That former governor Rod Blagojevich was treated poorly by the Illinois senate

This part is to my opponent: This is my first debate so I am sorry if it is a poor one because I am still getting used to this site.

I believe that former governor Rod Blagojevich was treated unconditionally by the Illinois senate. For one thing the voter so kick him out of office was one by a margin of 59 to 0. Your telling me that every single person in that room thought he did something wrong? The thing that I really have a problem with is the fact that they only voted him out because they were tired of him in office. I will back down when you show me for a fact that he did something wrong in regards to Barack Obamas senate seat. You are going to have a hard time doing that because he never did do anything wrong. Rod Blagojevic only talked about selling the senate seat he never actually did.

Another thing I have a problem with. They treated him as if he was guilty from day one. Rod Blagojevic never got a clean fight because he never got a fair trial. Isn't that against the law to not give some one a fair trial. Now Rod Blagojevic is going to be prosecuted for something he never actually did only talked about. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and that is what Rod Blagojevic was doing. he only talked about selling the seat he never actually did.

I would like to begin by wishing good luck to my opponent in his future debates. I would wish him luck in this one, but that wouldn't exactly be beneficial to me, now would it?

I will begin by reacting to a few of my opponent's statements.

>Your telling me that every single person in that room thought he did something wrong?<
Not necessarily. Politics in Illinois is notoriously corrupt. It is possible that some of the men in that room were just thankful that it wasn't up to them to appoint a replacement, or they might have done the same thing. Regardless of the opinions of particularly slimey slime (that is, Illinois politicians), Blagojevich was treated as he deserved.

> I will back down when you show me for a fact that he did something wrong in regards to Barack Obamas senate seat.<
Will do.

>Rod Blagojevic only talked about selling the senate seat he never actually did.<
There's your proof. I am citing you, my opponent, as expert evidence. I believe this source ought to be taken seriously by all readers because while it's opinions on legality and interpretation are sometimes suspect, it's handle on what actually happened is masterful. This source claims that "Rod Blagojevich... talked about selling a senate seat." Or, in legal terms, he committed mail and wire fraud and solicitted a bribe. I would say that bribary and fraud are fairly wrong, and certainly so for those in public office.

As for treating him guilty on day one, while I'm normally opposed to it, I will make an exception for a man who A). is guilty on day one (or some time before) and B). tries to defend himself with the argument that he's so great because he helped a hospital when he actually threatened to withhold money from it.

>Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and that is what Rod Blagojevic was doing. he only talked about selling the seat he never actually did.<
If I were to make plans to blow up a building, would you say that I couldn't be arrested because I hadn't blown it up yet? Sometimes preparing to do something is as bad as doing it. And anyway, Blagojevich DID solicit bribes. Freedom of speech does not cover these things.

Blagojevich, while entertaining at times, does not deserve to hold office. Since your only complaint seems to be that he was removed from office, this ought to about cover the debate. Blagojevich had a position of power, he abused it by trying to make decisions based on what would be profitable to him, and lost that position. His treatment was appropriate, and there's not much else to say.

Well, there is one other thing.

Blagojevich delenda est. (Well, politically anyway)

Et memores, si metrum non habet, non est poema.

Bummer. I hate waiting for the clock to run out. Doesn't really look like my opponent wants to debate this, though.

Why did he have to make it four rounds?

From now on I'll remember not to debate against just joined members.