The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Mitt Romney Has a Good Chance of Winning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,181 times Debate No: 24770
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




My Argument

Mitt Romney has a good chance of winning the general election against President Obama and all the third party candidates who have a bad chance of winning.

My opponent must argue why he has a bad chance of winning and that Obama has a better chance to.

Round 1 is just for acceptance.

No semantics!


As mentioned in the comments, I will take this debate, on the Con position that Mitt Romney has a less than 50% chance of winning the Presidential election.

Round one is for acceptance, so I await Pros first argument.

May the Force be with you.
Debate Round No. 1


My Arguments

Obama's Weaknesses

President Barack Obama has many weaknesses from his presidency. Let's look at all of them.

1. The Economy - For most voters, the economy of the last four years has been the worst in their lifetimes. The economy is stagnant and it is unclear if it will get better or worse. Obama wants to avoid the economy as part of his campaign because Mitt Romney is focusing mainly on it. Romney wants to convince the voters that the economy is terrible and that his talent in business can help save the economy. If Obama were to focus on the economy he would have to argue against Romney and that would be more difficult [1].

2. His Failed Presidency - Much of Obama's liberal agenda (cap and trade, tax increases on the rich, etc.) was proposed, but failed to pass. This disappointed voters on the left while alienating voters on the right [1].

3. Obamacare - President Obama's most important acheivement has went down as incredibly unpopular (currently the latest Rasmussen poll shows 52% favor its repeal and 42% oppose it). It was upheld as constitutional, but mainly because it is a tax [1,2].

4. Its Not 2008 - The eloquence and novelty that gave Obama his win in 2008 has largely been sapped by time [1].

Romney's Strengths

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has many strengths to take on Obama's weaknesses.

1. The Economy - Realizing the economy is likely the most important issue to the voters, Romney has focused his campaign there rather than anything else. Romney also has a long career in business which help people get attracted to him and know that he can fix the economy [1].

2. He Looks Like A President - Romney looks and sounds like a president. He seems well aware of all issues. Off course Obama looks presidencial (he is the president) so the important thing is that Romney looks presidential enough to take Obama on [1].

3. A Well-Organized Campaign - Its obvious that Obama will have a good campaign, so the important thing for the opponent is that he has an important one take on the president. Romney does have a good and experienced campaign [1].

4. A Good Debater - Understanding the importance of debates, Romney is experienced in debating others. The last time Obama debated with anyone was four years ago, thus he is not as experienced in debating as Romney [1].

5. He is a Mormon - While Obama will likely have the black community at his back, Romney will have the Mormon one, this will help him in western swing states [1].

The Polls

The current poll average shows Romney winning with a slight lead. This poll average is by Elephant Watcher, the most reliable website to predict the election. Unlike Intrade which looks at the Real Clear Politics poll average, Elephant Watcher is more accurate. RCP does not understand the difference between registered voters polls and likely voters polls [10].

Likely voters polls ask voters if they intend to vote, but also ask other questions to determine if they are likely to turn out. Registered voters polls do not. This means that registered voters polls are inaccurate. They sometimes give one candidate an unfair advantage because a certain amount of their voters may not turn out. Eventually, all pollsters will abandon the registered voters polls and switch to likely voters polls to make their polls more accurate. This is true. As examples look at the 2004 presidential election. Early it looked like a zig-zag race, but eventually as they went to likely voters polls, Bush gained a clear lead. The same can be said for 2008 [4,5,6].

To fix this error, Elephant Watcher has given Romney an extra 3 percentage points in any registered voters polls (for example if the poll was Obama 48 and Romney 46, Romney will get an extra 3 percentage points making it Obama 48 and Romney 49) [3].


It is expected for Romney to do good in the debates because Obama has not debated since 2008 against the Republican candidate John McCain and the other Democratic candidates who tried to get the nomination from him. Let's look at some recent debates.

1980 - Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the debates and he won by 9 percentage points. Before the debate, Carter was leading. They were decisive in the election [7,8].

1984 - Walter Mondale defeated Reagan in the debates, but he lost by 18 percentage points. The debates apparently had no impact [7,8].

1988 - George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis really debated to a draw. Dukakis made a series gaffe in one. The debates may have extended Bush's lead and he won by 7 percentage points [7,8].

1992 - Bill Clinton defeated Incumbent George H.W. Bush in the debates. Third party candidate Ross Perot also did well in the debates, but not as good as Clinton. Clinton won by 5.5 percentage points over Bush. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular votes. The debates had a huge impact and likely handed Clinton the victory [7,8].

1996 - Bill Clinton defeated challenger Bob Dole in the debates. The debates probably did nothing, but extended Clinton's victory [7,8].

2000 - George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in the debates (particularly the "town hall" debate, in which Gore exhibited bizarre behavior), and won the election despite losing the popular vote by half a point. Before the debates, Gore was ahead and after them Bush was ahead [7,8].

2004 - John Kerry defeated Bush in the first debate. Kerry was trailing by around 10 percentage points before the debate and after them he lost by 3.5 points in the election. Bush may have recovered in the second and third debates, but Kerry gained a huge advantage by winning the first one [7,8].

2008 - Obama defeated McCain in the debates and won the election by 7 percentage points. The debates extended Obama's lead [7,8].

This shows that incumbents have done a bad job at debates and the only exception is Bill Clinton against Bob Dole. With the race so close, Obama might lose the debate and give Romney the edge. Evidence is on my side.

These are my arguments to why Romney has over a 50% chance of winning. The Elephant Watcher average has Romney winning with a 62% chance to win vs. Obama's 38% chance to win [9].



I will start by reversing Pros order, as this debate is about Mitt Romney specifically, and I feel that President Obama should not be a primary argument. I will discuss Mr. Obama briefly at the end.

Romney's Strengths and Weaknesses

1. The Economy. Although Pro does correctly point out that under the incumbent, the economy has been largely stagnant, Mr. Romney's handling of his most relevant skill set seem to have been inept at best. He has allowed his opponent to set the narrative on his tenure at Bain Capitol, and has further managed to directly contradict his own SEC filings from the relevant period, stating that he did nothing as a $100,000 dollar per year as Chairman/ CEO/ majority shareholder. After that, the best attempt at spin was to have surrogates argue that Mr. Romney had “retroactively retired” from his corporation. [1.1] [1.2] In light of his noted difficulties with seeming out of touch and elitist, this is one of those horrible explanations that is useless even if true.

2. He Looks Like A President- This, I am sorry to say seems to be a rather silly argument. Pro himself had admitted that Obama also looks presidential, which at most leaves Mr. Romney completely neutral. More likely, being able to use the paraphernalia of the office would cause Mr. Obama to have a slight edge here. (At this point, I also feel I should express my disappointment with Pro's arguments in general, in that they are a direct paste from his source Unless 1Historygenius is the author of Elephant Watcher, I will have to ask that he at least use proper quotes if he wont reword his arguments).

3. A Well-Organized Campaign- This argument I simply disagree with, as those of us who kept up with last years season of “Survivor: GOP” [ 3.1] videos [3.2], [3.3] can readily attest, Mr. Romney was the de facto No. Two for nearly the entire season, and only was able to clinch the GOP nomination after the other candidate had spectacularly gone down in flames. That strategy will not work against an incumbent most notable for being as unflappable as a Vulcan [3.4] [3.5] as Mr. Romney has stumbled badly every month for the entire past year. In fact, at this time of this writing he is currently in the process of turning a non issue of previous tax returns into an arson attack on his own image. Now I will admit easily enough that Mr. Romney has a well financed and professional campaign, but it also unfortunately has Mr Romney.

4. A Good Debater- Pro is correct that Mr. Romney is probably as good a debater as Mr. Obama, in a general sense. However his generally stiff appearance, coupled with truly epic policy reversals may stand strongly against him in any particular debate that his opponent doesn't pratfall or fall asleep in the middle of. Given the fact that Mr. Obama is likely to have several practice debate to sharpen his skills, that is unlikely. Also, Pros discussion of past debates seems to be irrelevant, as like dice, debates have no 'memory'. It is possible for a dramatic moment in a debate to influence the campaign, but it may had no affect at all.

5. He is a Mormon - This could have... an affect. What affect this will be is completely unknown. I feel that as preferable a country that has simply no concern about about Mr. Romney s Mormonism or Mr. Obama' s race would be, that is not the country that will be going to the polls in November. Further, it is likely that a significant fraction of voters that an Evangelical GOP candidate could rely on to vote against Obama' s color, will have a problem voting for Romney's religion[5.1] [5.2]. My opinion on this is that its too close to call.

6. About the Polls: Pros statement that his primary source, Elephant Watcher is “the most reliable website to predict the election” is a statement staggeringly at odds with the site itself. Firstly, the site is not a polling site, it is a political blog- and one with a clear slant starting in the title itself. Second it has no list of methodology any where. Third and last, it is mathematically false- as one of Pros own references [6.1] makes clear and this page [6.2] makes embarrassingly obvious (was that supposed to be a polling chart or a modern interpretation of the French Flag?).

7. As I said I will provide one paragraph in rely to Pro's subject of “Obama’s Weaknesses”. The first three arguments are essentially the same, which can be titled from the second one, “His Failed Presidency”. Those arguments are essentially false, although I freely confess that I wish he had done more myself. As President, Mr. Obama was subject to an insurgency by the Congressional GOP, and was hamstrung in every project he attempted. Nevertheless, he has several accomplishments he can point to- ranging from rescuing the automotive industry to killing Bin Laden. Most directly, he can claim accurately that the health care plan is better named ObamNEYCare [7.1] [7.2], as the only difference in Mr. Romney plan is to actually include penalties for the hated mandate. Also Pros reference for the plans unpopularity actually show it to be statistically tied.














Debate Round No. 2


My Refutations

1. The Economy -
It seems the people know that Bain Capitol is not the main issue in the economy. In fact, Obama's attacks on Bain have not done much and no one has gained. The first time Obama launched the ads he received attacks from some prominent Democrats. These attacks might backfire again. My first video explains this (note: this is only explained in the opener). Furthermore, Romney still holds a small lead in the latest Rasmussen polls. There has also been a drop in Obama's job approval. 44% now disapprove of his handeling of the economy while 39% approve. That is down 5 points from April. For the first time since January, more voters now think the economy is getting worse. No doubt this will decline Obama's popularity. Finally, my opponent points out the wealth of Romney. However, this fails because several presidents have been wealthy and were still elected by the people. George Washington is still one of the most wealthy presidents in our country's history. So to was John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. These presidents have all been elected, no matter their wealth [1,2]. So Romney gains over a 50% advantage in the economy.

2. He Looks Presidential - It is true that both Obama and Romney seem presidential, but that means that for Romney, he does not have the disadvantage from not being presidential. Romney seems well aware of the issues and intelligent. Other candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry did not have such advantage in the race for nomination (Bachmann was seen by the liberal media as a laughing stock and Perry made serious gaffes in the debates). Romney has not done as much so he does not have a disadvantage here. Thus, Obama does not gain an over 50% advantage in the election in terms of being presidential.

3. A Well-Organized Campaign - First off, my opponent's first argument is that Romney does not have a good campaign because he was always at second place in the campaign, yet he battled 10 other candidates (Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Paul, Johnson, Pawlenty, Santorum, Gingrich, Roemer) to get that second spot early in the race and that is a feat right there. The main reason many of these candidates blew up was that they were not as good as Romney in the debates. He significantly defeated Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum mainly at the debates. So Romney is a good candidate. Also, the point of this argument is just the campaign itself and how organized and funded it is. Both of us cannot deny that both Obama's and Romney's campaign are organized and funded well. So no one gains over 50% from this.

4. A Good Debater - There will be no doubt that there will be some time put into Romney's policies during the debates. However, the most significant "weakness" of Romney's policies is supposedly Romneycare and that it is the "same" as Obamacare. This is false. There are several differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. So much for "policy reversals." Then my opponent goes on to say that Obama will be prepped before the debates, yet there is where that list of past debates comes in. I am sure every incumbent has been prepped in the debates, yet the only incumbent to win one was Bill Clinton against Bob Dole. Incumbents do bad because the last time they really had a debate was when they debated against their opponent in the debate for them to be elected. Obama and past incumbents have not really debated since that and are thus at a disadvantage. Romney has over a 50% advantage in the debates.
5. He is a Mormon - My opponent has somewhat conceded that it is too close to call in terms of religion and race. The reason why Romney has an advantage here is because the people in his religion will vote for him. Blacks largely voted for Obama in 2008, yet they may less after seeing his dissapointing presidency. Thus Romney gets the large Mormon vote and more black votes. Romney has over a 50% advantage here.

6. The Polls - My opponent's first argument is simply the name of the website. Yet the reason why it is called Elephant Watcher is because of the 2012 race for nomination. It followed the Republican nomination which is why it is called Elephant Watcher. There was no real race for nomination for the Democrats, so it made sense to follow the Republican race only, thus it got its name Elephant Watcher. Furthermore, it was correct in predicting the 2008 race for nomination as Romney one. There calculations predicted Romney would win. My opponent then states that it is mathematically false. This is wrong. First off, the race has just started and Romney seems to have the advantage, thus it makes sense that Romney is winning in the calculations. The calculations simply represent that Romney will likely win the race as of now, it does recalculate. Elephant Watcher predicts past the polls. Finally, all my opponent did was attack my source rather than the facts that the polls and Real Clear Politics average is simply wrong. I can bring up more sources, showing that the current poll average includes a lot of registered voters polls and that the most accurate are likely voters polls and thus the average at RCP is inaccurate and the one at Elephant Watcher is more accurate [4,5,6].

7. Obama's Weaknesses - First off, my opponent states that my arguments are essentially false. Let's look at them. The first was on the economy. I have stated already that many people may find this economy at the worst state in their lives and I can prove it from the previous sources I have provided. My opponent then admits that he wished Obama had done more. This actually helps my argument that people on the left were dissapointed while people on the right were alienated. I am personally on the right and I feel alienated by Obama's agenda. So there is the second argument. Thirdly, I have state that Obamacare has done down as incredily unpopular and I have proved this through the Rasmussen polls, but in fact the grand majority of polls show that Obamacare is tremendously unpopular. Never has Obamacare gained a lead or a huge lead in the majority of the polls, it is obvious that most people are against it [1,7,8].




I have been having some problems with the input for the website, so first I will apologize for the huge and bold font in my previous reply. Hopefully I'll have it ironed out by the time I post this...
As I peruse Pros discussion, I am surprised that my opponent seems to be replying to arguments remarkably similar to my points, but is missing what I am actually saying. Did I communicate badly? I'll try to clarify while rebutting him.

To start at number 1, The economy has been sputtering along since 2008, without any improvements. This is certainly Mr. Obamas biggest hurdle and no one, myself included, is saying any different. The problem Mr. Romney has with Bain Capitol is the basic story: a predatory company that purchases other companies, actively looting them of all the liquid cash it can, and dumping the carcass to the ruination of stockholders, employees and consumers. The behavior of Bain appears to be precisely the same that cause the 2008 Recession, and Mr. Romney has – as described by the talking heads on both left and the right [1.1] [1.2]- created a tragicomedy in failing to distance himself from that behavior. Was he out of Bain at the end of the 1990's, as he claimed recently in his campaign? Was he the managing director in the 2000's, as his own SEC forms indicate? How could he have those important sounding titles and a $100,000 a year salary if he was doing 'nothing' at Bain? [1.4] And I seriously must know, what the hell is the public supposed to make out of the claim that Mr. Romney “retroactively retired”? [1.5] Trust me, I don't know of anybody who has a problem merely with Mr. Romney's wealth, this being America and all. The great difficulty is that Mr. Romney has a serious trust issue that he himself is not solving.


Point 2. The Presidential “Look”. My opponents first sentence doesn't make sense. The meaning that comes out is that both candidates are equally presidential, so Mr Romney doesn't lose by not being presidential (obviously because he is presidential). OK, Mr. Romney is photogenic. So is Mr. Obama. So is this guy [2.0]. So was Kerry, Dole, Gore- and every other failed candidate since Richard Nixon lost a debate with JFK mostly due to 5 o'clock shadow [2.1] . Pros next sentence may also be more on point than he realizes- “Romney has not done as much so he does not have a disadvantage here” taken literary is a hilarious confirmation of my economic argument as well as being unflattering to his case generally. Merely avoiding the spectacular implosions his opponents indulged in is hardly sufficient to be statesmanlike.
But again, as far as “being Presidential” is concerned, let us not forget that the also intelligent, aware and experienced Barack Obama gets to be seen leaving Air Force One, address the nation from the Oval Office, speak from a podium with the Seal of the Executive Office on the front, ans so forth. Simply put, Mr Obama IS the President, while Mr. Romney WANTS to be. The advantage here is always with the incumbent, and leaves Mitt falling short of his 50%.


Point 3. A Well Organized Campaign. My opponent in his reply sates that “Both of us cannot deny that both Obama's and Romney's campaign[s] are organized and funded well. So no one gains over 50% from this.” Without further discussion of Mr. Romney's foot in mouth disease, I will agree with Pro, and claim my laurel for this point, as Pro's burden is to show the positive argument that Mr. Romney has a more than 50% probability.
Point 4. Good Debater. As far as policy issues, Mr. Romney has continuously flipped like a flounder flavored waffle on abortion, health care, immigration, et cetera [4.1] [4.2 (McCains 2008 anti Romny handbook =SCORE!)], and Mr Obama (who has no equivalent explanatory burden on the issues) will almost certainly hammer Romney hard.
- With the exception of his 'evolving' position on gay marriage, where Obama is gaining the vote of some relevant LBGT, liberal and progressive citizens. Mr. Obama is also not losing many additional votes from the alternative block, so that trend will favor him.
Point 4a, the debating history. Again, Carter vs Reagan 1979, Bush vs Dukakis 1988, Stewart vs. Lincoln 1856, or even Thag vs Og 3500 B.C.E. will have no affect on Obama vs. Romney 2012 except for providing instructive examples to maybe plan strategy.
Point 5. He a a Morman. It remains likely that many of the more fundamentalist Christians may elect to remain home rather than chose between two “ungodly” alternatives. As far as the minority vote, I don't see significant shifting, even among very conservative minority voters. [5.2] [5.3] Escpecially after this [5.4]

Point 6. The Polls. Here Pro does not notice that my argument only began with the name of a website that continuously slants its prose, that has no methodological systemics anywhere (what exactly is the justification for giving Mitt 3 additional points, instead of say 5 or -1?), and in fact IS mathematically false in that it derives these results [6.1]in the sidebar: Romney 62% chance to win vs. Obama's 38% from this charwhose actual average is 46.5% each.
Also the site pretends that this picture is actually represents some sort of polling for the last six months. Seriously, This picture [6.1].
For a quick comparison of an objective and reliable site I recommend the 538 blog [6.2].

Point 7. Obamas Weaknesses. My opponent again says that the economy is Obama's most difficult issue, and that he can prove it. I have already stipulated, I agree with the point. However, Pro has stated that (his first two arguments) the economy and the lack of success of many of his projects makes Obama a “Failed Presidency”. This argument ignores both those parts of the Obama Administration that were successful[7.1] , and the sad fact that most if not all of the failures in the last half a decade stem from the stubborn resistance of the GOP in Congress. [7.3]
Point 7a Health care. This topic is not directly on the topic, and dangerously close to needing a separate forum. I will quickly point out several sources concerning how the two systems are functionally the same [7.4] [7.5]. Also I show that each component of the package is more popular when it is explained[7.8]. We may need to put this into a new debate.

Debate Round No. 3


I understand that my opponent is having some issues with If he wishes to, I can help him later after this debate.

The Economy - Both me and my opponent agree that Obama's main weakness is the economy, which is the main issue of the election. The voters will likely agree that because the economy is getting worse, it woulde better to support Romney due to this business expertise. Now my opponent says that there has been some concern with Romney and Bain. I will clear up the main issues:

1. Romney said, "we're only a small part of it by the way," this is true. Bain Capitol is not the main reason a company went under or succeeded. As examples look at Staples, Domino's Pizza, and Sports Authority. Romney helped these companies, but so did others [1].

2. Romney is a very succesful businessman. About 80% of the companies Bain Capitol invested in were succesful under Romney's watch. He usually took less than 10% home with him of profits and decided to spread it out around the company to keep morale high among workers. His worker became loyal of him because he was seen as a fair manager [2,3].

3. Another attack from the Obama campaign is that rich businessmen largely profitted from Bain. This is false, as the main people to profit were the investors in the fund which is general in most private equities [2].

4. A fourth attack is that Romney outsourced jobs while at Bain Capitol. This is incredibly ludicrous. Many members of the firm agree that Romney left in 1999 to work full-time for the Winter Olympics in 2002. Romney was still held the title of CEO, but his responsibilities were shifted to other managers. However, Romney's name was still put in since he was still a CEO on paper [2,4]. For more look at the video with FOX Analyst Juan Williams and Former Governor John Snunu debating.

5. Another argument is that Romney deliberately killed companies to make a profit. Two most known are a steel company in Kansas City and a paper plant in Marion. However, this was mainly because of other issues and it was not Romney's fault. These companies were owned by GS Technologies and AMPAD which both closed the two companies. Then the steel company went out, Romney had left Bain to host the Olympics for example.

Romney has over a 50% advantage.

Looking Presidential - Starting from the bottom of my opponent's arguments. We must remember that Obama WANTED to be president in 2008, but that did not stop him from looking presidential. Also, President Obama has made gaffes during his presidency and before that while he was campaigning. Are gaffes presidential? No. However, presidents and presidential candidates make them. The same can be said for George W. Bush. He made numerous gaffes that the Liberal media made fun of, yet he still seemed presidential. Everyone makes mistakes. I have put up two examples of Obama's gaffes. The second one is generally several mistakes during his run, the third is a controversial statement he made during a speech. The fourth video is Romney's response. Both candidates are equal by 50%.

A Well Organized Campaign - My opponent and I both agree that both Romney and Obama have well funded and organized campaigns. My final statement here is yes candidates make mistakes, but it is unlikely that it will stop funding and cause volunteers to leave. Both candidates are equal by 50%.

A Good Debater - Looking at past debates is necessarry because it shows that incumbents usually do bad at the debates. Obama is an incumbent and the last time he debated was four years ago. He was not as a debater in the Democratic Race for nomination as he was when debating John McCain. Romney has dealt with his issues in policy changes during the debates during the race for nomination. He has experienced from the recent debates while Obama has not debated since when he ran for the presidency. He has lost most of his experience from the debates [4,5]. Advantange Romney.

Mormonism - Conservative Fundamentalist Christians may see Romney as a lesser of two evils. Some blacks who voted for Obama might vote for Romney after seeing Romney's presidency? Romney also has the advantage of picking a VP candidate that will help him get votes. Advantage Romney.

The Polls - My opponent has still not understood the difference between registered voters polls and likely voters polls. Registered voters polls tend to be inaccurate and give the Democrats more points. Usually Republicans turn out more than Democrats in election, thus it make sense to give Romney slightly more points than Obama. Elephant Watcher does NOT calculate the election based on polls. It even says so above the rankings, which my opponent has completely ignored:

"Each candidate has been ranked according to how likely he is to win the presidency. The odds are based upon how likely his 'victory scenario' will occur, and whether the victory scenario is actually a plausible path to victory."

Advantage Romney [6].

Obama's Weaknesses - My opponent has agreed that Obama has the economy as a weakness. The voters will see Obama is being unable to cooperate with the Congress likely and thus be unable to be succesful in a second term. They will likely vote for Romney expecting him to work with Congress. Obama has had many years to explain Obamacare, yet the people are mostly against it. This election maybe his last chance and it is unlikely that he will explain it any better than he has, thus it will still remain unpopular. Advantage Romney.


The Economy - Advantage Romney
Presidential Appearance - Balanced
A Well Organized Campaign - Balanced
A Good Debater - Advantage Romney
Mormonism - Advantage Romney
The Polls - Advantage Romney
Obama's Weaknesses - Advantage Romney




I am still having one issue. I very much want the video citation to be linked in the post where I put them, instead of shoehorned at the top. It makes the post hard to follow, and totally ruined my rickroll L . If anyone could post a work around in the comments, I would be happy.

As this is the final round, I will try to avoid posting new arguments, but will summarize and conclude the debate. Thank you, 1Historygenius for hosting me.

The Economy- Here my opponent has stated in several different ways that Bain Capitol should not be a problem. I would tend to agree that it wouldn't’t be if Mr. Romney was able to address the yawning character issue it presents. Instead, he is making it much worse. 1.) No one is really concerned about the companies that survived Bain’s interest; it is the ones that did not that is the problem. It is clear that at least some companies were deliberately sacked, to the damage of the real people of those companies (stockholders and employees) as well as the customer base that depended on those companies’ services. 2and3.) Pro seems to be arguing that it is the simple wealth of Mr. Romney and his investors that is the issue here. No, it is the fact that Bain Capitol was a non producing predatory company that was a poster child for the sociopathic behavior that caused the 2008 Recession, and Mr. Romney – 4 and 5.) - cannot clearly demonstrator how culpable he is. Again, there is no good spin on the SEC filings that show that Romney was paid $100,000 as a Chairman/ CEO/ General Manager that he is now claiming he did nothing for because he was on leave for the Salt Lake Olympics. And no, ‘Retroactively Retired’ does NOT HELP. The Economy should be Romney’s baby, but it is at best tied, likely edging toward Obama.

Looking Presidential: In the 2008 election, neither candidate had the sort of home team advantage that is available to Mr. Obama now- in fact, John McCain had to forfeit what would have been his advantage due to the imbecile then in office. Speaking of such, it is perhaps informative that my opponent seemed to prefer to compare Obama to George W. Bush instead of his chosen champion. Mr. Obama, quite simply, has much better props in this cycle and although I personally hold that it is not a major factor, any difference has to go to the incumbent in any similar race – Mr. Obama in this case.

Organized campaign: Yes we agree substantially that both men have equally capable campaigns. Again, I will claim this topic as Pro’s BOP is for Mr. Romney must have more than 50%.

Good Debater: It is true that Mr. Romney is somewhat more practiced at debating, but both are very good. Further, Mr. Romney still has the problems of his back story (see the Economy for starters) to deal with, and Mr. Obama has no comparable problem. I hold the advantage is to Obama.

Mormonism: Here my opponent has a particular grammar- ‘…may see Romney as a lesser [] evil’ and ‘blacks who voted for Obama might vote for Romney’. This is a clear confirmation of my base argument that the subject is too unknown to call. It is also refuted by my previous cited arguments that there is a group of fundamentalist Christians who will not be able to vote for a Mormon, while I have shown conclusively that the minority vote is not being eroded in the same way.

The Polls: I understand the difference just fine. The problem with Elephant Watcher is clearly that they are not an honest polling site, but rather a biased propaganda mill. In stating that they don’t use the polls they 1.)Give us no idea at all what they do use. They have no alternative methodology AT ALL for coming up with their results (maybe they are using the expert analysis pulled from an in house think tank located in the Elephant Watcher’s rectum?) 2.)Have no point to putting the poll data up at all, unless as window dressing. 3.) That purported chart in the Rankings tab, is I'm sorry, utterly ridiculous. NO ONE can believe a straight line for six months is from a methodoly other than failue to populate the database.

Again, every objective poll has Obama in near parity in the popular vote, and a 2-1 lead at the Electoral college.

Obama’s weaknesses: Heh, I just noticed that the discussion of ‘Obama’s Weakness’ is being directly contrasted to ‘Romney’s Strengths’. As I have demonstrated throughout the debate, when the comparison is between Obama's weaknesses vs. Romney’s Weaknesses and Obama’s Strengths vs. Romney’s Strengths, Obama consistently wins.

Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
My only regret is that more people should have voted.
Posted by bbowhan 4 years ago
Congratulations, 1Historygenius. It was a good debate, indeed.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
I thank my opponent for a good debate.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
I won the debate!
Posted by bbowhan 4 years ago
Hey! What happened to my video citations!?!
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
"Furthermore, it was correct in predicting the 2008 race for nomination as Romney one." Sorry, I meant 2012.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
I agree with TheOrator. Obama will win, :( like it or not.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
"No semantics!"
The way the resolution is worded, it seems it's left up to semantics. That, or it is an auto-win that no one will accept. Of course he has a good chance of winning, he is one of the two puppets the political class has chosen. However, you need to compare it to Obama for this to be a legitimate debate.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
I hope he wins, but I have a nasty feeling that Obama may take the lead, if only because some of his supporters refuse to actually look at his policies. Like those who still think he's trying to end our involvement in the middle east.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Of course he dies, change it too "more than Obama"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to historygenius for the rick rolling attempt from con. Anyways, pro is completely right about Romney having a great chance at winning. He is practically the supreme leader of Super Pac's, given his vast amount of resources (largely consisting of money). He owns the media market with manipulation stipulation, and I feel will win this election based off of that and his charisma. Mitt also does have a lot of strengths that were outlined by the pro that will attribute to his win.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden in this debate to prove romneys strengths mean he will likely win the whitehouse. But CON brings up many good points which where poorly rebutted. Him being mormon hurts a Christian base he needs to excite. The incumbant point was weak as these third party people weakened the incumbant hugely, therefore unconvincing. Also Obamas debating > Romneys. Con prevented pro from fulfilling his burden, pro loses.