Best Canidate for President

I agree please vote based off of debate skills and formulation of argument alone not based off of your personal preference of candidates. I decided to tackle this round not by making a new case of how my candidate is better but going off of each of my opponents points and saying how he is better in that perspective. The candidate i am speaking of is Ron Paul."..."=what they say then i will respond underneath "I believe John McCain is the best canidate suited for the job as U.S. President." I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate suited for the job as U.S. President "The most important is obviously the War in the Mid East. I don't say just Iraq b/c it isn't only Iraq but Afganistan, Pakistan, and Iran. J.McCain wants to eliminate WMDs in North Korea, Iran and anywhere else they maybe. He supports overthrowing Adinajad and other dictators that pose a threat to us and the world as a whole. He also supports finishing in iraq and getting out of there ASAP, BUT doing our job FIRST." To this first off I would like to point out that this debate is on who is the better candidate. You say he is better because of his support for getting rid of WMDs in various countries but fail to address why this is a good thing. The only way you do this is by saying that he wants out of Iraq as soon as the jobs done. Because of this i have nothing to debate of on the actual subject of our middle eastern presence but rather i will just have to present Pauls view and say why it is the superior one. First off Ron Paul on contrast is completely against Middle Eastern presence. This is a good thing based of many different ideas. First of which is that our presence in Iraq, Iran etc. is only lowering foreign relations with both middle easterners and our allies like the french. We are losing support for being in there and we are only losing more and more lives. You say we must get "the job done" in Iraq but the fact is our job was to look for WMD's we've done that. Now were completely taking it another step by oppressing our democratic views upon people. Which leads me right into my second point, America is not meant to be the big brother nation that must look out for others. The fact is its a dog eat dog world and we must look out for ourselves. Also we are founded upon the belief that we should let people practice what they want. Our presence in Iraq and the fight for democracy is completely contradictory to this. WE ARE SHOVING OUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. Finally to cover the WMD point. I've kind of covered this in my other points but i must make it clear that if we are to gain presence in mentioned countries that will only anger them making them maybe want to use them and get in a conflict with us. I'd also like to throw in the point of our debt and how high it is that we can not afford anymore spending especially on these things that hurt us anyway. "He is Pro-Life" Ron Paul is also semi-pro life. He is against abortion because he thinks its murder thus claiming your advantage there. However he is very diverse thus appealing to both parties and being a greater choice. He is pro drugs which again causes us not to oppress our views upon our own people. They make the choice to do as they wish as long as it is not harming others. This is his view and should be adopted YOU HAVE CONTROL OF YOURSELF NOT THE GOVERNMENT. "he wants to take S.S. off budget" So does paul thus claiming this benefit. "John supports the Civil Rights that our country gave each and everyone of us legal citizens but does not support using that right to attack our symbols of what gives them that right." Ron paul is also a great supporter of civil rights but he differs from John due to the fact that he does believe it ok to attack our symbols of what gives us this right. John is a complete hypocrite in this sense. Again he is telling people what they should do, whether or not it is reasonable to attack these symbols it should still be allowed. "He supports education and prevention of the drugs and the effects of them." Ron Paul to supports the education about drugs and letting people know the harmful effects but he also supports people being able to choose to ruin there lives if they want. Whether or not drugs are a good idea its still should be the persons right to choose and not be controlled by the governemnt. "McCain believes that our national education system is failing our children...our future(me) We trail other countries in math, science, and physics. 40% of 4th graders can't read. John wants to improve that educational system so 100% of fourth graders can read." First of all can i see a source for the 40% of 4th graders? Second of all Ron Paul is and always will be an advocater of better education this claiming this advantage as well. "John believes strongly in Free Trade and believes in a trade agreement in which any country who will trade fairly can trade, which will strenghthen our country greatly. But he still believes in utilizing national assets we have already." Ron Paul is also a great advocater of Free Trade, actually the strongest of anyone running. So he claims this advantage even to a further extent. "McCain believes in prosecuting strickly those who use gun violence b/c a innocent life is worth more than a murderers life. He wants to crackdown on gun violence but preserve those same rights for law-abiding citizens." Paul too follows under this claiming this advantage as well. "He also wants to lower taxes. Currently a average tax payer pays 40% of there yearly earnings to the tax man and its not fair. John will lower taxes so everyone keeps more of there money" McCain has actually raised taxes before in a position of power. Ron Paul has never done that and vouches to never do that. Thus I claim this advantage to even a further extent. In conclusion I have shown where paul is better on disagreeing points and where he further claims agreeing points.