The Instigator
dmarie15
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
TheConservative
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

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  
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: 3/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,319 times Debate No: 3427
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (14)

 

dmarie15

Pro

Barack Obama has been shaking the nation with his ideas over certain issues and everyone in the country is listening to him. He clearly is beating out Clinton at the moment but does that mean he would do a better job? I believe he would. Therefore, I support the topic, Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton.
I have four main reasons why I believe this. First, Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Second, Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Third, Obama would be a better commander. And lastly, Obama is a better public speaker.
My first point is that Barack Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwait said in financial times that Obama is better in trade. Hillary Clinton wants to pause the Doha round of trade talks. Also, Barack has better economic advisorsm including Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. The unions that support Obama are less opposed to trade than those that support Clinton. Clinton must oppose NAFTA more strongly than Obama because her husband supported it. Also, Obama proposed the Patriot Employer Act. This will allow him to embrace the multilateral free trade that has served the American and the world interest so well.
My second point is that Barack Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. In an interview, Obama stated that he has the capacity that Clinton lacks to unify the country. "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." Obama has said many of Clinton's views are wrong. He said that Clinton's foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance. "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."
My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. This Clinton tactic was on display at the Texas debate when she was slamming Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. "I've [represented] our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate ... opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights ... around the world," she said. "I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of Homeland Security." While this experience, if accurate, might qualify one as a senator or an ambassador, it is not exactly the job skills of a commander-in-chief. In the wake of the Bush calamity, the nation deserves a wise commander-in-chief steeped in world history, courageous and keen of judgment. While steering this lone superpower, this helmsman should be mindful of the limits of military force in the unstable age of international terror.
This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process.
My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. I am not saying that Clinton isn't a good speaker because she is. But, we are debating who is better and that person is Obama. I have seen many of his speeches, heard many comments about his speeches and have only heard good things. He knows what he is talking about. Speaking skills are in important characteristic of a president because without good speaking skills you cannot communicate to your fellow Americans, you can't communicate with leaders of other countries, or communicate with anybody.
Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country. He is better in trade, he can unite the country more effectively, he would be a better commander, and he is a better public speaker. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate.
TheConservative

Con

TheConservative forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
dmarie15

Pro

No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major League Baseball. It wasn't--until the right man, Jackie Robinson, accepted the challenge and made the most of it, and in the process changed our nation forever and for the good. Nor did anyone ask if America was ready for the first black CEOs of multinational corporations such as American Express, TimeWarner, or Aetna. When the best candidates for those positions happened to be black, the way was cleared for Kenneth Chenault, Bichard Parsons, and Ron Williams. Similarily, Barack Obama is the right person, in the right place, and at the right time to be our next president.
I will review and discuss my four main points in further detail. First, Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Second, Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Third, Obama would be a better commander. And lastly, Obama is a better public speaker.
My first point is that Barack Obama is better than Clinton on trade. If you go to tradediversion.com you will find an in-depth idea on how Obama and Clinton look at trade. His 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, described his ideas well. He goes on to explain his WELL THOUGHT OUT PLANS on programs such as NAFTA and CAFTA. He told the president that he believes in the benefits of trade. Obama said, "But I said that resistance to CAFTA had less to do with the specifics of the agreement and more to do with the growing insecurities the American worker. Unless we found strategies to allay those fears, and sent a strong signal to American workers that the federal government was on their side, protectionist sentiment would only grow..." He voted against CAFTA, which we all know is a smart idea, but that is a different debate.
My second point is that Barack Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Obama has stated that he feels Clinton cannot bring the country together because so many Americans view her negatively.
My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. America needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for the political achievements of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. However, I do not put much stock in the value of their experience. Claims to an edge over Obama in this area are exaggerated (Edwards and Clinton never held a national elected office prior to 1999 and 2000, respectively). As far as I'm concerned, their experience only underscores the fact that they are products of the very political status quo they are now pledging to change. Case in point: Of the leading presidential contenders of both major parties, including Clinton and Edwards, only Obama opposed the 2002 invasion of Iraq from the beginning and remains opposed today. The value of past experience is diminished when dealing with economic, social, and environmental crises America has never faced before. Only Obama can credibly offer solutions predicated not on past political experience of dubious value, but on a desperately needed, forward-thinking agenda. Of the candidates of either party, only Obama--like John R Kennedy more than four decades ago--is qualified to deliver presidential leadership for a new generation of Americans hurtling faster than ever toward an increasingly complex future. This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process.
My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. If you watch some of his recent speeches you will see his well thought out ideas and how well he can communicate with the American people.
Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country. He is better in trade, he can unite the country more effectively, he would be a better commander, and he is a better public speaker. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate.
TheConservative

Con

First of all I think they are both closet communists and belong running in Russia not the United States of America. But for the sake of debate here we go.

First of all I will start out by point out that my opponent has obviously made her entire case by copy/pasting information from google sources. This all seemed a little to professional so I pasted it in the google search engine and there it popped up word for word articles. So here are the recourses she used as her own words.

Argument 1.

"In an interview, Obama stated that he has the capacity that Clinton lacks to unify the country. "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." Obama has said many of Clinton's views are wrong. He said that Clinton's foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance. "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."

-http://www.washingtonpost.com...

-Copy/Pasted word for word

This Clinton tactic was on display at the Texas debate when she was slamming Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. "I've [represented] our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate ... opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights ... around the world," she said. "I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of Homeland Security." While this experience, if accurate, might qualify one as a senator or an ambassador, it is not exactly the job skills of a commander-in-chief. In the wake of the Bush calamity, the nation deserves a wise commander-in-chief steeped in world history, courageous and keen of judgment. While steering this lone superpower, this helmsman should be mindful of the limits of military force in the unstable age of international terror.

- Copy/Pasted word for word
http://www.newsday.com...

This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process.
My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. I am not saying that Clinton isn't a good speaker because she is. But, we are debating who is better and that person is Obama. I have seen many of his speeches, heard many comments about his speeches and have only heard good things. He knows what he is talking about. Speaking skills are in important characteristic of a president because without good speaking skills you cannot communicate to your fellow Americans, you can't communicate with leaders of other countries, or communicate with anybody.

- Copy/Pasted word for word
http://www.newsday.com...

Argument 2.

No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major League Baseball....... etc etc

- Copy/Pasted word for word
http://blogs.jsonline.com...

"My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. America needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. I have a tremendous amount of admiration..........etc etc

Copy/Paste word for word
http://www.blackenterprise.com...

"The value of past experience is diminished when dealing with economic, social, and environmental crises America has never faced before. Only Obama can credibly offer solutions predicated not on past political experience of dubious value, but on a desperately needed, forward-thinking agenda. Of the candidates of either party, only Obama--like John R Kennedy more than four decades ago--is qualified to deliver presidential leadership for a new generation of Americans hurtling faster than ever toward an increasingly complex future.....etc etc to the end of her argument.

Copy/Paste word for word
http://www.blackenterprise.com...

So, out of all of those two lengthy arguments only a small portion is actually HER argument and since I am arguing dmarie15 I will adress her arguments Not the ones she pulled up on google.

Argument 1.

"Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country."

- No I don't see how Obama would be better for this country. Obama is a 45 years old he has only been involved with public politics for two years of his life. How does that qualify for any position? especially president of the United States the most power seat in the world?

"he can unite the country more effectively"

- How so? Obama was voted the most Liberal senator this year. I don't see how he can unite the country better at all.

"he would be a better commander"

- Opinion you have presented no authentic evidence to support such a conclusion. I find that a a man who has been a senator for two years could not possibly make a better commander than a woman who has been a senator for 20+ years. There is no on the job training as far as the president is concerned.

"and he is a better public speaker"

- This has nothing to do with "Obama would make a better president" Lincoln was noted to be the most boring speaker in the presidential history but he is also remembered as one of the best if not the best.

"Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate."

- I urge you to not copy/paste arguments in the future it makes you look like you really don't have any idea what your arguing about.

Argument 2

"My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker."
- Is this the only true argument you have?...meaningless because Obama can talk the talk does not mean he can walk the walk.

"If you watch some of his recent speeches you will see his well thought out ideas and how well he can communicate with the American people."

- No I don't, I have watched some of his speeches and I hear a 35 minute speech about nothing. I look into the crowd and see 18 year olds girls jumping up and down with "I heart Obama" t-shirts on acting like it's a Hannah Montana concert. We are choosing a president here not the next American Idol people.
Debate Round No. 2
dmarie15

Pro

First of all, coming through seeing different types of debate, I can agree with you and disagree at the same time. First of all, in policy debate we use info (cards) from articles in our speeches...so....we use that in debate..it's helping with my case. Note: I didn't just copy and paste information. I know what I'm talking about and I actually considered and went through everything. Second of all, I don't think you should decide who wins a debate on the method of debate we chose to use. Um..well, we aren't debating how to debate so enough on that subject. To continue on.

Point 1: Using sources that are GOOD sources like I used, means that the information is correct and not just an opinion, only proving my point more.

Point 2: The Major League baseball thing..I used that as an intro..not as information. It was creative. I don't feel I should be knocked over for that.

Point 3: All of these are my arguments? Are you just scared to answer them? or what's up?

Point 4: You said Obama is 45 years old..ok that's nice...What's your point there? I believe I provided information. I can exaggerate on that (in my own words) saying how I felt that this didn't mean Clinton had any more experience. Clinton stated that she represented our country in 80 or so countries to negotiate helping women's rights. That's nice. But how does that create experience to be a president? Maybe she needs to stay in the senator ambassador field. That's where her experience belongs. So I would like to see your arguement on that.

Point 5: You say he was voted the most liberal or something like that. Ok, so people voted that as a matter of opinion. How they feel...but Obama has stated that he can bring the country together. He wants to bring the country together. Also, how can Clinton bring the country together when millions of Americans view her so negatively. I feel that even if Obama may not be the greatest at bringing the country together, Hillary is even worse.

Point 6: Ok this goes back to Clinton helping out with countries with women's rights. That has nothing to do with being a commander. Ok, so now you want evidence. Isn't that what I was providing all along and you were saying I wasn't supposed to be doing that? Nevermind. Obama would be a great commander. He was the only one who opposed the war from the beginning. Clinton, along with Edwards and others, were for the war at first. Obama knew that it wouldn't be a smart idea. Ok, this may be opinion but I, like many Americans, want to get out and who better to do it then the one who was against it in the first place.

Point 7: I believe that you can be a great president without being a good speaker but you can be an even better president if you are a good speaker. The point of the debate is to say who is better. I'm NOT saying Clinton would make a bad president. However, Obama would be better. One of my reasons for this is being a better public speaker. Like I stated before, being a public speaker is extremely important because it helps you communicate with other countries, the American people, and the people you work with. It is an EXTREMELY important skill to have. By the way, wasn't Lincoln famous for his Gettysburg Address SPEECH.

Point 8: What do you mean is this the real only arguement I have?

Point 9: I watched that 35 minute speech and didn't find it complete nonsense. My cousin, who is a die hard Obama hater found that his speech was well done and informative. And just because girls went all "Hannah Montana" crazy at his speeches, doesn't make them not serious. I'm sure there are people like this at all politican speeches.

Point 10: To review some of my points, I will explain why I feel that I am winning on each one.

My first point was on how Obama is better at trade. Obama knows a lot about the current programs that we have in the country such as NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm sure you know what those are and how they have cost the American people jobs (both programs) and have hurt countries such as Mexico. Obama voted against CAFTA and Clinton was for NAFTA..hmmmm...

My second point was on how Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Clinton is viewed by the American people negatively. I don't know if you watch Saturday Night Live but they recently did a skit and focused on the point of how Clinton is "annoying" (I know, bad word to use but) and how Americans don't really like her. Obama may not be the greatest but he is better than Clinton and that is the point of the debate.

My third point was on how Obama would be a better commander. I really don't have anything else to say on this point as I did earlier in this arguement.

My fourth point was on how Obama is a better public speaker and I explained why and how this is important earlier in this arguement.

Ok, so my opponent basically spent his entire arguement talking about how my arguements were 'copied and pasted' and didn't spend time attacking my points. All he did was ask questions, which I answered. Also, where are his points showing me how Clinton is any better? I have shown Obama's strengths and shown Clinton's weaknesses so I feel that I won the round. Also, Clinton's mocking towards Obama and creating lies about him isn't helping either. It makes her look like a little kid trying to win.

I feel I have won because I have shown numerous amounts of information showing you how Obama can be the better president. I may not be old enough to vote but I am in debate so I have looked up my information.

In the future I would like you see you attack my points more, creating points of your own, and maybe spend more time debating then fixing my arguements even though I appreciate your opinion.

For these reasons, I feel I have won the round and I urge you to vote Pro in this debate.

Thank you.
TheConservative

Con

TheConservative forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
McCain! Hilary and Nobama suck
Posted by FiredUpRepublican 8 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
dmarie, I wish to debate this same topic with you and be the con, I am sure I'll do a better job.
Posted by person_16 8 years ago
person_16
Excuse you? I am not an idiot, that's my opinion. Am I an idiot for having an opinion?

In my opinion, you're a closed-minded non-entity.

And I would also like to add that the presidential candidates for this upcoming election all suck.
Posted by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
person 16 is a f*cking moron.
Posted by person_16 8 years ago
person_16
I think both candidates are psycho.

Hillary has no idea what she's doing and is so co-dependent on her husband to carry her to the finish line. Surely our nation will fall to ruin should such a political green-horn become our president.

Barack Obama being president worries me just as much, if not more so. Like he's the anti-christ and he will "acquire a position of power" like Revelations says. I mean, come on! The pastor of his church incedent and his wife's "For once I am actually proud of (America)" quote.

If Barack is elected, he might start segregation again; only against white people this time around!

BTW, I apologize if that sounded racist, because it's completely unitentional if it did. My best friend Jasmine is African American, so...
Posted by TheConservative 8 years ago
TheConservative
I am so sorry I missed my time I will be here for round 2 and 3
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 freedom9 8 years ago
freedom9
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 JonathanSpence 8 years ago
JonathanSpence
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 DaltonDem 8 years ago
DaltonDem
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 jjagger 8 years ago
jjagger
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 zander 8 years ago
zander
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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 CHS 8 years ago
CHS
dmarie15TheConservativeTied
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