

-Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement.--No, since actually the egg and sperm are alive beforehand. Science is not something you can make up

-Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. --Ummm...yeah. That will work so well

-Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations.--maybe in a parallel universe.

-School prayer is not a federal issue. --Apparently the first amendment does not exist in Paul's universe.

Do I need to go on?
 
Different is ok, nuts is something else. Shall we take a look at a few:

-Abortion is murder.--only if murder means something other than murder. Can't change the definition of words for the sake of making a point

-Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement.--No, since actually the egg and sperm are alive beforehand. Science is not something you can make up

He believes than human life begins at conception and he is right, that is were humans start but he has his own beliefs.
If you want to discredit him, do so with facts.

-Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. --Ummm...yeah. That will work so well

Why? Explain, just saying it won't doesn't mean anything.
Your entire argument is meaningless, without content.

-Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations.--maybe in a parallel universe.

Again, why?
What is wrong with it, explain yourself otherwise your arguments are more worthless than anything he professes, regardless of it is true or not.

-School prayer is not a federal issue. --Apparently the first amendment does not exist in Paul's universe.

Do I need to go on?

Yes, simply ridiculing someone is not sufficient and if you're not willing to rebut his arguments with factual information, your arguments are meaningless and empty.
 
He believes than human life begins at conception and he is right, that is were humans start but he has his own beliefs.
If you want to discredit him, do so with facts.

I did discredit him. His comments where over the top hyperbole. Abortion is only murder if murder means something other than it does. Life does not begin at conception, at most it changes, so his "scientific" statement is not scientific. I understand his position, but his comments are factually inaccurate in the way they are stated, which you do not address.

Why? Explain, just saying it won't doesn't mean anything.
Your entire argument is meaningless, without content.

Because change at this point of something that large and fundamental to the country would be incredibly destructive.

Again, why?
What is wrong with it, explain yourself otherwise your arguments are more worthless than anything he professes, regardless of it is true or not.

Ummm...because it was not primarily about property? Only libertarians would see equal rights legislation and think "ohm property".


Yes, simply ridiculing someone is not sufficient and if you're not willing to rebut his arguments with factual information, your arguments are meaningless and empty.

The reason school prayer is a federal issue is because we have the first amendment. I would not think this would be hard to understand.
 
I did discredit him. His comments where over the top hyperbole. Abortion is only murder if murder means something other than it does. Life does not begin at conception, at most it changes, so his "scientific" statement is not scientific. I understand his position, but his comments are factually inaccurate in the way they are stated, which you do not address.

He believes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is ending human life, there for it should be classified as murder.
You may not agree with it but that is what he believes.


Because change at this point of something that large and fundamental to the country would be incredibly destructive.

Says you but it is really true?
That's not a factual rebuttal.

Edit: there are many states without income taxes, are they fundamentally destroyed?
Wouldn't your argument be considered hyperbole?

Ummm...because it was not primarily about property? Only libertarians would see equal rights legislation and think "ohm property".

It was about property, it was telling people what they were allowed to do with their property.


The reason school prayer is a federal issue is because we have the first amendment. I would not think this would be hard to understand.

I'm familiar with his position and he thinks that the government should neither endorse, nor restrict prayer at schools.

Follows the 1st amendment just fine.
 
Last edited:
There is in fact just such a history: Ron Paul on the Issues

It is mentally unstable to suggest we imprison individuals for possessing a plant? Is it mentally unstable to suggest killing people to teach that killing is wrong? Is it mentally unstable to suggest stealing from those that have to provide (often after we skim from the top) for those that do not? Is it mentally unstable to suggest we bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a faraway land in order to put fear in the hearts of terrorists? Is it mentally unstable to monopolize an industry and then claim you're against monopolies?

Is it mentally unstable to vote and elect an individual whose platform entails every one of these suggestions?
 
I did discredit him. His comments where over the top hyperbole. Abortion is only murder if murder means something other than it does. Life does not begin at conception, at most it changes, so his "scientific" statement is not scientific. I understand his position, but his comments are factually inaccurate in the way they are stated, which you do not address.

Though I am personally pro-choice, I can't help but think that life does not begin only after birth. Let's take an example of a pregnant woman who has been pregant for longer than 3 months. Is it a boy, is it a girl, or is it just an it? If life truly begins at birth, then what stops you from supporting the legalization of partial-birth abortions or abortions at the tail-end of a pregnany? After all, if our consideration of when life begins is ultimate indicator of when we should allow and/or prohibit abortion, then "the ability of the fetus to live outside the womb" becomes irrelevant.
 
Of course life begins at conception, human life, of course,.....Ron Paul is correct.
Abortion means killing this life, but it cannot be "murder", as abortion has been declared to be legal.
At one time, 10 years ago, I'd say "yes", it is murder..
But I was wrong.....There are many people who value their privacy and choice over human life, sad, but that is the way it is.
We simply need a better people....maybe in another 100 years, this cannot be forced.
Would I want a Ron Paul, or any libertarian for President ?
Hell no !
 
-Abortion is murder.--only if murder means something other than murder. Can't change the definition of words for the sake of making a point

Gay marriage. While I support it, it's most certainly changing the definition of words for the sake of making a point

-Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement.--No, since actually the egg and sperm are alive beforehand. Science is not something you can make up

Words to remember. Science does not say that the egg and sperm aren't "alive". But it certainly says the conceived zygote is human

-Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. --Ummm...yeah. That will work so well

That's all you got on this one? Weak as ****. Please come up with an actual argument.

-Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations.--maybe in a parallel universe.

You sure it ain't? Or is this merely the way you wish to view the topic?

-School prayer is not a federal issue. --Apparently the first amendment does not exist in Paul's universe.

HAHAHA. I am a most devout atheist, I want secular government as well. Prayer in school is not a federal issue. People should be more than free to pray in school so long as they do not force others.

Do I need to go on?

Yes please, because what you have thus far is the weakest of weak sauce. I'd like some actual, intellectually honest, and well thought out reasons. Not knee jerk reactions and tripe with as little actual debate and information as possible.
 
I agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy but the rest of his ideas are just insane to me..
 
I agree with Ron Paul on pretty much everything except for closing Gitmo, and I'm still on the fence there.
 
I just don't think that a man who would be 76 on inauguration day is a good choice to be president.
 
Back
Top Bottom