Ron Paul is the best candidate in the current GOP race.

I'm going to do a very quick refutation of his case. Non-intervenionism This directly condradicts my first contention, so if my Opponent decides to not forfiet and actually debate than I feel this will become a very important part of the debate. So now I'll point out the flaws in his reasoning. Firstly, he's comparing the U. S. to China saying "China is investing in various nations around the world to build basic infrastructure (prominently in African nations) in exchange for oil deals. Yet, America is acting unnecessarily as the self-proclaimed police of the world. " He has provided absolutely no evidence for this comparison, but let's assume it's true. My Opponent clearly does not realizethat A) China has very little power projection, even if they wanted to intervene militarily it could not. and B) the kind of intervention China is doing is still intervention, with Ron Paul we wouldn't be doing it. He also makes a pretty common statement about the U. S. acting as the "self-proclaimed police of the world. " First, almost all U. S. military actions in recent years have been UN sactioned, and even more have been multilateral actions! This is just an anti-american slur that has no justification to back it up. "what have we truly achieved? " Two pro-western democracies in the islamic world, tousands of terroists dead, al-queda crippled, Osama Bin Laden killed, increased infrastructure in two poor countries, and increased U. S. hegemony by detering Iran. You mean besides all that? "Further political instability" I am not sure what my Opponent is trying to say, but if he's referring to the recent democracies uprisings in the islamic world, that greatly benefits us, and them. So he's conceded that the USA was involved in this, now he must explain why democracy is a bad thing. I agree that the Libyan war is unconstitutional, however that is the actions of President Obama, a democrat. Furthermore, while this wouldn't happen with Paul in charge, much worse things would. My Opponent condradicts himself here, stating that we must "Pull out of the region, and focus getting our own nation back on track. " Yet he then says that we must "If we are going to efficaciously assist these nations gain independence, we must do so after achieving domestic stability. " . .. so what he's saying is that we SHOULDN'T withdraw until the job is done? I agree, we shouldn't. Ron Paul disagrees. This statement supports my side. "It is time America takes off the police badge for awhile," More unfounded anti-american rhetoric. "Focus on getting the $1.3 trillion dollar debt reduced; stop outsourcing and recover American jobs; and make our economy thrive once again. " I agree these are problems that must be addressed, but I don't see how securing U. S. interests abroad harms this. Seems like it would help it to me. Furthermore, I don't think Ron Paul would be good for the economy because of his obscure economic beliefs (like Gold standard, and doing away with the federal reserve. ). My Opponent attacks the other GOP candidates, but since I've chosen the route of attacking Paul's positions, I feel absolutely no need to respond. "Whether you agree or disagree with Paul's views, you should respect him for his political honesty" I should, and I do, but that doesn't mean he would be a good president. Constitution"For instance, limited federal government. The Constitution gives powers that haven't been exclusively assigned to the Federal government to the state government. " Like it or not, (and I certainly do not like it) since the war between the states, the federal government has increased its power to a huge degree. Since WWII, it has increased even more. We long ago reached the point where states were not independant anymore, and we cannot go back. Gay marriage is aready decided on by the States. The Federal Government did pass the Defense of Marriage act, recognizing marriage as one man and one woman, but this is only because the federal government provides benefits to married couples. States can, and some do, decide to give marriage to homosexuals. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to regulate commerce. Prositution and drug trafficking are both commerce. ImmigrationMy Opponents whole statement here is flawed. He states how Ron Paul (and apparently Ron Paul alone) doesn't support paying healthcare and education to illegals. No one does. The problem is, it's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a legitimate immigrant, and an illegal, and no one wants to exclude immigrants from these programs. He states that Ron Paul will somehow cause a mircale and keep illegals from flooding our borders, reducing the need for a border fence. 1. As long as there is work here, Mexicans will come and try to get it. 2. As long as there are drug users here, Mexican drug cartels will continue to cross the border to secure their interests.