The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Sarah Palin is not ready for possible Vice Presidency

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: 10/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 5756
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Allow me to first define the Debate specifically.

Sarah Palin Vice presdential nominne for the Republican Party is not ready to be the Vice President of the united States of America

Seeing as how Sarah Palin has zero foriegn policy experience and absolutely no experience dealing with National Econonmy, policy, or laws. She cannot possibly be ready for the task of being Vice President and god forbid Presidnt should happen to the Republican nominee John Mccain.I make three basic and simple arguments as to why Sarah Palin is simply not ready to lead. I will expand upon them following my opponents opening and rebuttal.

1. Sarah Palin has absolutely zero forign policy ability
2. Sarah Palin lacks knowledge and experoence running external national affairs
3. Sarah Palin currently has several hildren and one with down sydrome her attention to guiding this nation will be somewhat distracted and definetely not as effective.

I satnd for my opponents response


It may indeed be seen that Gov. Sarah Palin is not ready to be Vice President of these United Stated of America. However, it is certainly not due to the reasons listed by my opponent.

I will briefly respond to the three major claims by my opponent in the order they are listed:

1. Foreign Policy is not in and of itself a sufficient reason to disqualify someone for President or Vice President. Our nation has elected a number of Governors in the past and this same argument pops up. This argument was used against Bill Clinton (42), Ronald Reagan (40), and a number of other Governors. Few would claim that either of these two Presidents proved sufficient commanders-in-chief, regardless of this fact.

2. This claim is basically the same as the first, claiming that she lacks knowledge and experience in running external affairs. 'External Affairs' seems to be another way of saying 'foreign policy', so I will not address this question. I hope that my opponent would correct me if I have interpretted him incorrectly, and then expand upon what he meant.

3. Having a large family also does not preclude anyone from the position of President or Vice President. I would like to remind the reader that many Presidents of the past have had large families as well, including Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, among others. This did not effect their job performance.

I would like to thank my opponent for introducing the topic, and eagerly await his response.
Debate Round No. 1


Krakken101 forfeited this round.


Unfortunately my opponent was unable to post his R2. It is my earnest hope that he comes back for R3. My arguments extend.
Debate Round No. 2


Krakken101 forfeited this round.


I regret that once again my opponent has not been able to make it to post in this round. My arguments extend. I would also invite my opponent to post some arguments in the comment section in he should return.
Debate Round No. 3


Im sorry not being able to answer my opponents rebuttal of my arguments allowme to do so now..

1.First of all yes Foriegn Policy is very important and if a person cannot dictate a good viable foriegn policy they could not make a good Vice President because dealing with other nations is a key matter in being the President/Vice-President. My oppnnent adresses that both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were allegedly claimed to be inexperienced runner ups. Just because other people made this claim towards both govnors the fact does not hinder my argument. Sarah Palin in contrast to Joe Biden and other Vice Presidents lacks sufficient knowledge or experience in dealing with foriegn policy issues and is this unfit for Vice Presideny

2. Allow me to clarify "External Affairs" what I mean is National Tax Revenue, National TRansportational, NAtional Health Care, National Debt, National Security, and National Treasury. All these aspects having to do wiith the Union of America itself not individual states is where Sarah Palin is missing her boat. She seems to know very little on these subjects and has herself shown a bit of incompteence in her own State

Sarah Palin's home state has the largest per capita consumer of federal funds

3. I conencede to my oppoents third rebuutal and withdraw my third argument


I would like to thank my opponent for returning to make his final arguments. It is unfortunate that he had to miss the bulk of the debate, but I am glad he could find the time to post an argument now.

I will address each issue in the order in which they appear.

1. Certainly foreign policy is an absolutely vital aspect for any government. The fact that a great number of presidents and vice presidents of the past have been quite successful without prior foreign policy experience show that while foreign policy is indeed vital, it is not vital to have proven experience in that field. The issue comes down to advising. No President is an expert in all areas of government and policy. Every President sorrounds himself/herself with advisors on all issues in order to gather expert advice. Therefore, it is not important for her to have experience necessary, since there are plenty of Henry Kissingers, Dean Achesons, and yes, plenty of Joe Bidens that can advise a president.

2. I apologize for misinterpreting my opponent's meaning, and I thank him for the clarification. The answer to this question is similar to the last. I will also note that the top of the Democratic ticket is in the same position as Sarah Palin in regards to Internal Affairs. If we had more rounds in the debate I would ask for evidence to support the claim that she "knows very little on these subjects and has herself shown a bit of incompeteence in her own state."

I will also point out that all of the categories listed by my opponent (Tax revenue, transportation, and budget) are areas where the governorship typically provides experience. Without evidence to support that she is 'incompetent' in these areas, my opponent's argument falls flat.

2.5 The fact that her state uses the most federal funds per capita is irrelevent to the issue of he readiness to be president/vice president.

3. We are in agreement on this issue, since my opponent conceded.


In closing, my opponent has not provided any evidence for his claims. He has said that she is inexperienced in foreign policy, and I showed how this is not indicative of readiness. He has claimed that she is incompetent when it comes to running internal affairs, but he provided no evidence. Indeed, he did not provide any evidence for any claim so we can only assume his arguments to be his opinion. As we know, opinions do not always reflect fact. It is for these reasons that you should vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wayne 8 years ago
good luck guys, looking forward to it =]
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
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:16