The Instigator
Pro (for)
13 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

Barack Obama should not have been Time's Person of the Year 2008

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 6364
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)




I would like to begin with saying I have nothing against Barack Obama. I am not out to ruin his name or say he shouldn't be president. However, I do not think Obama deserves, for any reason, to be Time's Person of the Year 2008.

Now first, what is Time's Person of the Year?
According to Time, while discussing their choice for Vladimir Putin in 2007, the Person of the Year is neither good, nor bad. Simply influential. That would explain why Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were People of the Year.

Second, is Barack Obama the most influential person in the world?
No. He is not. He has done nothing yet besides getting elected. In 4 years from now, should Obama be Person of the Year? Quite possibly. But not now. Here is a Time article entitled, "Why We Chose Obama." I read it. I could not find one good reason why they chose him.

And third, who is more influential?
There are many more people more influential. One person I think that stands out is French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Here is the Time link to Sarkozy:
It gives 4 clear reasons why Sarkozy was influential in 2008. He is a clear leader, thinks outside the box, has elevated France to a very significant country, and as President of the European Union he took action. Is Sarkozy perfect? No. But he is definitely more influential than Obama.


I would like to first thank my opponent for such a original and interesting debate topic. I wish for us to have a fun yet serious debate that we both can take something out of.

I would also like to state that any videos posted should be watched when I ask in the argument so you the reader may get the full context of them.

I accept my opponent's definition of what exactly Time's Person of the Year is for the most part. However, it should be noted that in the past that such as the choice of 2001 with Rudolph Guiliani and Albert Einstein as Person of the Century in 1999 that Time also factors in who they believed had a stronger influence on history. Whether you agree or disagree with that, that is Time's choice and reasoning.

When it comes down to it, Barack Obama will/has a stronger influence on history and 2008 then French President Nicolas Sarkozy which was my opponent's main example.

Second, Barack Obama is the most influential person in the world.

My opponent acts like being elected is such a easy thing with words like "he has done nothing yet besides getting elected". The Time Article was simply stating other places to go to find out about Obama, everybody who has turned on a television or opened a Time magazine in the past 6-18 months know of Barack Obama and his accomplishments.

If you ask people in places like Kenya or even the U.S who the president of France is then you are most likely to get a blank stare. If you ask them about Barack Obama or even mention his name then (love or hate him) people will have a response. He is perhaps the most well-known person in the world today living (or at least one of the most well known) and has had major influence on how people feel and act all across the globe.

The first few seconds have citizens of Paris celebrating Obama's victory in the first video shown! (Feel free to watch the video now)

Or how about the second video that shows more celebrations? This one from BBC. (Watch the second video now)

Does Sarkozy's victories have such reactions? No, of course not.

Another thing, Sarkozy won 53.06% of his country's vote which equals out to 18,983,138 votes. Almost a close lost to Segolene Royal of the Socialist Party who had 16,790,440 votes or 46.94%. Mind you, these two results are from the second round of voting while in the first round he only won 31.18% of the country's vote. The man was barely a big enough influence to win the election in his own country, why should he be chosen as the biggest influence of the world when he clearly isn't?

Barack Obama on the other hand (in the more influential United States) won 52.9% of the vote but by a much bigger margin (A little less then 10 million votes compared to Nicolas's 2.2 million). How much of the popular vote did he win? 69,456,897 votes! Which is 3.6 times more votes then Nicolas received, which by size alone makes Obama more influential. Also take into factor (with the 52.9% of the vote) that America allows third party candidates to have a part in the final results of an election.

Obama also had a problem that Nicolas did not; race. Many people in the United States wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was half African-American. Now I ask you readers, how big is that and influential not only here but for the rest of the world for the U.S to elect such a man? Pretty influential if you think about it.

Third, who is more influential? Well I believe throughout this debate I have proven who is quite easily more influential; that being Barack Obama.

Reading my opponent's second link; all 4 clear reasons could easily fit Barack Obama.

1.) Barack Obama is a clear leader. He has made plenty of decisions already and implemented them. He sees America as having plenty of problems and wants to solve them; hence the platform of Change. Barack Obama believes he can change America, otherwise he wouldn't of ran for President.

2.) Barack Obama has already thought outside the box as shown through his picks for his cabinet. Barack Obama has show much diversity and bipartisanship with his cabinet picks.

He picked the main opposition he ran against in the Democratic primaries for Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton.
He has chosen Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense.
He has chosen Steven Chu, who won the Nobel Prize in 1997 in Physics as Secretary of Energy; once confirmed he will be the first Chinese American to hold the office of Energy Secretary and the second Chinese American to be a member of a cabinet.
He has chosen Republican Ray LaHood to be his Secretary of Transportation.

A full list of his cabinet picks so far can be found here:

To further my evidence on Obama's cabinet picks. 75% of the public approves of Obama's cabinet picks thus far as shown in this poll:

Obama has also thought outside the box with many of his ideas such as solutions to the energy crisis among many other ideas.

3.) Obama has elevated America back to a respected country.

The George W. Bush Administration has brought down America's standing with the rest of the world for the past eight years with his actions. Barack Obama has changed this quickly with his election victory and has/is bringing back America to a country it was when it comes to respect.

The evidence of this is this BBC article on Nov 5, 2008:

To quote from the article to prove my point further:
"Opinion polls around the world have confirmed America's unpopularity. And the chance that a young, apparently pleasant and modest black man might become its president was greeted favourably everywhere.

Last summer a poll for the BBC World Service, conducted in 22 countries, indicated that people preferred Barack Obama to John McCain by four to one. Almost half said that if Senator Obama were elected, it would change their view of the United States completely."

My point has been proven here.

4.) Which actions as President of the EU has Sarkozy taken?

He reached out to Britain, made some plans at the G-20 summit which will remain to be seen if they stick, and that's about it from all I get from the article. Europe along with America is in one of her worst economic crisis perhaps in modern history. Does this reflect upon Sarkozy? Of course it does, just as it reflects upon President George W. Bush here in the United States.

What I have proven:

I have proven that Time's Person of the Year definition fits Obama.
I have proven that Obama is in fact the most influential person in the world.
I have proven that Obama is more influential then Sarkozy who I have shown has done little to nothing for the EU. I have also shown that Obama fits all the qualities that my opponent feels makes Sarkozy the most influential in 2008.

Obama has changed history in 2008, he has done things that many said were impossible. His path was long, and will continue into 2009. Change is coming to America, and already Obama has made such an impact on not only America but the world in the year 2008 that he easily deserves this honor.

Thank you once again for reading my argument dear reader. I would once again like to thank my opponent for starting this interesting debate and hope we have a good debate.

I ask you dear reader when the time comes, vote for the correct choice and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1


I accept that TIME also looks at the impact on history. However, I stand that Obama still does not qualify.

My opponent begins his argumentation by saying that winning an election is not an easy feat. I agree. However, winning an election does not qualify someone as the most influential person that year. 2006 Person of the Year was YOU. The average citizenry has never won an election. 2005 was Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Bono. They never won elections. 2003 was the American Soldier. Same. So we must look at Obama's other achievements. He only has one that could qualifies him as influential. Being the first African American President of the United States of America. Is this special? Yes it is. However, Thurgood Marshall was the first African American in the Supreme Court. He was never TIME's Person of the Year. And Obama obviously is not the first African head executive in the world. Furthermore, he is not even the first African American president. Thomas Jefferson was 1/4 African, Andrew Jackson was 1/2, Calvin Coolidge was 1/2, Dwight D. Eisenhower was 1/4. The fact that Obama is African American and won an election is not an accomplishment worthy of Person of the Year.

My opponent then continues by saying Obama has higher name recognition than Sarkozy. Who knows Jeff Bezos? Andy Grove? Dr. David Ho? These are People of the Year (1999, 97, 96 respectively). Name recognition is not a TIME criteria for influence. Obama's name is known because it was highly publicized in the election. I would bet that John McCain's name is just as recognizable.

My opponent then shows videos of people across the world celebrating Obama's victory.

A Beatle's Concert - People are celebrating because they feel this is a chance for America to change. But the problem is, it hasn't yet. Obama promised change, and I hope he brings it. But he also promised line-item vetoes (which are unconstitutional). He is a politician. Until he actually enacts change, until he actually changes our foreign policy, he has not influenced the world.

My opponent then uses the voting margins between Sarkozy and Obama to say Obama was more influential. First of all, The US has millions of more people, obviously Obama would get a higher number of votes. Second, Sarkozy received a higher percentage of votes (if vote counts matter towards influence).

Next, my opponent says Obama had a problem with race. 96% percent of blacks voted for Obama! And the same percentage of whites voted for Obama as Clinton! Obviously, race did not hinder Obama; it helped him.

My opponent goes through 4 of the many reasons Sarkozy should be person of the year:
1. Obama is NOT a clear leader. What has he lead? Has he lead this country yet? Was he a mayor? A governor? He has no leadership experience and is not yet a clear leader. I hope he becomes one, but he isn't yet.

2. Outside the box. Alright, Obama is a politician. He picked the best people, not outside-the-box choices. His Chief of Staff (Emanuel) has great experience. Clinton as a choice could very easily have been a dealing between the two for Hillary to drop out. Gates and Chu are smart choices, too. I am not saying smart choices are a bad thing. However, they are not warrants for outside-the-box thinking.

3. Obama has not elevated America to a respected country yet. People now look at America better, yes. But he has yet to, once again, actually do anything! President Bush damaged our reputation terribly. Almost any Democrat who could have been elected would have raised our popularity. What happens when Obama faces a crisis? Our reputation hopefully will change for the better. But from the same article, "[t]his is no guarantee that he will be a success as president. Jimmy Carter understood the US's reduced position in the post-Vietnam world, and he refused to dictate to the world. Nowadays most Americans regard him as a failure. " Until Obama makes an action that improves our popularity, he can not have repaired it. Why? He can very easily make it even worse after the first crisis. Sarkozy, on the other hand, has improved France's power around the world through his actions. Not campaign promises.

4. What Sarkozy has done as president of the EU
Because of Sarkozy, "you felt Europe had a voice, a presence and a policy. It has not always been so when a crisis has occurred."
He has worked multilaterally with the US and Britain to solve the world's economic crisis. The crisis was caused in the US; Sarkozy can not be blamed for it. President Sarkozy began negotiations with Colombian president �lvaro Uribe and the left-wing guerrilla FARC, regarding the release of hostages held by the rebel group. Furthermore, he announced on 24 July 2007, that French and European representatives had obtained the extradition of the Bulgarian nurses detained in Libya to their country.On 8 June 2007, during the 33rd G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Sarkozy set a goal of reducing French CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 in order to prevent global warming.On 21 July 2008, the French parliamentpassed constitutional reforms which Sarkozy had made one of the key pledges of his presidential campaign. These changes, if finalized, introduce a two-term limit for the presidency, give parliament a veto over some presidential appointments, allow the president to address parliament in-session, and end the president's right of collective pardon.President Sarkozy has publicly stated his intention to attain EU approval of a progressive energy package before the end of his EU Presidency. This energy package would clearly define climate change objectives for the EU and hold members to specific reductions in emissions. This proposal demonstrates Sarkozy's commitment to international collaboration in the face of climate change. In further support of his collaborative outlook on climate change, Sarkozy has led the EU into a partnership with China.

What I have proven:
Winning an Election does not constitute TIME's Person of the Year
Race has not influenced TIME before
Name Recognition is not a criteria
People support Obama because they want change, but he has not brought any change yet
Obama is not more deserving than Sarkozy
Sarkozy is a leader, outside-the-box thinker
Through Sarkzoy's actions, he has improved France's reputation
Obama has not made any action's to improve our reputation
Sarkozy has had a huge influence on France, the EU, and the world
Obama has not

All Obama has done was win an election. He has no accomplishments other than this that merit such a prestigious award.

Thank you for accepting this debate and making it a good debate.


I would like to thank my opponent again for such a debate and glad to see he responded.

My opponent has accepted that TIME looks at the impact on history, which would mean if Obama has a bigger impact on history then TIME is correct in their choosing, Obama does surely qualify.

My opponent concedes that winning an election is not an easy feat. Obama has forever changed American politics. How many other candidates raised $745 million, twice more then their own opponent?

Obama used the internet to raise a great deal of that and grassroot campaigns to win. How many other candidates have done that? Obama has forever changed American politics whether we like it or not.

The choices of YOU and the American Soldier were abstract choices that TIME is famous for simply because TIME felt they would influence history the most. Just like the American Women in 1975, Baby Boomers in 1966, The Computer in 1982, the Endangered Earth in 1988, and The American Fighting-Man in 1950. What my opponent fails to tell you is the abstract choices are pivotal to the time period. 2003 was the beginning of the Iraq war, 1950 was the Korean War, Computer was coming into it's own in 1982, etc,etc.

My opponent also fails to mention that in 2005 that The Good Samaritans won, who were only represented by Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Bono. Again, an abstract choice.

My opponent also concedes being the first African American President of the United States of America is special. Then goes and says he wasn't. Since my opponent already conceded that Obama was the first African American President then it makes his whole other point invalid. Furthermore, the men my opponent named were white and when people voted for them at the time; it was unknown that was part of them IF it was. So voting for them while not knowing that supposedly and voting for Obama while he was African American is two different things.

As for Thurgood Marshall, he was passed over for Lyndon Johnston in 1967 (the year he became a member of the Supreme Court). With the War in Vietnam among several other things going on in the world, TIME felt the influence of the president was greater then this historical moment. Furthermore, I ask my opponent to look at the list of winners and before 1967 tell me how many African Americans were on the list. The only one I can see is MLK Jr in 1963 for his March on Washington and his now famous "I have a Dream" speech. Outside of abstract choices, how many other African Americans other then MLK Jr have been chosen for this award?

Far as I can see that would be one, Barack Obama.

My point of name recoginition and the celebration videos (which my opponent does not refute) is that Obama has more influence around the world (which my opponent said was untrue) and more standing. My opponent tries to say who has more influence and yet leaves out how people feel. If there was a worldwide election between Barack Obama and Sarkozy, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would win easily. Name recoginition is influence when it comes to a politician. To compare scientists to politicians is apple and oranges and my opponent knows this while trying to unfairly make such a assertion. To further prove my point, TIME chose Sarah Palin as a runner-up and yet she was only a vice presidental candidate Why would she be in the running? Because of the amount of influence she had and used whether you liked her or not.

My opponent fails to realize that the people are celebrating in the video because this is and was a change for America. It wasn't in the political arena, but rather the music arena. The Beatles did prove such change, redefining the rock genre and selling the most albums ever in the United States along with over a billion records worldwide. To further prove my point, here is list from one of the greatest music magazines that they top.

Obama is a politician and already has changed America along with the world. The BBC poll showed how people in the world liked Obama and would respect America better simply because he was elected.

The fact that the US has millions of more people, so obviously Obama would get a higher number of votes WAS EXACTLY MY POINT. I would like to thank my opponent for proving my point. Therefore, Obama already has more influence in the world then Sarkozy. My opponent obviously finds Sarkozy higher % of votes to matter but fails to know the way France votes that only two parties end up voting in the final round of the election. Sarkozy only secured 31% of his nation's vote in the first round, 31% in the U.S would be an embarassment.

My opponent also fails to see logic when he says 96% percent of Blacks voted for Obama so therefore race helped Obama. African Americans have voted for the most part Democrat more and more in the past elections.
As demonstrated when a white man, John Kerry who was the Democratic candidate in 2004 won 88% of the Black vote but also less votes then Obama.

My opponent goes on to try and refute my 4 points:

1.) Obama has already led a campaign that has gone to unimaginable heights and is clear on what he wants to do. He has been a Senator, and is clear on his policies.

2.) Obama has acted outside the box, has my opponent forgot Sarkozy is a politician too? Obama picked the best people but outside-the-box of Liberal and Conservative America. Hillary Clinton fought to just about the bitter end, she in fact stated at one point she was not interested in a cabinet position. So my opponent idea is highly false. My opponent concedes Gates and Chu are smart choices and as I have shown, are outside-the-box. The same argument my opponent applies to Obama could apply to Sarkozy.

3/4.) Again, look at the poll and he already has. Not almost any Democrat who could have been elected would of had raised our popularity to the level Obama has. My opponent fails to see the amount of hope Obama inspires in people. Obama being elected has improved our popularity, the BBC poll doesn't lie. Until Obama screws up in the first crisis like my opponent implies to think then you cannot say he has made it worse. Sarkozy, on the other hand has not changed France's power considerably.

What has Sarkozy done to elevate France? I ask my opponent to find such things and not merely quote things from wikipedia. He helped freed some hostages, the US is not the only one to blame for the crisis; Sarkozy must take the bad with the good. Sarkozy has helped set a goal, and stated intentions; isn't this the same thing my opponent blasts Obama for? Doesn't sound like action to me.

What I have proven:
Obama's influence on history will be greater
Obama has already done more then win a campaign
Time makes abstract choices and Obama is the second African American to win the TIME POTY award
Name Recognition is an important criteria for politicians.
Obama has brought change in America and throughout the world
Obama is more deserving then Sarkozy
Obama is a leader, outside-the-box thinker
My opponent makes claims that hurt his own argument because they can and are easily applied to Sarkozy.
Obama has won, that alone has improved our reputation.
Sarkozy has done little more then proposals, state ideas and goals during his time in France and the EU. This is exactly what my opponent blasts Obama for. To find Sarkozy better is hypocrisy.

My opponent says he has no bias. However, Republican arguments (the leadership one for example) have slipped into his own. His profile shows he is a Republican. Though he may not try; he has bias against Barack Obama.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and you for reading
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent beings with the argument that Obama's fund raising has influenced politics because he raised so much money. This proves nothing about Obama's influence, for politicians have been raising money on larger scales for decades. Obama has not influenced how politicians fund raise. He has simply continued the already established paradigm.

He then uses Obama's use of the internet as changing American politics. Again, this does nothing to show Obama's influence. In fact, it's an argument for the Internet's influence. Maybe it should have been TIME's person of the year. The internet was effective because of the recent up rise of internet use. It would not have worked 4 years ago. The, as I said, should go to the Internet.

My opponent then admits that winning an election is not an achievement worthy of Person of the Year by listing the multiple abstract choices. He does nothing to defend that winning an election is an achievement worthy of the title. My arguments stand, and he loses on that argument alone.

Next, my opponent mentions that Thurgood Marshall was passed over for LBJ because of the war in Vietnam. He said "TIME felt the influence of the president was greater then this historical moment." That even furthers the point that Obama being African American does not warrant TIME's award. Why isn't General David Petraeus, the mastermind behind the successful surge that turned Iraq around, Person of the Year. If wars trump over racial achievements, why does Obama deserve it? My opponent further loses this round when he points out MLK is the only African American Person of the Year. What about the many many other achievements made by minorities? Why aren't they recognized by TIME? Because TIME has never believed that race has any ground on selected Person of the Year.

My opponent again says that name recognition is a warrant for high levels of influence that would merit Person of the Year. He says that name recognition is important to politicians, so it must be a sign of influence. President Bush has extremely high name recognition but his influence is definitely smaller than Harry Reid who has much less name recognition. He then says Obama would win an election against Sarkozy. This is pure speculation with no facts behind it. Millions of Europeans would say that is wrong. He then states that Sarah Palin was a runner-up because of her influence. First, we are not debating if Sarah Palin should be Person of the Year. Secondly, my opponent doesn't provide why Sarah Palin's influence was from name-recognition. My opponent has failed to prove why name recognition equals influence of the same degree. He has further failed to prove why name recognition alone merits Person of the Year. As of now, Obama still has no reason to be Person of the Year.

My opponent still does not understand that Obama has not changed America at all. He has provided a venue for change, an opportunity for change. People are celebrating for the HOPE of change. The Beatles were not a change when they formed the band, but when they acted, when they performed. Action is the key to change. Obama has not acted.

The BBC poll shows that people would respect America not because of Obama, but because it was not McCain. It was highly publized that McCain was a "third Bush" (I am not saying this is true). People gained respect for America because we did not elect another "Bush." If Hilary had won, it would have been the same. If Obama's actions result in some negative effect, people will not have more respect for America. TIME is giving Obama the benefit of the doubt that he will be a good leader. THis is wrong.

There are two points that need to be clarified. My opponent believed that Obama's vote count in America means his is more influential than Sarkozy. Now first, Sarkozy has gained influence since his election, and the whole European Union is under his leadership. Second, America does not have a proportionate election like France. If we did, Obama would have split his votes among Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dole, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, etc. He would not have received over 50% of the votes because Clinton herself would have stole about 20-25%. You can not compare to completely different electoral processes and say one final vote tally is most influential than one preliminary vote tally.

I will agree that the Black Vote is highly favorable to the Democrats. But there is a huger difference between 88% and 96%. That means only 4% of all the Black Vote was against Obama. This obviously helped him. And if anyone still believes that 96% is typical for a Democrat that is alright too. It just further proves my original point that his race did not hurt him. It may not have helped him, but if you remember that Bill Clinton received the same percent of the White Vote as Obama, it did not hurt him.

Now onto the 4 particular points

1.) Obama is not clear on his policies, and he has no leadership. He is neither "clear" nor a "leader." His policies have changed multiple times, he redefined what "upper class" was about 4 times within two weeks. His ultimate goal is "change." That is not a clear policy. He also has no leadership experience. I challenge my opponent to find leadership experience for Obama that will define him as a leader.

2.) Sarkozy is not consider outside-the-box for smart cabinet choices, but for controversial actions that have yielded postive results. Everyone was predicted Hillary would have a cabinet position on the news. Hundres of people still speculate that a deal was struck. If that is true, OF COURSE Clinton would she wasn't interested until she accepted/ How are Gates and Chu outside the box? Is Chu outside the box because he is Asian?

3/4.) Obama has inspired hope! Exactly! Has he done anything to make the world better? Make America better? Influence anything? No! He provides an oppourtunity for change, but he has made no change. Until he does, he does not deserve any special awards or titles.

Sarkozy is the president of the EU. He has increased France relations with all of Europe, especially Britain, and the United States. The difference between Obama and Sarkozy is that Sarkozy made promises, has pushed those promises, and forced action to occur towards those goals. Obama has made promises....and nothing else.

So finally, what I have proven.
TIME does not look at race for Person of the Year
Name recognition is not a sign of higher influence
Obama has done nothing but promise change
He has no qualifications for Person of the Year
Sarkozy has multiple reasons to be Person of the Year
Obama is not clear
Obama is not a leader

My opponent concludes by saying I deserve to lose because I am obviously biased agianst Obama. I have no made any ungrounded attacks. Since Obama has not taken office yet, it is impossible for him to have any presidential achievement. Anyone, democrat, republican, libertarian, would acknowledge that. If I were a democrat my argument would be the same. I am not discrediting him for being a Democrat. What my opponent is essentially saying is that my political party makes me not entitled to an educated opinion.

I urge everyone to vote as unbiasedly as possible, whether you voted for or against Obama. Ask yourself if he really deserved Person of the Year, and by reading this debate, the answer is clear he did not.


Due to personal reasons, I will be having to leave for the time being.

That being said, I will be unable to complete any sort of argument.

My opponent and I have both made great points, it's up to the reader whether they agree with me or my opponent at the end of the debate.

I apologize to my fellow debater for having to do this.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
Are you kidding? He'd be right up there with Hitler and Stalin!
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 7 years ago
Well other then the report this comment thing to the right of us. But I wouldn't do that. That's why I wanted us to take to ims..
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 7 years ago
Nope, wouldn't even know how.
Posted by jamielynn 7 years ago
Did you report me or something?
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 7 years ago
Uh, I didn't cancel your other account? I have no such magical powers..
Posted by jamielynn 7 years ago
I'm sorry for taking the part of the other debator. Was it really necessary to cancel my account? I would put this in im but I can't send you messages. If you didn't ask for cancellation of my account I'm sorry but it seems likely. People disagree on this and you had my account cancelled?
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 7 years ago
I understand your angry with me crackofdawn but if you have a problem with me then it take to ims.

It's not only rude but childish to post arguments in the comment while the debate is going.

Furthermore, everything I say about Pro's argument is true.

You totally ignored the facts that more and more African Americans have been voting Democrat. Numbers sure do matter, besides you know nothing of the way France votes.

It's quite obvious you do not read my arguments and read them like the kids in Charlie Brown listen to their teacher.

If you have something to say to me, say it in ims but once again don't be rude. You don't see me displaying such immaturity to your debates.
Posted by crackofdawn 7 years ago
MAN I wish I could debate this as Pro. Oh boy o' boy. Readers, watch Con's rebuttals. He says many things about Pro's arguments but not all of them are true. He's a good debator and very tricky with his words.
Posted by crackofdawn 7 years ago
Barack Obama's race probably helped him. Sure there are the racists out there but if 96% of the black population is voting for him I'm pretty sure it's about race. Especially since he only had a total of about 53% of the entire nation. Barack Obama had less support for his presidency than the french president. Numbers don't matter because France has less of a population.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 7 years ago
Haha, had to go back and keep editing due to going over the 8,000 character limit.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 jjmd280 7 years ago
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 vorxxox 7 years ago
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 DJBruce 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
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