The Instigator
Pride_of_Scotland
Pro (for)
Losing
40 Points
The Contender
claypigeon
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Barack Obama is not qualified to be the next president of the US.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,732 times Debate No: 3000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (26)

 

Pride_of_Scotland

Pro

From what I have read about Sen. Barack Obama, I've come to the conclusion that he is NOT ready to lead a country, much less the country with the most powerul military in the world. I mean, think about it! Take Barack Obama, a two-year senator. Then add the most powerful military force in the world. Use your imagination. This is the guy that said the US should invade its ALLY Pakistan. This is the guy that talks about hope, unity, and a whole bunch of other bullocks when he can't back them up with policies that make the least bit of sense.

Earlier today I heard Obama say that the US should get its troops out if Iraq as soon as possible, and if al-Qaeda poses a serious threat, the US will go back in. Pardon the language, but, what the fudge are you thinking, Mr. Obama? al-Qaeda is IN Iraq and they pose a serious threat, combined with Iranian-sponsored forces (yes, I said IRANIAN-sponsored). And the only reason they aren't completely decimating the US is because the Surge is working, which Obama refuses to admit. Oh, and Ahdminejad? Give me a break. Obama says that the US should enter negotiations with Iran and Ahdapajamabad, the guy that continues to send in forces to kill American, British, and other country's forces. Isn't he the guy that wants to wipe Israel off the map and screams "Death to America" over and over? Yeah....
claypigeon

Con

Hi. I hope we have a good time debating. In the interest of alleviating bias I will reveal that I am an ardent Obama supporter, though I do like Mccain a lot.

Firstly, which isn't a word (I know), I would like to ask if we can stick to topics and not just many broad talking points. Your points about pakistan and about Iraq are overextended. For example, in regrds to Pakistan, Obama wants to bomb parts of Pakistan that houses terrorists. I'll expand on this and Iraq later.

1. Talking to other people

A few days ago I posted an ad on craigslist under the politics section in Dallas Fort Worth asking people to email me why it was bad to talk to Cuba's or Iran's leaders. What I got were moral responses and a few responses that claimed utility. I will only address utility. The argument went that if we talk to these nations now, we can't use "talking to them in the future" as leverage for them to shape up now. I cannot think of one instance where refusing to talk to someone, whether its a dictator or a child molester, or someone at debate.org, solved a problem on its own. If you can think of an example please enlighten me. What I see are we refuse to engage leaders on a rational basis and they either shape up or we go to war with them. This go to war option is not hindered by talking to the other side so I see no net benefit from refusing to talk to leaders.

Assuming this is a cost, what benefit would we get from talking to people. There are the normal "we can understand their viewpoint" argument and the "diplomacy is better than war" argument. As stated above, if we refuse to talk to people, our only option is war or ignoring them. Thats a pretty huge cost. Also, if we refuse to talk to leaders we not only piss them off, but we show to the world and our own people that the country in question is bad. This gives more support for war. 2/3 of Americans thought Iraq should have been invaded at one point. I think that number has decreased in hindsight. Maybe if we had talked to Saddam on a level playing field then the Iraq war wouldn't have had so much support/congressional approval to begin with.

My point here is, what is gained from refusing to talk with nations? What is lost? I think we lose more than we gain as imo there are no real gains and there are very real losses. Obama is the ONLY candidate who will talk to these leaders which sets him apart.

2. Iraq

Though I think Barack changed his website since the Ohio debate, his plan with Iraq changes if Al Quaeda has a significant presence there. His website states if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

There are terrorists in Iraq now but there are terrorists in New York too. Just because there is a presence somewhere doesn't mean it is significant enough to leave the whole army there. It also doesn't mean it is significant enough to be addresses in normal Iraq policy debates. Barack wants to bring our troops home. There will of course be some troops left to do what needs to be done, but by bringing our troops home he does not mean "I will bring every soldier back from Iraq and they can never go in again". We will have a residual force there and the plan will change according to how Iraq changes.

His actual plan is "He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats"

The Al quaeda threat is taken care of and our troops are no longer needlessly sacrificed.

With the surge, Obama disagrees with it because the surge was meant not to kill terrorists. The surge was meant to provide a time with less terrorist attacks for Iraq to end its civil war and make laws. In that time the war has not ended, turkey has invaded Iraq, and no unifying govt has occurred. If we judge the surge by how many terrorists were killed, then it was successful. Just liek Vietnam was successful. If we judge the surge by its ability to make Iraq better off and to end the civil war, IT WAS A FAILURE.

3. Pakistan

Obama wants to remain allies w/ Pakistan but like every leader, including Mccain, he wants to attack terrorists there if Pakistan refuses to (or can't). He is in no way different than Hillary or Mccain here. Except Obama openly says he will go into another sovereign nation to kill terrorists if that nation will not do it. This is the same reasoning we used to go into Afghanistan and I think we can both agree that that war was justified.

4. Experience.

Obama worked in the Illinois state senate before becoming Illinois' senator. Illinois' political system is based on the federal system so Obama has experience within the system. He also has done much during his two years in the senate, including many humanitarian missions. He sat on the veteran affairs committee, met w/ nations on terrorism, getting the gov'ts ENTIRE budget put online, etcc. If we judge his experience by time, Obama lacks. If we judge it by what he accomplished he is on par with others, and surpasses JFK.

5. He is ready

To show that he is ready I will talk about some things though there are plenty more things to talk about.

A. Healthcare

Unlike Hillary who wants to punish those who do not buy healthcare, Obama wants to only punish those who do not buy healthcare for there kids. He also wants to focus on prevention moreso than Mccain or Hillary. This is important to fiscal conservatives even as if we spend a dollar on preventative care it often leads to $100 in less money spent later. We save money later by spending it now. Currently less than 4% of healthcare costs are spent on prevention.

He has his plan laid out in detail on his website but the main point of it is that no price discrimination can occur. "Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions."

His plan is basically to lower the market cost of insurance to those who cannot afford it, and to let the market take care of the problem. He does somethings like offers subsidies and mandates children are covered, and other things but Obama realizes that healthcare is a market problem and the way to solve this is to lower demand (preventative care) and increase supply (make insurance more affordable). He makes it more afforable to the companies by helping them switch to electronic systems. Now everything is paper and accounts for up to 15% of the bill.

B. Immigration
I decided to put Immigration in as his plan is very succinct and developed.
He wants to focus mainly on securing the borders, removing incentives to come in illegally, and to work with mexico. Again this is a market based problem and Obama tries to fix it through market mechanisms. Decrease supply of labor(borders) decrease demand (improving the system so we can get these workers working legally) and talking w/ mexico to see what it can do to help. They have their own illegal problem from central america btw due to the mexican workforce coming here.

I hope to have shown that Obama is experienced enough to lead. He also has great healthcare and Immigration plans based on market mechanisms (which is what the conservatives should want). He also has an adequate if not great Iraq policy and foreign affairs policy. He also is willing to talk to other leaders which is a plus, not a minus.
Debate Round No. 1
Pride_of_Scotland

Pro

First off, I am all for talking to a perfectly sane leader of a country, but to talk to Ahdiminijad, who has repeatedly stated the phrease "Death to America", says the Holocaust was a fraud, and continues to send troops in to Iraq to aid in the KILLING of US and UK troops, is simply ridiculous. Now if one country attacked another country's troops, didn't that used to be as good as a declaration of war? You can argue all you want about how beneficial it is to negotiate with other world leaders, but I refuse to parley with a man who sends in troops to kill the good guys. And if you have any findings to disprove that, then by all means use them. If we're going to talk to Iran at all, here's what we're going to say:"Stop killing our troops, or prepare for war".

Second-of-all- I am not particularly in favor of any American candidates, but I admire John McCain, not only because he is a war hero, but also because, unlike Mr. Obama, he recognises that al-Qaeda in Iraq is an imminent threat and must be dealt with. It must be dealt with not through slow withdrawal, which would give the al-Qaeda a monumental propanda victory, but through perseverance. It doesn't matter what the surge was meant to do, nor does it matter how slowly Mr.Obama plans to withdraw the troops. And if you think that al-Qaeda is just going to say 'Screw it, they're retreating. I guess we'll retreat, too", I'd like to know what you're smoking. Once they see that we're retreating, they will push more of their forces into Iraq, and we will be handicapped in terms of how much forces we have to counter them. The propaganda victory may also persuade more people to join the al-Qaeda, and further destabilize Iraq, and perhaps Afghanistan as well.

Thirdly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that sitting in the Illinois state senate and voting 'present' a bunch of times adds anything to your experience. And in your rebuttal argument, name me one time he has had any impact on a major foreign policy decision. Also, it's true that he helped get the state of Illinois' economy back in order, but there is a serious difference between fixing the economy of a state and fixing the economy of a nation, much less one that is in major debt.

Fourthly (I think that's a word): I'll admit the US doesn't always have affordable healthcare, but, again, I have to agree with John McCain's proposal, which is to cut taxes for lower income families so they can afford healthcare. Mr.Obama's plan would weaken the healthcare companies because it would put many restrictions on what they can and can't do, such as having to lower prices.

Fifthly: HOW IS HE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS, YOU ASK? By increasing taxes on the hardworking American family, of course. But that's just the solution to everything nowadays. I'm sure they won't notice, as long as he adds some mantra about how your tax dollars are going towards the message of peace, unity, and change™.

And, surprisingly, I don't have much problem with his immigration plan, though America should enforce it's illegal immigration laws.
claypigeon

Con

This debate is not about who is better or worse. You picked the topic of whether or not Obama is qualified to be president so please debate on the topic. I will address your points against Obama as I consider myself knowledgeable on the subject but quit trying to change the debate.

1. Talking

The issue is whether talking to "insane" leaders is bad. I agree that I think what Iran is doing is bad and that what they are doing (whether it is funding terrorists or sending their own equipment in) should be an act of war. I still don't see how refusing to talk to Iran is beneficial. I laid out my cost benefit approach and all you rebutted with was "I refuse to parlay". That's your opinion but in debate we try to convince others and facts are generally a good way of going about this. If we don't talk with people, we can't resolve the situation w/o war. If we talk there is no harm but there is a possible benefit of avoiding war.

2. Al Quaeda

I understand your points but I don't think you read my arguments. You stated that
"al-Quaeda in Iraq is an imminent threat and must be dealt with. It must be dealt with not through slow withdrawal, which would give the al-Qaeda a monumental propaganda victory, but through perseverance."

First off, you fail to explain why slow withdrawal is going to give a monumental propaganda victory. If anything I'd argue that it'd have an opposite affect. We can fend off al quaeda w/ ever decreasing troops therefore they are losing. And if perseverance means another us committing vietnam where we measure success exclusively by the number of deaths we inflict then I hope Al Quaeda wins. We should measure success based on what is best for America. Killing terrorists may be good but if we could kill a million terrorists for 1,000 american lives and if one million terrorists on there own would kill only 500 american lives, we are being short changed w/ perseverance. Obama advocates a flexible system of slow withdrawal that is based on what troops we need In Iraq at the moment. Mccain does the same thing but phrases it differently. This is the one course of action that makes sense as we are basing success on what is best for America. Mccain and Obama have the same plan in this aspect. Mccain thinks we don't have enough troops but he doesn't want to commit a million of them so we maximize terrorist deaths. Mccain thinks we'll have a bigger benefit from adding more troops than is saved by withdrawal. Obama thinks we have too many troops and the cost of american lives is not worth the benefit added. But both base their assumption on the "whats best for America" model and not the "kill all terrorists ever everywhere" neocon model.

And yes, the success of the surge is based on what the surge did. We defined success as giving Iraq a stable time to develop institutions. This didn't happen. Therefore the original goal of the surge was failed. Good things may have happened from the surge but the original goal was a failure.

3. Experience

First I want to address a common assumption. In the Illinois senate, people vote present for many reasons. If they like a bill as a whole but dislike parts they vote present. If the party tells them to vote present, they vote present. If the candidate wants to not draw political heat from others he can also vote present. I don't deny Obama voted present sometimes so he wouldn't draw fire but often he voted present for the first two reasons. If anything, I think this makes him more experienced as we don't want a president who will ignore the realities of the world and veto or not veto a bill based on his own moral standing. If a bill would piss off turkey enough to make them not let us use their airbases (like the armenian genocide bill) I want a president who wouldn't pass the bill as I want a president who balances America's interests and maximizes utility. Sure the Armenian genocide happened but I wouldn't let more of our troops die just so we can rub it in turkey's faces.

Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which gave Bush the authority to increase force in iraq to counter Iran (without congress declaring war on Iran first) and he supports talking to leaders and he has made many diplomatic visits to other countries. He also introduced two bills that dealt with WMD/arms smuggling and to stop nuclear weapon buildup (he did this with Sen Hagel).

Also the pres has so little impact on fixing the economy its almost not worth mentioning. The fed is in control of that and the pres, as long as he doesn't veto everything the fed does, generally is good for the economy. I'll further this in my last speech if I need to clarify but the time it takes a pres to do something is a huge hindrance for depending on him to save the economy. Its not like we're even in huge trouble as it is (yes we are in a technical recession but that's not the huge trouble I'm talking about). And our debt is a big problem but the pres isn't the one to fix this. Congress is the body that is in charge with bookkeeping. If anything though I think Obama's health care plan (Below) will substantially fix our debt from soc. security.

4. Healthcare

Obama and Mccain's plans are almost the exact same. You did not read by points on Obama's plan. They both want to focus on prevention (Obama moreso) and Mccain wants to get everyone insured ( we can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens - this is from http://www.johnmccain.com...).

If anything, Obama's plan is more conservative than McCain's as Mccain mandates everyone to be insured. Obama mandates all kids to be insured but he also wants all others to be insured by keeping costs down.

Obama doesn't want to put up a million price restrictions. He openly states how he wants the insurance and medical companies to be at the table with him reforming the laws. We want and can find a solution that helps ALL parties. 15% of medical bills are due to us not having digital records but we don't have these records because it doesn't fiscally make sense for one organization to do it unless everyone does. By bringing everyone together we can save money and make everyone better off. That is Obama's plan. Mccain's is about the same except he wants to use the market and competition in determining prices.

I see a market failure (digital records) which needs govt to correct the problem. Mccain thinks competition will solve the problem. Maybe one guy is right but both people but forth quality plans. Both are qualified to speak about the topic. Both are qualified (except maybe Mccain so far, see my other debate) to be president. That is my point here. I could argue how prevention is key to limiting future costs as it is cheaper to cure something small now than to cure it later and chronically but you get my point.

5. Taxes

Obama states he will give a 1,000 tax cut to the middle class(http://www.barackobama.com...) but I don't see where either side has said much about taxes. Obama I know what to tax the upper middle-upper class (people making 200k + per year) more but your hardworking middle class families that can't afford to pay taxes argument doesn't work there. Obama and Mccain's sites read about the same for taxes w/ McCain's being more elaborate, but both sides are essentially in agreement. Cut taxes for the middle class. No new taxes unless its on the wealthy

All I am saying is that Obama is qualified to be pres. He has well thought out positions and whether they are right or not isn't what matters. What matters is that they are "right enough" and well thought out. Obama has much experience in politics and similar positions to Mccain, a qualified candidate, except for Iraq. Here the reasoning they each have is the same but the outcome is different. Obama may not be the best candidate but he sure is qualified.
Debate Round No. 2
Pride_of_Scotland

Pro

Kels makes a great point about the surge, for had the US not abandoned the Rumsfeld strategy, we would probably be in the same slump that we were in before the surge. Regardless of who is killing one another, they're going to create a hell of alot of instability if we leave. The al-Qaeda WILL return, and that's not even bringing in to the picture what Iran might do. Mr.Obama's strategy, like so many others, is doomed to fail in the long run. I want the troops home just as much as you do, Clay, but we must look at this in a broader perspective. The Iraqis want freedom, both to vote and to walk in the streets and not having to fear a gunfight. And, judging by the recent reports from the generals and soldiers in the field, (who know the situation a hell of a lot better than any of us) I'd say we're giving them those freedoms. Why should Iraqis not enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy every day? So, in the end, it doesn't matter what the surge did or was meant to do or could have done, etc. What matters is what's happening now. Just look at it! Marathons are being held, people walk in the streets and hold parties, thousands of people in Baghdad celebrated New Year's, where 2 years ago, they could barely go into the streets and talk. Don't forget that it took America 8 years of fighting and 10 years to sort out the constitution. Even though we expect everything to heppen instantly nowadays, nation-building still takes a bit of time. So for you to say that the surge is a failure based on the fact that it simply 'didn't do what it was meant to do' is quite foolish. Also, God bless you and your husband, Kels, and may he return safely and soon.

On the issue of Ahmadinejad, I agree that it is beneficial to talk to other countries, even those that we disagree with. We should negotiate with Iran on the issues of Iraq and nuclear enrichment. When you see a giant mushroom cloud over Israel, then America will realize just how much Hitler Jr. cares about sanctions. Even with findings from the UN, I don't trust Ahdiminajad at all. If Iran is threatening serious military action against Israel or other countries, it's time to stop fooling around and tell Iran that if you attack our allies, you attack us. And if you just hate the idea of military action against a country that very well may be developing nukes, then I don't know what to do for you. But a day and age may come where military action, or even nuclear weapons, are necessary for the safety and well-being of the world. When that time comes, I hope there will be a sitting president with the courage to do what is necessary. For the good of the US and for the good of all mankind.

I concede that my knowledge on the subject of healthcare is limited, what I do know is that any socialist policy, including "socialised" healthcare, is at it's core flawed. If McCain and Obama's policies are so similar, then perhaps McCain's is flawed as well. One need only look at the state of the healthcare systems of Canada and France to see the results of this system of healthcare.

All of this, however is a mute point because all of these things could have been told to him by his advisers, and only what he himself has done can truly be considered as to whether or not he is worthy to wear the mantle of Leader of the Free World. In my opinion, Barack Obama unequivocally is not.
claypigeon

Con

Might I remind everyone that this debate is about whether Obama is qualified to be the next president. Even if his plans are not perfect I only hope to prove that he is qualified. As an Obama supporter I will address the off topic claims made by my opponent as well as in the comment sections.

1. The Surge

Please read the comments section though I will post my example about erroneous causation

"Assume a nuke goes off in New York. Immediately many people will die and that 1st week many more people will die from radiation poisoning, etc. . Lets say we mandate that everyone in NYC must drink Pineapple Juice. During that second week, less people die from radiation posioning. During the Third and fourth week this trend continues.

Is this b/c of the pineapple juice? Maybe, but I would assume its really because the people most susceptible to death from radiation sickness would die quickly while the people least susceptible to it would survive or die very slowly. But death rates have decreased so it must be the pineapple juice having an effect. And I won't even delve into sampling error in a population with so much variance as this one.

My point is that w/o a randomized controlled experiment we cannot prove causation or what causes the decline in death rates. It could have been the surge or a host of other factors. Or maybe over time the death rate is meant to decline. Who knows? Not you or me."

No one here can prove why less people are dieing in Iraq now than before. Maybe it is the surge but we are not debating this nor has anyone done a randomized controlled experiment on this.

2. Leaving Iraq

The process of America leaving Iraq isn't an all or none situation. Obama advocates slowly leaving, by bringing up to 2 brigades home a month, and increasing troops levels if needed. I have stated this throughout the debate. If we packed up and left everything I bet there would be a lot of instability but that is not the issue here. The issue is slowly withdrawing troops and if instability occurs, we can stop withdrawing. I am for complete immediate withdrawal, nor is Obama. We are for maximizing utility and currently too many troops are in Iraq to maximize utility. Maybe we do kill more terrorists with the increased troops but our success is not based on how many people we kill. This isn't vietnam.

3. Al Qaeda

Why Am I even arguing this point? Al Qaeda is in Iraq. The vast majority of damage done to our troops is by other factions. Just because a group is terroristic in nature doesn't mean they are part of Al Qaeda. Just because a group kills Americans doesn't mean they are terrorists. Please read this page as it explains the different groups http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent states, w/o evidence, that Al Qaeda will make a return if we leave Iraq. Please present evidence for this otherwise I assume it is a typical scare tactic.

Since we are talking about Al Qaeda, I'll mention that the more we are seen as invaders in Iraq, the more Al Qaeda get recruited. Al Qaeda recruits mostly people whom America has harmed (either accidentally) or people whom seriously disagree with what we are doing (guantanamo bay). It's been shown that Guantanamo and our use of torture has increased recruitment levels. So has the Iraq war.
http://www.commondreams.org...
That page links to a reuters article that links to the actual article by the Military Balance but that links isn't working fyi.

I hate to make claims of causation but the larger presence we have in iraq, the bigger/worse Al Qaeda gets.

4. Iran

Neither of us can claim to know what Iran will do if we slowly withdraw but we always have the option of bringing more guys back in or not withdrawing or (even better) bringing our troops to a safer place like Israel. In regards of speaking to foreign leaders, you still have not stated a benefit we get from talking to them. Maybe sanctions don't work, but this is not related to whether or not we talk to them. War is always an option but I'd rather it not be the only option. Obama has stated repeatedly that he is not against wars, but he is "against dumb wars". Maybe war with Iran wouldn't be dumb. But I'd like to have the option of finding out by speaking to its leader.

5. Healthcare

Socialized healthcare as done in Canada is bad imo but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a national policy. If we spent a buck on prevention today it'd save a lot more in future illnesses. That is a form of socialized healthcare which both parties agree on.

6. Experience

Obama has spent years in the state senate and has demonstrated his ability to effectively work within party lines to get votes passed (a.k.a with the present votes)

Obama has passed plenty of beneficial bills without the aid of his advisers(anti nukes or arm smuggling) with well known senators (Sen Hagel, etc.)

He has worked with both parties and has been able to work across party lines.

He is not against war but against "dumb wars".

He is willing to talk w/ other leaders and he has made many visits to places like Kenya, Russia, Israel, etc.

I hoped to have shown that Obama is qualified to be president.

I also hoped to have shown you many of his policies and I do hope I have convinced someone to vote for him. Either way, whether or not he wins in '08, he is qualified to be America's next president even if he isn't the best candidate.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chaos-king 8 years ago
chaos-king
good debate
Posted by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
Ah, but as you can tell, the debate is not over yet.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Sorry I couldn't comment earlier claypigeon.

Al Qaeda, as you said, IS insignificant to the war in Iraq, but there still is a War on Terrorism, in which we must stop the re surging terrorists. He's only been in the business of mainstream politics for the last 2 years as a senator. Not a position in which he could easily defend his country against attack. This is what I meant by naivety. With this, it thus shows that Obama MAY have sufficient plans for the good of the country, but not necessarily be matured to efficiently stop the problems going on. BUT...OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

THE DEBATE DID NOT COME DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS EXPERIENCE, BUT RATHER,WHO HAS THE RIGHT POLICIES!! OH!!!!!
CON, YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH POLICIES WERE MUCH MORE STRUCTURED IN THE DEBATE. YOU PROVED HOW HIS POLICIES WORKED BEST. SO, I vote Con in this debate, changing my vote.

I am sorry, but I mistook an argument, and added an extra. I will now vote on the actual facts in the debate, better held by the negative, claypigeon.
Posted by Acureforthemondays 9 years ago
Acureforthemondays
my bad kels. troops do still need a high school diploma. they just lowered standards on test scores and let more recruits in with misdemeanors.
Posted by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
It was fun and good debate too. I really like this site.
Posted by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
Well, a tie is better than a loss I suppose. Good debate, Pigeon, I hope we can have another in the near future.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Acure , you can't get in without a HS diploma or a GED .. that has not changed and you still can't get in the military with a felony charge. Also I would rather them lower recruiting standards a bit then have dead troops.
Posted by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
may I ask how the con failed to prove if Obama is qualified?
Posted by padlockcode 9 years ago
padlockcode
i hate when people just vote for what their opinion is, you should never go into a debate with a biased opinion so i vote aff. sorry for you aff with a the obama suporters out their
Posted by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
What I meant by the statement, Acure, was that in times where Iran is threatning military action against Israel or other countries, we need to tell them to stop. We shouldn't sit back and do nothing about it.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KCtalent2012 7 years ago
KCtalent2012
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by silentrigger1285 9 years ago
silentrigger1285
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PryorPirate93 9 years ago
PryorPirate93
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
Pride_of_ScotlandclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30