Debate Rounds (4)
A sheep should be elected the President of the United States in 2016.
Sheep: "Any of various usually horned ruminant mammals of the genus Ovis in the family Bovidae, especially the domesticated species O. aries, raised in many breeds for wool, edible flesh, or skin." 
President: The highest position in the executive branch of the United States federal government
1. First round is acceptance. Last 3 are debate.
2. No new arguments in final round.
3. Pro has burden of proof
i guess this is a troll debate.
I accept this debate and all of the definitions stated in the first round.
Sheep are more peaceful than other animals. (1)
Because sheep are more peaceful, a president sheep would disapprove of drone strikes against foreign countries because they are violent and aggressive.
Continued drone strikes will undermine stability in Pakistan; they need to be stopped. (2)
Pakistani instability will spiral into nuclear war between India and Pakistan. (3)
The threat of nuclear war must be stopped; the sheep is the only way!
Sources in comments due to the lack of characters allowed.
My opponent says that sheep are the most peaceful animals. However, this is false. Manatees are actually really peaceful too .
Yes, a sheep would not be able to send drone strikes, which is good. However, the sheep would undermine OUR society because he/she would not be able to :
•Set goals to make a better nation
•Do any serious work without eating the papers
•Protect our country against attacks from other countries
•Be able to read advice or laws
•Be able to MAKE any laws
•Follow constitution, thus rendering irrelevancy to all U.S goalposts
Furthermore, Pakistan would be able to attack US now with nuclear or other items  since we would be defenseless. If another country comes to our defense, then a whole war forms, and the U.S is left without an army, thus making the whole country a third-class world.
So a sheep might actually increase the threat of a nuclear war, as shown above. A sheep elected as president=failed nation.
My opponent claimed that sheep would be poor leaders. However, new evidence indicates that they are more competent than previously thought, (4) while approval rating show that human politicians become dumber than previously thought. (5)
Next, my opponent claims we would be left defenseless. This isn't true because most of the military is, and still would be, made up of humans. (6)
Sheep can advocate political viewpoints as strong leaders. The video is proof!
If you are against nuclear war, voting sheep is the best option.
Sources in comments.
You stated that "sheep are more peaceful than other animals," which means ALL animals. Sheep would provide a poor replacement because they need to be out in the open to properly do "sheep stuff."
Sheep would be poor leaders to humans. A sheep being a leader to a sheep is not the same as a sheep being a leader to a human. Your link only shows that sheep MAY be able to do the very basics of what a human is required to do to be a terrible leader. However, you have to BE 35 years old to be a president , but no sheep has ever LIVED to that mark . Therefore, a sheep would be violating the constitution.
For example, LeBron James got more disliked over time (2006-11) , but that does not mean he got stupider or worse.
We would be defenseless to other countries because without the president TELLING US IN ENGLISH OR A SPEAKABLE LANGUAGE what to do with fighting, we would be weak, as we would not have solid orders.
Given that the constitution is already being violated , there is nothing exceptional about a sheep doing so too. Anyway, you didn't say why that would be a bad thing.
While the sheep may not be good military leader, other officials would be able to take charge.  The president doesn't run everything.
Almost all drone strikes are authorized by the president, so electing a sheep would stop them. 
Sources in comments.
Ok, so you meant that sheep were more peaceful than other animals? You need to use better wording on that next time, because it meant ALL animals the way you said it.
You showed that the president is violating the constitution AFTER he got elected. Plus, each one is a small violation of the constitution. The election of a president WELL under 35 years old is a direct violation of a REQUIREMENT to be a president as well , not just the constitution. It would be a bad thing because he would not have enough life experience, and therefore be underpriveleged.
Others could run the army, but it would still be weakened no orders from the president.
Ok. A euglena, shoe, dog, chair, a dead guy, a plant, a bench, a pair of pants, or ice cream would not be able to authorize drone strikes. But does that mean they would be a better choice at president? No!
Thank you, and vote pro! Also, my opponent dropped various points from the second round (list of what sheep can't do.)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.