The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Should America elect a bland, uncharismatic, and forgettable president?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 55400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




The reason why is that lots of critics of President Barack Obama (2009-) claim that the president is too charismatic, likeable, but with no substance and achievements. Should we elect a president in 2016 that is not exciting and historical like a Hillary Clinton or a Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, instead of a male that is so bland, sopoforic, sleep-inducing, so boring and uncharismatic that he will be forgettable and you won't even know his name because how low key he is?


Let's define the terms being used in the resolution.

Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions

Lacking strong features or characteristics and therefore uninteresting

Lacking the charm and attractiveness that can inspire enthusiasm in others

Easily forgotten, especially through being uninteresting or mediocre

If the person is easily forgettable, they'd be forgotten by the election by the majority of people of average memory capacity or below. If the person is bland, they wouldn't attract voters to begin with, nor make office. If the person is uncharismatic, they wouldn't have the capability to motivation anyone to vote them in the first place.

Thus, by definition, to win an election means that a person cannot be all three of those things.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes, a uncharismatic president could be elected. Think. In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate and Missouri congressman Dick Gephardt, a uncharismatic politician, was almost nominated by Democrats if he had won the Iowa caucuses and the nomination. He could have defeated President George W. Bush in the general election. In early 2011, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty was somewhat uncharismatic and bland, and he did not get the nomination because he dropped out after a poor showing in the Iowa straw poll. If he had won the nomination, he could have defeated President Obama in 2012. So, yes, it's possible, we could elect a uncharismatic and bland president that is so forgettable that we won't even know his name or recognize. Not creating a ripple is the best way to govern, AT times.


I never said that an uncharismatic candidate for President couldn't win the election, I said that a bland, uncharismatic and forgettable individual would be extremely inadvisable for anyone knowing the definitions of those terms to elect and that all three together would most certainly be an impossible person to win an election.

You term 'and', rather than 'or' to complete the list indicating that all three characteristics must be present int he individual who wins the election.

On another note, the fact that you remembered Dick Gephardt means that is not forgettable and thus doesn't fit the criteria that you set out in your resolution. You also remembered Tim Pawlenty and said he was only 'somewhat uncharismatic and bland' indicating that he didn't fully fit the bill in terms of the type of individual you are seemingly intending to describe in the resolution.

The question isn't if we could do such a thing but if we should. the fact that we could not is only supported by the fact that if you remembered an individual who was elected and fit those three criteria then they are no longer capable of retaining the 'forgettable' title that they require to meet your resolution.
Debate Round No. 2


We just need presidents with substance, and more dull and dry personas.


If America needed such a president, it would have 'died' as a nation for not having such a president.

Therefore, since it hasn't died, it has not yet needed such a president.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither acted in a manner that would cost conduct points. S & G - Tie. Neither made any major grammatical or spelling errors. Arguments - Con. Successfully showed the audience that having a candidate with those traits is not something that would be ideal traits for a President. Con also showed how having such traits would seriously hinder one's chance at being elected in the first place. Pro also failed to really explain how such a President would truly be beneficial. He makes such a claim at the end of his R2 it such claims deserve explanations or reasoning. Source - Con. I feel like I might be stretching it a little bit since he only used sources for definitions. Regardless of that, sources are required for such things and by utilizing them he has earned those points over his opponent who never utilized sources to expand or strengthen his points.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 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 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins on the existence of the status quo.