The Instigator
attrition
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Dyankovich
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Barck Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

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: 2/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,944 times Debate No: 2460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (13)

 

attrition

Pro

I think Barack Obama would be the better choice for the president of the United states over Hilary Clinton.

I would like to debate with a Hilary Clinton supporter. I hope this can be positive. I think neither one of us want to disparage the other's candidate too much, lest the opponents pick win the nomination, and we would have to show support to that individual candidate. We are both on the ABAR( Anyone but a Republican) campaign. Let's say we agree on the following things based on the candidate's actions:

1.Does not want to stay in Iraq any more than we have to. Steady withdrawal, until very little to no troops remain. Clinton voted for the original authorization for the war, Obama spoke out against it.

2.Health care is a priority. Clinton mandates universal coverage. Obama does not mandate except in the case of children. Obama prefers to lower costs based on people's income and give them an option to buy it or not.

3.Education should be a priority. Don't know of much of a major difference here.

4.Either one would be FAR superior to any Republican.

Things I don't like about Hilary:

1. Symbolic of the notion of dynasties in the White House. That doesn't seem patriotic. Since 1981 a Bush or a Clinton has been in the White house. So if Hilary is elected, and assuming she gets eight years, be will have had two families in the White house for 35 years. What next Jeb? Who then, freak n' Chelsea!! Im getting dizzy!!

2. Ultra-Polarizing figure. Decent Senator, from what it seems. But many Democrats love her and many, many Republicans HATE her. I mean, it's a little crazy. They get all red in the face whenever anyone mentions her. A bit obsessive. So right there you have another dividing line the center of the country. Dems vs. Republicans.!! Fight to the finish!! Divider vs. Obama's coalition building philosophy.

3. Uses the matter of her experience as the ultimate litmus test for a president. ALL the time. Years and years of political experiences by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, their dullard puppet, ol' GW himself, and the rest, have helped put us where this country is at today. It doesn't sell me enough.

4. Uses Bill too much. Essentially a 3rd Bill Clinton term. Which I find to be bordering on unconstitutional.

5. Win at any cost republican like tactics. Old politics. Taking quotes out of context, attacks on character that are done by implication, swiftboating. (This is a little low I think)

6. Status quo. No real change. Like I said, up to 35 years or more of two families.

Obama Pros:

1. Truly dramatic figure to represent a new face, and a new direction of the U.S. to the rest of the world and so importantly to it's own citizens.

2. Republicans can't get him on originally supporting the Iraq war ala John Kerry. Hillary can't do that.

3. Cross-over attraction. Even my extremely religious conservative 68 year old mom and my cousin who always votes republican likes Obama. That says a lot to me. He can reach across these artificial barriers to real progress we have in our society. The hardcore extremists on both sides, put up these barriers between the people our country. The rich get richer, the poor struggle and still get poorer. Clinton's government, as much as I would prefer over a republican administration, we find it harder to get true progress done due to her divisive qualities.

4. Wisdom, honesty, sincerity are stronger than experience. The president provides direction, leadership, vision and the ability to get people to work with him. He can help the people get their collective voice back. Clinton is lucky to have been a U.S. Senator longer than Obama. Do you not think that given time, Obama would have at least if not more accomplishments than Hilary. He will be able to get more done as President and lead this country to a better path and represent a 180 from Bush doctrines. Clinton is still somewhat of a hawk on foreign policy. We would have a 90 degree turn from Bush, not good enough for me or this country.

5. I would be amazed to see a man of color as president and what that represents to the people of a mixed society like ours and to the rest of the world. A woman is a close second on this one. Sorry. Less than 40 years ago, black people couldn't go to the same schools as white people in this country. This is an outstanding sentiment to show how far we have come in the majority of this country.

So let's start there.
Dyankovich

Con

Ok, well I sat for several minutes torn between engaging in this debate, or just watching it from the sidelines. Just like I have been torn between voting for Sen. Obama myself, and going for Sen. Clinton... I came to the conclusion of going to Sen. Clinton after weeks of thought for a few reasons, detailed below.

1. I am a member of U.S. Intelligence and have personally met Sen. Clinton and liked her a lot and two... Because I believe Sen. Obama is a second rate candidate riding on the coat tails of an iconic President, nothing more.

-You were concerned about Hillary being involved in a some sort of political dynasty, and I would like to address this issue first. To be accurate, a Bush or Clinton has not lived in the White House since 1988... The first of your points are inaccurate, so I will move on to another point.

I think if we are both like minded Democrats we can agree that Bill Clinton was a great President, even with whatever personal indiscretions he had. He would be one of her top advisors, which makes me very happy when it comes to affairs of state. She was in the room for every foreign policy decision B. Clinton made, but with him still in the picture we could have a very solid Presidency, Hillary calling the shots, and Bill advising when necessary. Remember also that the longest period of sustained growth was when a Clinton was in the White House, and our foreign policy was terrific.

I also think it very unfair and unwise to not give someone a chance because of what their surname is... Hillary Clinton has a great Senate record and over 30 years of national political experience, while Obama has only 3 piddly years of nation experience and the foundation of his career was set on his nominating speech of Sen. John Kerry in 04' who lost.

-I will grant you this, Sen. Obama has charisma. But that gets about as far with me as I can throw him when it comes to running for President. He is not a uniter yet, that is just what he claims to be while running for President. The only thing he has seemed to unite thus far is Rev Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's smear machine against the television conglomerate... and that 'polarizing' thought frightens me.

As for her not able to be a viable nominee for the Democratic Party or being a divider... I scoff at anyone who says that. Hillary took California on Super Tuesday, the state with the most absurd mix of people. They have farmers, they have laborers, they have white collar, blue collar, and they also have illegal immigrants. They also have the highest Latin population of any state... and that state went for Clinton. Sen. Obama, who you have said is the Uniter... won the south... With the black vote of 97%... That is dividing to me, not uniting.

-Experience should sell you a lot actually. If you were dying and had the choice of choosing between a heart doctor with 30 years experience, or one who did real well in med school but has never actually never performed a heart transplant, who would you pick? I sure wouldn't pick the new guy... Sen. Obama doesn't have the experience, and he never had the option to vote on the war in Iraq. His experience has been on the outside of the window looking in. He claims that he would have voted to not go to war on that historic day... Bull, everyone on that day was fired up and I hold nobody responsible who voted...for what this arrogant President did was out of everyone's thoughts but his own at the time.

On a related note, you referenced all current Republicans with years of experience in three administrations that make every democrat shudder. Nixon, Bush, and W. What about the hundreds and hundreds of democrats over the last 100 years who have done well after years of political experience?

-Next, If Bill Clinton was to be President again or any kind of quasi President ... that would be completely unconstitutional, not bordering on it, according to the 22nd amendment of course. Trust me, Hillary Clinton is a great woman, and the most powerful person on the planet would not hand over that power someone else. She proved over 30 years ago when she helped dethrone Nixon that she was very capable on her own.

-Senators Clinton and Obama both have been head hunting each other in this Primary campaign. It isn't right for you to say Sen. Clinton will win at all cost when Sen. Obama has been attacking just as much. Your statement on this issue is the only one I will take as a weak argument. On the other hand, you should evaluate this point... Whatever Democratic nominee we get, will have to face Sen. John McCain, But if you think for a second the Clinton/Obama primary tactics are anything to what the Republicans can stir up... then you really need to take a look at the transcripts for the George W. Bush Campaign in 00' and 04'...

-Once again, it hasn't been 35 years of the same family. I know where you got this quote, and I would like to officially address it... It was the California Primary... The woman said "I am 35 years old and every election I have voted in has had a Bush or a Clinton on the Ballot..." and continues...
Which she is right, but you are wrong on your facts on this one... Whether it be the 'Regan/Bush ticket, the 'Bush/Quayle' ticket, or the 'Clinton/Gore' or 'Bush/Cheney' ticket... it has not been the same to families in the White House for 35 years.

Here are the Presidents from the last 35 years...
1973 (35 years ago- Richard Nixon
1974 Nixon resigns.
1974-1976 Ford is President
1976-1980 Carter is President
1980-1988 Regan is President
1988-1992 Bush is President
1992-2000 Clinton is President
2000-2008 George W. Bush is President

Please investigate before you post information like 35 years of the same people, otherwise people will read what you say to be true... and then things like George W. Bush happen to us while rumor mongering.

-

"Wisdom, honesty, sincerity are stronger than experience." That is hear say, I could say that being able to lift 300 pounds is stronger than experience too, but they guy with experience knows that doing so will throw my back out. Which do you think would be better? I'll take the guy who's done it before.

Believe me I agree with you, Obama would be a 180 degree turn from President Bush... Just like Bush was a 180 degree spin from Bill Clinton.
Personally I don't see it as much of a bad thing to turn around and have Clinton-esque qualities in our future administration. Perhaps the heath care program they initiated but was beat down by the Republican congress... or the lowest inflation ever, or the home-rates at the all time low... or welfare (which incidentally is another debate I'm having)at an all time low... I think it's a good thing to go back and erase the last 8 years.
Also I would like to see the evidence of where Hillary Clinton is a foreign policy hawk... Because she tours Iraq four times a year, and does peace keeping tours with the U.S. Senate. Could you send me where you got these facts?

Race and gender have nothing to do with this election. And it shouldn't with anyone else either. If someone is going to vote because Obama is black or Clinton because she is a woman, then maybe they should stay home after all... You said yourself that Obama is a coalition builder; I sincerely hope this doesn't mean you say that because he is a black man... because that would be woefully ignorant. What if Obama became President and gave the NAACP full access and wanted every channel on TV BET? That wouldn't be very uniting would it? Or if Clinton put forth a bill that gave every woman in the U.S a 4000% raise spike?
I beleive Clinton is better for the nomination because she has the experience, both of national politics, and the White House. She has the better ideas, and the history of achieving them. I respect Sen. Obama, and I think he would make a terrific Vice President and a good candidate for President in 8 years, when he has experience and a decent base.
Debate Round No. 1
attrition

Pro

attrition forfeited this round.
Dyankovich

Con

I was really hoping to have this debate, I thought it would have been really good, but Attrition left this debate and began another... the exact same debate with somebody else. I think thats kind of bush-league, But I guess you can all vote on the first round of arguments. I am still here.
Debate Round No. 2
attrition

Pro

The Hilary vs. McCain race would do the following:

Excite the entire republican establishment to not vote FOR somebody, but the vote would be cast AGAINST somebody they truly despise. I am willing to bet that you won't tell me I am wrong when I say the far right truly dislikes Hilary, and many in the center don't particular like her either, certainly against the alternative McCain. So McCain has tried to get back in to the good graces with the religious right, the NeoCons, and the independents. Some in the republican party would stay home because they don't like McCain all that much, if Barak is the candidate, but not if Hilary is the other choice.

Read these articles: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

http://www.nytimes.com......
ex=1359176400&en=b00861dd0b986aca&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Recent polls show Obama leading McCain and Hillary losing by a point or two. Even Karl Rove wants Hillary as the nominee. What does that tell you?

>>You said: "1. I am a member of U.S. Intelligence and have personally met Sen. Clinton and liked her a lot and two... Because I believe Sen. Obama is a second rate candidate riding on the coat tails of an iconic President, nothing more.<<<

I don't know how you could state this with a straight face. H. Clinton and B.Clinton have the same last name, if anyone is 'riding on coat tails' it is Hilary.

>>I think if we are both like minded Democrats we can agree that Bill Clinton was a great President, even with whatever personal indiscretions he had. He would be one of her top advisors, ....<<

We are not talking about the past of Bill Clinton, we are talking about the past of HILARY Clinton. I don't have any major issues with Bill until recently. I think he got railroaded and it is absurd to me what he got impeached for versus what this current president has gotten away with.

Bill Clinton quote, "You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. There's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen". This is exactly how old politics is played. The under tone of a statement that can be explained away as not specific on the overall intent, but none the less hints at the crux that nominating Obama is just a dream that can never happen presumably because Obama isn't an establishment figure. In my view, this is what the presidency SHOULD be about. Not to mention this was a complete distortion since Obama made no such speech whatsoever. I searched all over the internet for this quote, could not find it anywhere independently of Hilary. I did find that quote on a Pro-Hilary website, (http://facts.hillaryhub.com...) but that is not at all the same thing, referring to an interview with the Chicago Tribune (which incidentally is endorsing Obama) reporter before the DNC in '04. The entire article isn't linked and isn't completely clear what he is referring to exactly. Bill called it a speech and even Hilary's own people say it wasn't a speech and thusly mis characterized and taken out of context. Obama was referring to the administration's take on keeping troops in Iraq at the time. Obama agreed(as does Clinton)that to pull troops out completely at that time would have been a mistake. We screwed it up, so we must at least try to minimize further damaging that country. Troop withdrawal is now necessary.

<>>Experience should sell you a lot actually. If you were dying and had the choice of choosing between a heart doctor with 30 years experience, or one who did real well in med school but has never actually never performed a heart transplant, who would you pick? ....<<<

23 incredibly wise Senator's stood up to Bush on that day of infamy. He spoke out against the war, at great political risk, before it was authorized. So you cannot spin that into saying he would have done anything. He had the vision and the wisdom to know better despite evidence to the contrary. I wasn't for the war..maybe you were and that's why you make excuses for Hilary. Obviously, the intelligence community was not that intelligent when it came to Iraq. The man didn't even have tanks let alone anything that would harm us. Pre-emptive attacks on a country could be justified to attack anyone on any excuse, Obama knew better Hilary did not. This shows that experience isn't everything, true leadership and vision is. A doctor is not a good example in this situation, what a Presidential leader does and what a doctor provides are too different to provide as a good metaphor.

>>On a related note, you referenced all current Republicans with years of experience in three administrations that make every democrat shudder..<<

I don't claim that experience can't be good. I am claiming that is not, and should not be the only thing we should consider when voting for a public official. We have to have some way to determine what kind of person they will be and what type of leader they will be, Obama does have a record and shows us that he is a progressive leader with the ability to bring people together through his community organizing experience. Abraham Lincoln had very little experience prior to becoming one of our greatest presidents.

>>-Senators Clinton and Obama both have been head hunting each other in this Primary campaign. It isn't right for you to say Sen. Clinton will win at all cost when Sen. Obama has been attacking just as much...<<

Since Clinton has been removed from the presumptive nominee status the press put her in, she has solely been the one on the attack. Obama has defended himself by pointing to those attacks as old style Washington Politics that this country is so tired of. Please provide an instance that Obama, without provocation, attacked Hilary on an unfair basis.

>>Once again, it hasn't been 35 years of the same family. I know where you got this quote, and I would like to officially address it..<<

Bush Sr. was VP from '81-89(8 years), then President from ,'89-93(4 years) Bill Clinton President from '93-2001 (8 Years), Bush Jr. president from '01-09 (8 years), Hilary Clinton if elected will have at least four years '09-'13 (4 years. Added up you get 32 years--add a second Hilary term you get 36 years. So it wasn't exactly 35, but it is damn close.

>>Also I would like to see the evidence of where Hillary Clinton is a foreign policy hawk... Because she tours Iraq four times a year, and does peace keeping tours with the U.S. Senate. Could you send me where you got these facts?<<

http://www.amconmag.com...


This point we can agree on. I certainly don't think Obama is a coalition builder because he is a black man, I think he is a uniter because he reaches to everyone not just his race such as the other black candidates, Sharpton or Jesse J. He has shown this by getting large numbers of whites to vote for him. Clinton is the one that has injected the campaign with race when she belittled MLK contribution to the Civil rights movement inferring that LBJ was the one that mattered
Dyankovich

Con

I won't deny the far right hates Hillary. But the far right hates every prominent Democrat. And please don't quote msnbc or any news organization as fact unless its a solid quote. Thats like me showing you Wiley Coyote and telling you not to use acme rockets.

Every organization said Hillary wouldn't make it this far either, on the same level every organization said President Clinton wouldn't win. Let me say this, don't go by what the media is speculating. Yeah, Republicans don't like Hillary... go figure. Trust me, come election time Obama will be just as hated.

Carl Rove is playing politics, as an educated American you should have seen that. He says he wants Hillary, Democrats get frightened by anything he thinks and go Obamas way... The weaker candidate in his eyes. Although he is wrong, Obama has proved himself to be a terrific campaigner. I don't agree that he should get the Democratic nod, but I do agree he is a great man. Obama may be up by a few points, but Hillary is winning this election. She proved she can win all the big delegate states, California, New York... Ect.

Hillary isn't riding in on President Clinton's coat tails. If anything she stays away from using him to her advantage . I think it's a little hard to not be able to use 20 years of your life though. She has done a lot, and would have been just as successful if it weren't for Bill Clinton. See Watergate.

I am however saying Obama is riding on President Kennedy's legacy. He is even using his campaign slogan "Change we can believe in"? And if you are still standing there with the straight face; then we're both probably chuckling... Because you know that I am right.

Listen to this part please.
As I debate you I am three months away from going back to Iraq for a second time. We cannot have troop withdrawal. It has to be all, or nothing. What happens to me if i'm with the last 4000 troops there and we are getting bombarded? Slow withdrawals in numbers will make us weaker. We stay, or we go. I would rather go. But if I have to stay, I want some protection.

"Obama has now won 18 of 28 states. He won all across the north, south, midwest and the east. Clinton won California, Arizona and Nevada with a huge majority of Latino voters. http://www.cnn.com...;

Obama has won with 92% of the black vote, you forgot to add that. You also forgot to add the other seven states that Hillary has won, like Massachusetts... (Even after Sen Kennedy and family endorsed him.) Or Tennessee, New Jersey, of course Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire. With the exception of NJ these are all states with low Latino populations. But if you really want to get into it, Hillary DESTROYED Obama in Florida, 55%-30%. And she won it with the Black vote, the Hispanic, and the White vote.

So she has won California, New York, Florida, and New Jersey. Well right there we have the start of a General Election where Hillary Clinton is already 100 votes ahead in the Electoral College... Your entire argument against me has been that Obama will win the popular vote, which I disagree with. But further more, the only thing that matters is who gets to 270 first... and Hillary is going to beat you there.

"Clinton's strength's are Latino's, middle-aged to older white women (duh), and blue collar democrats. That's it. Obama wins in every other category; blacks(duh), men of both races, independents, younger voters, highly educated, strong liberals and even republicans. Now THAT's a coalition and that IS uniting."

Where did you get these figures? I am pretty sure you just made this statement up to sound good.

Latinas, middle aged women, and blue collar democrats are not the only ones going for Hillary. No offense, but that is an ignorant statement, and I wouldn't state that opinion as a fact like you just did.

Everyone I know is going for Hillary, which includes a broad spectrum of people from Vice President's of banks and CEO's all the way down to bartenders working their way through school. All over the nation people are going out for Hillary because they just can't get used to Barrack Hussein Obama and the bitter taste he leaves in their mouths. And vice versa, a lot of people can't stand Hillary.

"I wasn't for the war. maybe you were and that's why you make excuses for Hilary. Obviously, the intelligence community was not that intelligent when it came to Iraq"-Obama knew better Hilary did not? Where does it show Obama knew better? Give me that info from September 2001 and I will cite you the debate right now.

Wow, I cannot believe you have insulted the entire Intelligence community there, that- I think was a shot the you should not have taken. The bad thing about Intelligence is you see the bad, and none of the good. I wish I could cite you specific facts of which would put better light on your ill informed judgement of the community I am so proud to be apart of. But I cannot for obvious reasons. But let me say one thing that isn't classified and is public knowledge...

There was a war plan drawn up, and it was not drawn up by the Intelligence community. It was drawn up by the Bush Administration. Have you noticed that 4 Commanders of the Joint chiefs of staff have resigned? But we do what the President of the United States asks, because he took the oath. He won the election, and we salute and honor the man who wears the seal. Whatever we think of him personally has no bearing on how we function.

The level of which that statement is objectionable is overwhelming. Part of me wants to destroy you with facts and quotes... But I have my faith in peoples judgement, and hopefully all of them don't feel the same as you. Your comment reminds me of the Vietnam era for Americans, where people called us baby killers and bashed us because they didn't understand. I hope you can find it in yourself to really research, and try to comprehend what is happening in your world.

As for 23 senators you say voted against going to Iraq... Senator Obama wasn't one of them... Once again. It must have been nice to come around in 2005 and jump on the band wagon.

Now we bring in Abraham Lincoln... Our greatest President, the great uniter. I think we have passed the point in National Politics where a man with 1 year of school can be President. But he wasn't great because he was inexperienced, he was great because he was a political genius. Read the book -Team of Rivals-, its amazing the level of which he functioned. I am not saying experience makes the man, I am saying... If I am putting my life on the line (and the heart surgeon statement is parallel for me.) I want someone who has the experience. I want someone who visits the troops at least four times a year and sees us roughing it. Oh I just remembered a great fact for you. Obama is on the Senate Intelligence community, so if we failed... So did Sen Obama.

Damn close? 35 years brings us back to the Nixon Administration... You just completely skipped over that. Bush Sr wasn't even working as an ambassador to China yet... Try 24, and thats with Bush as VP. Not in the White House like you said. Otherwise its been 20. A long way from 35, besides whats the problem? FDR was President for 13 years, so what is this argument about anyway?

You quote me an article of the American Conservative? That is funny, and not credible in the least. Now at least I know where you get your propaganda. And Hillary Clinton tried to actually be there when Dr. King spoke, she did not belittle him. The media is on a head hunt for Hillary.

I hate using media outlets for stories. But as this is for a quote/quotes. http://www.attacktimeline.com...

Make sure you check every single quote, because its all accurate. Now as I said, both candidates are guilty. But only one used the race card.

I have a little trouble going out for Obama when he went to Mu
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dyankovich 9 years ago
Dyankovich
No problem, it was a good debate. We still have the dream ticket... one way or another.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
I agree, I hated missing that round. I was in the middle of typing my 2nd response when it was forfeited. If I lose because of that then so be it. I am still not convinced Hillary is the best choice, but a good effort by you none the less. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by Dyankovich 9 years ago
Dyankovich
Your a good debater, I voted for you in your other debates because you did better than your opponents. I didn't forfeit a round though, but you did. That's kind of bad what you said to the guy when you did it yourself...

"I am so annoyed.(About opponent forfeiting) I wonder if all of Clinton's supporters have such tacit support for her." Do you stereotype everyone this way? Like you did the Intelligence community?
Posted by Dyankovich 9 years ago
Dyankovich
And during this entire debate, did you hear me say one word for John McCain? How would I misrepresent myself?
Posted by Dyankovich 9 years ago
Dyankovich
Well I am working for the Hillary Clinton campaign right now, how much more support do you want?

Yeah I support John McCain on my profile because he is a POW and has given his life to America, and I support Hillary for President.

Sorry if I confuse you, I should have mentioned it earlier on. I just can't, in good conscience as a member of the Navy, not root for John McCain as well. Even though my Hillary will beat him soundly.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Dyankovich, why are you arguing for Clinton, when your profile says you are Supporting John McCain? You seem to be misrepresenting yourself. I wanted to debate a Clinton supoorter, not a McCain supporter
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Dyankovich, If you want, at the conclusion of this debate, I can make another 1 round debate to make up for the missed round. Once again, apologies. I was typing against time, and time won.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
I apologize for missing my deadline. I have been very busy and I knew this response was going to take a while. I am writing it right now. My apologies to my opponent.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I'm against any oligarchy, but I don't think that's a good enough reason NOT to vote for Clinton, just because it's been all about the Bushes and Clintons for almost three decades. I look forward to this debate, but not interested in engaging in it.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Since when is someones color a reason to elect them for President? So what he is black ? The others are white ..wow .. he deserves to be President then.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
attritionDyankovichTied
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 Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
attritionDyankovichTied
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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
attritionDyankovichTied
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
attritionDyankovichTied
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 liber-t 9 years ago
liber-t
attritionDyankovichTied
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 olympianfootball73 9 years ago
olympianfootball73
attritionDyankovichTied
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 KarmaPaymentPlan 9 years ago
KarmaPaymentPlan
attritionDyankovichTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
attritionDyankovichTied
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 Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
attritionDyankovichTied
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 cyfr 9 years ago
cyfr
attritionDyankovichTied
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