Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

Some people claim that the above is true.

I don't get it.

Barack Obama - http://en.wikipedia.org...
great - used as a generalized term of [overall] approval (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
leader - a person who has commanding authority or influence (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
speech - a usually public discourse
promise - to pledge to do, bring about, or provide (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2])
hope - desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2])
change - TRANSFORMATION (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2])

I don't see the connection. I'll let CON point it out in the first round.

Given my opponent's definition of leader, it seems evident that a great leader is one who "commands authority or influence" to a great extent.

Charisma certainly results in a greater command of authority and influence. Obama's speaking ability, as well as his emphasis on hope and change constitute a charismatic approach. Thus, Barack Obama is, and will be, a great leader.

My opponent is using my definition of "leader," but not my definition of "great."

My opponent is using "great" to mean "large."

The resolution uses "great" to mean "a generalized term of [overall] approval."

My opponent has not shown how a greater command of authority and influence gains overall approval.

Now, I am going to show a counterexample.

His name was Adolf Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

He gave great speeches.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Hitler gained notoriety outside of the party for his rowdy, polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians (including monarchists, nationalists and other non-internationalist socialists) and especially against Marxists and Jews."

http://www.nostradamus101.com...

"From the deepest part of Western Europe
A young child will be born to poor people
Who will by his speech seduce a great multitude..."

Hitler promised hope and change.

http://answers.yahoo.com...

"Homework Help: Did hitler promise germany hope and change before he was elected?"

"Yes, he did. A reason why he came to power was because of his charisma in his speeches, and promises of a better future for Germany since there was an economic crisis that began growing after WW1."

http://blog.indecisionforever.com...

"The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an open Christian with some Muslim friends. He called for unity and considered himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as naive and inexperienced. He also had a lot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that."

This one quote could almost describe Obama as well as Hitler.

Hitler was not a great leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically regarded as gravely immoral. Historians, philosophers, and politicians have often applied the word evil in both a secular sense of the word and in a religious sense. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are overwhelmingly condemnatory. The display of swastikas or other Nazi symbols is prohibited in Germany and Austria. Holocaust denial is prohibited in both countries."

Therefore, just because someone gives great speeches and promises hope and change, doesn't mean that they will be a great leader.

The resolution is negated.

Vote CON.

I now await my logical argument to be attacked in some way, shape, or form.

Thanks.

My opponent concedes that Obama is charismatic, and that he commands authority and influence. The only remaining burden is to show "how a greater command of authority and influence gains overall approval."

"My opponent has not shown how a greater command of authority and influence gains overall approval." It is undeniable that Obama's charisma has contributed to his voter base, and hence, his approval among the American people.

"Hitler was not a great leader." Hitler was an evil man, and in fact, a fairly poor military strategist. However, given the definitions of "great" and "leader", our only criteria to judge a leader by are their approval, authority, and influence. Hitler commanded all three of these things. In fact, his rise to power was largely caused by promises of hope and change, along with his speaking skills. Therefore, per these definitions, Hitler was a "great leader". The definitions with which this debate is concerned do not address morality.

It doesn't matter that I concede that Obama commands authority and influence.

My opponent has to show how a person will be a great leader only because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

The people hoped that Hitler would turn out to be a great leader. He did not fulfill their expectations.

He ended up giving Germany a bad name for their Jewish discrimination, and he lost Germany a costly war, and he eventually committed suicide.

Hitler turned out to be a horrible leader, not a great leader.

Obama could just as easily be the world's next Hitler.

In other words, great speeches and perhaps empty promises do not predict a great leader.

My opponent is ignoring the criteria for a "great leader" provided by the definitions of this debate. A leader is any person who has commanding authority or influence, and their greatness is determined by the degree of approval that they command. Fulfilling expectations is not a relevant criterion. I have shown that speaking ability, and promises of hope and change lead to increased approval, a criterion relevant to this round. This point has not been refuted.

My opponent ignores "will be" in the resolution. This isn't about whether or not people think Obama is great now. This is about whether or not we can determine if Obama will be great in the future because of his speeches and promises.

He only talks about the present, which is irrelevant.

Obama generally does more that give great speeches and promise hope and change to gain approval.

If Obama fails to meet present expectations in the future, he will not be a great leader.

Great speeches and hopeful promises of change do not make someone a great leader.

My opponent concedes my entire case thus far, merely noting that I ignore the "will be" present in the resolution. However, Obama's charisma can be expected to persist through his tenure. This charisma will, no doubt, lead to greater approval ratings. Note that Germany, under Hitler, supported the Third Reich despite its vast moral failings, due to Hitler's incredible charisma.

My opponent has not, however, managed to show why Barack Obama is a great leader because of his speeches and promises. Barack Obama may be a great leader because his policies are widely accepted. Barack Obama may be a great leader because he is of a minority race. There is no reason to make a connection between the great speeches and promises and his approval ratings.

There is no connection. Vote CON.

The criterion used to judge a leader in this debate is public approval. Speaking skills, along with promises, contribute to charisma. Charisma generally contributes to public approval. With my opponents example of Hitler, his promises and speaking ability caused Germany to turn a blind eye to his blatant immorality. As Obama is also charismatic, he is likely to enjoy continued public approval, fulfilling the criterion for a "great leader".

Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading. Vote Pro.