CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:8
Arguments:7
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Eliot Spitzer got my repsect (7)

Debate Creator

ThePyg(6738) pic



Eliot Spitzer got my repsect

I was watching an interview with Ron Paul and Eliot Spitzer, and I feel that from it... Eliot Spitzer is the only person to actually make good points AGAINST Ron Paul.  Sure, I agree with Ron Paul and not with Spitzer, but his ability to make GOOD points against Paul that actually make Paul have to reevaluate his own argument is quite impressive.

If only more Liberals could provide a decent argument against Classical Liberalism.  I feel that Spitzer's point on the Clean Air Act was excellent, and while Libertarian scholars have made great arguments against it, Paul clearly was not at full scale against it.  As well, this will be able to strengthen Paul's later arguments when he does look MORE into the issues to see what exactly he could say if ever brought up again.  Paul, while being solid through most of the interview, did have issues with the point on New Jersey.

Good, logical arguments that challenge each other are important.  Libertarianism, I wish, could be challenged more because I feel that in order to do it right, we need to hear out all the thought-out challenges (as opposed to the typical Conservative and Liberal bullshit that seems to completely disregard any of the facts that have already been brought forward again and again, as well as the many arguments of the philosophies in general that end with them saying "big government good; free people bad."

For the first time, in a while, I've seen a good argument from a neo-Liberal against a Classical Liberal.  And it's from Spitzer, of all people.  A guy who used taxpayer's dollars to purchase hookers, while at the same time putting hookers in jail.  Clearly a point as to the problems with giving government money and power, but with that aside, Spitzer was able to actually challenge Paul.  This strengthens Paul for future arguments (as is the point of debate; I love being challenged on my views because it helps shape my views much more strongly.  Luckily, my written arguments I can give time so that I never seem incorrect or begotten, even though I know many of you believe you've defeated me, and sure, I make mistakes, but that helps shape my future arguments where I hope to not make the same mistakes).

So I hope to see more of this type of stuff.  Paul is far from perfect, and my views are different from his (just much closer than Obama or Romney), and actual challenging questions are important.  Much better than his terrible debate with Chris Matthews where Matthews just says that Libertarians believe that it's okay for heroin addicts to raise children.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGU78a1ba8

Add New Argument
2 points

I just gotta say; ideological similarities don't impress me as much as good arguments.

You can argue for why rape should be legal, but as long as you truly have a good argument, I'll have respect for you.

1 point

I liked the Paul v. Paul debate on Bloomberg (Ron v. Krugman).

It seemed to me that Paul just repeated himself after a certain point, unable to counter some of Krugman's points. But I'm not as knowledgable about anything economy-related.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/

Supporting Evidence: Paul vs. Krugman (www.bloomberg.com)
1 point

I do like Krugman, but I found him to be just going on the basis that government is good because government is good and that's why it's okay to continue the bubble.

He didn't really contest Paul, and Paul, at a certain point, went on to just repeat the points of liberty and shit like that.

Krugman didn't really corner Paul... they just seemed to reach a stand-still. I find that Paul is not an economist, and it would have been better to have Libertarian economists debate Krugman so they could get more in depth.

Spitzer, to me, is at the same level as Paul. This is why I was more impressed. Krugman is a brilliant economist with some interesting ideals, but he doesn't really know how to debate Ron Paul and vice versa.

1 point

Paul vs Paul debate is interesting. Paul was the clear winner despite not being an economist.

It seemed to me that Paul just repeated himself after a certain point, unable to counter some of Krugman's points.

Paul is not an true Austrian economist, if Thomas Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert Murphy, Lew Rockwell or even Peter Schiff, Paul Krugman would appear foolish. These men get no attention because they are not running for president nor fit into mainstream economics.

Eliot Spitzer has no authority or respect with talking to anyone about consistency or integrity, just ask his EX-WIFE! He is still part of the status quota in liberalism.

The point of inviting an guest onto the show is to understand their takes on issues, so by cutting them off and not letting them to clearly explain their position is typical of liberalism. IT IS THE I AM LOUDER THAN YOU, SO SHUT UP!!

Spitzer asked the tough questions, but when cutting the guest off, and switching gears so often, it is obvious there is an agenda not only in the moderator, but the network

1 point

I just joined the forum so there are so many things I don’t know yet, I hope to have the help of the boards, and I really want to get to know you all on the forum driving directions mapquest