Ted Cruz 2016

I thank my adversary once more for a respectful debate. 1. Addressing leadership is no easy task, but Pro contended that Cruz having fought religiously against the Planned Parenthood 'murder' organization is a sign of leadership (among the fight against ACA). I have disagreed with this contention, for the very sole reason that this undermines the fact that 97% of PP's functions are attempting to reduce abortion rates in the nation, and that the abortion clinics use the tissue of fetuses to further the comprehension of medicine and biology. While it shows some principle that Cruz had fought against ACA, as I had explained [and supported] with evidence, Cruz flip-flopped multiple times on the issue of Obamacare when it catered convenience to his efforts. Pro argued that Cruz did not "flio-flop" per say, but changed his stance on the issues based on newfound knowledge. While normally I would agree that such is feasible to contend, I would not agree considering that Senator Cruz changed his positions whilst still holding public office; and that such would deteriorate his ability to stick to one side of the argument and defend his positions while in power. This makes him an unreliable source of representation for the American people. In terms of merit, while the definition was not too precise, I am sure that [as mentioned before] the voters submitting a verdict here today would be more than sure of themselves that simply being in a position does not qualify oneself for presidency; take, for instance, the examples of Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. 2. Climate change, once again, bears relevance entirely to the debate; if Ted Cruz should find himself rejecting science, in which might potentially preserve the life of earth - and instead invest U.S dollars into the fossil fuel industry for bigger surplus value turnout, this might prove that he lacks merit, leadership and morals. That where profit can be found, whether or not scientists must be ignored, Ted Cruz will do what he must to attain it. This is wrong, and will surely continue damaging the world and America as well. The evidence of man-made climate change is present in the previous rounds from the links I had pasted, and voters are free to examine its preponderence on their own.3. Christianity, once more, is a broad and general idea - this in particular is why I wished to bring it up with a swift and blowing kick. However, the fact remains that if a large part of Cruz's campaign has been to help continue the sweep of homophobic values across the nation, he would likely use his power (e.g executive order) to attempt to undermine the constitutional rights granted to homosexual Americans by the SCOTUS. Not to mention that Ted Cruz is out of touch with a majority of Christians, and would therefore be considered a radical minority among those of that particular faith. While he is consistent with the [homophobic] teachings of the Bible, I would refer the voters to my previous statement, that if one cannot justify the existence of a God they cannot justify imposing such a being on others. 4. Once more, Planned Parenthood attempts to reduce the rate of abortions performed clinically within the U.S, and through such, hopes to preserve more life; taking this a step further, they use the tissue of fetuses to study stem cells, and such other, and preserve our knowledge as people of medicine to work on disease cure research and development of medicines. Without such important scientific assets to society, we would likely be quite farther behind in scientific or medical technology. Moreover, an imperative part of research and development is using samples of the deceased. Abortions can be justified if the mother's life is somehow in danger, or if they had been raped - both of those circumstances are likely to only eat up 3% of abortions nationally regardless. 5. Yet again, Pro is ignoring the fact that America's founding fathers did not condone and therefore did not base the foundation of America on any particular Christian belief. What Pro is saying is basically the same as saying a few Jews had sat together and founded a nation on Islamic principles. Such statements are illogical and should be readily discarded by any potential voters within this debate. Now, to address the [repeated] statement of Pro regarding, "religious liberty", once more, there is no evidence of Christians facing a stigma at the hands of irreligious or liberal legislators. If anything, stigmas [pertaining to irreligion/religion] would include those against many Atheists and Muslims in America.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources cited: 3. 4. http://theweek.com...http://www.motherjones.com...http://thinkprogress.org...5. http://quod.lib.umich.edu...http://www.bbc.com...https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...