Obama will not win the election, GUARANTEED.

I have one reason and two words as to why Obama will not (and probably never) become president: LARRY SINCLAIR.

I thought about not doing this, but it's just too ridiculous to let go.

My opponent claims that he can guarantee that Barack Obama will not win the 2008 presidential election. Unless my opponent has some sort of crystal ball or superhuman knowledge of the future, he has no way of proving this claim. The best he can do is say that it is unlikely. As far as that is concerned, Barack Obama is currently leading Hillary Clinton in the delegate count and the most recent Gallup poll has him ahead of her in national public opinion by a margin of 49 to 42 (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com...). This seems to cast some doubt as to whether or not my opponent can prove that Barack Obama has no chance of winning the general election. Assuming Obama were to get the nomination, current polls show him leading Republican front runner John McCain by an average of about 4% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...).

As far as Larry Sinclair goes, I must say that that is a ridiculous claim. His story has been ignored by every major news outlet, including Fox News (who was more than willing to falsely report last year that Obama had attended a fundamentalist Muslim school). Why might this be? Because it's not actually a story, it's some guy with a webcam who doesn't like Obama and wants some attention. To assert that this will be Obama's downfall requires a little more proof that this man is telling the truth, and that if he isn't, a substantial amount of people are going to care.

It is up to my opponent to prove that either:

1. Larry Sinclair actually had sex and did cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999 or

2. Enough people are going to believe him that it will drastically hurt Obama's image

To quote Mike Huckabee at a Republican debate a few weeks ago: "If I'm catching flack, I must be over the target"

Larry Sinclair is taking a lie detector test within the next ten days, and if he passes, which he said he would, he'll get paid $100,000 by the organization that is setting it up. It's also interesting to note that Sinclair is taking Obama to court. I think he's telling the truth until proven otherwise. If it becomes fact that Barack Obama smoked cocaine rocks and received oral sex from this guy TWICE in November 1999- AS AN ILLINOIS STATE REPRESENTATIVE- there is no way this man will become president of the United States. This will destroy the Obama campaign for good.

My opponent failed to address any of my claims or challenges made in the first round. Therefore he must be conceding the fact that, as things stand right now, Barack Obama is the most popular presidential candidate, and the logical front runner for the White House.

My opponent failed to prove that Sinclair is telling the truth, but did offer up this reasoning:

"I think he's telling the truth until proven otherwise."

No. This simply isn't how debates or the court system or real life works. If someone is going to make a claim, the burden of proof is on them that they are telling the truth. If we were to believe everyone at their word, I could ruin Mike Huckabee's campaign tonight by going on Youtube and posting that he raped my grandmother. Without evidence, though, this claim is baseless. You see, back when this nation became a free country, the founders thought to themselves, "Gee, maybe we shouldn't be able to burn people at the stake just because someone called them a witch", and decided that there should be some sort of reasoning behind castigating a person. The reason my opponent is so eager to believe Mr. Sinclair is because Barack Obama poses a major threat to his party's bid for the White House in November. Reasonable people, like the journalists at CNN, the AP, Reuters, Fox News, MSNBC, and pretty much every other news outlet, have determined that this is a sensationalized non-story and have decided to ignore it. My opponent would do well to follow suit.

Once again, in order to win this debate my opponent must either find a way to prove that Mr. Sinclair can back up his outrageous claims, or give a reason why the American people are going to listen care if he can't.

haha do you really think I'm worrie about Barack Hussein Obama beating John McCain? You're dreaming. He's living off of stupid liberals who fall for emotion all the time. Once the media stops jerking him off, his stances are going to be exposed. There is no way the most liberal senator in the United States is going to become president, especially someone with zero experience.

My opponent appears to have simply given up on this debate. He has conceded all my previous points and now appears to be reneging on his own. His original claim was that the one reason why Barack Obama would never win the presidency was because of Larry Sinclair. He seems to have completely abandoned this argument in favor of several new ones, including Senator Obama's lack of experience and his liberal voting record. The first claim begs the question as to whether or not this is even a negative quality at all. Americans are dissatisfied with the current status quo in American politics, a status quo which John McCain has been a part of for decades. Many see Senator Obama's "lack of experience" as an asset and gives them hope that he can bring about change in Washington (http://www.usatoday.com...). Senator Obama's record as the most liberal senator is also of little detriment. John Kerry was listed as the most liberal senator in 2003, and were it not for a poorly managed campaign and a host of public speaking gaffes, two problems Obama doesn't have, he would be the current presidential incumbent. This ranking also raises the issue of John McCain's missed votes. Senator McCain was the only member of the Senate not to be ranked by the National Journal due to the number of votes he missed. On the votes he did manage to show up for, his conservative score was a paltry 59 out of 100 (http://nj.nationaljournal.com...). Neither of these claims rules out Barack Obama as the front runner, much less a contender, in the 2008 presidential race. My opponent has failed to prove his argument to be superior, or even hold any weight for that matter.

As one final piece of evidence that Obama has a leg up in the race, even some of John McCain's top adviser's like Obama so much that don't want to face him in a race. Mark McKinnon, former Bush adviser, and currently in charge of McCain's ad campaigns, says he would step down if Barack Obama were to win the Democratic nomination. "I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal," said McKinnon (http://blogs.abcnews.com...).

That seems to be enough to debunk my opponent's assertion of a guaranteed Obama loss. Vote con.