The Instigator
lenorenomore
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
scissorhands7
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

McCain is not fit to be president.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 10/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,181 times Debate No: 5746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (11)

 

lenorenomore

Pro

Please accept my challenge, and good luck.
scissorhands7

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for her controversial debate subject, and I look forward to receiving my opponents resolution.

Since my opponent has not requested that I make a resolution, nor provided any parameters on the said debate, I will await my opponents creation of a resolution. I appreciate my opponents challenge and would like to welcome her to Debate.org

I look forward to your resolution, and I send you my respects.
Debate Round No. 1
lenorenomore

Pro

lenorenomore forfeited this round.
scissorhands7

Con

Its unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited this last round. I apologize to the readers of this debate. Since I do not have permission to create a resolution I will wait for my opponents next round in which I hope he/she will post in.
Debate Round No. 2
lenorenomore

Pro

So, first off, thanks to scissors for accepting my debate, and again for being patient and considerate as I was forced to forfeit a round due to SAT studies.

My statement is as follows: Senator John McCain is not fit to be President of the United States of America.
My opponent is against this statement, and in the next and final round will provide evidence of his own, along with rebuking my own arguments.

My first argument: VOTING FOR MCCAIN IS ASKING FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF BUSH
First, I will provide my evidence, and then explain:
"...when George W. Bush announced the deployment of five more combat brigades to Iraq. This escalation of an unpopular war ran counter to the advice of Bush's senior military leadership, ignored the recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and sidestepped the objections of the Iraqi government it was ostensibly intended to assist. But the plan was nearly identical to what the Republican senior senator from Arizona, nearly alone among his Capitol Hill colleagues, had been advocating for months: boost troop levels by at least 20,000, give coalition forces the authority to impose security in every corner of Baghdad, and increase the size of America's overburdened standing military by around 100,000 during the next five years."

"By enthusiastically endorsing McCain's approach, the lame duck president all but finished the job of anointing the senator his political successor... The sheer unpopularity of Bush's move did knock the previously front-running McCain a notch or two behind Rudy Giuliani in the polls."

Nearly all of Senator McCain's ideas, plans, and morals are identical to those of President Bush. Bush and McCain both agree we should 'stay the course', correct? Well, remember what happened last time?

"29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]"

"3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]"

"60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]"

"2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]"

"11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]"

"27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]"

"94: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2003 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]"

"1,188: Number of global terrorist incidents from January - September 11th, 2001. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]"

"5,188: Number of global terrorist incidents in from January- September 11th, 2006. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]:

"30: Percent increase in violence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. [Reuters, 10/15/07]"

"21: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2001. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]"

"139: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2006, with an additional increase of 69 percent as of November 2007. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]"

"30: Percent of Afghanistan controlled by the Afghan Government according to DNI Mike McConnell. [Associated Press, 2/27/08]"

"2,380: Days since September 11th, 2001 that Osama Bin Laden has been at-large."

Hmmm... and this is just what it has cost us metaphorically speaking. As for the actual cost:

"$50-60 Billion: Bush Administration's pre-war estimates of the cost of the war. [New York Times, 12/31/02]

$12 Billion: Direct cost per month of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

$526 Billion: Amount of money already appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. [CRS, 2/22/08]

$3 Trillion: Total estimated cost of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]

$5 Trillion - $7 Trillion: Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounting for continued military operations, growing debt and interest payments and continuing health care and counseling costs for veterans. [McClatchy, 2/27/08]

160: Percent that the cost of the Iraq War has increased from 2004 to 2008. [CRS Report, 2/22/08]"

My guess is this does not help the economy. You think McCain would learn from his friend's mistakes, but apparently not. Let's not go there again. The people of our country need help now more than ever.

"(The future senator graduated 894th out of a Naval Academy class of 899, but that was only marginally worse than his father, who was 423rd out of 441.) One reason for the poor academic performance was that each McCain was a five-star binge drinker and carouser. Grandpa "smoked, swore, drank, and gambled at every opportunity he had... John spent his teens and 20s constantly flirting with disciplinary disaster by breaking every drinking and curfew rule on the books, concentrating more on Brazilian heiresses and Florida strippers than on his aviating skills."

Graduated next to last in his class, and spent his school years partying. Hmm... Good role model for America? Maybe not. Reminiscent of a certain someone I know. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://img.metro.co.uk... . http://www.hogwild.net... . http://www.remote-dba.net... . http://blogs.guardian.co.uk... .

Additional info from:
http://www.reason.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
scissorhands7

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for her resolution and will do my best to refute her points. I also appreciate my opponents kind remarks.

My opponent starts by resolving that McCain is unfit to be the President of the United States of America.

Since she provided no definition of "fit" I will provide one for the voters.

[Definitions]

Fit - being physically and mentally able.

Since "fit" can mean a wide variety of things and is a word that depends upon your requirements, I have used this definition to avoid a lengthy discussion (that can't take place due to the lack of rounds) of what "fit" actually is.

Now onto the debate. My opponents main resolution that she is attempting to prove is that John McCain is not "fit" to be the President of the United States of America. Notice, that nowhere in her resolution does she use the word "fit to be a >>>good<<< president, or fit to be an average president. Just fit to be president.

I, as the Con, do not have to disprove this resolution. My opponent simply has to prove her resolution. Scrolling through her arguments. I notice that she has brought up this point: that in McCain's past he: "was a five-star binge drinker and carouser. Grandpa "smoked, swore, drank, and gambled at every opportunity he had... John spent his teens and 20s constantly flirting with disciplinary disaster by breaking every drinking and curfew rule on the books, concentrating more on Brazilian heiresses and Florida strippers than on his aviating skills."

However I would like to remind the voters of this debate that McCain's past does not qualify him as being unfit for president. If this would be the case, then many presidents who the US considers great, would be judged unfit for an office they excelled in.

Example: Andrew Jackson, 7th president of the United States.

"he engaged in brawls, and in a duel, killed a man who cast an unjustified slur on his wife Rachel"

However he founded the modern democratic party

Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. "The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.

Additionally he did not have a college education.

http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Therefore, a president's past conduct does not render that president unfit for presidency. (On an unrelated side note I suggest you do some research on McCain's contender's own history)

My opponents first argument has no bearing on whether John McCain is fit to be president. Had my opponent indicated that she meant fit to be defined as "doing an excellent job" then I would debate this point. However fit has never been defined to be as such. Additionally, my opponent, in this debate is attempting to compare McCain to the current president. She has simply shown McCain's views on the current War in Iraq. She has not shown how his other views are similar to Bush's nor has he shown how Bush has been an unfit president and thus in association with Bush, how McCain is also a unfit president. Nor has she shown how being a proponent of the war in Iraq makes a president unfit. There has been no factual evidence backing this claim.

Since my opponent has the burden of proof, and since she has not shown proof that McCain is unfit to be president, I politely request that voters vote Con.

I would like to thank my opponent for a lively debate, and hope all voters will post reasons for their votes so that my opponent and I can become better by learning from your observations.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Vote bombing again
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I feel I wasn't very clear in my advice on premises supporting the resolution. So I will try again.

Many debaters find it helpful to walk the reader through a step-by-step logical progression to get from their premise to their resolution. So your first argument may have been as follows:

McCain is similar to Bush because of the following...
Bush was turned out to be a poor president for the following reasons...
Because Bush turned out to be such a poor president, he is unfit for the office he holds.
Because McCain is so similar to Bush in policy, he is also unfit for the office to which he aspires.

Hope this helps.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
I have to echo JBlakes idea of welcome to debate.org! You did an excellent job and I look forward to debating you in the future :)
Posted by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
Thanks!
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
A few suggestions for Pro that she may or may not find usefull.

Structure and organization would help the reader better understand your argument. Try to find sources that are relevent to the topic. You used a number of statistics that are related to the war (and whether or not the war was a positive or negative), but they had nothing to do with the resolution you were attempting to prove (that McCain is not fit to be President).

Another weak point is the use of premises that do not support the resolution. This was more evident in your first point (McCain is too similar to Bush), which does not tie in very well with your resolution. Your second one is an example of an argument that does relate, unfortunately the link was too weak to hold together your resolution. I hope this makes sense.

Overall you have much potential. The position you chose in this debate was a difficult one to defend, so it wasn't entirely your fault. Welcome to debate.org!
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Agree with before and after debate: Con
- Regardless of whether I agree with his policy or not, I have yet to see a reason why McCain would not be fit to be president.

Conduct: Con
- Both sides were very courteous. As a rule, if someone forfeits a round I award this point to their opponent. In this case, Con went above and beyond and deserves this point regardless of the fact that Pro forfeited a round. (How did your SAT go, by the way?)

Spelling/Grammar: Con
- There were no major spelling or grammar mistakes for either side. Con displayed a greater skill in grammatical prowess.

Convincing arguments: Con
- Con successfully refuted Pro's claim that success in school and a blemish-free past record are required for a person to be fit to be elected president. Pro's main argument (that McCain would be another four years of Bush) may be valid, but is not relevent to the question of fitness.

Sources: Con
- Con used less sources, but his sources were more relevent and easier to understand where it fits into his argument.
Posted by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
Sola, thanks for explaining your vote. Any tips for me?
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Sola, could you tell me where I was crude so I don't do it in the future? I'm not meaning to argue this point at all, just trying to pick up pointers.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Josh get off this website
Posted by antisemantic 8 years ago
antisemantic
I see "some" do not feel the same. I am very sorry lenorenomore that you have wasted your time on this debate. There are "some" here at debate.org that care more about a "win ratio then actually debates.
Maybe next time you will get a chance to debate someone with more class. I am pulling for you though, you won in my view.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Numquam 8 years ago
Numquam
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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 johnnyrockit 8 years ago
johnnyrockit
lenorenomorescissorhands7Tied
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