The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
zakkuchan
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Hillary Clinton is incomparable to Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a much better candidate.

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: 4/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,511 times Debate No: 3583
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (16)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, I am a Libertarian but would like to express that Barack Obama is a better candidate for the president of the United States than Hillary Clinton. There are many reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton that Barack surpasses her on and are many aspects that Mrs. Clinton is incomparable to him on.

- It is rumored that Hillary Clinton has more political experience than Barack Obama. However, this is untrue. She claims 35 years of experience, however, she only has 8 years of experience. Granted, she became first lady of Arkansas in 1979 and remained so until 1992, where she became first lady of the United States until 2000, when her experience actually begins. In her 21 years of being a first lady she was very inactive as a political figure but was helpful as a spouse of the president. Her only significant initiative was a failed attempt at a health care plan during her husband's term. And her senate term for 8 years was completely absent of accomplishments. Barack, however, had many accomplishments. He cosponsored bipartisan legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting greater public accountability in the use of federal funds, sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

- He voted against the Iraq War unlike Hillary. 'Nuff said.

- It is rumored that Hillary is more specific but if you visit their websites, you'll notice that the vast majority of Barack's plans have a PDF file attached with an incredible amount of detaiol, while Mrs. Clinton's only have her position and 4 or 5 bulletins. Hardly specific plans.

- She is unwilling to compromise on her positions to suffice other parties, which she has proved in her initial health care plan and her new one. The first one was a solely Democratic effort that Mrs. Clinton did not intend to allow other Republicans who had small compromises collaborate on. Her newer plan is one that no Republican will ever vote for. It includes a mandate for health care, significantly higher taxes, and is just simply not bipartisan.

- The mandate. Clinton proposes a mandate that each person will be forced to buy health care or else there will be a fine. Barack allows each person to choose and gives them the oppurtunity to do so with his plan's help. What sense does that make? You can't afford health care so let's put you further in the whole with a fee!?!? It reminds me of the Ancient British's plan to put debtors in jail. How can these people pay?

- Mrs. Clinton intends to have a significant withdraw beginning on her first day in office. A withdraw from Iraq will take much more consideration and it is logistically impossible to bring our troops home in the short amount of time she suggests.

- Barack Obama intends to meet with our leaders and our friends, while Hillary is too frightened. She calls it naieve. Obama has been endorsed by foreign policy leaders, unlike Hillary Clinton.

- Not to mention the countless shameless, negative campaigning.

- And I 'spose I'm done here.
zakkuchan

Con

-Experience. I'd say that experience in a state legislature is probably better experience in terms of legislation, while experience as First Lady is probably better experience in terms of understanding the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch. I would say this would make her slightly more experienced than Obama, if it were to be quantified; but I would certainly concede that her campaign has played this point up a bit too much. And to compare activity in the Senate: The following data are from www.govtrack.us, with averages assuming that exactly one third of 2008 has passed (i.e. Obama's data are averaged out of 3 1/3 years, Clinton's out of 7 1/3):

Barack Obama (since 2005):

-Sponsored bills: 129 (38.7/year)
--Sponsored bills that died in committee: 117 (90.7%)
--Sponsored bills that passed: 2 (1.5%)
-Co-sponsored bills: 560 (168.0/year)

Hillary Clinton (since 2001):

-Sponsored bills: 359 (49.0/year)
--Sponsored bills that died in committee: 307 (85.5%)
--Sponsored bills that passed: 10 (2.8%)
-Co-sponsored bills: 1741 (237.4/year)

Clinton has a slight advantage on all counts.

The bills that each has sponsored that have passed are mostly unimportant (things like naming post offices and courthouses). The only 3 worthy of any note at all are: Clinton's bill to extend availability of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11 (S.1622, 2001); Clinton's bill to provide for investigations into building collapses resulting in deaths (S.2496, 2002); and Obama's bill to assist the Democratic Republic of the Congo (S.2125, 2005). It's important to note that co-sponsoring a bill doesn't necessarily mean anything, as successful bills tend to accumulate dozens of co-sponsors in the process of being passed. The important point to understand here is that the Senate, by design, is not about individual legislators producing volumes of successful bills; it's about the entire body considering and debating on bills and resolutions that are most commonly not even written or introduced by a member.

-Iraq. In fact, Barack Obama never "voted against the Iraq War", as my opponent says. He was serving in the state government of Illinois at the time, so it never even came up as a vote for him. He did give a speech against it, but most of what he said was just that the new war would distract us from Afghanistan; that's not quite what I personally think of when I imagine someone being opposed to the war. Furthermore, every time since he was elected into the U.S. Senate that further funding of the war has come up, he has voted for it, just like Clinton. In other words, in terms of actual /votes/, Obama is just as much to blame for the war as Clinton.

-Detail of proposals. I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about here. I encourage anyone reading this to go take a look at the "Issues" section of each candidate's website (http://www.hillaryclinton.com... and http://www.barackobama.com...), and compare the level of detail that can be found through the links provided in each. They seem rather comparable to me. Also keep in mind that it's rather unlikely that either one of them personally wrote or even approved every word on their respective websites. But websites aside, Clinton clearly has the edge here. When she gives speeches, they are most often full of detailed policy points; conversely, when Obama gives speeches, they tend to be full of "Yes we can"s, but lacking in "Here's how we can"s.

-Compromise and bipartisanship. Here is where one of the most significant differences between the candidates manifests itself. Barack Obama proposes a "new kind of politics", where Democrats and Republicans work together to produce the best results. This seems incredibly appealing on its surface; but the fact of the matter is, this is completely divorced from the political reality of Washington, D.C. Like it or not, the government is rather deeply divided along party lines. Most things that pass through Congress are voted on almost entirely along those lines. And that's a reality no one man or woman can change – even the president. This issue also shows a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of Sen. Obama. According to the National Journal (http://nj.nationaljournal.com...), Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007 of all the Senators (compared to Sen. Clinton's ranking as 16th in terms of liberalness, if that's a word). And he's not getting better over time; in 2005, he was 16th, and in 2006, he was 10th. If Barack Obama really wanted to see bipartisanship in Washington, it seems rather obvious to me that the best place for him to start would be in his own voting habits.

-Health care mandate. Requiring individuals to buy health insurance is the only thing about Clinton's plan that significantly differs from Obama's plan, and one of the few policy positions they really disagree on; so it's unfortunate that it is one of the most misunderstood policy details of all time. People tend to judge it without looking into the issue and figuring out why someone would suggest this. Clinton's plan would put this mandate in place in order to make sure everyone has the insurance they need, and also to drive down the per capita cost of the plan. Jonathan Gruber, a health care economist at MIT, detailed the effect of adding a mandate to a universal health care plan in a recent paper entitled "Covering the Uninsured in the U.S." He found that a plan like Obama's, with no mandate, would give coverage to 23 million of the 46.5 million uninsured Americans, at a cost of $102 billion/year. Conversely, a plan like Clinton's, with a mandate, would cover 45 million of the uninsured, at an annual cost of $124 billion. This makes the per capita cost of Obama's plan about $4,435/year, compared to Clinton's at about $2,755/year. In short, Clinton's plan would virtually provide true "universal health care" at about 62% of the per capita cost of Obama's plan, which would only cover half of those who are currently uninsured. Clinton also proposes setting a cap – at somewhere between 5% and 10% of a person's or family's income – on how much anyone would have to pay for health care premiums, so the costs are reasonable for everyone.

-Withdrawal from Iraq. The following can be found in the "Issues" section of Hillary Clinton's campaign website (you can find the link earlier in this statement): "As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration." She has never proposed any amount of withdrawal on her first day in office, as my opponent says. Furthermore, she is leaving the details up to true experts – military commanders and cabinet-level officials. In truth, there's virtually no difference between the proposals of the two candidates – except Clinton would give those commanders and officials a deadline (60 days after she takes office) to hammer out the details of a plan to bring the troops home.

-Meeting with foreign leaders. She has never called meeting with "our leaders and our friends" naive. What she calls naive is direct talks between the president and leaders of rogue states or nations that we don't have good relations with. Obama, by the way, has even conceded this point, truly. At one debate, he said that his meeting with said leaders would require certain "preparations" (i.e. opening diplomatic dialogue with the nation and essentially normalizing relations, after which point just about anyone would agree with direct talks).

-Negative campaigning. Both sides have engaged in this. Everything that happens in a campaign can be considered "negative" – the candidate is out to convince people that they're a better candidate than their opponent(s), and sending that message is inherentl negative.
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

notpolicydebategod forfeited this round.
zakkuchan

Con

My opponent forfeited the round, but apparently he is still active on the site and wants to continue this debate, so I will skip this round and let him respond.
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

Sorry about round 2.

-Experience.
Obama has more experience in politics. Clinton did not have to do anything politically as first lady. She was the equivalent of an intern. She saw the working of the White House but did not have an actual political role even if she assumed one. Obama has more experience in politics. And how about this:
Obama was in politics since 1997 and you only includeic minority in the 109th Congress, he cosponsored d work from 2005!!!
Obama has legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

You listed a ton of statistics but they were all since 2005 for Obama. He has been in politics since 1997. This is just unfair and misleading.

-Iraq.
Sorry. Obama was opposed to the war while Clinton supported it. And Obama instead of voting yes was very active against the war. He has always had a severe opinion on the war.
Obama and Clinton were forced to fund the war. If they had not, then the troops would not have guns, armor, etc. Learn the politics before you debate them.

-Detail of proposals.
Clinton constantly says that Obama is not specific enough on policy. But Obama has more detailed or exactly the same plans that Hillary has. His often include more details and seperate PDF files with more details.

- Obama is a very motivational person and his "Yes, we can"s can inspire.

-Compromise and bipartisanship.
Obama has opinions like any good leader should but he is willing to compromise, which is why Obama has been able to get so many bills passed.

-Health care mandate.
You have not explained a justification for forcing a poor person who have trouble buying food to buy health care. There's a reason that poor people don't have to pay taxes. And any person can get health care with Obama's health care. The estimate you stated is completely exaggerated.

-Withdrawal from Iraq. Hillary, at the beginning of the race conceeded withdrawal within 30 days, which is way too soon. Obama has agreed to what Clinton has.

-Meeting with foreign leaders.
Obama never conceeded the point. He admitted that negotiating was ambitious but it is only smart. Imagine if JFK hadnt negotiated with Cuba in the missle crisis. Well, there'd be no more Washington. Meeting with foreign leaders can save this nation.

-Negative campaigning. Obama has never engaged in negative campaigning especially not deceitfully. But Hillary lies constantly about Obama.

- Obama and Clinton have very similar positions. Decide whose personality you like more. Decide who hasnt lied on the trail. Decide whose not a stewed Washington politician. Obama will not force the poor to choose between health care fines and food. Obama has a constant position on immigration and wants new things done. Clinton has flip flopped on NAFTA. Obama talked about lowering gas prices in the company of huge oil companies while in Texas. Obama is simply the better candidate.
zakkuchan

Con

-Experience. It's always funny to hear people complain about Hillary Clinton having done nothing during her husband's presidency. It was a running joke throughout most of the 90s that it was really Hillary running the nation. That's certainly an exaggeration, but it speaks to the point that she was most definitely intimately involved in the policy decisions of the executive branch, even if only in an unofficial regard as a personal advisor to the president. She didn't have any official role in deciding policy; but to say that her role was "the equivalent of an intern" is to completely turn around all the conventional wisdom of the 90s, and my opponent certainly needs cited facts to back up this claim, and he has provided nothing of the sort.

But if you really want to blow off all her time as First Lady, you have to take Obama's state legislature experience out of consideration as well. Neither had any official role in governing the United States – one was part of a state government, which is a much smaller scope, and the other had an unofficial White House role – so neither of these count if you want either of them not to count. In that case, we look to experience in the Senate as the most important way to judge this point. And in this, my opponent either consciously chose to be deceitful, or doesn't understand the workings of the Senate. Anyone can cosponsor legislation, and it really doesn't mean anything. Take, for instance, the fact that the Democratic Senate leadership's foreclosure legislation on the docket for later consideration currently has 25 cosponsors – a full quarter of the Senate! Being one among a few dozen cosponsors of Senate legislation is, in short, insignificant and irrelevant to the discussion of experience.

The numbers I provided and cited, therefore, are the only solid evidence that has been presented for consideration under Experience. Clinton has a slight advantage on all counts of activity in the Senate; take that coupled with the fact that she's been in the Senate for twice as long, and it's clear that she wins this point.

-Iraq. When you are an elected official in a position in which the fate of the nation depends upon your decisions, it is only natural to take any potential threat to the people you serve more seriously than most people would. Barack Obama could make as many speeches as he wanted about Iraq; in the end, he was not accountable to the American people for his opinion, so he didn't have to carefully weigh every factor. Hillary Clinton was accountable; and the political pressure from the people, who overwhelmingly supported military action against Iraq, along with the intelligence provided to her by the Bush Administration, brought her to the carefully weighted decision that the authorization to use military force against Iraq was proper. In the end, it turned out to be a poor decision, but if we expect infallibility we're fooling ourselves.

They have both, as I stated before, continuously voted to keep funding the war. Despite what my opponent says, this is a strike against both of them in terms of handling the war. Defense appropriations are only voted on a couple times a year; and at any given point in time whatsoever, there are always several months of funding already appropriated to defense. Pulling the plug on Iraq funding would not, as my opponent tries to claim, deprive the troops of guns or armor, as they have several months of guns and armor funding already appropriated to them; all it would do is put the pressure on the president to begin withdrawing troops immediately, before the money that is already appropriated runs out. Everyone in Washington knows this, including Barack Obama; so the fact that he has continued to vote for war funding is the only solid, proven way we can judge his views on the war. The natural conclusion is that, while he probably legitimately wants to bring the troops home, his passion in this regard is not anywhere near what he makes it out to be.

-Detail of proposals. My opponent didn't really respond to what I had to say on this point; he just said over again what he said the first time. See my Round 1 argument for my points here.

-Compromise and bipartisanship. Again, my opponent has not refuted anything I said in Round 1. Look to Obama's voting record (listed as the most liberal in the Senate in 2007!) and the fact that no one person can change a fundamental Washington reality like partisan division to the extent that Obama says he will. And the claim that "Obama has been able to get so many bills passed" is laughable; all he's been able to do is attach his name as a cosponsor to a lot of good legislation, which, as I said, doesn't mean anything.

-Health care mandate. I have thoroughly explained the justification for this. My opponent only really says that the source I used that said Obama's plan would only give coverage to half of the uninsured is an over-exaggeration. But the author of that very detailed study is a health care economist at MIT who has been writing about such things for years, and my opponent has not provided any studies that say anything to the contrary. In the absence of any other evidence, I'd say it's safe to trust an MIT health care economist to judge the economics of a health care plan.

-Withdrawal from Iraq. What my opponent said this round is essentially true, that "Obama has agreed to what Clinton has." They both want the same end result, and their proposals would go about it in almost identical ways. The only difference is that Clinton wants to give her commanders and advisors a deadline for hammering out a plan to withdraw.

-Meeting with foreign leaders. Here, my opponent once again fails to respond to what I had to say. Obama conceded a few months ago that before any direct talks between the president and an unfriendly nation should take place, "preparations" must be made, meaning diplomacy should essentially be normalized with the nation in question. Hillary Clinton attacked him on the naivety of his original concept (that the president should just go talk to anyone), and he conceded the point.

-Negative campaigning. How about the Obama mail-outs that claimed Hillary Clinton said that NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy? FALSE. Or his claim that a cabinet-level official from her husband's presidency had said Obama's health care plan was better? FALSE. How about his response to the controversy over his "bitter" comments, where he turned his speech quickly into a series of attacks against both Clinton and McCain? NEGATIVE. What about his advisor's closed-door talks with the Canadians, where they were assured that Obama's opposition to NAFTA was just politics; or the interview with Europeans where an advisor said that Obama as president might handle Iraq differently than Obama as a candidate speaks of handling it? DECEITFUL. These are just a few examples, but they are sufficient to demonstrate that despite everything Obama says about offering a new kind of politics, he really is just the same, and it's impossible not to be. As I said before, political campaigns are by their very nature negative, since the purpose is to convince the people that you're better than your opponent.

-"Yes we can." Sounds wonderful; but right now in America, we need a doer, not a talker. Eloquence in speaking is a moot point to this debate; after all, would Hitler be a good president for us today, simply because he was charismatic and a good speaker?

I plead with the American people, to vote with their minds based upon who is the better candidate, rather than just how good it feels to listen to the person speak. Hillary Clinton is more experienced, offers "Here's how we can"s rather than "Yes we can"s, has a better health care plan, has a more concrete Iraq plan, and is just as good if not better than Barack Obama in all the areas his campaign seeks to portray as his strong points. Hillaru Clinton is the better candidate of the two.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
notpolicydebategod, i believe it is quite the contrary:

you hear him?
especially this line: "i will slow or lower or investment in future combat systems"

and you're telling me that he's voting to keep your troops equipped?

doesn't it hit you that the only thing he doesn't seem to talk about cutting is the amount of troops?

if you're opposed to the war and opposed to spending lots on military and concerned about the safety of the military, you'd cut in people.

here, he clearly states he wants to cut on those things that are helping to keep these soldiers alive out there...

Or simply put: same amount of troops + less investment in their arms = more exposed troops
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
shorack, you dont even begin to understnd the war. barack will cutt military spendoing. he votes to fund body armor and weapons so our troops have a chance at not getting killed. hillary and mccain voted the same way.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Con funded statements with data, quite the contrary of Pro.

By the way, on Pro: There is a vid on youtube where obama is talking about military spending, claiming to cut it. (quite opposed to how he votes imo), on top of that, he doesn't mention reducing the military in size at all, but focusses on investment reducing => lesser equipped troops.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
...settle down...
im not going to even take the time to respond. sry.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
"Ok, so the comment about not wanting to debate you was condescending; but it has no bearing on the claim that had already been leveled about me being condescending in the debate itself."

-Indeed it does. You were accused of a debate tactic that can be attributed as a personality trait and you CONFIRMED this trait in your response to me.

"I've seen you do this thing in the comments section of other debates, too, and your input unfortunately tends to all be negative, as though you're personally insulted that you were forced by the debaters to read something completely worthless, even though that's not usually the case."

-I make my assessment of the arguments and explain how I voted- especially given the fact that EVERYONE seems to complain about how people vote on this site. Votes are not final, and sometimes the person I voted against can persuade me if I explain why I voted a certain way. Either way, this is an "ad-hominem" copout. Obviously I'm not the perfect debater, but any response to a position you disagree with is "negative".

In the context of THIS debate (and others where I feel I am politically and morally invested), I DO get offended by the fact that both sides cherry pick from reports that are not even news-worthy, yet they are repeated as fact- even when the news sources have provided clarity that wasn't brought into the debate. In other words, I am offended when people spew programmed rhetoric without checking the facts, and are then condescending with the information they provide as if they were able to substantiate the information and it should be accepted as "conventional wisdom" as you stated in your own arguments...
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
"Apparently things reported by reputable news sources, and not denied by the people implicated, now qualify as "unsubstantiated"."

-You didn't provide any "reputable" sources, and though I have "heard" these stories, they were reported as rumors and smear campaigns, not as fact. The same sources reported similar rumors about the Clinton campaign, though the FACT that Clinton's CHIEF strategist is lobbying for a NEW trade deal with Colombia is a FACT not mentioned in this same context in your debate. Very convenient...

"I wasn't being condescending on the first lady thing; I was leading in to the point I was making."

-The purpose of your being condescending doesn't change the fact that it was perceived by more than one person as such.

"We could fill an entire 3 rounds of debate with nothing more than discussion of whether her years as first lady should be considered experience....etc."

-You didn't "convince" or "persuade" anybody with this angle of your debate. You provided no reason to compare REAL legislative experience at the State level with "First Lady" experience. You ask the audience to make that connection, though you provide no rational reason why. We all learned in school that State Senators have a much more "political" role than "First Ladies", especially given the fact that they are ELECTED officials... first ladies just happen to be married to the right person...
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Apparently things reported by reputable news sources, and not denied by the people implicated, now qualify as "unsubstantiated".

I wasn't being condescending on the first lady thing; I was leading in to the point I was making.

We could fill an entire 3 rounds of debate with nothing more than discussion of whether her years as first lady should be considered experience. In the broader context of this debate, we simply didn't have time; so I tried to move past that by agreeing to not acknowledge it, as long as Barack Obama's state legislature experience was similarly unacknowledged. I thought that was a perfectly acceptable compromise for the purposes of this length-limited debate, but my opponent chose to argue it, so I argued back.

Ok, so the comment about not wanting to debate you was condescending; but it has no bearing on the claim that had already been leveled about me being condescending in the debate itself. I still stand by what I said, though. I've seen you do this thing in the comments section of other debates, too, and your input unfortunately tends to all be negative, as though you're personally insulted that you were forced by the debaters to read something completely worthless, even though that's not usually the case.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
"Nothing I said is distorted, untrue, or condescending."

-This statedment is distorted, untrue, and condescending.

"This just proves that the judging on debate.org is just ridiculous."

-NP, what I meant by "fantastic" is "based on fantasy" or "not true". I voted pro, fool!

"What about his advisor's closed-door talks with the Canadians, where they were assured that Obama's opposition to NAFTA was just politics"

-This is unsubstantiated

"the interview with Europeans where an advisor said that Obama as president might handle Iraq differently than Obama as a candidate speaks of handling it"

-So is this

"It's always funny to hear people complain about Hillary Clinton having done nothing during her husband's presidency."

-This is condescending.

"to say that her role was "the equivalent of an intern" is to completely turn around all the conventional wisdom of the 90s, and my opponent certainly needs cited facts to back up this claim, and he has provided nothing of the sort."

-So is this. "Conventional wisdom of the 90's" is not "conventional wisdom" in the context of what you are referring to. It was sarcasm and humor, not wisdom. Furthermore there is already mountains of evidence supporting that claim, though maybe not as bad as "just an intern", rather the context of his argument, that she had no role worth mentioning as "experience".

"I'm not sure debating you would be worthwhile. If you can't even appreciate the worth of an informative discussion based on various FACTS presented by both sides, you're not the sort of person I'd like to debate against."

-Not only is this comment condescending, it's an uneducated copout. This was not an informative discussion, rather an exchange of unsubstantiated rumors, distortions, and the all around "unimportant" issues related to these two candidates.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Thanks, zakkuchan, I guess I'll take that as a compliment *laughs*

Yeah, she's brilliant. That's a good book... You should read Atlas Shrugged. Even better.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Well, all I'd have to prove is that he's not a "much better candidate". Rather easy to twist, actually. ;)
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rboy159 9 years ago
Rboy159
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 Noel 9 years ago
Noel
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 simplyme 9 years ago
simplyme
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 colbert4prez 9 years ago
colbert4prez
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 Quarknugget 9 years ago
Quarknugget
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 Shoot_Down 9 years ago
Shoot_Down
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 Tainted 9 years ago
Tainted
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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 tbrickle 9 years ago
tbrickle
notpolicydebategodzakkuchanTied
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