The Instigator
cody30228
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
spencetheguy
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,134 times Debate No: 1439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (14)

 

cody30228

Pro

There are many reasons why I believe Mitt Romney would make a horrible president
But to begin, we will not debate issues. Why? Because it seems everyone dis-agrees with the issues. So we will be debating his personality.

1.) Hypocritical
We all have seen Mitt Romney's negative campaign ads against McCain and Huckabee. In last nights debate, McCain made some funny remarks about Romney having many different positions. Mitt Romney replied that we should try to keep personal attacks out of things.
***I don't know about you, but I don't want a president that would move against China and then tell China that they can't do the same thing to the US.

2.) Weak debater
In times of crisis, American needs a president that can take a stand and fight. Go on the offensive. Not only with military but with words. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy went on the offensive in debates with the USSR. He told them he would not back down. Our ambassador to the UN said he would wait "till Hell freezes over" to hear the response of the USSR and Cuba. Mitt Romney showed last night that he would not be able to do the same thing. He rolled over last night and let McCain talk all over him. He was not able to make one candidate stop talking and let him speak.

3.) Short-sighted
Romney does look far enough into the future to make a decision. The negative campaign ads before Iowa is proof. Did he not expect to be attacked from McCain and Huckabee? Apparently not, because he had nothing to say in response. He does not think far enough head with his action and consider all the outcomes. Because of this, he was unprepared and utterly destroyed.

I find these 3 qualities make up the qualities of someone I would most definitively NOT want to be president of the United States .
spencetheguy

Con

i think leaving the issues out of it is a very good idea.

i encourage all the voters to choose based on the skills of the opponents not on personal preference.

1. hypocritical.
the adds that romney ran were attacking the issues and positions of his opponents. mcain was attacking his personal integrity and honesty.

2. weak debater. i assume that the most recent debate was the only one you saw.

these are clips from debates that show his ability to fight opponents and win. some are clips from news casts and experts that talk about his skill as a debater.
my opponent calls romney week for allowing other canidates to walk all over him. the debating format was different in this case because it did not allow the victims of attacks to respond. so the only was that romney could stop his opponents was to interupt and be rude. e.g. robin williams in man of the year.
He has stated that if his faith dooms his canpaign then so be it. using the above evidence romney is an excelent debater and stedfast in his policies.

3.My opponents arguments are contradictory. the arguments are that he is week because he does not go on the offensive but a hypocrite because he runs negative adds. I an quite shire that running negaitive adds are extremely offensive. the argument is that the after shock of the negative adds almost destroyed him but i will say it again the debating rules did not allow for counter arguments. If you look at his record as buisness man he is anything but short seighted. his rule for investing was allways long term. that is how he made 1/4 billion personal dollars and founded arguably the most sucsessful investment and consulting firm in out generation. his foresight and long term planning made this possible.

why romney is a good canidate.
1. he erased the largest defecit in mass. since WWII without raising taxes. (the fee raising was 3% of the total)
2. he lowered takes while at the same time leading massacusets to the highest reading and math scores in the nation. a first time for any state.

these two issues are universaly accepted and unless my opponent thinks that getting better education is bad and having a large defecit is good, there should be no problem. he was able to do this with only one term as governor.
an equally short time period he was abel to turn around the 2002 winter games in SLC.
that is why my opponents arguments are flawed and romney is the best republican canidate for president.
Debate Round No. 1
cody30228

Pro

1. Hypocritical
Romney's attack ads did not portray the whole truth. They mentioned some statistics to mislead the people. McCain and Huckabee did not whine and complain, they attacked back. Then Romney calls for a stop on personal attacks. Both are lies, or both are partial lies. Either way, all three parties were using negative attacks. Romney dished it out, but he couldn't take it. That's what I call a hypocrite.

2. Bad debater
The first three do not prove Romney is a good debater. They prove he can spout rhetoric well. The last one proves he is a bad debater.
He was walked all over. He tried to interrupt, but failed. Everyone else interrupts him and he lets them. He has no strength when debating. Do not give me, it's rude, crap. He does not have the force to get what needs to be done, done.

3. Short-sighted
When I say short-sighted, I also mean his flip-flopping. Anyone can youtube it and fins hundreds of videos. HE changes his stance because he does not think about what he supports far enough in the future. He ran a company. So what! A company does not equal a country. His multiple stances on abortion, gun-rights, immigration prove he does not have the ability to rationalize his actions.

_---------------------------------------------------------------------

you give me two reasons why he is good
1. he erased the largest defecit in mass. since WWII without raising taxes. (the fee raising was 3% of the total)
2. he lowered takes while at the same time leading massacusets to the highest reading and math scores in the nation. a first time for any state.

These all fall under the issues
what I mean is, what he supports. he supports lowing taxes and cutting spending (so does every republican)
He supports education. So does everyone.
If you look at track record, he does not have the best.

You did not prove one thing that Romney does well that should make him president. I have proved he is hypocritical, weak, and short-sighted.
spencetheguy

Con

My opponent insists that Romney should of interrupted his opponents during debates. interrupting is a sign a weakness. it states that your arguments are too strong for me to defend so i will prevent you from making them. it states that i do not respect you as a person nor your ideas. he allows his opponents to make their point then responds when it is the right time and place. my opponent believes that Romney because the debate did not allow defenders to defend, should of interrupted and disrespected the opponents. that is not profesional, courteous or polite. my opponent believes that rude, arrogant, stiff and intolerant people make the best presidents.
he did have the best record. his state had the highest reading and math scores at the same time in the whole nation. He erased a huge deficit without raising taxes. that is the best record of any governor running for president. he also ran the most successful consulting firm of our time.
Debate Round No. 2
cody30228

Pro

Your rebuttal said two things
1. interrupting is rude
2. good track record

First, let's see what you ignored.
1. Hypocrite
2. Short-sighted on issues

You did not attack these two points, you can not attack them after dropping them, so you agree that Romney is a hypocrite and short-sighted. So already we have two reasons why Romney would make a bad president.

Your only case about his weak debate is he is polite. And I really do not give a **** if our president is polite. He needs to get in the face of problems and solve them. If faced with a crisis, he would let Bin Laden walk all over him. He would not be able to fare up against Chavez or Ayatollah of Iran. He would not be able to get North Korea to back down or China to stay in it's place. He would not be able to tell Mexico to stop immigration. Rather rude and effective, than polite and ineffective.

If faced with a national crisis, Mitt Romney would be the worst candidate to solve the problem.

The only good qualities is the fact he can be like Donald Trump and has a good record.

So ask yourselves,
Donald Trump wanna be who has a good record, who is a hypocrite, who is short-sighted, and who can not solve foreign problems?
I think not.

Vote No for Romney for '08 nominee
spencetheguy

Con

is there some rule that says that when i did not respond to a point means that it is dropped for all time and eternity?

using this rule my opponent admits that his first arguments were contradictory in that he was not offensive but short sighted because he ran harsh and offensive political adds.

this is my response to the hypocrite accusation.
mccain's jab was personal. attacking his integrity. romney's adds and attacks were all attacking the history and stance on issues, not their personal integrity. he complemented and stated how much he supported mccain as an individual on several occasions. on offensive did he not call al sharpton a bigot?

Short sighted.
i do not know where my opponent gets this evidence that Romney is short sighted.
his record in the private sector disproves any accusation of lack of foresight.
my opponent claims that romney is not fir for emergencies.
Is not the largest state deficit in 60 years a emergency?
is not a corrupt plagued, under financed, understaffed and 2 years away Olympics an emergency?
If yes he fixed them all. without raising taxes while simultaneously creating the best public education system in the nation.

on foreign policy
did not he suggest a military campaign in Iran.
did he not suggest that we should approach N. korea's claim of nuclear disarmament with suspicion?
did he not criticize nancy pelocie's trip to syria?
he has shown his ability to get in people's faces by running the negative adds.

my weak debate argument is not that he is polite. it is that he answers questions, speaks clearly, forcefully and respectfully.

just a question i thought Ayatollah was not president anymore.

notice my opponent believes that rude, arrogant, stiff and intolerant people make the best presidents, and his support for john mccain is strongly based on this characteristic. also notice how by his own logic my opponent admits that his arguments are contradictory and hypocritical. but let 'em argue his points as i did.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I personally agree with the AFF side of the topic, but in terms who defended their position better, I would say spence did a better job. I would also say that there are no estbalished rules here, so dropping an argument in one round is fine as long the individual gets to responding to said dropped argument.
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
sorry that was the last round. he cannot debate that last point.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
Romney is the straightest talker on the republican field. McCain cannot communicate effectively. Romney has serious managerial experience that gives him the necessary qualities to tackle hard issues including the security of our country. He can't keep China in its place? Please, his campaign concerns China more so than any other candidate. You even admitted to yourself that Romney is a great rhetorician. Being a rhetorician, especially a good one, allows you to speak very straight-forwardly. McCain? He bumbles around giving out one-liners he made up at the beginning of his campaign ("I will veto those bills and make the authors famous"). When Romney owned both Huckabee and McCain last night, McCain showed that he couldn't effectively deflect Romney's attack.

I've said this before, but being attacked by Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain all at once, all giving uncalled remarks and interruptions is overwhelming and hard to handle without blowing up. What did Romney do? He took them one at a time, handling it presidentially and responsibly. Those three weren't given much of a chance to be impolite, and therefore, Romney, when talking to the candidates one-by-one was able to effectively dismantle their arguments and blow them back at them.

Want to see a video of that? http://youtube.com... Here Romney is defending his religion with Jan Mickelson (a little bit into the video). Romney firmly lays the smackdown in this video.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
It would be nice if Spencetheguy used spellcheck more often. Ignoring the grammatical mistakes, he made a very good counterargument.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
Jevan, you udderly agree?

Anyway, when someone is being attacked by three people at once, then it's easy to see how he can be overwhelmed. Check out the current debate on Fox. My man Mitt is destroying his competitors.
Posted by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
HAHA, Romney Is Horrible. FLIP-FLOPPER. I support Huckabee
Posted by jevan 9 years ago
jevan
I completely and udderly agree!

I support John McCain
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
cody30228spencetheguyTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lowandwet 9 years ago
lowandwet
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by alvinthegreat 9 years ago
alvinthegreat
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
cody30228spencetheguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03