Ted Cruz 2016

Third Round Rebuttals(1) Ted Cruz does not in fact fulfill the roles of leadership, principle and merit, contrary to what Pro has stated in the previous round. (1a) Pro has not accurately demonstrated something a leader would do. While it is true that Senator Cruz has religiously fought against PP and Obamacare on the Senate floor, with a 21-hour filibuster, this is not necessarily a demonstration of leadership. What Ted Cruz did was fight against a) a clinic that helps women prevent abortions [hence the name 'planned parenthood'], and also b) stood up to fight a bill that has been destructive to the U. S economy and taxpayer. It is true, certainly, that many have suffered because of the Affordable Care Act, but what Cruz did was not leadership - he stood alone in that filibuster, and only in terms of American voters [not in legislators] does he stand with others in the fight against Obama's healthcare plans. In fact, Ted Cruz is actually quite the opposite of a leader. Ted Cruz, like many career politicians in the U. S, has a strong record of flip-flopping; which goes to stand for the fact that he only chooses to lead a particular fight when it bears convenience to his public opinion ratings or when he understands that it gives him stamina. He flip-flopped on marijuana, ethanol, Obamacare, and a plethora of other issues debated in the U. S, that I will link evidence to in the sources below. (1b) Ted Cruz has no principles nor merits, he flip-flops, outright denies facts, and even decides that at the end of the day no matter what must be said to get himself support can afford to be said before the audience. Ted Cruz even capitalizes on controversies to slam his opponents for momentum. Cruz has even changed his position on immigration many times depending on majority support of either side, or the audience presented before him. He does nto demonstrate principle in this sense, and in fact has contradicted himself many times to gain the support of others. Someone with principle will advocate their ideas regardless of whether or not they gain support because of it. The positions that Ted Cruz has held, in which had been mentioned by Pro, do not immediately give him merit. A long-time member of public office, Bernard Sanders, and even Hillary Clinton, could be called veteran politicians with merit based on time in office, but they are not. Simply because what experience they do have was destructive. (2a) Pro is arguing that global warming is a hoax, which really does not all-in-all come as a surprise. They make the argument that it may just be possible that more than 70% of climate scientists around the world are wrong, whilst reinforcing these talking points by using a website with an outright bias in its very name? The globalclimatescam website obviously holds an outright bias against climate change sciences in order to prove something, but why Pro felt citing that [instead of something more objective] is beyond me. I would like to refer Pro, as well as any voters watching this debate, to a previous debate that took place on this very website, where the topic of human-provoked climate change had been discussed. The person advocating that it did, won with a massive landslide in votes, and used data collected in graphs, as well as numerous articles, to support such a contention. (2b) After a quick search I was able to confirm that Pro is correct, the Bible does consistently condemn homosexuality in the New Testament and Old Testament. But what Pro is glossing over is that many sects of the Christian faith have become more socially progressive, and began to accept homosexuals as equal human beings. According to Pew Research, an overwhelmingly increasing number of Christians and Churches are becoming more aligned with the status of society, that is in being accepting of homosexuals and recognizing their rights. 70% of American catholics support homosexuals, where the percentages used to only be 58%. This makes Ted Cruz a radical minority of Christians whose Evangelical values may in fact stagnate his ability to work with others. In fact, the percentage Evangelicals hopped from 26 to 36%. (2c) Pro is, by answering my question, enabling me to follow up. And my response to his answer is this: if an individual cannot justify imposing God on others, nor the existence of God, they cannot use God as a pretext for discrimination of other people. (3a) Planned Parenthood is not quite as 'immoral' as Pro is painting to be. As was previously explained, only 3% of PP's clinics operate to give abortions. While it is truly unfair to force taxpayers to fund the organization, it should still be supported if the government wishes to decrease the rate of abortions occurring in the nation - due to the mere fact that for the last four years America has sustained 178 in infant mortalities around the world. However, Planned Parenthood acts to give women contraceptives and prevent women from mistakenly having children to begin with [as in preventing undesired pregnancies]. Ted Cruz had the gall to outright deny the political and religious stances of the man who had shot up the clinic, blaming people of the transgender community for the attack. (3b) Once more, Pro has ignored that a majority of the forefathers were Deists with no religious affiliation to Christianity. He has also ignored that thea claus of the Constitution explained that Congress shall establish no law on the foundations of religion - that it is wrong for the government to enact legislation because of religious values, as this is seen as an infringement of the First Amendment rights of Americans. By Ted Cruz wishing to use Christianity in law, and as a means to rally support for his campaign, he is therefore rightfully lowering the status of other religious groups while elevating his own as a Christian. And once again, there is no stigma that Christians face. It would be well-appreciated for Pro to prove that something like that exists, but it simply is not true. Christian's still make up 70.6% of the nation, with about 80% of Americans celebrating Christian holidays. In fact, across the seven dreaded 'Bible Belt' states, atheists cannot hold public office (legally). Sources Cited(1a) . http://www.politico.com...http://www.politifact.com...(1b) . http://www.businessinsider.com...(2a) . http://www.debate.org...http://www.ucsusa.org...http://news.discovery.com...(2b) . http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.pewforum.org...(3a) . http://www.mediaite.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...(3b) . https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.alternet.org...I wish Pro luck in the next round, and thank them for this good-quality debate.