The Instigator
ILoveCheese
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Mogget
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Obama is either gay or bisexual and a former crack user

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: 6/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,285 times Debate No: 4475
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (14)

 

ILoveCheese

Pro

I will take either the pro or con side depending on what my challenger decides.

Last week Larry Sinclair gave a press conference regarding his allegations that he performed oral sex on Obama and he witnessed him using crack.
Mogget

Con

Yep, Larry Sinclair rented out a press space and gave a formal press conference. The money for him to do this apparently has come from many different individuals around the united states sending him funds. Individuals of course who have no inside experience with any of this allegations, individuals who simply want this story to go big.

In other words, this entire thing is really being done by one man. A man let me remind you who has done many different types of check fraud, credit fraud, drug smuggling and usage, and has smuggled mexicans across the border for money.

To cut this simple, If I stood up right now and told the world that the Pope was a bisexual and a former crack user I, myself, would have more credibility than Larry Sinclair. The fact that Larry Sinclair is doing this with his outstanding lack of proof in no way proves that Obama is bisexual or that Obama is a former crack user.
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveCheese

Pro

When committing a crime, one of the most important things to establish is motivation. The reporters repeatedly asked him why he was coming out and why now.

He has no financial interest as pointed out by the contributions he has received.

He has no political interest as he is not affiliated with any of the three campaigns.

He has no love interest as he claims they were one night stands.

He has volunteered his medical records to show that he is not crazy. Which brings us back to the question of motivation. Why would a sane person with no motivation commit the crime of libel?
Mogget

Con

Ah, of course, motivation.

That would be a strong case indeed if it could be undoubtedly established that he has no motivation.

As it stands we have two scenarios:

A. He has no motivation what-so-ever, in this scenario why would he even bother with the allegations? I mean, even if his allegations were completely and 100% true, if he has no motivation then he has no reason to tell everyone. Obviously he must have some amount of motivation.

B. He has a motivation. Someone, somewhere is paying him something to accuse Obama. In this scenario he of course will have the choice to tell people that he has the motivation. However, at the moment he tells people of his motivation and they realize it is not legit he no longer is detracting from Obama. Thus it is likely that a man with a motivation to commit libel would in fact lie (yeah, oh my god, he's actually capable of that O.o) to reporters when asked.

So the question of course becomes, would such a man commit libel in the first place? The answer, considering his past history, is that he is more than capable of such an act.

Thereby it is quite obvious that the topic of this debate has been negated, the Con side is much more probable than the Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
ILoveCheese

Pro

Larry Sinclair challenged Obama to a lie detector test. He unilaterally took one a few months ago. The results were 'negative', meaning the person who administered the test said he was basically lieing. This was given by Obama supporters that the allegations were false.

There were two areas the polygraph covered:

1. allegation of oral sex
2. allegation of drug use

The test was administerd by a 'Dr. Gelb'. His doctorate is from a correspondence school

The results would then be reviewed by a Dr. Barland.

See the discussion on antipolygraph.org site here: https://antipolygraph.org...

There are three results. One by Gelb, two by Barland and the third is the computer generated score.

Gelb claims he failed on both. Barland agrees with Gelb on both counts. The computer results...

1. Drug allegation shows Sinclair telling the truth by computer score:

"I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithm PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from .00 to 1.00. "

2. Sex allegation...no computer score given!

Other problems with the method include:

1. "In scoring Sinclair's polygrams, Barland was not blinded with regard to any of the following salient details:

* The name of the original examiner;
* The name of the examinee;
* The nature of the examinee's allegations;
* The actual polygraph questions asked (as opposed to just their type -- relevant, control/comparison, irrelevant, etc., which is all that is needed to score the charts);
* The decision(s) rendered by the original examiner"

2. Allegations Axelrod funded whitehouse.com (the ones sponsering the test) $750,000 to discredit Sinclair.

Given the circumstances surrounding the test, at best one can say this shows nothing, at worst it shows a concerted effort to hide the computerized test scores and a systemic attempt by the Obama campaign to cover up the correct allegations by Mr. Sinclair.
Mogget

Con

First off, Dr. Gelb isn't a doctor, he's a phony.....

http://antipolygraph.org...

Secondly, polygraph tests only have an accuracy of about 61%

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Third, whitehouse.com after supposedly examining Larry Sinclair for 4 hours w/ a polygraph has posted on their website, "Deception Indicated". That's it dude.... It doesn't say whether Obama is being deceptive, it doesn't say whether Larry is deceptive. And really, considering Obama isn't actually even acknowledging Larry's existence (personally put in the situation I wouldn't either, I think he is a dumb@ss) then Obama can't actually be being deceptive. If a deception is occurring it is happening via Larry Sinclair as he is the only one making statements. Obama is currently doing nothing. You can't deceptively do nothing. -.-

http://www.clevelandleader.com...

Fourth concerning your computer which apparently decided Sinclair was right. You're pulling this directly from a blog. In fact, this is the only place on the internet that states such a thing:

http://blogs.phillyburbs.com...

The article is number 5. Written of course by Mrs. Dewy K. Who is this....?

Furthermore 3 sentences under where it states that the computer found him to be truthful it quite clearly says:

"The DACA guidelines indicate that when there is conflict between the examiner's or reviewer's score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence. The computer algorithms are considered to be useful supplements, but they are not definitive,"

Doo dee doo......

Fifth, you have completely dropped every point from my last speech. You admit that if Larry had a motivation then he would lie.

Sixth, you dropped my point from the first speech stating that Larry Sinclair is a past criminal on many accounts and thereby is very capable of libel.

Seventh, you have offered no credible evidence what-so-ever, in fact I can't even find evidence period (never mind credible evidence) that this polygraph test ever occurred.

Eight, just because I think it is amusing: Larry Sinclair is currently residing in the district of Columbia under arrest for forgery and theft.

Source: Check the one link that my opponent has posted in his third round. Near the bottom of the page they begin discussing his arrest.

Some small part of me had to smile. Larry Sinclair is an idiot. The allegations against Obama are at best extremely doubtful. Case negated.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mogget 9 years ago
Mogget
I'm implying that if the president was gay and had at one point 9 years ago used an illegal substance that I wouldn't care.
Posted by cobiader 9 years ago
cobiader
are you implying that you would or wouldn't?
Posted by Mogget 9 years ago
Mogget
As a related side note. Would it actually bother you overly much if your president had done cocaine at one point? Would it bother you if your president was attracted to other men?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mrkkid17 7 years ago
mrkkid17
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ladygirl 9 years ago
ladygirl
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 RAMBLER58 9 years ago
RAMBLER58
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 Rboy159 9 years ago
Rboy159
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 leiriks68 9 years ago
leiriks68
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 bacon 9 years ago
bacon
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 CommonSense 9 years ago
CommonSense
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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 ally93 9 years ago
ally93
ILoveCheeseMoggetTied
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