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

Is kejriwal capable/good to become prime minister?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
aad333 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 255 times Debate No: 98849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




He is not
He make decisions without caring about their effects,
And its not good for country .if decision go wrong then it may affects whole country ,moreover he should make him best ,then blame others.


First I'll give my case and then I'll address my opponent's.

I have one sole contention in favor of Kejriwal becoming Prime Minister.

Contention 1: Kejriwal has worked against corruption and knows how the system works, giving him experience and proof of fighting for a good cause.

"Most importantly, what worked for Kejriwal was that he spoke against corruption not on a superficial level. He has been an officer in the Indian Revenue Services and knows exactly how the system works. He has seen the problems in their rawest forms. He has been a part of the organizations responsible for the prevailing corruption. And no one knows the solution better than one who has faced the problem."

Judges, this is proof of Kejriwal having fought for a good cause and being well qualified for the position, and this in the end would be a positive decision for the people of India.

Now for the responses.

Judges look to the fact that his whole case is contingent on the fact that he makes decisions without caring about their effects, but my opponent provides no warrant for why this claim is true, therefore you can completely just disregard that argument. One can not just give out a claim without showing the evidence for why it's true, just saying something is true because it is, is not enough.

Since we have disregarded that premise, the rest of his case which is "if decisions go wrong it can affect the whole country", is not considered.

Then judges, you can even turn his argument about how Kerjiwal doesn't care about the effects, when my evidence literally says he fought against corruption, thus contradicting his warrentless claim.

Just to recap

My opponent provides no warrant for why his claim is true, therefore you prefer my claim which has a warrant and contradicts his claim.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.