Instigator / Pro
14
1520
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#41

Ron Paul is More Libertarian than Gary Johnson

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

ShabShoral
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Split bop!

RFD: I sincerely enjoyed reading the debate, and truth be told, if not for this point, it would likely be a tie. Rational did well enough to illustrate that Paul compromised on his ideals plenty. That negated adherence to the ideology a split, as it sufficiently illustrated that neither was a purist in action. However, in Round 1 there was one point from the standpoint of ideological purity that went unaddressed directly, that being the core principle of the non aggression principle in

"Gary Johnson rejects [the NaP]"

"Our standard is one of ideological purity: the degree to which individuals hold to Libertarianism"

"Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant."

If this was a debate exclusively regarding who "acted the most" Libertarian, then Rational made a compelling case and sufficiently linked Paul to having compromised on his libertarian beliefs. However, despite winning fmpov the battle of adherence to beliefs with a litany of smaller details indepedent of the point previous, and a compelling case regarding how Johnson has positions that tend to acknowledge the proposed harms of an AnCap type libertarian system and adjusts accordingly, this doesn't change that he rejects a core principle of the philosophy nonetheless. And Libertarianism without the NaP may be close, but can't be considered true libertariaism anymore. Pro therefore fulfills the resolution by illustrating that Ron Paul is more libertarian, because Johnson fmpov can't be classified as one per a flat out rejection of a foundational principle.

Well done to both of you. Arguments to Pro, the rest is a tie. *applauds*.

-->
@thett3

Lol

-->
@thett3
@bsh1

Wow, thanks for letting me know. Seriously messed up that a mod would hide something like that.

-->
@TheHammer

“I am not whiteflame. Whiteflame has is own account on this site and on DDO, and is not a member of DART's moderation team.”

He’s lying. He sent me this via PM immediately upon joining the site

https://goo.gl/images/wVmhbE

-->
@TheHammer

I am not whiteflame. Whiteflame has is own account on this site and on DDO, and is not a member of DART's moderation team.

-->
@bsh1

Okay whiteflame

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ResurgetExFavilla // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: Ultimately, this whole debate swings on one point, which is whether libertarianism sees it as 'good' for the government to intervene in those areas which Gary Johnson supports. Pro consistently shows that this isn't the case, that it has never historically been the case, and that when Johnson deviates on these points (non-discrimination and welfare) he is deviating from libertarianism regardless of the merits or lack thereof of said purity. This also negates con's point on party loyalty, since the debate is about ideology not political acumen. Seeing as the resolution is about which one is a better libertarian, and is explicitly concerned with ideology and not efficacy from the getgo, arguments go to pro.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter referenced specific arguments, explained how these arguments impacted debate, and weighed those impacts to arrive at a conclusion.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and s/g

>Reason for Decision: Con not only had better formatted sources, but more sources as well. This debate isn't one of opinion, but of fact, so being well sourced is of the utmost import. In round 3, Pro said "de-facto", and putting a hyphen there is an egregious and distracting error, so s/g to Con.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voting policy requires that the voter identify excessive s/g errors which render the text incomprehensible or nearly incomprehensible. Citing a misplaced hyphen is not sufficient. Furthermore, the voting policy requires that voters "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate," including analyzing at least one specific source, the impact of the quality of sources on the debate, and a comparative analysis between both debater's sources. There was no analysis of any specific source(s) and there is no comparative analysis between both sides use of sources.
************************************************************************

-->
@Tejretics

Wow @ me next time. You should be removed.

TheHammer's vote should be removed.

The source of the last speech, forgot to include

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2001/9/11/house-section/article/h5503-2

-->
@ShabShoral

because you didn't tag me i genuinely didn't see you ask that and I'm sorry.

The answer is in the PM I sent you.

How do you do quotes like that

Source 5 is missing from ym list but is according a non-important one as it's within a quote. I'll reference it in Round 2 do not worry.

-->
@TheHammer

he/she (something tells me it's the female in the pic) appears to be more of a right wing "red neck" type to me. She probably lives on alligator and catfish.

-->
@Type1

ShabShoral almost exclusively lives on Soylent. I'm just stating the facts.

-->
@TheHammer

Typical alt righter.

Hurry up, soy boy