Obama should run again.
Debate Rounds (4)
You can like argue in the first round but nit the last.
You cannot challenge my definitions. lol.
I believe President Obama has been a good President, but he should not run again.
Running. The act of exercising.
Exercising is healthy http://www.google.com... So Obama should run again
A lot of people in America really, really hate President Obama. Hate groups have risen by over 700% since President Obama took office. "According to the SPLC, the number of radical "anti-government" militia groups increased from 150 to 1,274 during the years of the Obama presidency. There have been more homegrown domestic terrorism attacks by right-wing groups than by international terrorists during his presidency as well, Potok noted." . Despite President Obama being born in Hawaii two years after it became a state and despite President Obama attending a Christian church with his mother since he was a baby, these radicals believe President Obama is not American and a secret Muslim. These radicals want to get rid of him . I, personally, do not want to see our siting President to get injured by radicals that live among us, nor would him being injured by radicals be in his best interest. For this reason, President Obama should not run again for his own well being.
ClashnBoom forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: (1) Conduct. Con wins conduct, as Pro forfeited a round. (2) Arguments. All Pro argued is that "running is healthy." First, I don't see a link between "running is healthy" and "Obama should run." The link that say "if X is healthy, X should be done" is missing, and is an unjustified assumption. Pro doesn't substantiate this. Con presents much stronger offense, arguing that it is unsafe for Obama to run randomly. She demonstrates that (a) it's unsafe for the president to run, and (b) what is unsafe should not be done (the B point could have been substantiated, but it was there). Both sides drop the others' arguments, and I'm not really given a weighing mechanism. But I vote Pro down on accounts of Con having an additional, crucial link. I can also see that a threat to life outweighs good health. While neither side focuses on a clear impact analysis (i.e. one that involves magnitude as well as probability), I can vote Con because of my own impact analysis, and Con's link. I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.