The Instigator
Labrat228
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
jurist24
Con (against)
Winning
87 Points

McCain is more a more suitable president than Barrack

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 8/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,532 times Debate No: 4936
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (25)

 

Labrat228

Pro

Lets review the issues please

Abortion:
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

The economy:
Barack Obama plans on saving the government $150 billion by eliminating tax cuts for people who don't need them. He rejects a free market vision of government, and believes that Bush's economic policies are not working.

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

Healthcare:
Barack Obama supports end-of-life self-medication, but opposes euthanasia. He believes he can take on insurance companies to drive down health care costs.

AIDS - Barack Obama supports condom distribution to deal with AIDS, believes that homophobia prevents people from talking about HIV/AIDS, and would increase funding for AIDS treatment and prevention.

Universal Coverage - Barack Obama would turn no one away with illness or a pre-existing condition. His definition of Universal Health Care is anyone who wants it can get it. He supports mandating that kids have insurance, but not for adults. Obama supported single-payer, but has denied it. He says we need political will to accomplish universal coverage, and does not believe that the market alone can solve our problems. He believes that health care is a right, not a privilege.

Homeland Security:
Barack Obama would pursue a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. He believes that Al Qaeda is stronger now than in 2001 because Iraq distracted us. He opposes presidential power for secret surveillance, would not hold US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants and would extend habeas corpus for Muslims abroad and for detainees. He sees no exceptions or loopholes in sanctioning torture, and would close Guantanamo. He does not equate going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan as a Bush-style invasion.

National Service - Barack Obama would expand the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 and register women for the draft (albeit in non-combat roles).

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on creating habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

War:
Barack Obama believes that the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism, undermined our security, distracted us from a host of global threats, that we live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions, that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder, and that Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda, 9/11 or WMD. He believes that the Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start, that the surge is not working toward enduring peace (because it has ignored political issues), and wants to get our troops out by the end of 2009. He would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war.

Trouble Spots - Barack Obama would strike Al Qaeda in northwest Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence, and would meet directly with the leadership of Iran. He believes that we are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave, and that Al Qaeda is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)

Values:
Barack Obama is ranked the most liberal in the US Senate based on 99 votes and believes that the Clinton years were undeniably better than the Bush years. He says he reveres the American flag and that he does not refuse to wear flag pins, even though he did refuse to wear one.

Racism & Race - Rev. Wright and flag pins re distractions from real issues. (Apr 2008)

Religion - Barack Obama said that in hard times, people take refuge in traditions, God and guns. Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ helped bring him to Christianity. TUCC teaches "Black Liberation Theology.' His exposure to Islam taught him that Muslims can partner with us. He was raised secular, except when he was enrolled in Muslim and Catholic schools and claims a working knowledge of world religion. He says he is a big believer in the separation of church and state. He thinks a big mistake was intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

Barack Hussein Obama has 4 years political experience if you count a single speech. If you don't count the speech he has 2 years political experience. He is unqualified, unreliable, and Obviously against the founding values of the United States Of America. Thanks for reading my argument.
jurist24

Con

Pro's thesis is "McCain is more a more suitable president that Barrack." At first gloss, this sentence makes no sense, given that neither of the two either is or has been President of the United States. I will therefore argue against the more likely thesis he is stating: McCain is a more suitable candidate to fill the office of the Presidency.

I will begin by negating my opponent's argument.

My opponent lists myriad facts. Even though they are without cites, I will accept the facts as true. However, my opponent offers no arguments in regard to those facts. He apparently feels that the facts speak for themselves. He also makes known the stances of the candidates on certain positions. Again, though, there is no explanation in regard to why McCain's stances would be better than Obama's. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my opponent that debate involves logic and reason; a string of facts, without any explanation as to why those facts support your thesis, cannot withstand logical critique.

My opponent also assumes that the label "liberal" is necessarily a reflection of a character flaw. Absent that assumption, his statement that Obama is the most liberal in the US Senate (again, accepted as true, but without citations) renders no substance in favor of his argument. Again, though, my opponent has offered no support for his unstated contention that a "liberal" is less suitable for the office of the executive than someone not labeled a "liberal."

My opponent's last paragraph addresses the experience of Senator Obama. I will again accept these facts as true. My opponent notes that Obama has only 4 years of political experience, counting 1 speech. However, my opponent makes no argument that political experience is a necessary component to be a suitable executive. Furthermore, he makes no argument in regard to how much political experience would be required to satisfy this standard, either qualitatively or quantitatively.

My opponent also states, without argument, that Obama is "unqualified, unreliable, and Obviously against the founding values of the United States Of America." However, he has made no showing of that Obama possesses any of those three characteristics, nor has he stated what exactly those "founding values" are.

I have negated my opponent's argument. This essentially means that my opponent has thus offered no argument supporting his thesis. I will reserve my attack on Pro's thesis for Round Two.
Debate Round No. 1
Labrat228

Pro

My opponent has wasted a full round on assumptions. I agree however i didn't say where i got my information, i apologize, this is my first debate.

You can find all of the voting records i stated on http://www.senate.gov...
there are my cites for all of the voting records stated.

The 2 major founding values of the USA are Freedom, The belief that all men are created equal, and they should be treated this way.

I do feel that the voting records speak for themselves.

I will now go over why they speak for themselves.
I will sum up the voting records and provide the outcome.

He is for abortion.
Voted that an unborn child is not eligible for human rights. (Mar 08)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 06)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 07)

Let me take you back to 6th grade. Every living organism requires Water, Nutrients, and an environment that is suitable for life.

From the time the egg is fertilized it takes nutrients, and water to produce the baby. it also provides an environment which is perfect for life. Therefore their is life from the point of fertilization. All humans have human rights, so does the unborn baby. Barrack is for abortion, which also means he supports that the unborn baby is less than equal. Therefore this position he so strongly protects is against the foundational values of the USA.

How about homeland security?
Barack Obama believes that the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism, undermined our security, distracted us from a host of global threats, that we live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions, that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder, and that Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda, 9/11 or WMD. He believes that the Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start, that the surge is not working toward enduring peace (because it has ignored political issues), and wants to get our troops out by the end of 2009. He would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. He stated while he was in Iraq that the surge has worked, then he stated that if he could go back in time he still wouldn't had voted for it.

and can i ask u a direct question jurist24?
How is it appropriate that a man running for President of the United States of America would refuse to wear a flag pen for our country. he also refused to say the pledge, how is that appropriate?
Thanks for reading my argument
and thank you jurist24 for your debate :)

Ill close with a short statement.

Tamika McFaden Harris was murdered shielding her daughter by gang gunfire.
Chicago sun times 11/18/01

Mike boyd was killed at the age of 15, beaten with bricks by a gang
Chicago sun times 11/30/01

Severo Enriques was killed at the age of 14, shot 5 times in the back by a gang. Chicago sun times 1/17/01

They all died in 2001
in chicago
the sun times called it "urban terrorism" (11/23/01) and demanded action against gang violents. But that same year Chicago senator barack obama voted against expanding the death penalty for gang murders. When the time came to be tough, he chose to be weak. Can a man so weak on the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror? Thanks
jurist24

Con

I hope you've had a good weekend, Labrat228. I will now respectfully resume:

In response to Pro's contention that I wasted a full round on assumptions, I can only say that such was necessary because Pro's R1 statement was simply an enumeration of facts, unsupported by logical analysis. Failing to link facts to rationale renders no support for Pro's thesis.

I will not challenge Pro's statement that "The 2 major founding values of the USA are Freedom, The belief that all men are created equal, and they should be treated this way." However, I see that as three different values. Pro's statement here lacks any citations, but I will assume that he derived this concept from the Declaration of Independence.

Pro's first basic contention is that McCain is a more suitable candidate for President than Obama because Obama supports abortion. First, it seems to me that this is a policy choice to be made by a legislature, not by the executive; the executive carries out the laws given by Congress and presented to the executive. Secondly, there is no federal statute declaring the point at which life begins. If there was, Pro's contention may be lent support by the notion that the executive's position would be adverse to the rule of law; but, such is not the case. Third, Pro makes a leap in logic by beginning with the contention that organisms require certain things, and that such requirements indicate life. He then jumps to the conclusion that humans are due certain rights. The question left unanswered then is whether organisms require certain rights. Pro did not address this.

Pro then claims that he is listing the positions of Obama concerning homeland security. However, none of the positions delineated concern domestic policy. Rather, the statements made by Pro concern international relations. Homeland security is a survey of the topic of domestic policy and investigation, emergency preparedness and defense generally. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Secondly, this is just another enumeration of facts. Contrary to Pro's belief, facts do not speak for themselves. If one is of a certain bent of mind, this may be true. However, in a debate between two presumably neutral positions, to a presumably neutral audience, all facts must be supported by reason to support a these concerning policy or preference.

Pro then poses a direct query in regard to Obama's alleged refusal to wear a flag pin or recite the pledge. In regard to the pin, it seems that Obama does not agree with the philosophy of wearing one's politics on his or her sleeve (or, in this case, the lapel). () This is actually reasonable, given that most people hold the belief that a candidate's positions and ideas should be given more weight than their looks, their name, or any other number of arguably superficial characteristics. Indeed, do we really want a President who "displays" patriotism by wearing a pin and then undermining the rule of law?

In regard to the allegation that Obama refused to say the pledge, I have two comments. First, Pro offered no citation showing that Obama blatantly refused to say the pledge. Rather, it is my understanding that Obama perhaps was simply not aware of his surroundings, had a slip of the mind, or just made a mistake. (http://www.snopes.com...) Everybody makes mistakes: it's part of being human. John McCain makes mistakes as well. () Secondly, I fail to see why a person running for President would flatly REFUSE to say the pledge. Doing so would greatly undermine their chances of being elected. This just does not make sense.

Finally, Pro contends that Obama was not tough on crime, and so he could not be trusted to aggressively pursue the war on terror. Pro fails to make a logical connection between the death penalty being imposed for gang killings and an aggressive pursuit of the war on terror. Furthermore, the death penalty is always an option for murder in the state of Illinois. (http://deadlinethemovie.com...) It would therefore be unnecessary to establish a second death penalty for gang killings. Such may also run afoul of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Imposing a criminal sentence different from what may ordinarily be imposed simply because of a person's social affiliation would face a serious constitutional challenge.

Having answered my opponent's arguments, I now make my attack on my opponent's thesis: that Sen. McCain is a more suitable candidate for the office of the executive than Sen. Obama.

I first want to note that both men are well qualified for the position. McCain has many years of political experience and understands the logistics and functions of the military. Similarly, Obama does have some political experience (albeit some of it in state government), and is well versed in constitutional law. (http://www.law.uchicago.edu...) However, suitability is a matter of "fit": which candidate would most fit the demands imposed by the office of the President?

I want to take a moment just to note that Pro never made any contentions in regard to Sen. McCain's suitability for President. Rather, he simply attacked Sen. Obama. Conversely, though, I will attack Sen. McCain's suitability and argue in favor of Obama's.

Sen. McCain has a bit of a "short fuse." (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) The office of the Presidency often requires an individual with a cool head. JFK confronted a situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis that may have led a person with a more aggressive personality into an all-out war with the USSR. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) However, JFK simply stood firm, and the Cubans backed down. The commander of the most potent military force in the world should be wary of how that power is used. Such power should not be used without great need, because it endangers many, is a large financial expense, and sometimes leads to long-term commitments that compound the previous two considerations. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Secondly, Sen. McCain, admittedly like Sen. Obama, has no executive experience. This consideration cannot be used in favor of Sen. McCain; it contributes nothing to his suitability.

Sen. Obama is intimately familiar with the workings of government. As mentioned previously, he was a professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years at Chicago Law School, which is very elite. (http://www.top-law-schools.com...) Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard law school called Obama "the best student [he] ever had." Tribe is considered to be one of the preeminent constitutional law scholars. Obama's demonstrated familiar with concepts such as federalism, separation of powers, equal protection, due process, and the myriad other aspects of constitutional significance show that note only does he understand the responsibilities of the office of the executive, but also the importance of the other branches. McCain has no demonstrated knowledge of such topics.

In closing, I would like to remind the audience that:
- Pro listed only one citation
- Pro mostly listed facts without connecting any rationale to those facts
- Pro posed no facts or rationales concerning Sen. McCain's suitability
- I responded to all of Pro's contentions with fair facts and analysis
- I examined both the aspects of McCain and Obama
- I provided citations where necessary
- This is the first debate for both of us

Thanks, Labrat228 for the debate. Have a great week!
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dan1 7 years ago
dan1
Barrack Obama, when is a human considered alive. "That's above my pay grade"
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Thanks for the debate Jurist24, and a nice week to you as well :)
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
Lol ive never seen Labrat win. All the things i read of his sounds like something George W. Bush would say.
Posted by Karoz 8 years ago
Karoz
Seems like most of the stuff Labrat228 said about Barack Obama is good. So I'm rather confused.
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
I failed to provide a citation for Professor Tribe's quote concerning Senator Obama's performance as a student at CLS.
http://www.cmonitor.com...

My apologies.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
For a liberal such as yourself, yes.
Posted by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
Labrat, a lot of the facts you're posting about Obama are a case FOR voting for him.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DeadLeaves93 8 years ago
DeadLeaves93
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DrumBum1234 8 years ago
DrumBum1234
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jess_ily 8 years ago
jess_ily
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EnLi 8 years ago
EnLi
Labrat228jurist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06