Ted Cruz 2016

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________First, before I post my arguments/rebuttals, I would like to address one thing. I started this debate with the intent to debate that Ted Cruz should either be the republican nominee and/or president of the United States. In my opening argument I stated: "Ted Cruz is the only fit candidate, for any party, to be president of the United States. "I ask the voters to remember this as they progress in reading my arguments. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________Now I would like to show that con is wrong in their arguments that Ted Cruz does not show leadership, principle, and merit. My opponent raises some interesting points that they claim backs their argument that Ted Cruz does not posses these qualities. Let me not, con used the following definitions in describing what leadership, principle, and merit consist of: Leadership - the act of being capable of maintaining a dominant position in a society so as to enable it to strive. Principle - being consistent in terms of personal convictions towards any particular issue in the world; this can be social, political, economic or something else. Merit - the credibility one has behind attempting to uphold a certain role; their experience; their qualifications. I will attempt to rebuttal con's arguments, while keeping it short and sweet to save characters for further arguments. LeadershipCon exclaimed that I did not describe something a "leader" would do in regards to Ted Cruz. However, con defined leadership as "the act of being capable of maintaining a dominant position in a society so as to enable it to strive. " I proved that Ted Cruz fulfilled this definition in my remark that Ted Cruz is a United States Senator (dominant position in society) in my round 3 argument. I supported my argument furthermore with specific situations where Ted Cruz expressed leadership. Apparently, my opponent does not agree that standing up against Washington, D. C. in an effort to stand with American citizens is leadership, but that consists of another debate. .. PrincipleCon argues that Ted Cruz "flip-flops" on certain issues such as immigration. The issues that he "flip-flops" on, I believe, are worth a debate on. I believe that people can change there minds, and do not have to be totally consistent, meaning, if you see one thing at one point and see it another a few years later, it should be okay to "flip-flop". And who says you cannot "flip-flop" another time? However, con's definition of principle is, "being consistent in terms of personal convictions towards any particular issue in the world; this can be social, political, economic or something else. " I did prove that Ted Cruz had principle in that he stayed consistent in terms of his personal convictions (in this case it is a social/political issue) in my round 3 argument, by voting no on a spending bill that funds the murderous organization Planned Parenthood and also funds Obamacare. MeritCon's definition of merit is defined as, "the credibility one has behind attempting to uphold a certain role; their experience; their qualifications. " This one is easy to argue because I literally laid out just some of the experience Ted Cruz has had in my round 3 argument. Con argues that just because Ted Cruz has help these positions does not automatically give him merit. However, in con's definition of merit it does not state when the quality of merit is obtained, as all it says is experience and qualifications (credibility) of a person. ************************************************************************************************************** 1. Climate ChangeI appreciate my opponent trying to hold a climate change/global warming debate with me, but as I mentioned above this is a debate about Ted Cruz. In my opponents round 3 (2a) argument, Ted Cruz was not mentioned one time. I ask my opponent respectively to stay on the topic of Ted Cruz. I also respectively ask that my opponent to stray from directing voters to debates with no relevant purpose to this debate. I do not wish to give any farther arguments to con's (2a) argument. If my opponent wishes to challenge me to a climate change debate, I encourage them to do so. 2. ChristianityI appreciate my opponent for researching the Bible and realizing that they are wrong. However, once again Ted Cruz was barley mentioned in my opponents round 3 (2b) argument! I will take some time to rebuttal their arguments. My atheist opponent once again thinks they know the Christian faith, and know what type of man Ted Cruz is. Just because some "Christians" are becoming more liberal as my opponent claims, does not mean all of the sudden the Bible is wrong. Christians, such as myself and Ted Cruz, still believe in the Bible and God's word, if that makes us "radical" then so be it. It remains true that homosexuality is a sin, and Ted Cruz is consistent on this belief (principle). Once again, if my opponent wishes to challenge me to a gay marriage/Christianity debate, I encourage them to do so. 3. Planned ParenthoodMy opponent pointed out in there round 2 (2a) argument that my climate change source was bias. However, my opponent failed to mention that they uses the Planned Parenthood website in order to back up all the "good" things Planned Parenthood does. And, in my opponents round 2 (2c) argument they once again failed to refer to the initial debate topic as Ted Cruz was only mentioned in the last sentence. The fact is, the reason why so many politicians, including Ted Cruz, oppose funding for Planned Parenthood is because they do abortions! My opponent says only 3% of Planned Parenthood facilities, which is correct. However, as long as Planned Parenthood is still performing abortions Ted Cruz will not support funding, no matter what good things Planned Parenthood actually does. If my opponent is suggesting that the man who shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic was a Christian, and Ted Cruz was defending him, they are wrong. Ted Cruz did not 'blame' anyone. My opponent uses the Washington Post as a source for that specific argument, talk about a biased (liberal) source. I will attach a link that accurately describes what Ted Cruz said. (A)4. Founding FathersMy opponent points out that I somehow ignored their remarks about how the founding fathers (not forefathers) were Deists and ignored the establishment clause of the first amendment. I actually did argue in my round 2 argument that I did not call the founding fathers Christians, rather, I said their ideas were bases on the idea of Christianity; therefore, the Bible. My opponent is right that it is wrong to establish any religion according to the first amendment. However, my opponent is wrong in describing Ted Cruz's stance on the issue. Ted Cruz simply wants to protect American's religious liberty. He does not propose any federal legislation that promotes Christianity. The constitutions tenth amendment states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "(B)Therefore, the constitution prohibits any federal legislation regarding religion. Ted Cruz is a constitutionalists, so he would not propose any such legislation. **************************************************************************************************************I appreciate my opponent debating this topic with me. To the voters, I ask that you please vote for me, and notice the quality of my arguments and relevance to the topic given. (A). http://thinkprogress.org...(Bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu...