Debate Training

[ShaneEnochs]

I've seen a lot of debate on various fronts, whether it be our forums, other candidates' forums, facebook, twitter, etc. I've noticed that sometimes our supporters will break out into a very heated tirade. This is not helping our cause. You're not going to win anyone over by being hostile. We all know that. I understand that sometimes people can be difficult. It won't take long for you to tell who you're going to be able to win over, and who you are not. It's best to leave those who you're not going to win over alone. Don't see this as retreating. See it as regrouping and refocusing on something that is a better use of your time.

THAT BEING SAID, I thought it would be a good idea to start up this thread as a sort of debate training. I will play a conservative-leaning independent who knows a little about Ron Paul from MSM, but not enough to convert to our camp (if anyone else wants to as well, feel free). Your objective is to counter my arguments using knowledge bombs, as Dr. Paul always does. I will not be rude or demeaning. Usually the ones who are aren't going to convert anyway. Anyway, you guys should try to set me straight and get my vote. Ready? Here we go.


================================================== ===========


I've heard a lot about Ron Paul, and I do like SOME of his ideas, but a couple are pretty out there. According to the media, he's not going to be able to win the Republican vote due to him not holding some of the Republican ideals such as a strong defense. I kind of agree. I mean we tried the whole "sit and wait" game, waiting for someone to come and attack us. And guess what? THEY DID. It cost us THOUSANDS of American lives. I don't understand why Ron Paul would want to wait for something like that to happen again. I would MUCH rather take the fight to them. Even if that means giving up some privacy via the TSA and such, I would much rather an even like 9/11 to never happen again, wouldn't you? We've been fighting the terrorists on THEIR soil, instead of ours, and it seems like it's working. It's been TEN YEARS and they haven't been able to bring the fight to us again.

[Cabal]

I'll bite.

What do you believe a strong defense consists of? And how would such a strong defense have prevented 9/11 from happening?

[ShaneEnochs]

I've heard that we knew about the 9/11 threat way before it happened. We knew that Al Qaeda was training pilots to hijack airplanes. If the measures that are CURRENTLY in place would have been in place back then (TSA, Patriot Act, etc), there's NO WAY those guys would have been able to hijack the planes. Therefore we DEFINITELY shouldn't get rid of the TSA, nor repeal the Patriot Act.

[bluesc]

I'll bite.

What do you believe a strong defense consists of? And how would such a strong defense have prevented 9/11 from happening?

Modern weapons, stronger border defense, national guard at home ready to defend, navy ready to react at a moments notice.

Pilots being able to carry weapons may have prevented 9/11, not having troops everywhere in the Arabian Peninsula would have helped.

Want to know more about Ron's stance to help when answering on behalf of him? Ask him here: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/primary/nh2012/ron-paul

[Cabal]

I've heard that we knew about the 9/11 threat way before it happened. We knew that Al Qaeda was training pilots to hijack airplanes. If the measures that are CURRENTLY in place would have been in place back then (TSA, Patriot Act, etc), there's NO WAY those guys would have been able to hijack the planes. Therefore we DEFINITELY shouldn't get rid of the TSA, nor repeal the Patriot Act.

Aren't the TSA and the Patriot Act simply results of the 9/11 attacks? What about the cause of the 9/11 attacks? Wouldn't our best defense be in understanding what causes our enemies to act out in aggression toward us, as opposed to adopting reactionary policies which may not necessarily remove that which has compelled such enemies to attack us in the first place?

[zHorns]

I've heard that we knew about the 9/11 threat way before it happened. We knew that Al Qaeda was training pilots to hijack airplanes. If the measures that are CURRENTLY in place would have been in place back then (TSA, Patriot Act, etc), there's NO WAY those guys would have been able to hijack the planes. Therefore we DEFINITELY shouldn't get rid of the TSA, nor repeal the Patriot Act.

:eek:

[bluesc]

:eek:

I think (hope) he is playing devil's advocate dude :D. Refute him!

[zHorns]

I think (hope) he is playing devil's advocate dude :D. Refute him!

I wasn't sure I was on RPF for a second after I saw that.

I'm sure he will love the TSA is now randomly screening drivers - because the terrorist have learned how to drive!

[ShaneEnochs]

:eek:

((Playing a role. I would like for most government agencies to be abolished =P))


Aren't the TSA and the Patriot Act simply results of the 9/11 attacks? What about the cause of the 9/11 attacks? Wouldn't our best defense be in understanding what causes our enemies to act out in aggression toward us, as opposed to adopting reactionary policies which may not necessarily remove that which has compelled such enemies to attack us in the first place?

From what I understand, Al Qaeda (and Arabs in general) never really forgave us for splitting up Palestine and giving the Jews their own country. They saw it as meddling in their affairs (which, granted, it probably was), but that was a long time ago. We can't change the past. Even if we shouldn't have be interventionists in the past, what's done is done. The terrorists went on the offensive when they attacked on 9/11. It's important to keep them on the DEFENSIVE. We may very well fight this war forever, kind of like the Jews and Arabs have. We made our bed, and we must sleep in it. We can't give up now. That would allow the terrorists to be on the offensive once again.

[zHorns]

((Playing a role. I would like for most government agencies to be abolished =P))

Good to hear. :)

[Cabal]

From what I understand, Al Qaeda (and Arabs in general) never really forgave us for splitting up Palestine and giving the Jews their own country. They saw it as meddling in their affairs (which, granted, it probably was), but that was a long time ago. We can't change the past. Even if we shouldn't have be interventionists in the past, what's done is done. The terrorists went on the offensive when they attacked on 9/11. It's important to keep them on the DEFENSIVE. We may very well fight this war forever, kind of like the Jews and Arabs have. We made our bed, and we must sleep in it. We can't give up now. That would allow the terrorists to be on the offensive once again.

What if the extent of our interventionism isn't just in the past? What if it was/is also in the present? Doesn't occupying what they consider 'holy land' and giving monetary and military aide to those they consider enemies a form of interventionism? And if interventionism is a primary cause of attacks such as 9/11, wouldn't it then be prudent to ensure that we abstain from such interventionism now and in the future? Wouldn't this in turn be a pretty good way to discourage people from being willing to sacrifice their lives in order to harm us?

[ShaneEnochs]

What if the extent of our interventionism isn't just in the past? What if it was/is also in the present? Doesn't occupying what they consider 'holy land' and giving monetary and military aide to those they consider enemies a form of interventionism? And if interventionism is a primary cause of attacks such as 9/11, wouldn't it then be prudent to ensure that we abstain from such interventionism now and in the future? Wouldn't this in turn be a pretty good way to discourage people from being willing to sacrifice their lives in order to harm us?

We weren't at war with them before 9/11, yet they still tried to harm us. Like I said, the damage is done. McCain was right when he said we'll likely be there for 100 years. They will never stop attacking us, regardless of what we do. We HAVE to keep them on the defensive, and make sure they blow themselves up over THERE instead of here.

[Cabal]

We weren't at war with them before 9/11, yet they still tried to harm us. Like I said, the damage is done. McCain was right when he said we'll likely be there for 100 years. They will never stop attacking us, regardless of what we do. We HAVE to keep them on the defensive, and make sure they blow themselves up over THERE instead of here.

Isn't that exactly what they wanted? Us going over there so they can more easily target us and exact their revenge? So then aren't we playing right into their hands? Would it surprise you to learn that suicide bombings are virtually non-existent when there is no foreign military occupying a region, such as our occupation of areas in the Middle East for decades? If it is true that occupation by a foreign military directly correlates with incidents of suicide bombings, wouldn't refraining from such military occupations be the most logical way in discouraging further incidents of suicide bombings?

[ShaneEnochs]

Isn't that exactly what they wanted? Us going over there so they can more easily target us and exact their revenge? So then aren't we playing right into their hands? Would it surprise you to learn that suicide bombings are virtually non-existent when there is no foreign military occupying a region, such as our occupation of areas in the Middle East for decades? If it is true that occupation by a foreign military directly correlates with incidents of suicide bombings, wouldn't refraining from such military occupations be the most logical way in discouraging further incidents of suicide bombings?

So is your argument that if we withdraw from the Middle East, Al Qaeda is going to leave us alone? That seems a bit flimsy, to be honest. Heck, we even HELPED them with arms and money whenever the Russians invaded. They thank us by hijacking four planes to take down buildings.

[YankeesJunkie]

Okay here is a hypothetical question.

The reason I can't think to support Ron Paul is that he is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which obviously has not cured racism, but has gotten us closer to equality. Does Ron Paul want to send this nation 50 years in past to the days of Jim Crow?

[Cabal]

So is your argument that if we withdraw from the Middle East, Al Qaeda is going to leave us alone? That seems a bit flimsy, to be honest. Heck, we even HELPED them with arms and money whenever the Russians invaded. They thank us by hijacking four planes to take down buildings.

You're right, we did help them, which was just another example of interventionism, no? My point is, if we cease intervention in the international affairs of others which do not concern us, we will be much safer off than we currently are, and as an added bonus we will not be actively providing much reason for anyone to attack us for perceived grievances, real or otherwise. And, logic dictates that if we withdraw our troops from overseas to instead deploy them around our own borders and direct our defense spending toward actual defense as opposed to aggression, we are necessarily more defended at home. Don't you agree? Then, perhaps we won't need such intrusive bureaucracy and legislation as that of the TSA and Patriot Act which really only serves to infringe on the civil liberties of Americans rather than prevent aggression from radicals.

[JohnRego]

The argument isn't that Al Qaeda will leave us alone, it's that they won't be able to recruit anybody anymore because we will no longer be radicalizing everybody, forcing them to join the only organization which is capable of fight back against us.

[Simple]

We weren't at war with them before 9/11, yet they still tried to harm us. Like I said, the damage is done. McCain was right when he said we'll likely be there for 100 years. They will never stop attacking us, regardless of what we do. We HAVE to keep them on the defensive, and make sure they blow themselves up over THERE instead of here.

You are arguing that we need to be over there, but look who is targeting our troops right now. Yes there are Al-Qaeda attacks, but the main conflict in Afghanistan is with the Taliban. The Taliban don't want to attack the Unites States, they just want the occupiers out of their country. Bin Laden's dead, why are we still putting our troops in harms way in Afghanistan. Do we need 100,000 troops there to target 100 Al-Qaeda? Lets bring our troops so that our National Guard can again have the resources it needs to help Americans who are in harms way. We had people flooded out in Vermont and the helicopters they would use to help the people were over in Iraq. How are we supposed to operate effectively here if our resources are stretched too thin across the globe.

[ShaneEnochs]

You're right, we did help them, which was just another example of interventionism, no? My point is, if we cease intervention in the international affairs of others which do not concern us, we will be much safer off than we currently are, and as an added bonus we will not be actively providing much reason for anyone to attack us for perceived grievances, real or otherwise. And, logic dictates that if we withdraw our troops from overseas to instead deploy them around our own borders and direct our defense spending toward actual defense as opposed to aggression, we are necessarily more defended at home. Don't you agree? Then, perhaps we won't need such intrusive bureaucracy and legislation as that of the TSA and Patriot Act which really only serves to infringe on the civil liberties of Americans rather than prevent aggression from radicals.

Alright, I can see your point, but what about the terrorists that are already here? We have plenty of domestic terrorists, from what I've read. How is securing our borders going to help with that when they're already here? Doesn't the Patriot Act give the necessary tools to allow the government to go after those who wish to do us harm?

[ShaneEnochs]

The argument isn't that Al Qaeda will leave us alone, it's that they won't be able to recruit anybody anymore because we will no longer be radicalizing everybody, forcing them to join the only organization which is capable of fight back against us.

Even if that's true, you can't expect to wait them out through attrition. They will still continue to attack us.

[ShaneEnochs]

You are arguing that we need to be over there, but look who is targeting our troops right now. Yes there are Al-Qaeda attacks, but the main conflict in Afghanistan is with the Taliban. The Taliban don't want to attack the Unites States, they just want the occupiers out of their country. Bin Laden's dead, why are we still putting our troops in harms way in Afghanistan. Do we need 100,000 troops there to target 100 Al-Qaeda? Lets bring our troops so that our National Guard can again have the resources it needs to help Americans who are in harms way. We had people flooded out in Vermont and the helicopters they would use to help the people were over in Iraq. How are we supposed to operate effectively here if our resources are stretched too thin across the globe.

We have FEMA for the floods. It just needs to be administered better.

And I'm sure there are more than 100 Al Qaeda. The whole region has had enough of us. It wouldn't be difficult for them to draw more followers. Heck, they have followers HERE in the United States.

[JohnRego]

Even if that's true, you can't expect to wait them out through attrition. They will still continue to attack us.

marque and reprisal

Also, if we leave, a great deal of them will quit having considered themselves victorious.

And yes, that's exactly what we have to do, it's the price paid for killing 100,000's of them these past few decades, and any other action taken will have worse results.

[Cabal]

Alright, I can see your point, but what about the terrorists that are already here? We have plenty of domestic terrorists, from what I've read. How is securing our borders going to help with that when they're already here? Doesn't the Patriot Act give the necessary tools to allow the government to go after those who wish to do us harm?

Isn't it possible that such terrorists may very well be discouraged from carrying out any aggressive plot if we stop provoking them? How many domestic terrorists do we have, anyway? What tools does the Patriot Act give us that we wouldn't already have to discover criminals and terrorists? Is a terrorist a terrorist before he has even committed a crime? How do I know you aren't a terrorist? Where does it all end?

[ShaneEnochs]

marque and reprisal

Also, if we leave, a great deal of them will quit having considered themselves victorious.

And yes, that's exactly what we have to do, it's the price paid for killing 100,000's of them these past few decades, and any other action taken will have worse results.

Marque and Reprisal? What do you want to do, hire assassins?

The price we have to pay is continually getting attacked by them? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I would MUCH rather eradicate them all together on THEIR soil, regardless of how long it takes.

[ShaneEnochs]

Isn't it possible that such terrorists may very well be discouraged from carrying out any aggressive plot if we stop provoking them? How many domestic terrorists do we have, anyway? What tools does the Patriot Act give us that we wouldn't already have to discover criminals and terrorists? Is a terrorist a terrorist before he has even committed a crime? How do I know you aren't a terrorist? Where does it all end?

Killer bees are known to follow an aggressor for MILES. I would assume that aggressive terrorists would still be aggressive after we've stopped provoking them, wouldn't you?

The Patriot Act allows for suspected terrorists' homes and calls and bank accounts to be easily accessed. And yes, a terrorist can be a terrorist before he has committed an act of terrorism. We have a chargeable crime called conspiracy here in the United States.

((Sorry if that sounded snotty. I wasn't sure how to word it any other way...))

[JohnRego]

Marque and Reprisal? What do you want to do, hire assassins?

The price we have to pay is continually getting attacked by them? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I would MUCH rather eradicate them all together on THEIR soil, regardless of how long it takes.

So would I, but eradication is impossible, because any attempts to do so only increases their numbers through recruitment.

You put bounties on their killing or capture. It's much more effective than ground troops, and it doesn't cause everybody in the country to hate you, since it's limited to only those people.

And if we spent the money on prevention over hear rather than ground troops over there, you'd have an even lower chance of attacks being successful. It's not like there's been a lack of attacks planned over here. They are still trying to attack here. I'm saying let's concentrate on that, and we'll have a lower amount to defend against in the future.

[Simple]

Okay here is a hypothetical question.

The reason I can't think to support Ron Paul is that he is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which obviously has not cured racism, but has gotten us closer to equality. Does Ron Paul want to send this nation 50 years in past to the days of Jim Crow?

Dr Paul has long been an admirer and supporter of Martin Luther King of his philosophies. Wouldn't it be great if we could take the society we have today and restore the freedoms that our grandfathers had? The American people voted overwhelmingly for Barrack Obama, we are living in a post-racial world. Its time we move beyond looking at people as special groups and special interests and get back to looking at all of us as Americans with unalienable rights. Its about time we start protecting those rights instead of ignoring our Constitution and ignoring the Bill of Rights. If we want to protect the minorities in our society we just need to go back to the Constitution and back to the Bill of Rights by getting the lobbyist out of Washington.

[ShaneEnochs]

So would I, but eradication is impossible, because any attempts to do so only increases their numbers through recruitment.

You put bounties on their killing or capture. It's much more effective than ground troops, and it doesn't cause everybody in the country to hate you, since it's limited to only those people.

And if we spent the money on prevention over hear rather than ground troops over there, you'd have an even lower chance of attacks being successful. It's not like there's been a lack of attacks planned over here. They are still trying to attack here. I'm saying let's concentrate on that, and we'll have a lower amount to defend against in the future.

Are you saying bounties on specific people? I'm sure there are terrorists there that we don't know by name. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to differentiate between a terrorist and a citizen of that country.

And what kind of prevention?

Yeah, there have been MANY attacks foiled by our government. Doesn't Ron Paul want to abolish the FBI and CIA and all of them? Doesn't that put us at even GREATER risk? I mean it WAS these agencies that was able to fish these people out (along with the tools listed in the Patriot Act). You can't leave something like this up to the states because there's not enough coordination between them.

[ShaneEnochs]

Dr Paul has long been an admirer and supporter of Martin Luther King of his philosophies. Wouldn't it be great if we could take the society we have today and restore the freedoms that our grandfathers had? The American people voted overwhelmingly for Barrack Obama, we are living in a post-racial world. Its time we move beyond looking at people as special groups and special interests and get back to looking at all of us as Americans with unalienable rights. Its about time we start protecting those rights instead of ignoring our Constitution and ignoring the Bill of Rights. If we want to protect the minorities in our society we just need to go back to the Constitution and back to the Bill of Rights by getting the lobbyist out of Washington.

I would argue that this isn't a post racial world at all. The way Obama was set up, if you didn't vote for him, you would be called a racist. No one likes being called a racist (or found out to be a racist). I think most people voted for him to prove they weren't racist.

[Cabal]

Killer bees are known to follow an aggressor for MILES. I would assume that aggressive terrorists would still be aggressive after we've stopped provoking them, wouldn't you?

The Patriot Act allows for suspected terrorists' homes and calls and bank accounts to be easily accessed. And yes, a terrorist can be a terrorist before he has committed an act of terrorism. We have a chargeable crime called conspiracy here in the United States.

Killer bees? We're talking about humans, not insects. Why would these radicals have any reason to act out aggressively toward us if we are no longer intruding upon them? Didn't we agree earlier that our interventionist foreign policies have been a primary contributing factor to terrorist attacks against us? So it follows that a lack of interventionism would certainly discourage further attacks against us, no?

Doesn't the Patriot Act allow that for every citizen of the U.S.? Doesn't that just amount to a federal intrusion of privacy without just cause, completely circumventing Constitutional rights of due process? If there is just cause to build a case of conspiracy against a suspected terrorist, how is the Patriot Act necessary for this? Isn't the purpose of our government to ensure national defense and the protection of civil and individual rights? If we our defense is weakened by foreign interventionist policy and our individual and civil rights are being infringed upon in the name of terrorism, haven't the terrorists already won?

[ShaneEnochs]

Killer bees? We're talking about humans, not insects. Why would these radicals have any reason to act out aggressively toward us if we are no longer intruding upon them? Didn't we agree earlier that our interventionist foreign policies have been a primary contributing factor to terrorist attacks against us? So it follows that a lack of interventionism would certainly discourage further attacks against us, no?

Doesn't the Patriot Act allow that for every citizen of the U.S.? Doesn't that just amount to a federal intrusion of privacy without just cause, completely circumventing Constitutional rights of due process? If there is just cause to build a case of conspiracy against a suspected terrorist, how is the Patriot Act necessary for this? Isn't the purpose of our government to ensure national defense and the protection of civil and individual rights? If we our defense is weakened by foreign interventionist policy and our individual and civil rights are being infringed upon in the name of terrorism, haven't the terrorists already won?

((With that, I admit defeat. Let's move onto another topic. I'll let someone else be the devil's advocate this time. I need to get the bad taste out of my mouth :p

By the way, that was really fun guys!))

[JohnRego]

Right, because If you and I don't know who terrorists are, I'm sure people investigating it don't. Come on man.

Just because he wants to abolish the CIA doesn't mean he wants to abolish the role of the government to investigate terrorist plots.

Personally, I'd rather terrorism be investigated by insurance agencies. They'd be better at it, and have a bigger incentive to do so.

[Cabal]

((With that, I admit defeat. Let's move onto another topic. I'll let someone else be the devil's advocate this time. I need to get the bad taste out of my mouth :p))

Lol. Well done, and I didn't even have to resort to the economic argument either! The Socratic method can be quite effective, even if employed by an amateur such as myself.

[JohnRego]

I do enjoy some good devil's advocating. It's actually how I came to some of my own views, by devil's advocating, and coming up with arguments even I couldn't refute.

[ShaneEnochs]

Well have at man.

[Simple]

We have FEMA for the floods. It just needs to be administered better.

And I'm sure there are more than 100 Al Qaeda. The whole region has had enough of us. It wouldn't be difficult for them to draw more followers. Heck, they have followers HERE in the United States.

Oh sure, that all they know in Washington. If government can't solve our problems then they say the solution is always to spend more money. If we realize that we're in an economic crisis with debt, do we really need to spend five dollars on government for every dollar that might actually make it to someone who needs it? Maybe if there weren't all these taxes people could save money so they can take care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors in times of need.

You say that the Middle East has had enough of us, but take a look at Libya. They had free housing, free healthcare, free education and now they have a private central bank and a private oil company. The Libyan people will start losing their benefits, but already thousands of them have lost their lives. Our leaders are cheering for this as a new model of war, but this line of thinking is very dangerous. Its dangerous that we aren't going to Congress so we only start wars we can finish. Its dangerous that we have strayed so far from the rule of law. Its time we put Americans first. Its ridiculous enough that we rebuild the nations we bomb, but it makes us appear weak when when we can't even get our own financial house in order. Let's put Americans first before we worry about every bad guy around the globe.