View Full Version : Debate in 24 Hours - Gimme Ammo!!

10-29-2007, 05:36 PM
I've got supporters from UMass coming out to my debate tomorrow, school newspaper says its the #2 event on campus this week. Definitely bigger than I anticipated.

If you had one minute to speak, what would you say?
If you were a neo-con, what would you use against me?

10-29-2007, 05:38 PM
What's the debate about?

10-29-2007, 05:42 PM
Neo-con: Terra, terra, terra (rinse, lather, repeat)

You: You're ABSOLUTELY right. Look how our current policies have increased terra, terra, terra worldwide.

10-29-2007, 05:43 PM
They'll probably go after you about the war. They also tend to think that Paul is weak on national defense. He isn't of course, but he needs to make that clearer. Also the "anti-war" label. He's not really "anti-war". He's anti unnecessary, unconstitutional wars.

So be ready to address something like... Paul thinks if we just pull out of the Middle East and sing kumbaya, everything will be ok.

Lord Xar
10-29-2007, 05:43 PM
If I was a Neo-Con: I would ask you or point out the following to you:

1. He wants to be an isolationist.
2. He wants to defund Israel
3. He will make us loose the war on terror

If I had only one minute, I would bring up.

1. End the war
2. Stop the foreign intervention and trillion in yearly spending
3. We are less safe now than we ever have been
4. Stop the recession and plummet of the dollar
5. Secure the borders

** Also

"If the neo-cons or war mongers were really interested in fighting terrorism, then why are our borders wide open? Why did we go after a country rather than the 'terrorists' responsible? If Greenspan admitted we are probably there for Oil, and there were NO WMD and none of the hijackers were iraqi -- why are we there, really? Foreign nation building and oil. Globalist agenda.

Etc... there is so much to talk about and if you only have 1 minute, you have to pick your points carefully... you should pick 3 strong arguments

10-29-2007, 05:49 PM
I think my signature is the folks that your going to have to deal with (War on terror...war drum beaters)....other than that Ron Paul sells himself to most Americans

10-29-2007, 06:01 PM
Talk about the cost of the war on terror - - the cost in $$, and the cost in lives. Hit on economic issues. Those are undebatable

10-29-2007, 06:02 PM
"Ahmadinejad is the Hitler of our generation." That's what I'd say if I were a neocon.

10-29-2007, 06:12 PM
Sorry guys, it's an Iraq war debate, forgot to mention.

10-29-2007, 06:27 PM
PM me and I can provide some ammo. But PM so I remember. Too many threads to monitor, lol

10-29-2007, 06:29 PM
Over 1 million Iraqis dead. Alan Greenspan - Iraq was "largely about oil"

10-29-2007, 06:37 PM
I like the argument that we have won and will certainly be ready to come home by 2009. The majority of Iraqis think we are doing more harm than good by staying and the Iraqi Parliament has even had a majority vote in favor of us leaving within a year.

That doesn't mean it was right to go in, however.

10-29-2007, 06:43 PM
You should focus on the economic impact of the war, including our debt and the drop in the dollar. The Iraq War has already cost us $464 billion. The Iraq and Afghan wars are estimated cost of $2.4 trillion through the next decade.

The U.S. dollar has already sunk below the Canadian dollar and continues to drop.





10-29-2007, 06:55 PM


A) Reduce spending? Not a chance.

B) Increase taxes? DING DING DING

That's a LOT OF TAXES.


10-29-2007, 07:12 PM
2,400,000,000,000 dollars times .0043 (depth of one dollar) = 10,320,000,000 inches = 86,000,000 feet =



(hopes math is right) :)

used this: http://www.petting-zoo.org/Calculator.html

10-29-2007, 07:21 PM
"My honorable opponent in tonight's debate will tell you that 'We broke it, so it's up to us to fix it.' Well, he's half right; we broke it. And the shopkeeper is now asking that we leave. Have we any right to ignore his wishes?"
Or you could go the route that we have in fact already won the war. List the initial objectives, even the changing objectives. We've met all the benchmarks. That equals victory. The last thing you want to do if you've won a ball game is stick around after the buzzer and give yourself the opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
"What does a victorious liberating army do? They come home. What does a conquering army do? They stay."

10-29-2007, 07:22 PM
2,400,000,000,000 dollars times .0043 (depth of one dollar) = 10,320,000,000 inches = 86,000,000 feet =



(hopes math is right) :)

used this: http://www.petting-zoo.org/Calculator.html

Gotta take into account the pull of the earth's gravity, I'm sure that'll take a mile or two off the total. Plus, I hope you're not trying to stack them up on a windy day!

10-29-2007, 07:25 PM
Sorry guys, it's an Iraq war debate, forgot to mention.

You could point out who is really taking their marching orders from the terrorists, and who appears to be winning this war so far:
They hate us for our freedoms, so let's get rid of our freedoms - Check.
They want to bankrupt us, so let's act like drunken sailors on shore leave - Check.
They call us paper tigers if we don't take their acts of terror seriously, so our policies are crafted based on what "they" think of us - Check.

10-29-2007, 07:27 PM
Gotta take into account the pull of the earth's gravity, I'm sure that'll take a mile or two off the total. Plus, I hope you're not trying to stack them up on a windy day!

It's ok - if some blow away, the Fed said they would just print more...


10-29-2007, 07:30 PM
dude just watch some of ron pauls speeches...

he says all these things and goes into detail...

we've been over there for 10 years bombing the place...

osama bin laden said himself the reason the terrorists attacked us wasn't because we were free its because we were already over there... look in the 9/11 commision report.
a war based off lie after lie

...and then its also unconstitutional

.....yes yes, the debts...

..ooo, our relations with syria.

and how about bring up the statement, we are building an embassy larger than the vatican and you wouldn't expect some retaliation?

if they're Christians and they are supporting the war they are hypocrites right there....

just watch some of paul's speeches, they are full of little goodies to use in a debate.

10-29-2007, 07:33 PM
We've got a war going on right now in the Middle East. 70% of the American public just want our troops to come home. We've got XX amount of candidates running for president right now yet only 1 lone candidate promises us to bring them home immediately. What is wrong with this picture?

10-29-2007, 07:35 PM
Our current foreign policy costs over 6,600 per tax payer each year. How much better could an American, who actually earned it by the way, spend that 6,600 dollars than a citizen of another country.

10-29-2007, 07:35 PM
>>>"Blowback" is shorthand for saying that a nation reaps what it sows, even if it does not fully know or understand what it has sown. Given its wealth and power, the United States will be a prime recipient in the foreseeable future of all of the more expectable forms of blowback, particularly terrorist attacks against Americans in and out of the armed forces anywhere on earth, including within the United States. But it is blowback in its larger aspect-the tangible costs of empire-that truly threatens it. Empires are costly operations, and they become more costly by the year. The hollowing out of American industry, for instance, is a form of blowback-an unintended negative consequence of American policy- even though it is seldom recognized as such. The growth of militarism in a once democratic society is another example of blowback. Empire is the problem. Even though the United States has a strong sense of invulnerability and substantial military and economic tools to make such a feeling credible, the fact of its imperial pretensions means that a crisis is inevitable. More imperialist projects simply generate more blowback. If we do not begin to solve problems in more prudent and modest ways, blowback will only become more intense.

David Calleo, a professor of international politics, has observed, "The international system breaks down not only because unbalanced and aggressive new powers seek to dominate their neighbors, but also because declining powers, rather than adjusting and accommodating, try to cement their slipping preeminence into an exploitative hegemony." 1 believe that the United States at the end of the twentieth century fits this description. The signs of such an exploitative hegemony are already with us: increasing estrangement between populations and their governments; a determination of elites to hang on to power despite a loss of moral authority; the appearance of militarism and the separation of the military from the society it is supposed to serve; fierce repression (the huge and still growing American prison population and rising enthusiasm for the death penalty may be symptomatic of this); and an economic crisis that is global in nature. History offers few examples of declining hegemons reversing their decline or giving up power peacefully, although Gorbachev's policies at the end of the Cold War may constitute one. Given that it is close to inconceivable that any American leader could have the authority and vision to act with similar restraint in dealing with our client states (for example, by withdrawing our military from the Korean peninsula), one must conclude that blowback will ultimately produce a crisis that suddenly, wrenchingly impairs or ends America's hegemonic influence. Given the almost sacred position empire bestows on the American military, it seems unlikely that the crisis will occur in that area. Thus, barring an unforeseen reform movement, it seems most probable that economic contradictions will force the unraveling of the American empire.<<<

I forget where I got the above couple of paragrahs. I believe it is from 1999ish. Much more could be added to this by way of the recent cost estimates in the neighborhood of 2.5 trillion dollars for a continued American presence in Iraq a la S. Korea.

I added the bold print to emphasize the importance of the Ron Paul candidacy. He's the ONLY candidate with the presence of mind to realize that it is economic disaster, brought upon the US by it's own quest for empire, not Islamo Fascism, that will ultimately do the United States in. He's also the only candidate who has studied the idea of blowback and understands it's effect from economic strain to terrorist attacks.

He's also the only candidate who has pledged to, and as commander-in-chief will have the power to, close bases, end illegal occupations and bring our troops home.

There is of course much more to the story, but it takes a book or two to cover all the details. This is just some food for thought.


10-30-2007, 01:53 AM
Thanks for all the help guys. I appreciate the links to statistics, those are good backup for those who don't believe the philosophy.

10-30-2007, 02:32 AM
I've researched this a bit, and it seems the war in Iraq is a betrayal of our brave troops. They are thrust into an impossible situation with no mission other than to drive around until they get attacked by some pissed off Iraqi whose brother was killed last month (the media calls these guys Al Queda), and then to kill everyone in sight. They are forced to gather Iraqi people and deliver them to private contractor "interigators" for questioning, then recieve bad intel from more incompetent private contractor translators, so they can go drive around again until they get attacked. All while drinking bad water, and eating bad meals that are costing the American Taxpayers $100 a plate. They do this until they come home and are told, "We'll treat you for Post Combat Stress syndrome, but if we do you can't go home for another couple of months". So they decline treatment and go home and wait months and months for benefits. If I'm wrong about this impression, please someone tell me otherwise.

Man from La Mancha
10-30-2007, 04:16 AM
Just found this on the asia blog Ron Paul........http://asia4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

If you had 1 minute to convince someone to vote for Ron, what would you say?
I would say something like the following:

Take a look around at this country today. Do you think it resembles the kind of country that the founding fathers aimed to establish? We have land confiscation to be sold to corporations; imprisonment without charges; torture; pre-emptive war under false pretenses; the Federal Reserve's inflation; IRS domestic terrorism; deficit spending financed by China; and a dollar that is continuing a freefall in value. We have loss of sovereignty through GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, the UN. We have a secretive movement to establish a North American Union to integrate the US with Mexico and Canada. We have the government taxing you and I to pay for the welfare of illegal aliens. Meanwhile the government wants to force you to get a National ID Card so that the law enforcement can Gestapo you for your "papers" at a whim.

If you want your country back then vote for Ron Paul for president. And let freedom ring, as it did in 1787. This is not what the founding fathers wanted for America. But there is only one candidate for president who is right on all those issues. He stands for the Constitution. He stands for personal liberty, as granted us by our Creator. He wants sound money and a humble foreign policy. He wants fair trade instead of managed trade for the benefit of insiders. He wants a small, fiscally responsible government. He wants to get the government out of manipulating your health care. And he supports your right to bear arms. He has been referred to as the founding father of our time. And, John McCain once said -- before he vied for president -- that this man is the most honest man in Washington. The man I am speaking of is Ron Paul. If you want your country back then vote for Ron Paul for president. And let freedom ring, as it did in 1787.


10-30-2007, 04:34 AM
keep repeating the amount of money we are spending on the war, ideologically people are usually set but once they really feel the cost, then that changes their opinion, talk about how the government/fed has been printing money(among other things) to pay for the war devaluing the dollar...

tell them the idea of a draft is being floated out there because of the need for soldiers...

they will try to get back at you wiht the surg ein troops has helped, I woudl counter with the fact that how long and how much more money must be spent to keep the "ongoing" "progress"...

talk about how the neocons said the war would be a "quick, easy war" it has been anything but so why keep them in power?

The Dane
10-30-2007, 04:51 AM
hey bc2208


read at least the part in the middle under the subtitle "Responding to the issues: Foreign Policy"

Its a walkthrough, and a bit superficial, but these guys know their latin.

I think we should all learn most of this arguments by heart if we dont already know them.

The Dane
10-30-2007, 04:57 AM
Please do read the link, their aguments really rocks, and i think that they are unrefuteable in general.

One of the things is to compare the open border problem with war in Iraq to protect from terrorism. Security in the US depends on bordercontrol. Also remember the example RP used that the government have sent experienced border guards to Iraq.

Bradley in DC
10-30-2007, 06:19 AM
Cite US intelligence studies and generals saying that what we're doing there is creating more terrorists than we're killing.

Explain blowback: how our involvment there in the first Persian Gulf war created the conditions to an environment that was exploited by bin Laden against us--and challenge that we are creating the conditions now for future 9/11s.

Their "success" example is Anbar province--where we've withdrawn and turned power over to local tribal leaders (model: we leave, they get peace and stability).

Watch the "Educating Rudy" press conference, use those materials.

Explain how we're taking our National Guard and border security from OUR border to police Iraq's borders. End with, "It's leadership, this country lacks. Defend our borders, not Iraq's. Ron Paul 2008!"

10-30-2007, 06:27 AM
say -

keep pushing for war you sheltered, rich, arrogant pricks. keep stealing from
the poor to inflate your portfolio, assets and other measures of "net worth..."
keep beating those war drums you bastards, you might just get one.

no, don't say that.

10-30-2007, 11:16 AM
Continued thanks for the help...I'm almost done organizing every single response. I did a mock debate on the phone with a friend, I sound much better when I have pre-written stuff to fall back on. Obviously I won't just read from a card like Fred Thompson, lol.

Bradley in DC
10-30-2007, 11:31 AM
Continued thanks for the help...I'm almost done organizing every single response. I did a mock debate on the phone with a friend, I sound much better when I have pre-written stuff to fall back on. Obviously I won't just read from a card like Fred Thompson, lol.

Fred doesn't read from cards--he just repeats what Jeri tells him to say. ;)

Oh, and they're spending your generation's Social Security Trust Fund on the war. You get to pay for your elder's retirement and the war now, and then your own retirement later.

10-30-2007, 11:37 AM
Just memorize this and repeat it on stage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg

10-30-2007, 11:52 AM
"If we leave Iraq, it will become a terrorist Haven because Iran is funding terrorists there."

First of all, were already planning to leave Iraq. And the same people who said that, also said that if we leave Vietnam, all of Asia would turn communist. These same people also said that the war would be over in a couple weeks and that oil would pay for it. Why should we believe them now? Iran shares a thousand miles of border with Iraq, and they have more of a right to be there than we do! Iran is interested in peace.

"Iraq will turn into Chaos after we leave and since we broke it, we bought it."

We were forced to go into Iraq, by our leaders. Why should american taxpayers have to pay for a war that neither they or the Iraqis want! By staying in Iraq, we only further cause chaos. I wont deny that Chaos wont occur in Iraq after we leave, but the sooner we leave, the Less chaos there will be. It does not serve ours or Iraq's interests to stay in Iraq indefinitly. We have to think about ourselves too because this war is bankrupting us. Were borrowing money from the Chinese just to pay for this war!

"Iraq is infested with Al Qaeada, and if we dont defeat them there, we'll be fighting em' on the streets of Boston!"

There werent any Al Qaeada when we first went into Iraq. The Terrorists are there because were there! Ron Paul and myself support going after Osama Bin Laden and his gang, but my argument is that we shouldn't be invading a nation of 40 million people just to get him! We can use special forces or hired peoples. There is a better way. We can achieve much more in peace than we ever can in war!!

This was the advice of the founders, to stay out of entangling alliances, to stay out of foreign conflicts and civil wars! And you know what! They were right! We should be following the constitution and the rule of law! Were a nation of laws, not men! ANd if were gonna go to war, lets declare it, win it and come home!

10-30-2007, 09:26 PM
So, how did it go?

Green Mountain Boy
10-30-2007, 09:30 PM
Yes, I'd like to hear how it went too. I was going to go to the debate but I was being interviewed by a BU journalism grad student about my Ron Paul campaigning.

10-30-2007, 09:47 PM
Yes, I'd like to hear how it went too. I was going to go to the debate but I was being interviewed by a BU journalism grad student about my Ron Paul campaigning.

That's better than my excuse... unless inconvenient geography counts.

Green Mountain Boy
10-31-2007, 06:56 PM
Yo bc2208, did you kick some neocon ass or what??

Mr. White
10-31-2007, 06:58 PM
Oh hell, they lynched him...

10-31-2007, 06:59 PM
Use what Ron said last night on Leno.

Green Mountain Boy
10-31-2007, 07:01 PM
Use what Ron said last night on Leno.

The debate was last night.

10-31-2007, 07:02 PM
One of my favorite quotes. Perhaps you can work it in somehow.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering

10-31-2007, 07:03 PM
Nevermind I guess I should have read the whole thread, I'd have known it was over already.

10-31-2007, 07:24 PM
When talking about healthcare, say that one way to help ease the cost of healthcare is to cut out all of the illegal/unconstitutional taxes. After that is done, people won't be complaining as much about the cost of healthcare even though it would still need some work.

Green Mountain Boy
10-31-2007, 07:31 PM
Do people even read threads before they post in them? :rolleyes:

10-31-2007, 08:02 PM
This is the first time I've seen this thread but I happened to stumble upon the debate at the last minute last night. I thought he did a pretty good job. He seemed to use a lot of Ron Paul's words and phrases (e.g. "those who said it would be a cakewalk going in...") which, in my view, is a good thing. I sat in the middle so I didn't get a good view of the crowd but I think there were at least 80-90 (or more) people in the room.

10-31-2007, 08:36 PM
Sounds like it went well. bump for a play by play

11-01-2007, 08:22 AM
Here you go:


11-01-2007, 09:08 AM
By reading the article I'm not sure who ultimately won, but our guy did well it seems!