The Instigator
alvinthegreat
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
libertarian
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

John McCain will make a better president than Barack Obama

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: 6/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,881 times Debate No: 4345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (24)

 

alvinthegreat

Pro

As many of you may know, Obama has just captured the Democratic Nomination for president. Also, as many of you may know, McCain captured the Republican Nomination for president back in February. Thus, the stage is set for one of the most important presidential race in recent history. Now, that the candidates have been finally decided, I strongly advocate that McCain will be a better president than Barack Obama in terms of experience, national policy, and foreign policy.

=========

On to the structure and rules of the debate:

First, the challenger MUST be serious about this topic and has considerable time to DEVOTE to debating this topic.

The Negative will advocate that Obama will make a better president than McCain (not Ralph Nader). Both sides may use whatever arguments and reasons they so choose.

Any arguments advocated by either side that is NOT answered by the other side within 1 round will be considered DROPPED. DROPPED means that side that dropped it is in FULL AGREEMENT with the dropped argument.
One exception is that if any side runs out of word space, further arguments can be made in the next round. I.e, If one side runs out of word space in round 3 and did not leave enough space to answer the opponents arguments, he or she can continue the arguments in the Round 4 without the arguments being considered DROPPED as long as he or she includes a statement in the Round 3.

If one side fails to respond within the time limit, the arguments are not considered dropped and may be continued within the next round. The other side may make new arguments in the round that was forfeited

Wikipedia is considered a legitimate source

All Research MUST be cited (a link or URL will do)

All Research may be attacked for author or source bias

In order to win, ONE side must show that, overall, his or her candidate for president is BETTER than the other (as defined below).

========

Now for my opening argument: (many of the facts are pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...

Definition: "Better" - "4: more advantageous or effective " - http://www.merriam-webster.com....

The position of president is the most important position in American Governemnt today. As the head of the executive branch, the president is perhaps the most powerful person in the UNited States, and perhaps the World. But with great power comes great responsibility. Simply said, Obama is not as ready as McCain is for the responsibility.

1) Experience: as Rita May Brown eloquently put it: "Good judgment comes from experience, and often experience comes from bad judgment."
John McCain is 25 years older than Barack Obama, and has experienced many more things than Obama that we will directly benefit.
i) His experience in the Navy and as a POW in Vietnam gives him the discipline and knowledge of the military that is VITAL in the dangerous world today, especially with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, his knowledge in the miltiary is much greater than Obama's, who has never served in the miltiary in any form. Thus, McCain will be a better judge of what's right and wrong for the government.

ii) He has been serving in the federal government since in 1982, has served 2 terms as a representative and is currently in his 4th term as a Senator. Compared to only 4 years of experience that Obama has on the federal level as a FRESHMAN senator. Furthermore, McCain has crossed the isles more than once in support of bipartisanship, as illustrated by his participation in the Gang 14 and bipartisanship in support of immigration reform, as opposed to Obama's extremely liberal and partisan voting record: see "most liberal senator" in http://nj.nationaljournal.com.... Moreover, he has established ties with all major senators today, and thus is in a position to carry out necessary reforms. Simply put, McCain has the legislative and leadership experience that will enable him to carry out the "change" that Obama has repeatedly suggested.

2) Judgment
McCain has better judgment than Senator Obama. As shown by the Obama's flag pin scandel and his association with Tony Rezko, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Averres shows his lack of judgment. Moreover, when Clinton attacked him with the "3 am" phone ad, he responded with one of the stupidest comebacks ever: "My stance on Iraq shows I'm capable of answering the phone" (roughly paraphrased) (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...). This is a complete non sequiter. Remember, his opposition came when he was an Illinois STATE SENATOR, where decisions barely matter. Moreover, he was not under intense scrutiny as he is now. This is a complete non sequiter, let's examine his arguments
p1) I opposed the war in Iraq when I was an illinois state senator
p2) Opposition to the war in Iraq I can answer a national security crisis at 3 in the morning
c1) I am qualified to answer an emergency crisis at 3am in the morning because of good judgment

I'll grant p1. But please take a LONG AND HARD look at p2. Alright...my brother's 8 year old friend opposed the war in Iraq, but does he have the capabilities to answer the phone in the white house at 3 in the morning? Probably not. His second premise is completely false.
On the other hand, McCain has consistently made good judgments that are necessary in matters such as the Iraqi surge, Immigration reform, and his efforts to keep the war going.

ii) Iraq: McCain's judgments in Iraq have been proven correct. First, the War in Iraq was instigated by the Bush administration, perhaps even through questionable methods such as propaganda (see McCellan's new book). Thus, based on the evidence available at the time, the war was completely justified. Second, the war in Iraq MUST be continued, contrary to Obama's policy of IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL, as shown by his senate bill 2007 (see Iraq War-Deescalation Act of 2007). This policy is competely unrealistic as it would leave a huge power vacuum in Iraq and plunge the country into sectarian violence. Moreover, the Surge, is by all means, working as of right now. McCain showed his superior judgment in showing support for the Surge at a politically inconvenient time.

3) Policies.
i) No matter what school of economics you believe in, we can all readily agree that a huge national debt is BAD. But....Obama will give a tax cut to the middle class, destroy free trade (he will amend Nafta and oppose new free trade agreements. which almost all economics believe is bad, argue if you want, it has been empirically proven that free trade trumps tariffs, (see Smoot-Hawley tariff and its connection to great depression, in fact, I challenge my opponent to raise one instance of a tariff that has been overall beneficial to the country in question). On the other hand, McCain has proven to be a pragmatist on economic issues, realizing that free trade is essential in maintaining American economic standing. Moreover, he showed his superior judgment in Michigain, when he told laid-off car workers that they are not going to get their jobs back, and should train for something else; rather than giving them false promises of jobs.

ii) Foreign Policy...ah...where to begin? OK first...OBAMA HAS AGREED TO NEGOTIATE with rogue states such as IRAN AND NORTH KOREA without PRECONDITIONS.
Seriously...for all his inexperience, I could not have seen this coming. Since I'm running out of words, I'll list simple arguments:
1) It'll empower these rogue states
2) It'll encourage a soft line with these dangerous states
3) It'll endanger national security if the negotiations go bad.

I have more to say...but i'm running out of characters.
libertarian

Con

Points=== 1. Obama will talk to leaders of other nations. If we talk to Al Qaida maybe we can find some common ground and stop living in fear. If we talk to Cuba we can open up trade, help millions and more. Cuba's embargo has been in place for years. Nothing has changed. If we finally talk to these leaders, at this critical time in Cuba's history, then something may change. Giving the cold shoulder is always ineffective. Imagine if Kennedy would have given Cuba the cold shoulder when they had a nuke aimed at us, many Americans would have died.
2. Obama's health care plan is great. It is not like the failing single payer systems of Sweden and Canada. It gives people health insurance that will compete for lower prices and lower prices. It will be forced to take high risk clients so nobody will die under these systems due to lack of coverage. McCain only gives tax breaks, which is nice, but he will not force companies to take all patients, he will not have paperwork simplified, which will help uninformed patients, McCain's plan will not force easy access, under McCain's plan people who get laid off are just screwed; Obama will make it so all children are covered, unlike McCain who lets children die. Obama's plan is superior and allows everybody to choose their own private plan if they wish. Obama saves lives and eases costs, while McCain lets people die and pay for it.
3. McCain will appoint judges who oppose gay marriage and abortion, which hinders personal freedom and is unconstitution and evil. (14th Amendment, Right to Life)
4. Obama will help pay for students to go to college if they help out their country, which is good for families and students and the government in the future.
5. Obama will pull us out of Iraq, which will save lives and money.
6. Obama is inspirational for all especially young people. McCain does not.
Rebuttals === Most of his points were turned in favor of Barack Obama
1. Experience
A. You do not need experience to have good judgment. This is an untrue assumption, that is not backed up by sources, as his rules state. Bush has much experience in government and has learned from his father during his presidency. Bush started gaining experience as Texas governor in 1994 and continued until 2000 when he became president the following year and after the first term, he still has bad judgment. (http://www.votesmart.org...) He is a person with much experience, but opposes a bipartisan effort to stop oil reserve filling among other bad judgment decisions.
B. John McCain may be older, but this does not mean that he has more experiences than Barack Obama. Obama has led a life that has seen all social classes and has had many experiences. He went to public school with a single mother in a poor neighborhood in Jakarta. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
John McCain went to a private school and had both his parents while a child. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Barack Obama simply has a better scope on life, which is the purpose of experience. He has learned a lot from his experience. Now, both the senators are very wealthy. While Kohn McCain has only experienced a one lifestyle, Barack Obama has been poor, middle class and wealthy. There is no experience that you can point out that gives McCain an advantage over Obama. And if you can, it does not outweigh Obama's good judgment.
C. Obama will have many advisors who can instruct him and influence his decisions. Obama also has great judgment. Obama opposed the Iraq War at the beginning of the war. Obama understands that the Iraq War is hurting our military. John McCain wants to continue this war. A war that you are against according to your profile.
D. You say that McCain has leadership experience, but this is untrue. Neither senators have been in government leadership positions. This is an invalid and untrue assumption. Obama has enough legislative experience. He has been legislating in the Illinois senate and in the Congress. However, the president will not necessarily need legislating experience. He will be president not a legislator.

2) Judgment
A. You talk about Obama's judgment and you justify your claim of his bad judgment with gotchas like Jeremiah Wright and his flag pin. These gotcha issues do not hinder or qualify a person's ability to be president. McCain has his gotcha issues too. He wrote a letter to the FCC when he was 'very close with' an FCC lobbyist. McCain supports staying in Iraq, which displays bad judgment.
B. Obama's response to the telephone ad response was not what you said it was. You do not understand the ad. And your source only shows the 2 commercials. It does not have any substantial analysis of them except random bbloggers comments who go both ways. Obama's judgment in responding to this ad was good. He showed how he would handle a disaster if the phone rang at 3am and why Clinton was not as equipped to. It would be stupid to show that he was merely capable of picking up the phone. Nobody doubts his ability to do that. The ad is about his judgment.
C. Your claim that Illinois legislation does not matter is false and unbacked like your rules suggest it should be. He increased tax credits for low-income workers, promoted increased subsidies for childcare, supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures, helped with ethics reform and much more.
D. His opposition to the war shows he is not war hungry unlike his predecessor or opponent. If somebody nuclear biombed us he might not strike back immediately. Or if somebody attacked us he might develop a strategy before attacking back, if attacking back at all.
E. Obama did not oppose the war. He opposed rushing into war and giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.
F. Iraq is already in sectarian violence. America is increasing the violence and has killed over 100,000 people. The war does not help the Iraqis. Your profile agrees.
G. The surge is not working and you have no proof that it is. The effort was to stop terrorism and hurt Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has no link to Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) and definitely not more than Afghanistan, which needs our troops. He wanted to give them a more stable government. This has not happened either.
H. And the longer the war goes on the worse our international relationships are. And more people die for this false war. Also the economic consequences are severe.
I. The war is also killing Iraqis in droves, the exact opposite of the purpose of the war.
3) Policies.
A. Obama supports amending NAFTA not abolishing it. He wants to change it to be better and work better for Americans.
B. McCain's promise of no jobs was a bad move. Politicially and logically. Romney made gains on him after that claim. And these workers can get new jobs.
C. Obama will reinstate PAYGO rules which state that if you want to start a new thing that will cost money you have to raise taxes or cut something else instead of just creating new spending.
D. Obama will reverse the Bush Tax Cuts, which obviously are not working. Bush had two recessions in his time or almost recessions, whichever you wanna call it. These tax cuts obviously did not work.
E. Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. (barackobama.com)
4) My opponent dislikes Obama's foreign policy stance. However, this point alone should give me the debate. Talking to our enemies will work. Imagine if Kennedy never spoke to Castro in the Cuba Missile Crisis, we would have been nuclear bombed. However, Kennedy talked with one of our enemies and the way he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis saved many American lives. McCain's strategy of being tough with our enemies and never talking never works. We won't talk to Hamas, Al Qaida, Cuba, etc. But when Bush talked to North Korea, they started disarming their nuclear missiles. This diplomacy works.
Debate Round No. 1
alvinthegreat

Pro

Thank you libertarian for accepting my challenge.
Let me make one of my rules clearer: I said research must be cited, but I did not say EVERY SINGLE CLAIM has to be backed up with evidence. If i said claimed something without evidence that is wrong, it is your job to prove me wrong (and vice versa)

Experience
i)
My opponent states that "You do not need experience to have good judgment." and uses Bush to illustrate his example.

First, experience allows you to make better judgments. Let me use a simple analogy: You take a test, and you get a question wrong. If you take the same test again, you're less likely to get the same question wrong again, by virtue of experience (assuming you studied and went over why you got t wrong).
This example illustrates my point that experience is a key factor in determining whether a candidate will be successful or not, and John McCain has alot more experience than Obama.

About Bush:
First, experience does not always mean you're going to make good judgments, but you're more prepared to make better judgments (see analogy).
ii) The bipartison effort to stop filling the strategic oil reserve is a mere token effort. 70,000 gallons a day makes no difference whatsoever, as illustrated by: "there is no evidence that it will affect the price of oil or gasoline in a meaningful way" from (http://www.nytimes.com...)
B)
i) it is common knowledge that experience comes from a longer life. because of his longer life, McCain has served in the federal government since 1982, because of his longer life, McCain has fought in Vietnam and become a PoW
ii) Scope in life =/= experience. Experience is what someone has experienced (i'm sure we can both agree on this definition). You offer only evidence that Obama has lived in various levels of society. This DOES NOT constitute a better outlook on life.
Moreover, I have given examples of how McCain's experience will help him, extend my PoW and Military experience points
iii) My opponent advisers will help him. This is simply not true, because guess what...THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE MAKING DECISIONS. whatever the advisers tell him, he will have to process this USING HIS EXPERIENCE in order to make a good judgment, which he does not possess.
Furthermore, ONE LONE EXAMPLE of a "good judgment" (please see my arguments as to why his irrelevant position may have played a role in his decision) does not constitute a record of good judgments
iv)My opponent says McCain has 0 experience. this is simply false. If my opponent read any of my ii) on this topic (which he dropped), he or she would realize this is a straight out lie.
v) I would like to remind the viewers that my opponent that he dropped my military experience and legislative experience points

B) Judgment
a) McCain supporting staying in Iraq is a good thing, as demonstrated by my arguments in 2ii (or at least better than Obama's plans). Moreover association with Jeremiah wright a lack of judgment by Obama because he associated with someone who says outlandish and harsh things about the government. you must ask...does Obama believe the things Wright says?
b) The ad i was referring to is about his judgment, but i have think i have clear understanding of it (see my logical fallacies), which my opponent failed to answer. Libertarian simply CLAIMS that it is not the correct understanding, but makes no arguments as to WHY it is not the correct understanding.

c) Ok, where did i claim anything about Illinois legislation?

d) That demonstrates nothing - sometimes we need war, keeping war out as an option severely hinders our national security.

e) He did oppose the war, it's in his commercial I linked

f) I think the war is morally wrong, but since we already started it, we must stay the course in order for the Middle East to stabilize. America is helping out with the violence, as demonstrated by the Surge (see http://en.wikipedia.org..., Iraqi Security Situation)

g) That link is about PRE-9/11...not right now, see http://en.wikipedia.org... about info on AQI

h) But if we withdraw now, the situation will destabilize and plunge Iraq into a civil war, which you complicity dropped by saying "Iraq is already in sectarian violence"

i) No, the war was to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy - and so far it has succeeded

Policy
a) Aka ending free trade - see my arguments against it

b) These workers can get new jobs - but the point is he realizes the financial situation of these workers and that their job loss is inevitable due to mechanization and outsourcing

c) The Democrats have abandoned paygo because it is simply untenable- see http://en.wikipedia.org...

d) Your claim is debatable. We have had good economy from 2002-2007 (see housing boom). This debate could be a whole another full debate. You also had no sources for this claim. .

e) Simply bidding does not mean better efficiency, it simply means that the supplier will probably try to cut corners.

Foreign Policy: Please read over your history.
KENNEDY DID NOT TALK TO CASTRO. He talked to Khrushchev during the crisis. Moreover, it was the Vienna conference that Khrushchev thought Kennedy was inept and thus decided to test him with the cuban missle crisis - it is his willingness to negotiate that almost led to nuclear winter.
Name one example of how it worked besides the flawed example of Cuban Missle Crisis.

Onto my opponents points
1.
i This is farfetched claim. Al Qaida has declared a JIHAD on Israel and its allies (US), and I doubt talking would somehow stop the religious fanaticism that is prevalent throughout terrorist organizations.
ii Kennedy DID give the Cubans the cold shoulder when they had nukes aimed at us. Read up on your history. Kennedy ordered a blockade and ordered the marines to get ready to invade Cuba – not exactly talking is it? You must remember what brought down the Soviet Union was – not talking – but Brinkmanship.
2.
i If he plans to give healthcare to the 47 million uninsured people in the US, This wide-ranging healthcare plan will certainly increase the already monstrous national debt
ii) The quality of healthcare will go down due to the increase number of patients and increase stress on the already fragile medical system
iii) The chances of this actually passing is slim to none (see Clinton's healthcare plan) especially with the heavy lobby by medical and drug industries. (http://www.cbsnews.com...)
3.
i) If the Constitution actually made abortion illegal, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. The point is – abortion is the sole jurisdiction of the legislative branch due to the elastic clause - by extension of Marbary vs. Madison – the Judiciary.
ii) Abortion signifies the taking away of a human fetus (which has its own genetic potential and possible sentience), and thus, it constitutes murder. So abortion is evil – not the opposite
4.
i) It's simply a tax credit he's offering – you're just getting money you would've payed anyways.
ii) It only pays $4000 per person – not nearly enough to get a competent college education
iii) It will further increase the national debt – the opposite of the course we should be taking (fisical discipline)
5.
i) and lead to further sectarian violence and increased influence of Iran and victory for Al Qaida, basically giving them a free pass to attack Israel and the United States.
ii) Staying the course in Iraq – especially in light of the recent success of the surge (see Wikipedia article) – is the better option rather than wasting the years of effort we have put in to stabilize Iraq.
iii) Save American Life – but kill Iraq Life – moral utilitarianism dictates that we should still continue
6.
i) how does that make him better
libertarian

Con

New Point
1) Obama supports getting rid of No Child Left Behind, which hurts schools and takes good schools and makes them overcrowded and takes funding away from bad schools and makes them even worse.
Experience
I) Your analogy sounds nice but still never defends itself from my Bush, Cheney example. You do not support George W. Bush, or his ideas, according to your profile. You agree that experience does not qualify you to be preident. And the American people have decided that Barack Obama's ideas outweigh his lack of extensive experience. Obama beat Clinton by almost 300 delegates and she has 40 years of political life. Obama's ideas outweigh Mccain's experience.

II) McCain has fought in combat and his father was a marine. He would have military experience except for one fact. McCain was a prisoner during the war and was one of the few Vietnam War supporters after the war because of it. He only survived because his father was influential.

III) McCain had a life that was privileged and gives him a limited view. Obama relates to the poor, rich and middle class.

IV) Yes. McCain has experienced one, privileged lifestyle. Obama has lived rich, poor, and middle class. Obama was a community organizer, lawyer, editor. McCain was a war fighter. Obama has experienced more in his shorter life.

V) I did not drop your military experience point. I said "Obama opposed the Iraq War at the beginning of the war. Obama understands that the Iraq War is hurting our military. John McCain wants to continue this war. A war that you are against according to your profile."

VI) McCain had no leadership experience. He has been a senator and a marine.

VII) I did not drop your legislative points. I said "He increased tax credits for low-income workers..."

VIII) I'm not lying about the debate. Please return the favor.

B) Judgment
a) These political gotchas are not good reasons to say somebody will be a bad president. Obama's decision to join Wright's church was made when he was running for Illinois office and that is a really big, influential church, good for a politician. McCain has Hagee's bagage who says things like Katrina victims deserved to die. Obama does not agree with Wright's views. It is obvious. He said he does not. And if he does...SO WHAT!? Which he does not!

b) I do so say WHY it is the incorrect understanding of the ad!!! Because the phone ad is obviously not about if he can pick up a phone! It is about his judgment and the judgment he would make if something catastrophic happened at 3am!!! And your source did not back up your statement, which you dropped!

c) You asked where you claim anything about Illinois legislation! I respond in paragraph 2: "Remember, his opposition came when he was an Illinois STATE SENATOR, where decisions barely matter."

d) Sometimes we do need war! The Iraq War is a useless war! Stay on topic! The debate is the Iraq War! You're dodging my points and lying as a debater. You're ruining this debate because of it! Please actually debate the topic! The Iraq War is a bad war that hurt our public relationships and killed 100,000 Iraqis, cost tons of money, and killed 4,000+ US troops. We can gain nothing by continuing it. Try and name one thing that is actually worth the fight! You can't like your profile says! They do not have weapons of mass destruction! The war was a shame and cost way too much in lives and money! We gots to go! And you agree!

e) Obama did oppose the war! This is a lie! (http://en.wikisource.org...'s_Iraq_Speech)

f) The war is not working! Stabalizing the Middle East will not happen from killing people! We need a diplomatic effort! Killing people wont stabalize a region! We entered the war to get weapons of mass destruction, but there are none! We killed Sadaam! We learned Iraq and Al Qaida are not linked! We can save money and lives. Continuing is unethical and illogical! And your source is not a quality source, and needs to be updated according to Wikipedia itself! And your source has benchmarks set. The goal of the war will never be achieved and is not.

h) I NEVER DROPPED IRAQ!!! Points 2F, 2G, 2H, and 2I all touch on Iraq!!! I say your point is not solving anything! In actual policy debate that is called 'non-unique.' I never dropped the argument! This is just a way to weasel out of debating the point that you will loose! Iraq is causing us to loose good relationships, money, lives. And it solves nothing!

i) We're saying the same thing!!! Some weaseling out of the point!!! Iraq was to install democracy as one of the purposes!!! It has succeeded in that...somewhat!!! But there is nothing left to be gained!!! There is no terroristic link!!! And no WMDs!!!

Policy
a) Obama supports amending free trade to give better advantage to America! McCain supports doing absolutely nothing and keeping it the same!!!

b) Your Michigan point is illogical and irrelevant to Obama!

c) Whoever abandoned PAYGO does not matter! Obama will reinstate it!!! This is a good thing that will bring fiscal reponsibility!

d) We agree. You say Bush's economy was good for five years, but his presidency was 7.5 years.

e) Bidding is a better solution than nothing!

Foreign Policy: Kennedy talked to both!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org... [Secret Negotiations])

Kennedy didn't cause a nuclear winter!!! There never was a nuclear winter! A nuclear winter would have destroyed human civilization! Also, you dropped my point about when the cold shoulder of one nation ever got anything done!

And take the North Korean point, which you dropped, that shows that when Bush talked to North Korea they significantly reduced their nuke program!

Onto my opponents points
1. i) Talking to Al Qaida may be ineffective, but we've got nothing to loose. Not talking to them will always be ineffective. Why would they stop one day if we never talked to them?
ii) Yes. Kennedy, however, talked to Kushrev and Castro. He stopped the Cuban Missile Crisis because of it. (http://en.wikipedia.org... [Secret Negotiations])
iii) I challenged you to mention one time the cold shoulder of one nation worked. You dropped that.
2. i) Your claim about the national debt is untrue. Obama will use PAYGO 100% of the time. And he will slightly increase taxes, like McCain.
ii) Mccain's plan ensures the same amount of people... And this claim is unsourced as well as untrue.
iii) Obama will have a Democratic Congress and be able to get almost anything done. Clinton could not get her plan done because it had holes in it and was with Gingrich's Republican Congress. McCain's plan will not get passed through the likely Democratic Congress.
3. i) Abortion is unconstitutional because women will are not healthy enough to have kids will die and unready mothers will kill themselves will illegal abortions. And your point makes no sense.
ii) You support abortion and abortion takes a fetus, but this is another debate.
4.
i) The tax credit enforces no laws. Obama will force companies to accept high risk patients, simplify paperwork, have a unified computer system, cover all children. This is a better plan and you know it, which is why you DROPPED these arguments. And proves that we are in FULL AGREEMENT!
ii) The $4000 signicicantly HELPS. I know people who have dropped out of college for less than this.
iii) Obama will have PAYGO, unlike fiscally irresponsible McCain.
5.
i) Obama will help Israel but the Iraq War has strengthened Iran and Al Qaida. (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9914868)
ii) Continuing the war will cost too much and gain nothing. I have proven this over and over.
iii) Iraqi lives matter too. With your logic we can kill anybody. Also, killing Iraqis does not help Americans. It strengthens Iran, Al Qaida, and kills Americans.
iv) You dropped Bush Tax Cut arguments. I win that point.
6.
i) He can help with public diplomacy.
Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 2
alvinthegreat

Pro

New Point
1 – Obama's economic plans will destroy whatever fiscal discipline is left, and if Obama does reinstate Paygo (which won't work) – he will be left with no way to pay for his public programs except to raise taxes, which is ultimately bad for the economy since it withdraws capital from the economy – the basis of any economy.
Experience:
1.
i) Experience is not the sole determining factor for a person to be president – but it's pretty damn important. While Obama may have won the most delegates, Clinton won the popular vote, the better factor to judge public opinion. Most of the delegates came from caucus states where there was minimal participation.

ii) This is absurd – he served in the Navy as an ensign from 1954 to 1967 (the date of his imprisonment). That's 13 years of military experience. Moreover, he survived due to his sheer patriotism (read Wikipedia). The Vietnamese wanted to release McCain early for propaganda purposes; however, due to his sheer
patriotism, he refused and stayed and endured more than 5 years of torture

iii) How does he relate with the lower classes? His comments in Pennsylvania about economic stress in the lower classes were causing bitterness, thus causing them to hang on to "guns or religion or antipathy, or anti-immigrant sentiment". This clearly shows that he's out of touch with the poor and middle class.

iv) The experience must be at the right places. Being a community organizer doesn't prepare you nearly as well as serving for 26 years in federally elected positions.

v) I said McCain's military experience – not the war in Iraq

vi) Are you serious? He was in command of the largest fighter squadron during the Vietnam War (in the navy, not the marines) and has 26 years of experience in the federal government – how is this not leadership? Besides, what leadership experience does Obama have?

vii) My point was concerning McCain's legislative experience – and you did not challenge that he did have experience – thus you conceded that.
B) Judgment
i) If Obama does not agree with Wright's views, then WHY DID HE STAY IN THE CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS and have repeatedly said that Wright was his spiritual mentor? It's not obvious – because he chose not to forsake Wright after his speech – only after Wright's latter speeches did Obama forsake him – which shows a lack of judgment
ii) Yes, and my arguments about the 3am ad was that a singular example of a "correct" judgment in Iraq does not singularly justify his ability face urgent national security judgments. I challenged his reasoning behind the ad – not his ability to pick up the phone
iii) But he voted "abstain" in the Illinois legislature more than 130 TIMES (http://www.npr.org...), which shows a lack of responsibility. Furthermore, a state level government experience and judgment CANNOT compare to that of the federal government, where McCain has 26 years of experience
iv) We gain continual stability in the Middle East by continuing the war. We cannot simply "withdraw" and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. We have made good progress with the Surge, and if we withdraw now, we will lose all the effort we have put into Iraq, and the 4000 or so American lives will have been lost in vain.
Let see what's worth fighting for: Democracy, Stability in the Middle East, Security of Petroleum deposits.
v) Obama opposing the war was a lie? Well that makes my job a lot easier doesn't it?
vi) The justifications for war may have been wrong, but we have already made the decision to go to war. The question now is whether to finish the job we started, or give up halfway through. A simple withdraw as advocated by Obama will DESTROY all stability in the middle east. Iran will move in with the Shiites in Iraq, and sectarian civil war will occur due to the presence of numerous religious militias.
vii) you agreed to the fact that there is currently large amounts of violence in Iraq - thus we need American soldiers to control this violence or it will spiral out of control.
viii) The original purpose of the war cannot be used to justify withdrawing now, there are two mutually exclusive qualities. Moreover, if you agree with me about the original purpose of the war, then why are you saying it's a "bad war"
C) Policy
i) There is no such thing as amending free trade – it's either free trade or restricted trade.
ii) It shows McCain's policies are more pragmatic than those of obama's
iii) My point was that there is empirical evidence that Paygo is simply not a tenable policy
iv) 9-11 brought about a recession, and we're heading into one right now, but supply side economics still works (which McCain supports), as demonstrated by Reagan's policies
v) There is competitive bidding right now – see Airbus vs. Boeing tanker bidding war
vi) Kennedy went to Vienna, thinking that he can talk Khrushchev out of war, but Khrushchev saw him as a neophyte, and thus decided to bully America around – a direct result of this was the Cuban Missile Crisis ( which almost lead to nuclear winter)
vii) Bush didn't talk to them – it was 6 party talks, and we basically bribed them with large crude deliveries every month.
Onto other points:
1
i)Because talking to Al Qaida legitmizaes them and will give them even more support in the Arab world
ii)It was his willingness to talk that started it. Moreover, he traded American strategic weapons in turkey for those in Cuba – a bad overall deal.
iii)One example: Hitler and the rest of the world talked after the annexation of Sudetenland. Chamberlain came back Hitler and said "there will be peace in our time" – one year later, Hitler had France and Poland conquered – you can't negiotate with certain people.
2.
i) He will let the Bush tax cuts expire – which is a TRILLION dollars worth of taxes a year (that's not a slight increase)
ii) McCain is not giving UNIVERSAL healthcare – but merely giving tax credit (see McCain website).
iii)You need a 60 vote plurality in the Senate to stop filibusters – Democrats will not get that much in november
3.
i)McCain opposes non-medical abortions – not ones needed to save lives
ii) It is another debate
4.
i) Tax Credit (if passed) is a law. This is not a better plan. First, it will crush the medical infrastructure of this nation, will boomers getting ready to retire, this additional stress will cause the quality of healthcare and avability to decline.
ii) Ok, but it will stay need to be paid for by more taxes and an increased national debt
iii)Paygo doesn't work – empricially demonstrated already. Thus, he will either increased the debt with his massive social programs, or raise lots of taxes.
5.
i) That article is dated more than a year ago, before the Surge started working
ii) You have proven nothing – You have not countered my arguments about increased violence and instability in Iraq, which outweighs saving money and lives in the short run – since it will cost more in the future
iii)If we leave, we will cause more people to die. We're not killing Iraqis indiscriminately, we're killing the ones involved with Al Qaida.
iv)Can you please direct me to where you mentioned bush tax cuts in your original point #5 in round 1? Because all you said under point 5 was: "Obama will pull us out of Iraq, which will save lives and money."
6.
i) What exactly is public diplomacy?

7. No Child Left Behind
i) NCLB gives money to schools that generally perform better - there are numerous stories of how Schools have performed better due to NCLB
ii) It does not make good schools overcrowded - zoning regulations do
iii) NCLB seeks to equalize educational standards in this country - and is of great help to the disadvantaged who used to not get a good education.
libertarian

Con

New Points: 1.My opponent dropped the argument about $4,000 for college being helpful. We are in FULL AGREEMENT.
2.He agrees that the Bush Tax Cuts are hurtful.
3.Obama will create more jobs for the environment.
4.Obama will send drug users to rehab for part of their prison sentence, which will reduce the amount of drug users.
5.Obama will give the middle class tax cuts.
6.Obama will give all workers 7 sick days a year.
7.Obama will cut income taxes 100% for seniors who make under $50,000.
8.Obama will help fight age, sex, and race discrimination in corporate America.
9.Obama will not be influenced by lobbyists.
10.He will be bipartisan, honest.

>>> 'PAYGO wont work.' 'He'll just raise taxes.'
+++ PAYGO is a great system and not using PAYGO hurts the dollar. The way that the war is funded is from borrowed money. Borrowing money lowers the value of the dollar. A lower valued dollar makes buying things internationally more expensive, like oil. In 2000, the dollar was 1 Euro. Now, the dollar is $1.60 that of the Euro (even with Bush's experience). This makes oil more expensive for us and when oil is more expensive, gas is more expensive, which hurts the economy tremendously. (http://www.politico.com...)
>>> 'Experience important' 'Obama lost popular vote' 'Minimal participation in caucases'
+++ Experience is not as important as you're making it. Bush has tremendous experience and neither of us support him. He has 33% approval.
+++ Obama won the popular vote. That calculation is a lie. That count doesn't count caucases correctly and skips the whole state of Michigan.
+++ Many of the caucases had record turnout.
>>> '13 yrs of military experience.' 'Survived due to patriotism'
+++ Most of his experience was during prison, which is why he's one of the few people who supported Vietnam War after war.
+++ Why would they care how patriotic he was?
>>> 'Bitter comment proves Obama is out of touch'
+++ Obama was once poor and middle class unlike McCain who is and always was rich. Obama also will give tax cuts to the middle class while McCain will give them to the rich.
>>> 'The experience should be in the right places.'
+++ Obama was a lawyer, editor, senator, legislator, community organizer. McCain was a marine and a senator. Obama was in all economic classes. McCain was always rich.
>>> 'I said McCain's military experience – not the war in Iraq'
+++ You said his military experience will help him with the war. And I proved you wrong.
>>> 'Leadership.'
+++ Obama was the head editor or the law paper at Harvard.
>>> 'Legislative'
+++ I strongly debated the point. I did not drop it. Stop lying!
B) Judgment
>>> 'Rev. Wright'
+++ This gotcha does not prove anything about Obama's judgment. Nobody leaves a church because they disagree with the pastor on small issues.
>>> '3am ad'
+++ You said it was a non sequitor. And didn't explain the whole ad. I didn't say the 3am ad justified his whole experience. This was your point!
>>> 'Lack of voting'
+++ In Chicago politics, abstaining from a vote is responsible. Everybody does it. You know it. The same article also says it was "part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy." ...more lies from you pro...
>>> 'Iraq stabilizing' '4000 lives in vain' 'Democracy' 'Security of Petroleum'
+++ NPR (one of your sources) says the Iraq War is destabilzing the region and strengthening Iran and Al Qaida (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9914868)
+++ More Americans will die if we do not pull out of Iraq.
+++ Obama will talk to leaders about democracy instead of shooting their people, which will obviously not bring democracy.
+++ My first point shows how the Iraq War hurts oil prices. And damagging ties with OPEC countries, through this war, is obviously not good.
>>> This is the most obvious lie you've told yet. PRO said that Obama never opposed the war. I said "Obama did oppose the war! This is a lie! (http://en.wikisource.org......'s_Iraq_Speech)." Obviously, I was referring to his lie about Obama's supporting the war. I wasn't saying what I just said was a lie. My opponent is so desperate, he has resorted to blatant dishonesty to win.
>>> 'Pulling out will destabalize the Middle East.' 'Iran will invade Iraq.'
+++ Obama will talk with Syria and Iran and make sure they do not go in Iraq. He will use sanction threats, military threats, etc, hard power if necessary.
>>> 'Large violence in Iraq'
+++ This large violence is because America is killing people over there. We've killed 104,000+.
>>> 'Bad war'
+++ No. That's really stupid.
>>> 'You cannot amend NAFTA'
+++ Obama will not stop free trade. He will change little aspects to more benefit Americans, unlike McCain.
>>> (ii)
+++ No. Still irrelevant.
>>> 'PAYGO untenable'
+++ No. It is necessary. PAYGO worked from 1990 to 1998 until Clinton got a surplus and Congress started cheating. Then Bush (with his experience) got rid of PAYGO in 2001 for his tax cuts and other acts.
>>> '9/11 brought a recession'
+++ How would 9/11 have possibly created a recession? Accounting scandals, the burst of the dot com bubble, and Bush's reactions to 9/11 caused the recession. Even with his experience.
>>> 'Already competitive bidding'
+++ Obama will force all contracts to be bidded so we can get the best price and not run into another Enron scandal.
>>> 'Kuschrev bullied JFK'
+++ This is completely unsupported but the fact is there was no nuclear explosion on America because of Kennedy's willingness to negotiate.
>>> 'Bush never talked to N. Korea'
+++ Lies! He did talk to North Korea! (http://www.foxnews.com...)
>>> 'Negotiating with Al Qaida will legitimize them'
+++ They are already legitimate. The PATRIOT Act, which undermines trhe constitution in fear of Al Qaida is worse than negotiating face to face. They want us to be terrified and talking to them is what will make us not loose. Not letting them do as they please.
>>> (Other points:ii)
+++ Who is "he?"
>>> 'Hitler invaded Poland after negotiations'
+++ Negotiating with Hitler didn't cause him to invade Poland. Those talks probably prolonged the invasion. You did drop the point last round: FULL AGREEMENT. The cold shoulder never worked.
>>> 'Bush tax cuts'
+++ These were in place during his two recessions. Obama will give the money to the middle class who needs it.
>>> McCain will not force children to have care, will not force high risk patients on companies, and will not simplify info. Obama's plan still allows you to choose and does all these other nice things. McCain just gives you a mild tax credit.
>>> (iii)
+++ What? What filibuster? How do you know they wont get 66%?
>>> 'Abortion'
+++ It's a woman's choice. A neglected child is bad for themselves, the parents, and society.
>>> 'Medical infrastructure' 'National debt'
+++ McCain will give tax breaks to all Americans. Both plans will give all Americans the option of health care. McCain just lets children die, etc.
>>> 'PAYGO fails'
+++ The GOP killed PAYGO out of irresponsibility. But it lasted well for 8 years and didn't get revoked for 11 years.
>>> 'Iraq War'
+++ The increases gas prices, weakens relationships, costs tremendously, and kills people. Stabilizing the region can be achieved through talks and help, not destroying the place.
>>> 'Bush Tax Cuts'
+++ We're not going in the same order because I have more points than you. Can you please show me where you mentioned Bush Tax Cuts in that round? Exactly!
>>> 'Public diplomacy'
+++ Talking to other people.
>>> 'NCLB works'
+++ Prove it!
>>> 'Zoning overcrowds schools'
+++ I go to a school that was overcrowded due to NCLB. We cant build a new school at every block. We have to divide it reasonably. Not send all the low performing students to a good school and keep the other lower performing students at the bad school.

Please vote for the honest debater with the better arguments
Debate Round No. 3
alvinthegreat

Pro

Libertarian, can you keep the number of vague new points to a manageable level? I'm sure we can both blitz each other and make 300 new points, but that would simply decrease the quality of the debate. Plus, the new points are extremely vague and do not provide any reasoning nor support, I cannot argue against obvious generalities. I need to know more about what Obama's going to do.
Economy + Paygo
i)Paygo has already failed when the Democrats tried to use it – see Wikipedia article. There is empirical evidence that it will fail under democratic control, along with the massive cost of Obama's social program.
ii)Obama's programs were projected to cost 800 billion a year back in Feburary, it's now grown to 1.5 trillion dollars. As WSJ's Steve Moore puts it: "He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax."(http://www.realclearpolitics.com...) . These tax levels are far above what they are now. Furthermore "It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors." (from the same article)
iii)Combine Libertarian's new points 4,5,6,7 and link this back to Paygo. Since my opponent advocates that Obama will use Paygo no matter what the impacts – these programs must be paid by money from something else, since the government is already in a huge debt, the only plausible way to raise money to pay for these massive social programs is to RAISE TAXES, which links back to my ii) quote.
Experience
i)"Bush fails"-Bush is only a solitary example. FDR, LBJ, Jefferson all had many years of experience at the federal level before they became president.
ii)"Votes"-Although the number of people who support Obama is only in the DEMOCRATIC race, not in the general population. Such statements such as "Obama got more votes than Hiliary" in the democratic race hardly shows general support
iii) "Prison =/= experience" Yet you agreed that McCain served as a navy captain for 13 years and legislator for 26 years. Furthermore, the 13 years he spent in the navy IS NOT COUNTING his 5 prison years.
iv) "Obama bitter comments" – they show that he fails to understand. If he grew up in the lower classes, why would he make such ignorant, sweeping generalizations?
v) "Obama was blah blah" – The only experience he has that counts is his only term as a freshman senator, clearly outweighed by McCain's military and legislative experience. Furthermore, head editor of a law review demonstrates nothing conducive to leading a nation.
vi) "Legislative Experience" – if I recall correctly, you did not make a statement against it last round except "I defended it", thus if you didn't drop it earlier, you dropped it last round.
Judgment
i)Wright – He's been sitting there for 20 years, why didn't he leave earlier?
ii)3am – It was my claim that 3am shows his lack of judgment, you merely said that it did justify it, but never explained why it justifies his "great" judgment.
iii)Abstain – Abstaining in over 130 votes including bills that Obama sponsored is not responsible, it shows a lack of judgment.
iv) Iraq
a)"NPR = destabilize"- precisely, that's why Obama's plan to withdraw will allow Al Qaida and Iran to destabilize it more. The surge has been working and we need to continue.
b) "Loss of lives" True, American lives may be lost now, but we'll be saving more lives later
c) "Lies!" – In round 2 – you said "This is a lie" (round 2, your judgment , point e) when countering my point made in the same round that said "He did oppose the war" (see round 2, Judgment point e). I don't know what is a lie? You previous statement that Obama opposed the war or my statement?
d) "Talking" – Since when did talking to hostile nations like Syria and Iran magically solve their subtle involvements in an Iraqi Civil war?
e) "Violence" The violence is declining due to the Surge (see Wikipedia)
f) "bad War = stupid" – Why is it stupid? If you're calling me dishonest, then I have every right to
Policies
i "Nafta" – Obama's against free trade, you said that he will amend NAFTA. Free trade is a binary equation, there is either free trade or there is restricted free trade. There is no way he can amend it to still be free trade and help Americans.
ii) Back in 1990-1998, we didn't have a shitty housing market and economy, it was working due to the large amounts of tax money flooding in. The economic situation has changed, and it is no longer tenable, as shown by democrats abandonment of it earlier this year.
iii) "9/11" – the Dow had the single largest one day drop since the great depression right after 9/11. It devastated major companies that were situated in the WTC.
iv) "bidding" – Enron fouled up their tax returns, there is already competitive bidding on almost all major products. Please name one major government project that was simply "handed over"
vi) "JFK in Vienna" – Khruschev did bully JFK, read this: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com...
vii) "Bush talked to NK" – read your own citations please, Bush was MAKING A THREAT AGAINST NORTH KOREA, the exact opposite of talking. (now who's being dishonest?). Furthermore, this is not the unilateral, unconditional arguments that Obama is suggesting
Other points
i) "Al Qaida" – the patriot act does not legitimize Al Qaida, it is against terrorists, not one group in particularly. Talking to them will be a sign of weakness. Furthermore, what makes you think they would talk to us? After all, they are winning in Iraq according to you.
ii) "He" = JFK
iii) "Hitler" – It was an example of where talking failed. The allies tried to appease Hitler with Sudetenland and Anschluss, but that failed to satiate him, so he demanded more.
I dropped that I need to give an example, thus I'm in full agreement with you that I should give an example, and I gave one last round.
iv) "Tax cuts" – last time I checked, we only went in to a recession recently. Furthermore, how will Obama magically conjure up money to give to the middle class?
v) "filibuster" – what makes you think they will? The fact is, a plurality in the Senate was last achieved more than 20 years ago.
vi) Abortion – It's still murder, which you dropped, thus murder > choice and outweighs all other benefits
vii) Medicine – McCain is not providing costly universal healthcare, but tax breaks, unlike the Obama, who's giving 47 million more people health care. I don't see how McCain is letting children die…most child mortality is due to incurable diseases
viii) Paygo – Democrats killed it once again, plus economic conditions are different now
ix) "Iraq War again" – The future is worse if we withdraw now. Furthermore, you already conceded that there is violence and we need to be there to stabilize it.
x) "Bush tax cuts" – I was saying that you countered something I did not say
xi) "NCLB" – I already gave several reasons, although they're not supported by cites, they are logically sound and therefore it is your responsibility to argue why my arguments don't make sense
xii) There are many facets of NCLB that are worth it, refer to my original arguments.
New points
2) "Bush tax cuts = harmful" – where did I say that? I said it was highly debatable
3) How will obama create jobs for the environment? What does this mean exactly? Without giving me a specific plan, I cannot argue against a generality
4) Some drug users are potentially harmful, thus releasing them back to the public may not be a good choice
8 - 10) All generalities, I need specific plans to argue against.
libertarian

Con

...If you can't handle a spread of points, you don't belong debating...
Economy + Paygo
i)PAYGO failed after 8 years of good practice. It failed due to the fact that we had a budget surplus and Congress got crazy. It worked for 8 years and it can work some more.
ii)Your data is either a lie or inaccurate. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion. You're forgetting the Iraq War cost or something. Obama will lower the tax bill for 95% of Americans and increase it for 5%. (http://money.cnn.com...)
iii)Obama will not only raise taxes for his new programs. Many senators will advocate cutting programs. There are plenty of programs to be cut. This may stop senators from making new programs, because they know they cannot just give it to the national debt anymore.
Experience
i)James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and Richard M. Nixon were known as the worst presidents in history and all had experience.
ii)Hillary gets less votes than Obama. Democrats agree that judgment trumps experience. Current polls agree that Obama wins over McCain.
iii) Fine. McCain was in the military, but he was never poor.
iv) Historians agree with Obama's bitter comments and so do many poor folks.
v) Obama was all three classes and had more experiences.
vi) I did not drop legislation. You're wrong.
Judgment
i)It was in Obama's best judgment as a local politician to join a popular church.
ii)The 3am response ad shows that Obama did not support Iraq and helped get rid of Middle Eastern nukes.
iii)abstaining in 130 votes was a strategy, which I proved and you ignored. Abstaining won him many votes because he did not take sides. This is in his better judgment.
iv) Iraq
a) Shooting at people does not make a place stabalize. Moqtada Al-Sadr called a cease fire so there was less violence, but there is no good progress in Iraq. It is costly and useless. (http://www.reuters.com...)
b) Well, I'm telling you that Obama did oppose the war. I proved it. You are a dishonest debater.
d) Since when has the cold shoulder worked? Talking solved the Cuban Missle Crisis and the North Korean nuke situation.
e) Violence is declining due to a peace fire. I proved this earlier. (Reuters)
f) This war is stupid, costly, etc. You are dishonest. You lie.
Policies
i NAFTA is a long, complicated agreement. Obama will negotiate.
ii) PAYGO was tenable for 8 years. We can keep it up. PAYGO kept the value pf the dollar up. Increasing the national debt lowers the dollar. It is inflation.
iii) This is one factor in the first recession. There were many others.
iv) I can't name a product that was not bidded on. It's not published information.
vi) JFK talked to somebody! That's my point! Then we weren't nuked! GAH!
vii) Obama wants to negotiate. Sanctions and threats are prat of negotiating.
Other points
i) Talking works better than sitting idly. Period.
ii) See above.
iii) Talking failed with Hitler. But it did not hurt. And it could have helped like in the Cuban Missle Crisis.
iv) Obama will take the tax cuts from 5% of Americans and give them to 95% of Americans.
v) So! Who cares about a filibuster!?
vi) You dropped it. You said it is another debate. Murder is between two people.
vii) McCain will not force kids to take health care. Obama will. They will ive. Both are given Americans health care: one with tax breaks and one directly. Both give choice.
viii) Ugh! PAYGO will work. It needs to to keep the dollar low. And oil prices lower.
ix) I conceded violence but I said that we need to leave and talk to them instead of shooting them.
x) W/e. You're wrong.
xi) I gave reasons! NCLB fails because it moves children to good schools to perform low.
xii) NCLB fails.

1) He conceeds college again.
2) He conceded Bush Tax Cut arguments.
4) Releasing them back into society is not happening. They are being put in rehab for part of the time.

There is not one point that I loose on. Obama has many points. He will pull out of Iraq, which is a useless, costly war. He will give college money, which we both agree on. Ugh! This is a terrible debate! You are so dishonest and one of the worst debaters I've ever faced! I'm only continuing so I don't loose because I know if I continue, I will win because your points and your debating are seriously flawed. GAH!
Debate Round No. 4
alvinthegreat

Pro

Overview: This debate has devolved (imo) into 2 or 3 main points, which I have won clearly. My opponent apparently threw away all his reasoning abilities over the past few rounds and has been resorting to phrases such as "LIES!" and "w/e you're wrong" instead of giving reasoned and articulated arguments. If anything, that's a reason to vote affirmative.
Paygo + Economy:
My line of reasoning is this: My opponent has stated that Obama will return the country to the Paygo system; however, given the massive amount of social programs Obama wants to push through congress, there is no choice (due to paygo) but to raise taxes, which is essentially harmful to both the government and the average consumer. Furthermore, Paygo itself is empirically demonstrated to have failed when the Democrats tried to employ it last year.
i)First off, Obama has far more social programs than Clinton. Clinton was a centrist who advocated small government programs (and even cut back on some, like welfare). But Obama's massive healthcare, insurance, college, ect programs will cost FAR MORE than Clinton's ever did
ii) "Data is a lie" – My data cites the COST OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS, not tax code reform. Your source merely estimates the effective cost of TAX REFORM, not SOCIAL PROGRAMS advocated. If the cost is included, Obama's total will go far higher than McCain's.
iii)What programs will be cut? Highway maintenance? Welfare? Education budgets?
How do you offset 1.5 TRILLION dollars worth of social programs each year?
The only answer is to RAISE TAXES, as advocated by my source

Experience: The simple fact is, McCain has far more experience than Obama, and this will make him a better president. My opponent offers token arguments about Obama being in all 3 classes and being a community organizer, while McCain had been a navy captain for 13 years and a legislator for 26.
i)"lots of president had experience and failed" - Of course they all had experience, no one would elect a president with 0 experience. The fact is, there are numerous other examples to counteract this: Polk, Andrew Jackson, JFK, LBJ, Madison, Jefferson, Washington all had large amounts of experience coming into the white house. Furthermore, you have already agreed with me that experience is beneficial for a president.
ii) Democrats =/= general electorate
iii) "Obama = wide social classes" – ok, McCain was never poor, but Obama's comments about bitterness shows that he has cast away his poor background and has taken the mantle of an Ivy-league elitist.
iv) "bitter comment" – Why would poor people agree with him? He was INSULTING them, not praising them. Furthermore, I have not heard of one single historian who is in agreement with both the tone and content of Obama's comment.
v) The fact is, Obama abstained on 130 votes in the Illinois senate. As the president, you don't get the chance to abstain on anything.
Judgment: The simple fact is, Obama has not shown good judgment over his short legislative career. He has been the affiliated with figures such as Wright and Averres, and had only repudiated them after his poll numbers were dropping.
i)That still does not explain why he sat in the church for 20 years
ii)I don't see how he got rid of Middle Eastern nukes…
iii)What kind of strategy? A strategy of irresponsibility perhaps? You have proved nothing beneficial that has arisen from abstaining.
Iraq
a)"killing =/= stabilize" – We're not going around killing random people, we're killing people affiliated with Al Qaida who are intentionally destabilizing Iraq. Furthermore, your citation came from 4 months ago; furthermore, Al-Sadr could turn against us at any time, especially if American forces withdraw. There will be no counterbalance against his massive mahdi army. Secondly, it is a "truce" not a direct cession of fighting, that means fighting can erupt again soon. Even your article says the conflict could worsen the situation: " A return to hostilities could seriously jeopardize those gains."
b) Your arguments show otherwise
d) Talking brought about the Cuban Missile Crisis (see JFK in Vienna article), furthermore, it cost American missiles in Turkey to solve the situation – a strategic defeat.
e) You have proved nothing. The violence declining is due mostly in part to the surge. Because we have more boots in the ground, we can deter the Mahdi army from taking over.
f) Ok…resorting to personal attacks will not counteract the fact that we will be saving millions of lives from an Iraqi Civil War.
Policies: McCain's policies are more rational and more sound for both the economy and national security.
i)"Obama = negiotate" To what end? To destroy free trade? To raise tariffs? NAFTA is clearly beneficial to all three treaty members, and destroying it in a capricious act of populism will only worsen the current recession
ii) If you understand anything about economics, The Federal Reserve is the main actor keeping inflation down (due to interest rate adjustment/printing money). Furthermore, Paygo worked due to the fact that Clinton did not have many social programs and he actively sought to balance the budget. On the other hand, Obama has massive plans that need massive infusions of cash, which the country does not have
iii) But the current economic situation still precludes Paygo from working
iv) Then why argue?
v) "filibuster" – since u dropped this argument, you cannot guarantee solvency on any of the massive social programs.
vi) JFK first talked to Khrushchev in Vienna, which became a disaster that led Khrushchev to think the novice American president as weak, and thus he sent nukes to Cuba. Furthermore, the situation in the world is far different than the Cuban missile crisis. Back then, we were about to get nuked; however, terrorists present little threat to mainland America, and thus we have lost the urgency to negotiate.
vii) Threatening is not negotiating, negotiating ins the civil exchange of services/ideas
Other points
I + ii)Talking legitimizes the terrorists; it shows that we're weak and susceptible to attack.
iii) Talking to Hitler turned the people of Sudetenland and Rhineland over to Germany
iv) This kind of socialist mechanism will not solve the cost of his massive social programs
v)Filibuster destroys any solvency of his plans
vi) You said that it was another debate first. Murder is between two people, in this case, the fetus and the doctor
vii) look, there are plenty of institution that treat kids for free (st. Judes) we don't need a trillion dollar healthcare program to cure fatally ill kids
viii) PAYGO WON'T WORK, the federal reserve keeps the dollar low, and oil prices are controlled by OPEC

ix) Look, the fact is, the surge is working, and if we continue to pressure the terrorists, we can win. Talking, on the other hands, shows our weakness and gives them a temporary reprieve.
x) I never said anything
xi) First, I gave 3 reasons why NCLB is good, you gave one counter. 3 > 1. Perhaps your argument is correct, but the fact is, NCLB has raised the standards of education in this country, especially in poorer schools.
xii) Prove it

1)I linked it back to Paygo
2)I never conceded it, I said it was highly debatable
4)So what's the point if they're never to be released back into society?
You lose on the fact that McCain has far more experience than Obama. You lose on the fact that Negoiating with Terrorists fails due to the negative repercussions. You lose on the fact that Obama enforcing Paygo and his massive social programs will drive the Country into another great depression. You lose on the fact that half your arguments are "you are lying". You lose on the fact that you have repeated your self over and over again during this debate. You lose on the fact that Obama has less judgment than McCain. You lose on the fact that Obama clearly does not wtf he's doing.
libertarian

Con

libertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lillunchboxbandit 6 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
The only difference between us is that I am probably a lot younger than you, and you are a homosexual.
It's not a bad thing. I'm not, but I think it's ok to be that if you want to!
Posted by lillunchboxbandit 6 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
Duuuude...
Libertarian, are you my long lost brother or something?
GO OBAMA!!!
Posted by TheRaven 6 years ago
TheRaven
JFK abides by "speak softly and carry a big stick"....thus he talked but also took action....obama i fear will only speak softly and take no action.

Also libertarian, you can't tell Resident Evil he shouldn't be debating if you're going to drop all points after 3 rounds and shove in a entirely new set of ideas.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
I mean either canidate in this debate, not presidential canidates....Allow me to rephrase: Don't vote for Pro or Com...
Posted by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
I refuse to vote in this debate, because Con made semi-good points but I believed he failed here, and Pro lost my vote becuase mainly his points were all over the place but secondly, Pro considers Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can add information to regardless of fact, a real and valid source for facts...lol

I suggest folks here don't vote for either canidate.
Posted by gogott 6 years ago
gogott
I was not asking for a comparison between him and McCain, I agree that McCain is out of harmony with the Constitution. However, there is no way that Obama is anywhere near to a libertarian. He is absolutely NOT for smaller government, quite the opposite. I have no problem with your support of Obama, I was simply asking how you if you have a hard time abandoning many of your libertarian principles to do such. I would consider myself something of a hybrid between a conservative and a libertarian, so that is why I am interested.
Posted by thefinechina 6 years ago
thefinechina
I have many friends who frequently share a meal with or discuss politics with Bill Ayers, I do not think that shows a "lack of judgement." Prove to me why Obama's working on a board for an anti poverty organization (which coincidentally had Ayers on it's board) is reflective of poor judgement in Obama's character.
Posted by libertarian 6 years ago
libertarian
Actually, he is for lower taxes than John McCain. He also supports ending NCLB and standardized tests, which is bigger government. My main reason for supporting Obama is that there are very close numbers on the Supreme Court: 4 Liberals and 4 Conservatives. We need to advance the gay movement and I would like to see a black president. I do not want conservatives in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and gay rights should be advanced.
Posted by gogott 6 years ago
gogott
I have a question for libertarian: How do you endorse Obama if you are a libertarian, the two could not be farther from eachother. He is all about high taxes and big governmet, libertarians are as far from that as it gets.
Posted by Olhando 6 years ago
Olhando
Thanks guys I feel much more informed on the both!

=)
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lillunchboxbandit 6 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 sanghyunma 6 years ago
sanghyunma
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 SoutherngentFL 6 years ago
SoutherngentFL
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 TheRaven 6 years ago
TheRaven
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 CaptPicard 6 years ago
CaptPicard
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 Rboy159 6 years ago
Rboy159
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 Arnaud 6 years ago
Arnaud
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 fdg 6 years ago
fdg
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 6 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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 Battlecry 6 years ago
Battlecry
alvinthegreatlibertarianTied
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