The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 989 times Debate No: 85361
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2- Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense.
I will be attacking Bernie Sanders's positions while Con defends his positions.


I accept to argue your point of, Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.

Bernie Sanders not only has the wrong ideology, but the wrong education on what you can and can't do as president. I will be representing arguments on how what Bernie Sanders advocates for is wrong, and how it won't even happen if he is elected.

Ideology-Bernie Sanders has proclaimed himself a socialist. He has ran on the idea of increasing taxes on the rich, and giving to the poor. This is not only completely unnecessary, but has a lot of unintended consequences.
1. Capitalism Defense- Capitalism has been the basis for our economy since America was born. Capitalism has enabled the people to create a lot of useful things that made us a world power. We have companies like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and many others that are focused on not the elites, but the common man. Bernie Sanders has campaigned against the 1% calling them greedy and self-serving. Bernie Sanders maybe on to something when he calls them self serving, but how do they get their money. They sell to the people. Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter all focus on you. Everything around you has been designed by the middle upper class people. They make their money by trying to please you. The elites compete with each other to please you. Competition has made these companies do great things for the common man. They have made computers, IPhones, video games, and social networks that benefit us all. Bernie Sanders wants to cripple this system, and make it more "fair" to the people. He wants the tax rate for rich people to be 90%. It is unnecessary, and will do nothing to benefit the status quo. It will only create room for unintended consequences, and less innovation in the private sector.

2. Foreign Relations- Bernie Sanders wants to make America more of a uniter when it comes to dealing with serious threats. If Putin tries to miss with Europe, Bernie's plan is to unite everybody to come up with a good strategy to stop Putin. The only problem with this is that it is very idealistic. Their would be too much arguing, and nothing would happen. All nations are interested in what they can do to benefit themselves. They won't rally behind America. America is basically the defender of Democracy as we know it. America needs to be a powerful influential power in order to maintain this democracy we have. China and Russia are on the rise, and they are both the two authoritarian governments that will benefit, if other countries also become authoritarian. If America's power declines on a global stage, China will take the opportunity to become a world leader. Democracy would become less acceptable, and the world would not be a good place for the common man. Note that he has also stated that he will be focused more on what is happening in America, than anywhere else.

3. Plans won't Solve- Congress is never going to buy anything he is saying. The Republicans firmly disagree with almost anything Bernie Sanders says. Bernie Sanders claims that people will vote next primary, but that is highly unlikely. Voter turnout is always extremely low with the supporters Bernie has. Even if their are states that will have democratic senators. Democrats are not even aligned with what Bernie Sanders is saying. Democrats want a combination of Capitalism and welfare. Hilary Clinton is a good example on what the Democrats stand for. Clinton's democrats will not be with Bernie. He won't be able to pass anything. He will alienate the Republicans and the Democrats. He will divide this country, and that is why he would be a horrible president.


I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate topic.

To avoid any confusion, I will separate Sanders' 'rating' system into a dichotomy of Horrible and Not Horrible.

Sanders would plan on putting policies into place that ring similar to policies of some of whom are considered to be some of the best (Not Horrible) presidents ever, mainly Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, Roosevelt had an average approval rating of 64%, and Eisenhower had an average approval rating of 65%. Eisenhower instated a marginal tax rate of 91% in office, which is going to be higher than what Sanders would be proposing. In recent comments, Sanders has said it would be lower than 90%, but hasn't specified how low. Sanders also plans on instating social policies similar to that of Roosevelt. Roosevelt instated several Acts under his New Deals, such as social security, low income housing, and the Works Progress Administration. These find similarity with Sanders' proposals, especially his plan to fix infrastructure across America, giving countless individuals jobs in the process. Roosevelt also instated the GI Bill, which gave veterans tuition for universities, and is often accredited with creating the middle class, which Sanders points to its gradual disappearance of. This is similar to Sanders' plan to give tuition for public universities. These plans were and are successful, and Sanders' plans would be and are successful, making him Not Horrible.

On foreign policy, Sanders also resonates with Roosevelt on the basis of how he would unite with allies to defeat a common evil. Roosevelt was able to ally with Stalin and Churchill in order to defeat the Axis in World War II, which was successful in terms of the war. This could be compared to the Islamic State of today, seeing as they are the common enemy of the entire world. Sanders is also not quick to jump the gun straight to military action, as he know it would put hundreds of thousands of young lives in destruction. Sanders is more likely to use tariffs and embargoes, which have been shown to be frighteningly effective against America in the past, and are frighteningly effective against Iran and Russia to date. Making him a Not Horrible contender in terms of foreign policy.

In terms of the environment, Sanders seems to be the only candidate interested in protecting the Earth. Sanders opposes the Keystone Pipeline, which would be destructive to the planet in the long term and destructive to job creation in the long term. Sanders is more focused on creating renewable sources of energy, which would not only make us less dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil, but protect the environment for posterity's sake.

In terms of honesty, Sanders is the only clear candidate to operate on the same principles his whole career. Sanders refuses the donations of large corporations and is funded nearly entirely be We The People and labor unions. Sanders would be the most trustworthy candidate in office, making him Not Horrible in that regard.

History says that policies similar to Sanders have been effective, and as we all know, history repeats itself.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you to my opponent for the response.

My opponent is trying to compare Sander's policies with Franklin Roosevelt. He claims that his approval rating is at 64%. This evidence is true, but what my opponent doesn't understand is that we live in a different America. Roosevelt was living in a different more united America. Americans were desperate for a change, and they all rallied behind Roosevelt. Comparing Roosevelt to Sanders on that regard would be a big mistake. Sander is not being supported by all the democrats. Bernie Sanders is polling at 36.5% of democrats. Hilary Clinton is at 52%. Republicans also hate Bernie Sanders, because Bernie proclaimed that he is a socialist. The Republican Party would be further alienated. Con might claim that the Republican Party was not alienated when Roosevelt was serving. Well, Roosevelt was serving when the republicans also were semi-socialist. Also, Roosevelt was a war president. Presidents that fight a war are always going to get re-elected. The last point would be that the news did not have as much bias as it has today. Conservatives watch Fox News, while Liberals get their news from various different sources with levels of bias to their ideology. Sanders would never get the same approval rating as Roosevelt.

My opponent also defends Sander's foreign policy. He only mentions how he is very similar to Roosevelt, and Sanders would use embargoes and tariffs. Sanders has never stated anything like this. My opponent would need to provide evidence, because all Sanders says is make a coalition to stop Isis. As I have said in round 2, if one tries to make a coalition of self-serving countries, than all that will happen is arguing. A good example of this is the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty was divided up Germany into parts that belonged to the allies. Nazism rises, and creates devastating nightmare for Europe. A similar situation could happen with the Islamic State, and arguing and bickering could make another radical group.

My opponent deems Sanders as a very honest candidate. Sanders has refused donations from large corporations, because no corporation wants to donate to him with his views. This is true, and that is probably the only thing one can admire of him. But, that does not matter if his policies will never work. I have proved in round 2 that crippling capitalism only makes things worse. I have proved that taxing the rich only makes things worse. Sanders will create a large government that will be very corrupt. We all know that every person that goes to Washington will have a level of greed in them. It is reality. It is in all humans. If Bernie Sanders creates such a large government, than other people can abuse it. A good example of this is the NSA. Also, I will close off with this last argument which is his plans will never be passed. My opponent never addressed this, and I would appreciate it if he would address this argument in the next rebuttal. Sanders will not be able to pass anything in a Republican dominated congress. The Republicans will never work with him. Even if he gets democrats into the white house. The Democrats are aligned with Hilary Clinton, and they do not want Sander's vision to become a reality. The next 4 years would be very unproductive, because their would be a lot of arguing, and less passing bills. He would alienate the Republicans, and that would eventually alienate American people of different ideologies. Sanders would not be able to accomplish anything in the white house.


As first you claim that capitalism has been the basis for America since its founding as an argument for capitalism, but claim when socialist policies were instated that it was a different America. This is terribly self-contradictory. I find it strange that you claim that sites that are funded largely by advertisement revenue, Twitter and Facebook, focus on the common man, when really their focus for making money is making the site appealing to companies that would wish to advertise there, and if companies such as Apple and Microsoft were more focused on the common man than the mighty American dollar, why do they use oversea factories for cheap labour and tax loopholes?

Your point in terms of foreign policy that uniting nations to defeat a common enemy would make America a lesser power on the world stage is completely baseless. History shows us that in the World Wars, when The United States needed to ally with other nations to defeat the common enemy, is what made the United States rise to a superpower on the world stage. From then on, it's a slippery slope argument of IF Putin tries to mess with Europe, and IF America declines on a global stage.In Round 3, you reference the Treaty of Versailles. The Islamic State is not an established country, so it would be a fairer comparison to the rise of IS from American involvement in Iraq, which was a half baked plan based on false claims, which Sanders voted against. Finally, wouldn't a good president be more focused on its own citizens instead of the rest of the world's citizens first?

I believe you are confused on how primaries and caucuses work. They are conducted in indirect elections, where each party has set delegates who vote, not the general public. Even if the general public were to vote in primaries, he has a hugely mobile following shown in situations such as when he was able to get 3,000 people to rally at a new New Hampshire university, five times as many as Clinton had gotten the previous day, so it sould not be unfair to say Sanders loyal following would make a high voting turnout.

I also would like to make the presumption that by "Clinton Democrats" you mean establishment Democrats. It is also a long shot to say that Congress sould oppose Bernie's legislature, but would accept Clinton's legislature. Bernie's policies are incredibly popular with the American public, and as the campaigns are becoming more closely matched, Hillary Clinton has been adopting more of Sanders' policies, one of the most recent was her position on Citizen's United. Congress is already divided as it is, so Sanders would indeed need to work on more bi-partisan issues to advance legislature, but that is no different for any other candidate currently in the field.

To say that the NSA [spying] would be able to occur under a Sanders presidency is nearly impossible, as Sanders opposed the bill (The Patriot Act) that allowed such spying. Also, to say his government would be corrupt, while he would be honest is also self-contradictory.

My apologies on my remarks to embargoes, where I had mistaken Russia's frozen assets with embargoes, which I site here.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent begins his arguments with naive attacks on my arguments defending capitalism. Yes, these companies are focused on making profit, and it benefits us. If you had a life, you would at least use some social networking site. Social Networking has benefited a lot of people. Sure, you can call the people running these sites to be self-serving, but they are still serving you. Facebook and Twitter have connected millions of people around the world.
Social networks have helped the Black Lives Matter movement to gain momentum. Social Networking is valuable. One might be confused on how this relates to capitalism. Let's first define Capitalism. Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Basically, where people control their own lives, and their own futures. The government does not intervene, and there is generally low taxes on everybody. One can start his own business, and not have to worry about bureaucrats messing with his rights to do something like that.
It is hard to start a business in the countries Bernie Sanders thinks is ideal.
In Denmark, 54% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations.
In Finland, 46% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations.
In the United Kingdom, 59% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations.
In France, 66% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations.
My point is that if an ambitious Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckeberg wanted to start a business, than they would not want to live in Europe. A place Bernie Sanders thinks is heaven.
He argues that Microsoft and Apple are hurting America.
42% of Americans use IPhones.
200 million devices now run on windows. Also, if you forgot about the person that started Microsoft. Bill Gates got extremely wealthy off of Microsoft.
"Gates has already donated $28 billion since 2007 to eradicate deadly diseases around the world. He also hopes to double investment in renewable technology in the next five years."
Also, they did a very interesting study on those that are filthy rich.
"The results were startling. Those who held more power over others were more likely to choose future reform over immediate relief to fix the hunger problem.

In a similar experiment, 465 people could choose between keeping a $1,000 bonus for themselves now or a larger amount a year later. Alternatively, they were free to give the money to another person now or a larger amount to someone later. Those who had more power were found to be more likely to part with the bonus for future use."

My opponent continues to attack my arguments on how Sanders is weak on foreign policy. But, you cannot attack what is actual fact. Sanders would probably be extremely weak on foreign policy.
Sanders has accused Iran of supporting terrorism. A great thing to say to a future ally. A good example of Sanders not being specific when it comes to foreign policy is this:"Sanders has also urged confronting Russian leader Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. ("You totally isolate him politically, you totally isolate him economically," Sanders said on Fox News last year.)
What does he mean by this? Is he practicing protectionism? What is this?
My opponent attacks the Treaty of Versailles argument calling it a wrong comparison to the Islamic State. Well let me a little bit more specific unlike Sanders on foreign relations, Putin and Obama are right now having their own little proxy war in Syria. Obama opposes Assad, while Putin supports Assad. Putin has bombed groups that support America, but not Assad. This battle is for Syria. If America leads a coalition, than that will lead to more arguing, and their will be another Treaty of Versailles.

My opponent insults my knowledge on how primaries and caucuses work. Yes, I am perfectly aware of how they work, and I fell bad for the idea that you wasted characters on them. Sanders could bring 3,000 people to his speech, but their is no evidence on how that would link to a high voter turnout.
My opponent continues with saying that since no democratic candidate will be able to get congress to follow up with them, that would mean that they are on the same field as Bernie. True, but they actually are sane when it comes to dealing with the markets, and foreign relations with other countries. Sanders is horrible, because he is so far left that Congress will never accept what he says. My opponent admits that congress won't work for him, and that just makes my job much easier in proving that Bernie is a waste of time.
To throw in a quick argument proving how outlandish Sander's proposals are, his plans cost 18 trillion dollars. I think that speaks for itself to anyone that can count.

I have won many points in this debate.
I have a lot more evidence proving what I am saying is right about Bernie Sanders.
The whole round 2 of my opponent were just how Sanders relates to Roosevelt. Note that my opponent completely dropped that point.
I have rebutted all of my opponent's arguments with facts not speculation.
My opponent has used a lot of his thinking to argue against me.
Thinking vs Evidence.
Vote Pro


My opponent has not been able to rebut any of Sanders' plans on economics, environment, or anti-corruption. Instead of criticising Sanders' economic plans, my opponent simply points to Americans using products made by incredibly large companies to make the point of, what exactly? Sanders is a Socialist, yes, but a Democratic Socialist. He does not believe in completely abolishing capitalism, simply instating higher regulations on corporations with incredibly high profit. Sanders' plan to spend 18 trillion dollars does have a plan, which is raising the income tax rate, especially upon the wealthiest on the country. He does not plan to raise taxes to 90%, as you lied about in the Second Round. Instead, he would institute a marginal tax at a rate lower than 90% ( He would also reduce military costs and and improve corporate tax code to reduce loopholes.

Sanders would not be "extremely weak" on foreign policy. He plans on using strategies that have been shown to work on multiple occasions in history, such as organizing a coalition. In terms of Putin, he would be speaking the only language the greedy know, money. He would remove anyway he could get money, within Sanders' power, to cripple Russia's economy.

Also, according to your first statement on voter turnout, you had absolutely no idea what a primary was if you went by your statement, and having a turnout of five times the number of individuals at your rally compared to your rival shows he has a mobile and active voting base.

I have given example as to Sanders' ideas working in the real world.
My oponent has used hypothetical scenarios to show his point on how Sanders would govern, where I have used previous examples.
And I have shown that Sanders in office would be Not Horrible.

I would like to thank my opponent for hosting my first debate on the site. I enjoyed this experience and am happy to have seen this debate at the time it was published.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
I wonder who is going to win this. If con wins, then I will challenge him to a debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: if nobody votes on this and voting period ends in 3 days; message me.