The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Advidoct
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Who'd make the best US president?

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: 1/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 1750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

Farooq

Pro

For this debate you make present any current US presidential candidate from either of the major parties that is still running and than explain why you think they are the best [wo}man to lead the United States through the next leg of the century (they must be serious actual candidates, Colbert and Gravel do not count) My selection is John McCain, for a variety of reasons.

Number one is that he is probably the most moderate minded of the major candidates and will be the best choice for bringing together Republicans and Democrats against issues that face America as whole like healthcare, illegal immigration, and America's approach to the climate crisis. With these issues he will be able to more easily implicate reforms than the other candidates because he will be able to play both parties into his moderate fold so that they can face the moderate reality most Americans want. Sure they want more healthcare, but how much can really be afforded by the taxpayer? John McCain is the man to balance partisan values.

Also he is one of the more principled and patriotic of the candidates. Though dubbed "maverick" by the media is this just not another word for principled. Even when it can mean a loss in votes McCain has shown that he will stick to his values rather than get the political advantage. He has served the most time in service to America, both in the military and the Senate and made intense legislative decisions that other candidates may not have had the experience with.

As to regards to foreign policy McCain is not perfect, but certainly adept. He is a steadfast supporter of Iraqi Republic, and believes in American responsibility to the people who she has destabilised. Yet at the same time, he is not one-issue about counter-terror and paranoid, like another particular GOP candidate.

Overall I can see no reason why America would want to choose any other candidate other John McCain for her presidency. Not since the days of Preston Manning or Tony Blair has the Anglophone world been blessed with such potential leadership skills.
Advidoct

Con

Hey Farooq, Thx for the debate.

The way I see it, the best condidate for America's future is Mitt Romney.

No on can argue that its time for change, and a lot of it. Mitt Romney is the only republican candidate who can bring that kind of change. Only Romney has a history of huge turnaround. Mitt Romney takes over businesses like Staples and Dominoes, who are struggling. Now you see them everywhere. The Romney moves on to the Olympics and turns what was going to be an incredible disaster, into an incredible success. Lastly, he becomes governor of Massachussets and turns a 3 billion dollar deficit into surplus without raising taxes. He also brought healthcare to ever resident of Massachussets. Everything Romney gets his hands on turns to gold.

Romney is a financial genius. That is another inarguable point. No other republican candidate knows money like Romney. Now, coming into recession and facing a more permanent economic downturn due to stiff competition overseas, we need someone who can compete. We need someone who can lead the economy into the 21st century. Mitt Romney knows how to handle money. In all of his success stories, there is one thing they all have in common and that is financial improvement. Romney knows how to cut out unnecessary spending and use whats left over for productive means. You dont have to take my word for it. Look at his record.

We need a seriously strong leader who is still willing to compromise in order to move forward. According to the polls most people agree that Romney is the presidential candidate with the best leadership ability. His successful track record would be entirely impossible if he were anything less of a brilliant leader. He knows how to grab the bull by the horns and create change. He did it in his career. He did it in Salt Lake. He did it in Massachussets, and he can do it in the white house.
Also, he is able to compromise. He knows how to work with democrats. Only a man who can compromise with democrats can win the governor's mansion in the country's most liberal state. Then, not only did he win but he worked miracles alongside a democratic legislature. He moved Massachussets forward without sacrficing his morals, but compromising with his opponents in order to move forward. If that kind of attitude were to make it to the white house, you bet we would have progress and that is another thing america is screaming for.

Romney is a faithful man with strong morals that he lives. He is loving father who always found time for his family. He is a devout christian. He believes strongly in the power of the traditional family and the preservation of traditional marriage. He is anti-abortion. The most important thing to me however, is that Romney stands by his morals and lives them. He said in his speech "Religion in America" that if his relgion and his morals would sink him as a candidate, then so be it. Thats strength.
If flip-flopping is the only thing people can dig up on Romney, then you know he is doing something right with his life.

Romney is powerful, impressive, and progress for America's future. He is the whole package. He is exactly the man we need.
Debate Round No. 1
Farooq

Pro

I congratulate you for your organized presentation for the sake of your candidate, but am here to refute your points so here it goes

"We need someone who can lead the economy into the 21st century. Mitt Romney knows how to handle money." – You

Yes, I am greatly impressed by Romney's track record at being the Paul Martin or Alex Hamilton of Massachusetts and his attack on the deficit. Yet one must come to relaize that Boston and DC are different cities, and have different problems. (by the way you are mistaken he did raise taxes there, though not against income). But as good a businessman as he is much of the financial management in Washington is done by bureaucrats and the Treasury department, and so long as the President appoints competent people in this, it will go the same way relatively for any GOP candidate, though McCain has shown more of an initiative in opposing tax cuts than Romney has (namely Bush's capital gains) and his aversion might not work as well in the White House, where income tax is the nearly the sole source of treasury generation. America is going to be facing a recession crisis, and she needs a man (or woman) who willing to put economic ideologies aside in favour of reason and circumstantial examination, a man like John McCain.

As to your assertions that Romney is a man that is willing to look across party lines and encourage moderation, do these principles not manifest themselves even more potently in McCain than either Romney, Obama, or any of the other candidates? He is well know to compromise, particular on economic matters but on others as well. His plans to reform immigration are also based on realism, rather than Romney's ideological ideas that extremely low and red-tape tied immigration quotas should be upheld, impractical as they are. This is one issue in which McCain will find himself upheld from people on both partisan ends, mainly even his competition.

"The most important thing to me however, is that Romney stands by his morals and lives them."- you

As for pride in Romney's moral character you must realize that one should take all politicians visible morals with a grain of salt, for more than once the citizenry has been tricked by the sugar coating of potentially corrupt or immoral candidate. McCain however has a record for standing on his principles, many of which (namely his position on homosexual unions) lead him to defeat at the hands of Bush in 2000. When a leader goes against what the polls speak for his (or her) electability that says masses more than a few tears in public or posing in front of a church or with happy-looking family. These can lie, political stands do not.
Advidoct

Con

"America is going to be facing a recession crisis, and she needs a man (or woman) who willing to put economic ideologies aside in favour of reason and circumstantial examination, a man like John McCain."
-You

Beautifully worded but hard to really buy. It is hard to argue that McCain is better qualified to lead this nations economy than Romney. Romney knows business. Most of all Romney knows AMERICAN business. We face recession because American industries are falling apart due to foreign competition. We need to make it stop, and the only way to do that is to build our industries and to help them flourish. We need to make them competitive and protect them from the overseas onslaught. McCain is a great strategist, and a brilliant man, but he is not an economist. Romney IS an economist. Romney's whole career was to build up industry and make it prosperous; something he was extraordinarily good at. If Romney could gain control on a national level, I can only imagine what kind of things he could accomplish for our country. Romney is definatly much more qualified for this task. For example, currently McCain and Romney are campaigning in Michigan. Romney is explaining how he can rebuild the auto industry and help Michigan flourish again. McCain is simply telling everyone to find new skills... Encouraging people to give up on their trade is a slap in the face of American Work-Ethic, not to mention bad for our economy. We cannot convince Michigans citizens to submit to foreign dominance or we WILL see recession. Romney is doing what he can now; encouraging them to keep moving forward and to bring out the old inginuity. If he were president, he could do a lot more for the auto industry than just give encouragement. If we could bring the auto industry into full-steam again, we would be taking a major step in revitalizing our economy. McCain's advice simply condemns the auto industry and hurts our shot at economic growth.

"As to your assertions that Romney is a man that is willing to look across party lines and encourage moderation, do these principles not manifest themselves even more potently in McCain than either Romney, Obama, or any of the other candidates?" -you

I agree that McCain has definatly shown himself able to compromise, but he has only waided through the shallow waters of liberalism. Romney has had to swim through an ocean of liberalism. Romney had to work with a nearly entirely democratic legislature to move Massachussetts forward every day. He had to represent a vast liberal majority while still meeting his own party's interests. He not only accomplished that, but he showed himself to be extraordinary at that as well.
McCain has done much to help move America forward, but he has not had face an ocean of democrats. Romney did at least as much to move Massachussetts forward, but he had greater odds against him and still succeeded. Romney has won the good spirits of many Democrats and for that, I find him more qualified as well.

"As for pride in Romney's moral character you must realize that one should take all politicians visible morals with a grain of salt" - you

I agree that images can, in fact, be very decieving and many people claim to see through Romney's "perfect facade". I myself judge a candidate's character based not on what they tell me, but by what their record looks like. Their record will be more honest than their lips. Romney has a spotless record. He has a very strong moral fiber that had helped raise a very successful and loving family. That alone is his greatest accomplishment. He has faithfully attended church his entire life, and even gave two years of his life to missionary work. He has fought firmly for what he believes is right and wrong. This shows moral character. Many say that Romney is obviously fake, but no one can give me evidence. The reason??? His history actually says quite the opposite.
McCain's firm stance on issues makes him a passionate man, but not necessarily a moral man. An immovable stance on issues makes McCain a hard-headed man. I respect his passion, but his hard-headedness will be an enemy to progress. Bush, too, was represented as the "immovable republican", but his "immovability" has only let us down and stomped on the face of progress. We need someone who isnt quite so hard-headed. Someone who is willing to get over his own pride. I dont think McCain will be able to do that. Romney can. Romney has.
For example, Romney's personal belief is that Abortion is wrong. Unlike McCain, however, Romney is willing to compromise for progress. His political stance on abortion is to let the states vote themselves. This way the people can be better represented and the country will move forward.
Romney recognizes that his opinion comes second the the opinion of the majority. Bush and McCain do not. In other words.
The Presidents job is to represent the people, not his own personal beliefs. Romney recognizes that. McCain. like Bush, has yet to prove he would be willing meet that demand.

McCain is a brilliant man, and I am a huge fan. I supported him in 2004 and until I looked into Romney, I supported him for 2008. He is a good candidate for president but he is not the all-around best. Romney offers much more than McCain. McCain has the skills it takes to fix Iraq. Romney has the skills it takes to fix this country and personally, when it comes to fixing something, we need to get our own house in order first. Thats why we need Romney.
Debate Round No. 2
Farooq

Pro

Farooq forfeited this round.
Advidoct

Con

Hoorah for Michigan!!!

Since my opponent was unable to repost in the allotted time i dont really have much to argue since i feel i made my point.

On that note, The National Review published an article in their December 31st edition called "Romney for President".
If you aren't sure who your gunna vote for, or you've taken an interest in Romney, head to your nearest book store and check it out. It gives very good reasoning on why Romney is the best candidate. Its great at describing why he offers more than any other candidate, and why he is the most suitable candidate to bring together the republican party.
Seriously, go check it out.

Lastly, Washington is broken, and Romney can fix it. Send him in and he'll come out on top like he always does. Don't send McCain, he is part of broken washington. Don't send Huckabee, he doesn't have anything to offer aside from his religion. Don't send Giuliani, he isn't much of a censervative, and his temper makes for an awful diplomat. Dont send Thompson, he hasnt proven that he has any ability to lead.

Vote Romney. Strong Leadership for a Stronger America.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
"He would not be supported by democrats because democrats will never support someone with an (R) next to their name. "

Two words to prove you wrong: Ron Paul.
Posted by foxmulder 9 years ago
foxmulder
John McCain would probably be one of the least supported presidents.

He would not be supported by democrats because democrats will never support someone with an (R) next to their name.

He would never be supported by conservative republicans because he has very liberal policies and is seen as pretty much a democrat.

I was a Thompson supporter before he dropped out and now there are really no truly conservative candidates.
Posted by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
Sorry to bust your bubble, you guys, but Gravel and Kucinich are uninformed and entirely useless presidential candidates. Perhaps calling them "Candidates" is too generous. Neither them, nor Ron Paul are able to get so much as a vote of sympathy, let alone a piece of legislation, if given the chance. Obama would have stood half a chance, but his proposals would produce crappy legislation, if any. Conservative or moderate proposals still overwhelm the majority of legislation that gets enacted by congress, and none of the candidates you guys recommended fit anywhere close to those categories. I'm sorry, but they all suck, however Obama is the best of the set. Take care guys.
Posted by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
Wow these choices are lick picking one poison over another
Posted by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
i agree with rocker935, paul, kucinich, and obama are easily the best candidates. i dont know much about gravel so i cant say he would be good
Posted by rocker935 9 years ago
rocker935
LOL, both of the candidates are awful neo-conservatives. Among the top 4 candidates are Gravel, Kucinich, Paul, and Obama.

Neo-Conservatives are hypocritical jerks.
Posted by buttercupx224 9 years ago
buttercupx224
why can't you say gravel?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by phunkyboy123 9 years ago
phunkyboy123
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jagbag 9 years ago
Jagbag
FarooqAdvidoctTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03