The Instigator
newspapers_are_cool
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Mitt Romney would make a bad president.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,373 times Debate No: 25115
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

newspapers_are_cool

Pro

After watching Mitt Romney's week of 'gaffes', and hearing his policies on issues like healthcare and foreign policy, I am convinced that Mitt Romney would make a bad president.

'Bad', defined as: of poor quality and in this case, inferior to Barack Obama.

1st Round: Acceptance

2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments

4th round: Conclusion

I look forward to an interesting debate...
imabench

Con

Ill go ahead and play on the conservative team on this one. I cut presidents a lot of slack and I think that Romney will be more than able to get us through 4 years without bringing this country to hell should he be elected. I accept this debate, you may state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
newspapers_are_cool

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate and I hope we will have a healthy debate.

The points I would like to make in this round are the following:

1) Romney is driven by money. His business past means that he will push for de-regulation and more freedom for the banks (who got us in this mess.)

2) Romney has no idea about how to play foreign policy. If he is elected (god forbid), the U.S's international credibility will be diminished and more importantly the frostiness that will corrode relationships between countries like Russia and Israel.

My first point regards Mitt Romney and money. I will address his economic policies and also his own personal economic past.

His website has a great deal of material on his tax policies and plans [1], but how can any of it even be taken the slightest bit seriously when the man fails to release his own tax returns from his career as a business man? It is obvious that he has something to hide as this has become a real problem for Romney. It was exactly the thing that Obama needed for his, 'Just another venture-capitalist,' portrayal of Romney which is beginning to look more and more accurate. If his tax returns were perfectly legitimate and there was nothing in there which could be politically damaging, he would have released them by now. This means we can be reasonably sure that he has had a dodgy financial history. He is from the very organisations and individuals who threaten the economy today. His economic ideology consists of bizarre policies which help the large American businesses and wealthy individuals and not the American people. He pushes for de-regulation which means these organisations can take even bigger risks and behave even more irresponsibly as there is no one telling them what they can and can't do.

There is quite literally no rule book.

The Governments fee for bailing them out just gets bigger and bigger and there is nothing they can do, as the way the U.S economy is set up means that it simply cannot afford to let the banks fail. The problem is it can't afford to bail them out either. The problem with the economic system is another debate, but the point is relevant as Romney strides for freedom for all of these banks and private firms. This means that they can continue to behave like rich children in a sweet shop because Daddy's always going to be there to bail them out (and doesn't have the power to restrict the child's budget). The last Government bailout reached $700 billion [2] and if Romney wins and he continues to kiss all the banker's backsides then bailout debt will continue to grow and grow. This will mean that all Romney's policies about curbing federal spending will be pointless as they will be dwarfed by the hundreds of billions they will have to pay to bail out Wall Street.

His record on his foreign policy is even worse than his economic one. His 'gaffe trip,' proved that he has no idea of how to handle relations. He has so far managed to annoy Russia, China, Gaza and he hasn't even been elected yet.
Let's start with China. His website proudly trumpets, 'Mitt Romney will implement a strategy that makes the path of regional hegemony for China far more costly than the alternative path of becoming a responsible partner in the international system.' [3]
First of all, it's simply not possible. Romney still lives in a world in which America is mighty and powerful and everyone else relies and fears it. It just doesn't work like that anymore. China's economic power surpasses America's easily and there is no way that Romney will be able to implement any sort of legislation which will, 'Make the path of regional hegemony for China far more costly than the alternative path of becoming a responsible partner in the international system.'

Secondly, China is massively important to American trade and the economy in general. Starting off your campaign by saying you are going to force it to become more responsible partner in the international system and criticizing it's human rights record, probably isn't the best start. However bad the Chinese regime is, the way to deal with it is not to launch scathing attacks on it but to negotiate and gently ease it into a more modern model. This is what Obama has done, and it has proven largely successful.

The same analysis applies to Russia and so does not require any further explaining.

His 'gaffe,' in Israel was even worse and perhaps more shocking. Romney said that the reason Palestine was less well off than Israel was because of it's culture.

"Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here (Jerusalem) and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things. One, I recognize the hand of providence in selecting this place...There's also something very unusual about the people of this place. [In Start-Up Nation, Dan Senor] described why it is Israel is the leading nation for start-ups in the world. And why businesses one after the other tend to start up in this place. And he goes through some of the cultural elements that have led Israel to become a nation that has begun so many businesses and so many enterprises and that is becomes so successful."

If he makes similar speeches as President, I dread to think what the U.S's reputation will look like.

In this round I have shown why two vitally important aspects of his campaign are flawed and bound to fail. In the next round I will be arguing similar cases but on healthcare and also on the military.

I look forward to reading my opponents case.

[1] http://www.mittromney.com...
[2] http://useconomy.about.com...
[3] http://www.mittromney.com...
imabench

Con

1) "He will push for de-regulation"

Just because Romney wants something doesnt mean he will get it (assuming he does want to de-regulate). Most people forget that the path to change in America runs through Congress, and any change that any president or presidential hopeful wants to make needs the blessing of Congress in order to become a reality. As of right now the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives. If this stays the same following Romneys election (should he get elected) then any change Romney wants to make would have to get through the House and the Senate. There is always the possibility that a few Republicans dont support the plans in the House, but there is a definite possibility that the Democrats wont allow any deregulation to pass.

Any change Romney does want to make doesnt have any guarantee of becoming a reality since Romney needs Congress to make his changes, and anything regarding De-regulation will likely get shot down in the Democrat dominated Senate

2) Foreign Policy

Romney has had a few gaffes in foreign policy (that have been blown out of proportion by the Democrats) but heres the thing, the President isnt the position that handles foreign policy the most, that power lies with the Secretary of State. In the Obama administration right now Obama has only visited 30 countries outside US borders
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton though has visited over 100 countries in the same time period
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

So really if Romney gets elected, the person he appoints to the secretary of state will handle foreign relations more than him. Policy wise any change Romney wants to make that could alienate Israel or Russia again has to go through Congress first, which would not be guaranteed because again, the Dems control the Senate.

3) Tax Returns

"It is obvious that he has something to hide as this has become a real problem for Romney"

These kind of scandals dont reflect the qualities that Romney would display as president. When Clinton underwent the Monica Lewinsky scandal he didnt have a record of opposing women's rights and benefits, it was just a lapse of character, and this is the same thing with Romney. Just because he wont release his tax returns it doesnt mean that if elected he will pursue shady business tactics that he may or may not have carried out in the distant past

"He pushes for de-regulation which means these organisations can take even bigger risks and behave even more irresponsibly as there is no one telling them what they can and can't do."

CONGRESS. Any financial policy change Romney wants to change HAS to go through Congress like I said before, and any policy this extremely conservative will quickly be shot down in the Democratic-controlled Senate, meaning that should he be elected nothing this extreme would be enacted into law as long as the Dems control just part of Congress, which has been the norm.

4) Economy

"as the way the U.S economy is set up means that it simply cannot afford to let the banks fail"

we cant afford letting ALL the banks fail, but the economy could more then handle letting a couple small banks fail or even manage a handful of large banks failing too. If banks drive themselves into debt because of their own screw ups then why not let them go through bankruptcy like any other company? Ask just about anyone on here, the bank bailouts were a stupid idea and nobody would support bailing out any more failing banks, and the same sentiment lies with Congress because one of the biggest weapons that the GOP has against Obama has been the Wall Street Bailouts.

On another note, it could be argued that the banks are doing fine now. The main concern with the economy doesnt lie with the shady and risky behavior of the financial system anymore, the main concern is now about job creation. There are no longer frequent bank failures like what was seen during the worst part of this recession, so worrying that Romney may or may not choose to bail out the banks may not even be a problem since bank bailouts really arent an issue anymore.

"The last Government bailout reached $700 billion [2] and if Romney wins and he continues to kiss all the banker's backsides then bailout debt will continue to grow and grow"

The bailouts were started by Bush, continued by Obama, and approved by many Republicans in Congress. Now though Republicans almost universally opposed the bailouts now, including Romney's VP Paul Ryan

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Point is, not even the GOP would let Romney give massive bailouts to the banks, and since sentiments among Democrats is actually the same way, both parties wouldnt even allow Romney to hand out bailouts. Even Romney's own VP would be against it.

5) Foreign policy (again)

"Mitt Romney will implement a strategy that makes the path of regional hegemony for China..... there is no way that Romney will be able to implement any sort of legislation....."

So if the Pro admits that Romney wont be able to change relations with China, then why fret about it? Just because presidential hopefuls want to do something it doesnt mean they themselves will follow through with it. Remember when Obama wanted to shut down Guantanamo Bay? Yeah, but its still around, and even Obama is glad that it is.

Just because Romney wants to do something it doesnt mean he will follow through with it, its most liekly just political talk to gain voters. And since this is China he's talking about, then there is no possibility his idea will come into fruition because China is such a valuable trade ally, and even the Pro knows that.

6) Gaffes

"His 'gaffe,' in Israel was even worse and perhaps more shocking. Romney said that the reason Palestine was less well off than Israel was because of it's culture."

Presidents arent perfect and they occasionally make mistakes they even later retract. Hell when Obama said that the private sector "is fine" he retracted his statement about 3 hours later admitting he was wrong. Romney's comments on Palestine were regrettable, but it was a simple mistake and it didnt impact relations with Israel. It was a mistake, you cant criticize him of not being perfect because Romney, Obama, and just about every modern president in history have had their shares of saying stupid stuff.

"If he makes similar speeches as President, I dread to think what the U.S's reputation will look like."

Wait, if anything makes the US look bad it would be Romney's comments? Have you seen the US's reputation yet? The US has done FAR worse to annoy countries and make our reputation look bad then poor word choice in speeches. Hell weve nuked a country twice, pursued vicious drone warfare all around the Middle East, we let dictators get away with genocide and only step in when they are about to be overthrown, we have shady policies of our own.... Point is that the US reputation will be damaged by numerous other factors more than a few Romney gaffes....

============================================================================

Ok look, Romney does have a questionable business past and isnt the most well spoken person out there, but any radical change Romney wants would most likely be shot down by the Democratic-controlled Congress. On the other hand foreign policy relations are the duty of the Secretary of State and not Romney, and his handful of gaffes can be seen as honest mistakes, slip ups, and instances of where he should have put his foot in his mouth. They do not imply how Romney would act as president and just because Romney wants something, it doesnt mean he will actually follow through on his promises or even agree with them later because lets face it when you think of people in the GOP who flip flop, you think of Romney.
Debate Round No. 2
newspapers_are_cool

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent appears to have misread the debate topic. 'Mitt Romney's proposals would succeed in congress,' is an entirely separate debate. What this debate was going to try and be about was whether these ideas are good ideas. The topic was, 'Mitt Romney would make a bad president.' By accepting this debate, my opponent was taking the BOP of showing that Mitt Romney would make a good president. In that last round, he offered nothing to suggest that Mitt Romney will be a good President, or even that he won't be a bad one.

His apparent rebuttal to every point I have made is that, 'It probably wouldn't happen.'

This is not an acceptable point as it does not disprove that he would be a bad president. Even if Hitler's proposals had not happened, that wouldn't have meant that he was not a bad leader. You can be a bad leader not just through your actions but also through your ideologies. My opponent has offered little resistance as to why his idea's are good ideas and is seemingly clinging to his piece of rebuttal which is, "It probably wouldn't happen."

This shows that my opponent cannot think of anything to say and is clutching straws. Straws that cannot even be considered legitimate points.

His rebuttal point about foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired.

First of all, His, 'few', gaffes were not blown out of proportion at all, and were rightly criticized by Democrats and Journalists alike. I believe I referenced in my previous round his gaffe in Jerusalem which was shocking. What part don't you understand? It is unacceptable all the way through and should be taken seriously and with outrage.

Secondly, all of the moves that the Secretary of State makes will of course be authorised by Romney himself. It is absurd to claim that the Secretary of State will make any policy moves without the president's backing and support. i don't even understand what my opponent is trying to say. Is he trying to say that blame should be put on the Secretary of State if his administration makes a mistake (which is highly likely)? Even if he is, I don't see how that qualifies as a point in his favour. Even if this hypothetical situation becomes real, Romney will still be a bad president for letting this happen and not watching over his Secretary of State. So none of his rebuttal can be taken as legitimate material in his favour.

These kind of scandals dont reflect the qualities that Romney would display as president.

Actually, they do. Romney's business instinct will show if he becomes President. He will vouch for quick venture "get rich quick" schemes that aim to save the economy short term and not long term. This will be damaging and dangerous for the American economy and the American people.

His congress point I have already disproved.

"Ask just about anyone on here, the bank bailouts were a stupid idea and nobody would support bailing out any more failing banks, and the same sentiment lies with Congress because one of the biggest weapons that the GOP has against Obama has been the Wall Street Bailouts."

But that is EXACTLY my point! If the U.S doesn't bail out the big banks then they drag the economy down with them. Why do you think Obama paid $700 billion dollars to them? Out of the kindness of his heart? Of course not! Any person with a half decent idea of how the U.S economy works can see that the bailout was necessary to stop the bill getting any bigger. The way banks gamble needs to be reformed but as I said, that is a separate debate...

"Point is, not even the GOP would let Romney give massive bailouts to the banks, and since sentiments among Democrats is actually the same way, both parties wouldnt even allow Romney to hand out bailouts."

I'm not saying that the bailouts were a bad idea, and that if Romney continued giving them he would be a bad president. I am saying that Romney will be a bad president because there is no way he will stand up to the banks and stop them from behaving like bulls in a china shop... I'm not saying that Obama would either but this isn't "Obama is a good president," this is "Mitt Romney would make a bad president."

" Hell when Obama said that the private sector "is fine" he retracted his statement about 3 hours later admitting he was wrong."

Again, he is confusing"Obama is a good president," and "Mitt Romney would make a bad president." And yes I can criticize him for making a mistake...

All in all, I have shown much more substansive material as to why Romney will be a bad president, and my opponent has offered very little to counter that.

Vote Pro.
imabench

Con

1) Resolution

" What this debate was going to try and be about was whether these ideas are good ideas"

This whole time youve been debating about anything BUT his policies. You debated primarily about in round 1 was that his gaffes overseas will reflect his foreign policy and that he is secretly driven by money, both of which I shown were irrelevant. The only "policies" you did mention is that "he will push for deregulation" however Romney has gone on record saying that the LAST thing he is thinking about is deregulating wall Street

"Of course, we have to have regulation on Wall Street and on every street to make sure that our economy works well, so it's factually inaccurate to begin with." He added: "Look, no one is talking about deregulating Wall Street."

- Mitt Romney in response to Biden's "chains" gaffe

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...

Therefore your argument that he wants to push for ambitious deregulation is unfounded because we dont know what his policies on de-regulation are. Hes been flip flopping quite a bit but the latest version of Romney is against deregulation.

" my opponent was taking the BOP of showing that Mitt Romney would make a good president"

The resolution is that Romney would be a bad president, All I have to do is show he could be a do-nothing president or an average president because you defined bad as "inferior to Barack Obama". Obama's approval ratings in real life and on DDO are squarely at 50%, so in order to prove that he wont be a bad president, I have to show that he (Romney) would not be inferior to Obama (approval at 50%). You dont have to be a good president to be above 50%, you only need to be average.

"In that last round, he offered nothing to suggest that Mitt Romney will be a good President, or even that he won't be a bad one."

I was refuting your arguments that he would be a bad one... If you dont have arguments showing he would be bad and I havent shown anything saying he would be great, then that makes him average, which is enough to fulfill my BOP.

"This shows that my opponent cannot think of anything to say and is clutching straws. Straws that cannot even be considered legitimate points."

Acting like a d*ck wont help you win any arguments, watch your conduct

"First of all, His, 'few', gaffes were not blown out of proportion at all, and were rightly criticized by Democrats and Journalists alike... It is unacceptable all the way through and should be taken seriously and with outrage"

Name one media outlet that is still making an issue out of this. Not even MSNBC, the biggest critic of Romney, is commenting on this statement because even they know that this isnt an issue and merely a poor choice of words. This gaffe does not in any way foretell what his foreign policy towards Israel and the Middle East would be.

"It is absurd to claim that the Secretary of State will make any policy moves without the president's backing and support"

And where did I say that exactly? Putting words in my mouth only makes you look like even more of a d*ck you know...

"Is he trying to say that blame should be put on the Secretary of State if his administration makes a mistake (which is highly likely)?"

Jesus you like twisting what I say. My point was that Romney's gaffes in foreign policy arent a big issue because A) The Secretary of State is our representative to the world, not Romney. B) Romney's gaffes now wont reflect how he interacts with nations in the future, and C) If the SoS is making gaffes left and right, THEN it could be a problem because the SoS's job is to keep relations with all these countries in good shape, not Romney

"Romney's business instinct will show if he becomes President. He will vouch for quick venture "get rich quick" schemes that aim to save the economy short term and not long term"

So your biggest argument against Romney is that you somehow know for a fact that hes a secretly corrupt businessman whose only goal for becoming president is to help him and his buddies get rich fast? And you claim that Im clutching at straws...

The Pro is trying to claim that a persons occupation will determine how they will act as president, which is a claim that is illogical any way you put it. If this was true then Reagan (An actor) would have only became president for attention. Carter (A peanut farmer) would have given huge sums of money and subsidies to farms. And Ford (A male model at one point) would have turned the country into a liberal paradise with no regulations regarding sex or exposure.

You cant claim to know how a person will act as president based solely on their former occupations.

"If the U.S doesn't bail out the big banks then they drag the economy down with them..... Any person with a half decent idea of how the U.S economy works can see that the bailout was necessary to stop the bill getting any bigger"

Didnt you say in round 2 that Romney would be a bad president for continuing the bailouts to these banks who according to you "got us into this mess"? Make up your mind already, I cant waste character space over your flip flops.

" I am saying that Romney will be a bad president because there is no way he will stand up to the banks and stop them from behaving like bulls in a china shop"

And that is based on your "knowledge" that Romney is a corrupt businessman..... I refer again to the quote above referring to how Romney is completely uninterested in deregulation.

"Yes I can criticize him for making a mistake..."

People make mistakes from time to time, including presidents and presidential hopefuls, so just let it go already because everyone else already has.

"All in all, I have shown much more substansive material as to why Romney will be a bad president"

Yes the Pro has substantially criticized Romney for planning to continue the bailouts, and then substantially criticized Romney for planning to NOT continue the bailouts. Other then that the Pro has only commented on a few of his honest mistakes and argued that those will make him a bad president.

"my opponent has offered very little to counter that."

Then allow me yo fix that. Here is a list of policies by Romney that will make him a good president

1) Supports Farm subsidies for Ethanol production
2) Supports the Citizens United Ruling but has gone on record saying that he wish he could take the money out of politics and that he would like to do away with Super-Pacs
3) Supports increased spending for energy related research
4) Supports tougher emission standards for coal power plants
5) Opposes Cap and Trade
6) Against raising the Minimum Wage
7) Against a second stimulus
8) Supports Free Trade, NAFTA and CAFTA
9) Against Torture
10) Supports Gay Adoption and refused to sign a pledge banning Gay Marriage
11) Supports the teaching of Evolution (Other insane GOP candidates do not)
12) Supports the Second Amendment but wants to ban automatic weapons
13) Supports greater transparency for the Federal Reserve
14) Supports ending the death tax
15) Supports a form of a national catastrophe fund
16) Supports sanctions against Iran
17) Supports a balanced Budget Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com...
http://www.ontheissues.org...

I have now shown 17 policies arguing why Romney would make a decent president and made my point that some of his more extreme policies will likely not be passed into law because of Congress. The Pro meanwhile has only claimed that he knows what Romney is like on the inside and will act like a shady and corrupt businessman should he be elected, and that his foreign policy gaffes will define how he will act as president and hurt our reputation....

I would say vote Con but the debate isnt over....
Debate Round No. 3
newspapers_are_cool

Pro

'Watch your conduct.'?!

His next statement proves what a ridiculous hypocrite he is and that he is typical of most other Conservatives. Get them to a place they don't like and they resort to just insulting their opponent...

I fear that this means this debate has lost most of it's political meaning and has just turned into an argument. the difference between debating and arguing is that in a debate you try to make legitimate points in the name of trying to determine whose view is the most accurate. This 'debate' has dangerously close to sliding over to a brawl.

POINTS!

Finally we see some reasons from Con in regards to whether Romney will be a bad president or not. Unfortunately, NONE of them were unpacked and explained and therefore have little value or impact on the course of the debate. It is clear as to which side has put forward their case and owned the debate.

PRO

We have seen from Pro a clear logic and structured reasoning over the course of the debate. The points have stood as Con's rebuttal has consisted of senseless material and petty insults. All the points I have made in the second round stand and I urge you to to see who has made the better points.

CON

'd*ck'

That word will really hurt Con and rightly so. It says enough about his rebuttal tactics and more or less shows that he has given up.

VOTE PRO
imabench

Con

"His next statement proves what a ridiculous hypocrite he is and that he is typical of most other Conservatives"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah im one of the most liberal people on here.... Also throwing an entire political ideology under the bus and then claiming that youre the one trying to take the high road wont do you much good....

" This 'debate' has dangerously close to sliding over to a brawl."

Let voters decide that one, compared to half of the other political debates on here, its a miracle nobody in this debate dropped an f-bomb

" Unfortunately, NONE of them ( my 17 unrefuted points) were unpacked and explained and therefore have little value or impact on the course of the debate."

Just because you said that they have little impact doesnt make it true..... Since you flat out ignore all of them that counts as 17 dropped arguments right into my pocket :)

" It is clear as to which side has put forward their case and owned the debate."

^ thats coming from the guy who waited to the very last minute to submit his final argument and all he can come up with is sh*tting on conservatives and ignoring all my points about why Romney wouldnt be a bad president

"We have seen from Pro a clear logic and structured reasoning over the course of the debate"

Good lord, your ego is as massive as Inferno's and as f*cked up as Izbo's. This whole time your only argument is that you somehow know that Romney is an evil corrupted businessman and you have based this claim with no evidence, no sources, and nothing more then your own opinion.

"The points have stood as Con's rebuttal has consisted of senseless material and petty insults"

Did you miss the 17 arguments I gave about why Romney wouldnt be a bad president?

"All the points I have made in the second round stand"

To quote the great and legendary Aerosmith, "DREAM ON, DREAM ON, DREAM ON UNTIL YOUR DREAMS COME TRUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEE".

==========================================================================

"'d*ck'" That word will really hurt Con and rightly so. It says enough about his rebuttal tactics and more or less shows that he has given up." - Pro in round 3

" a ridiculous hypocrite he is and that he is typical of most other Conservatives." Pro four seconds earlier in round 3

==========================================================================

Now then lets get back on topic

Dropped arguments by the Pro:

1) Pro concedes that Romney supports farm subsidies for Ethanol production
2) Pro concedes that Romney supports the Citizens United Ruling but has gone on record saying that he wish he could take the money out of politics and that he would like to do away with Super-Pacs
3) Pro concedes that Romney supports increased spending for energy related research
4) Pro concedes that Romney supports tougher emission standards for coal power plants
5) Pro concedes that Romney opposes Cap and Trade
6) Pro concedes that Romney is against raising the Minimum Wage
7) Pro concedes that Romney is against a second stimulus
8) Pro concedes that Romney supports Free Trade, NAFTA and CAFTA
9) Pro concedes that Romney Against Torture
10) Pro concedes that Romney supports Gay Adoption and refused to sign a pledge banning Gay Marriage
11) Pro concedes that Romney supports the teaching of Evolution (Other insane GOP candidates do not)
12) Pro concedes that Romney supports the Second Amendment but wants to ban automatic weapons
13) Pro concedes that Romney supports greater transparency for the Federal Reserve
14) Pro concedes that Romney supports ending the death tax
15) Pro concedes that Romney supports a form of a national catastrophe fund
16) Pro concedes that Romney supports sanctions against Iran
17) Pro concedes that Romney supports a Balanced Budget Amendment
18) Pro concedes that All I have to do is show that Romney simply wont be a bad president, not be a good one
19) Pro concedes that Romney's overseas gaffes wont define future relations

I have shown 19 arguments of why Romney wont be a terrible president, the Pro has given two very warped opinions about why he thinks Romney will be worse then Obama.

Vote:
Conduct (Could go either way at this point)
Grammar (Same as conduct)
Arguments (Pro dropped 19 arguments and only ever introduced 2)
Sources (I actually used them)

Thanks for reading, its been cool arguing from the conservative standpoint for the first time ever. Vote Con :D
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
I can tell.

On the bright side though you learned a valuable lesson through all this
Posted by newspapers_are_cool 4 years ago
newspapers_are_cool
I'm devestated.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Clearly the voters are saying you're wrong
Posted by newspapers_are_cool 4 years ago
newspapers_are_cool
They weren't arguments, they were Bullet Points.

I made the point that they can't be taken seriously because you didn't unpack a single one...

I'm not going to carry on this, because it's pointless. George Bernard Shaw illustrates it perfectly...

"Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
and yes you did falsely slander an entire ideology, all i did was point out how much of an a** you were by commenting on your behavior
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
I called you a dick in response to your blatant insults in round 3. Whats pathetic is how you ran out of time in the final round and didnt respond to any of the 15+ arguments I posted in favor of Romney.
Posted by newspapers_are_cool 4 years ago
newspapers_are_cool
'I falsely slandered?' You called me a d*ck.

Twice.

It's pathetic more than it is offensive...
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
You falsely slandered an entire ideology of people and then four seconds later accused me of poor conduct......
Posted by newspapers_are_cool 4 years ago
newspapers_are_cool
Con gets conduct?! This is ridiculous...
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
igaryoak how is it that Im the one who loses conduct/ have you read Pro's arguments at all?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
newspapers_are_coolimabenchTied
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: Really, pro cannot win as he kept dropping more and more points as the debate progressed. Truthfully, dropping 19 points is near auto loss unless you have crap load other points that pro won all of... And pro really did little explanation on his points and was slaughtered on economics.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
newspapers_are_coolimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fulfilled his burden of proof by showing that Romney would not be a bad president because of his policies, because his more radical ones would not make it passed the Senate. He also provided quotes from Romney in regards to his stances, showing that Pro was factually inaccurate regarding his stance on deregulation of Wall Street. Con get's conduct for Pro's dismissal of arguments and concessions, even resorting to (inaccurately) calling Con a conservative, and misrepresenting his arguments.
Vote Placed by igaryoak 4 years ago
igaryoak
newspapers_are_coolimabenchTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Shouldn't be surprising that Imabench loses conduct, but ultimately wins the brawl due to Pro's massive concession.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
newspapers_are_coolimabenchTied
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: This isn't the way I would have gone about it, but Con brought up a very good point, the more 'radical' parts of Romney's policy would probably get shot down. This doesn't mean Romney would be a good president, but it at least shows he wouldn't be 'bad', just ineffectual, which is enough for me. Also, those dropped arguments weigh heavy. Kudos to imabench for successfully getting under Pro's skin and throwing him off his game.