CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I said specifically. I am not looking for regurgitated talking points which then see no actual actions. I am talking about SPECIFIC cuts: How would he cut military spending? Would he focus on private contractors, military contracts with the states, what? How would he cut "corporate welfare", and would that include raising taxes on them or changing their tax code? How would he reform "entitlement programs", and would that involve abolishing certain was, raising the SS age, etc? How would he simplify the tax code? Would he implement a flat tax? Would he change tax forms? Which departments would he eliminate?
I have heard nothing but rhetoric from Rand, which leaves me unimpressed. Now Gary Johnson I can respect. He is a true libertarian, and while I may disagree with that ideology, he at least is not a partisan, rhetoric repeating politician.
I hope Rand Paul doesn't cut military spending. That would be extremely stupid in this day and age of ISIS, the Mexican Cartel, and other problems in the world. Obama has already cut the military to the point where it can barely function. Reduce the military budget anymore and you might as well just paint a bulls-eye on the nation and send up a message of defenselessness.
I have my doubts about him, but I'm not totally against voting for him. My main objection to Rand is that he supported statist Mitt Romney over libertarian Ron Paul.
His distrust of federal government is appealing, but I wish his views on the economy were not so patently naive. His opposition to same sex marriage and abortion concern me, not even primarily as civil rights issues but because they indicate an inconsistency within his ideology that I can only attribute to religious conviction.
So you really don't believe he is responsible for something being published in his name? If so, how can he be expected to hold responsibility for those under him as President?
But again, it was under his name, and included his signature. How is he not responsible for making sure the things being put out under his name are acceptable to him?
Does that mean that if he was president, he would not be responsible for those under him?
But again, he is not the one who said those things.
Please re-read what I am saying. I recognize that he did not say them, but they were said under a publication of his, it was under his name, and included his signature. Even if he is not the one who said it, how is he not responsible for it?
And 9/11 was not caused by direct actions of one of Bush's subordinates, so that comparison does not work.
As of those who are running so far, I think I am most aligned with Hillary, which is kind of sad because I wish there were people who excited me more. But I agree with most of what she has to say.
Ted Cruz is my favorite for amusement. But the idea of him being president makes me really scared because we would all die.
Well, when I said that about Ted Cruz, it was a joke. However, the thing he prides himself on most is that he basically never changes his opinion on anything. This inability to find compromise, or if he's wrong, listen to reason, is incredibly frightening to me. He is also a global warming denier, which was the crux of my joke: he's going to do things that will literally end the world sooner.
I think Marco Rubio is the most earnest and genuine of the pack. But he is perceived as too inexperienced. Just a Jr. Senator. Hmmm
Jeb Bush is not exciting or moving or at all charismatic, but is seen as competent. His big negative is Bush and sounding canned.
Huckabee is by far the most underrated. He is experienced and intelligent. With a strong set of values to guide himself as well as a country. His appeal is to narrow to win a general election.
Cruz is right about what we need to focus on as a nation, but his appeal is again to much to the right to get serious support from the whole party.
Scott Walker could be a very effective president and move us back to fiscal sanity, and is polling strongly.
Any of these would best Hillary in a debate or in practice, but maybe not an election. The toughest thing they all would face is not Hillary, Warren or Bidon, but the the liberal media poised to attack anyone who poses a threat to liberals.
The biggest thing Republicans have in their favor is Obama Backlash, which in the last two midterms has given them the Congress, and could well give them the WH next.
Huckabee is either nuts or an act. I am pretty sure he is only running to garner publicity for his next book/job.
Walker has no idea how to make policy or lead. He is also kind of extremist and I don't mean very conservative.
Cruz is just Cruz.
None of those three can beat Hilary in a debate. The only one with a chance would be Rubio. He actually understands policy and legislative consequences. He is not charismatic enough to win a debate (or the Primary/General), but he is smart enough.
"Obama Backlash" is just spin. You should probably look up midterm election trends regarding the executive office. History and data trumps all punditry.
Condomman has a good view on health so he could take position as like the first lady but as president Jeb Bush he did well as Govenor and by some people known as the trustworthy Bush not saying too much in some peoples eyes but still
Ted Cruz, mostly because of the Dr. Seuss incident but also because he plans to repeal Obamacare, abolish the IRS, and actually enforce immigration laws.
Not a one of them is to my liking, but when forced to choose in the upcoming elections my vote will likely cast to the leading Democratic candidate because their "more of the same" offering will be slightly more to my benefit and marginally less detrimental than what I would get voting the other way.
Honestly, Clinton and Romney are our leading options? We should definitely expect great things come 2016... good grief.
That is not an excuse in any way. I need no "excuse" for what I said.
And no, they only prove how much you agree with his statements.
Saying that ObamaCare is akin to slavery and that the United States is close to Nazi Germany are not sane, knowledgeable, or down to Earth. They are extremist.
At least I have the decency to admit that the person I'm most likely to vote for is an extremist. But of course modern American political thought is "Anyone I agree with is sane and everyone else is extreme". So wonderful.
Rand Paul. For freedom, liberty, and justice! Seriously though. Out of all these candidates I see Rand Paul most capable for the job and the best when it comes to just exercising common sense.
Bernie Sanders and I get the feeling many will vote for him , that is if Hillary doesn't steal the nomination . If so I will be voting for the independent .
My favorite candidate is anyone, absolutely anyone but these extremist Democrat's taking over the Democrat party.
RINO Republicans are not much better than Democrats because they have lost all back bone to stop these Liberal extremists. Our leaders are now being elected by those who want free stuff from politicians, not for what is best for America.
We need to give Conservatives a chance becuase they are the only ones with common sense love for the greatness of America and our freedoms. They simply believe in cutting our debt before it is too late, restoring sanity to our freedoms, bringing back a discussion over personal responsibility for one's actions in life and not just giving able bodied people careers on welfare while asking for nothing in return.
Our culture is being destroyed by the broken families and Conservtives understand the importance of talking about it in the same way that people speak out over the dangers of smoking, etc. Why do you care so little for our children. Why won't you fight for their right to have a mother and father supporting them instead of a cold corrupt Government.
My favorite candidate is anyone, absolutely anyone but these extremist Democrat's taking over the Democrat party.
Like always, you present no content or opinions, just yelling at people.
RINO Republicans are not much better than Democrats because they have lost all back bone to stop these Liberal extremists
Not really, they are just less extreme than you.
We need to give Conservatives a chance becuase they are the only ones with common sense love for the greatness of America and our freedoms
Some Conservatives have that, some don't. Some Liberals have that, some don't. Enough of your divisiveness!
. They simply believe in cutting our debt before it is too late
Then why don't past Republican administrations show that? They have been worse with adding to the debt (proportionally) than Democrats, historically.
restoring sanity to our freedoms
Except the ones they don't like.
bringing back a discussion over personal responsibility for one's actions in life and not just giving able bodied people careers on welfare while asking for nothing in return.
Many on the left, including myself, believe people on welfare should have to work while receiving it, and most do.
Our culture is being destroyed by the broken families
Our culture is being destroyed? Then why is violence and poverty down, education up, etc.?
Conservatives understand the importance of talking about it in the same way that people speak out over the dangers of smoking, etc. Why do you care so little for our children. Why won't you fight for their right to have a mother and father supporting them instead of a cold corrupt Government.
That is not a sane way to speak about the issue. In fact, it is a dishonest way to speak about the issue. Liberals don't want the government to have to care for people, they simply believe the government should assist when necessary. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you won't even discuss the issues honestly?
Like always, you present no content or opinions, just yelling at people.
Actually his statement referred to liberal extremists who have taken over the democratic party. And YOU made no mention of that in your dispute.
Not really, they are just less extreme than you.
A point was made that RINO's are abandoning conservative republican ideology. Your dispute again ignores his point.
Some Conservatives have that, some don't. Some Liberals have that, some don't. Enough of your divisiveness
The statement referred to conservative ideology as being the return path back to America's greatness. You dispute by saying that some liberals have conservative ideology???
Then why don't past Republican administrations show that? They have been worse with adding to the debt (proportionally) than Democrats, historically.
Simply incorrect. NO previous administration has out spent Obama.
Aligning with your education source, but refuting your argument (even its author states ed is up, therefore a relevant argument from you would have pointed to our position on the global scale): http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/summary.aspx
Actually his statement referred to liberal extremists who have taken over the democratic party. And YOU made no mention of that in your dispute.
My statement can still stand, though I admit that was a mistake. One can still argue that they simply aren't as extreme as he is, and thus are not doing "enough" in his opinion. Though I agree I should have pointed out that those who have taken over the Democratic party are not "extremists" by any means.
The statement referred to conservative ideology as being the return path back to America's greatness. You dispute by saying that some liberals have conservative ideology???
" with common sense love for the greatness of America and our freedoms"
Yes, I said that some liberals and some conservatives have common sense love for the greatness of America and our freedoms. That is not Conservative ideology.
Simply incorrect. NO previous administration has out spent Obama.
Source , Source
See, that is why I said proprtionally, because I knew that people like you would try to go after the lump sum.
Additionally, pointing out that our schools are falling behind other country's in no way disproves that the populace is more educated now than they used to be.
