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.

 

[bluesc]

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

 

[zHorns]

I think (hope) he is playing devil's advocate dude . 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]

((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.