The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
zander
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

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: 2/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 907 times Debate No: 2921
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (10)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

he graduated in international relations, which is vital today, then worked at a business organization regarding that topic.
he then became a community organizer for the disenfranchised.
he then became editor of harvard law review and graduated at the top of his class... which is more than just any law school's editor and class but harvard.
he then practiced civil rights law.
he taught constutional law at university of chicago, one of the most prestiguous school in the country.
he was a state legislator for many years.
he then became a US senator for a few years.

he seems pretty qualified to me. just because he's not be around as long doesn't mean he can't be president. voting for someone because they're old is not an argument. hte constituion allows president at 35, he's 46... if anyone were to be elected at his age, you couldn't get a better qualifed president. the only conclusion you could possibly come to is that you're going to vote based on number of years only... in which case mccain automatically wins.
he's got quality years, not quantity.
zander

Con

His record has some blotches too, eventhough they might not be listed on his website. He worked for a lawfirm who dealt with a Chicago slumlord and there were also some disputes in his community outreach organizations. Thats not the big problem with your argument though.

The argument isn't that Obama is to young, or that we should have an eldery president. Its simply that Obama doesn't have anything that makes him presidential or worthy to lead the country. Age is not the problem, its his merit and credentials. Your argument is like a buff 14 year old girl applying to be a pro wrestler. She has great qualifications for her age, but something tells me she just doesn't have the chops.

You say Obama has quality years. How so? He was a great law student, I will give you that. What else has he done? He was a state senator in one of the worst state senates in the country. During that time he was marginal at best. Then, as a US Senator, he hasn't done anything of significance. How are his years quality years, especially politically?

I'm not saying age is what matters, but credentials do. Simply saying he has done the best he could is irrelevant, he still needs to be compared to other politicians and their aptitude.

Voting on age is definately not the only possible conclusion. You want to give Obama a handicap because he is young. We should ignore the fact that he hasn't achieved anything and simply vote on faith. I don't support McCain, but at least the other candidates have something to lean on. You can tell in the debates, barack is just not as well versed on the obscure or delicate issues.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

bill clinton most agree was qualified. people didn't diss him though for his age even though he was in fact three years younger than obama.

clinton was the attorney general for twelve years, and governor of arkansas for two years. he was a con law professor too at a less prestiguous law school for a year or two.

clinton got his hands dirty too practicing law with a short stint.

surely, out of all the things done, i'd agree that beng governor is best. but, people get in debates all the time about whether senator or governor is better.

obama was in either a state or federal legislature for twelve years, similar very much to clinton's.

in fact, the only real difference is that obama is older than clinton was, and practiced law and civl rights for mroe time.

the debate about experenice if you accept clinton comes down only to whether govenror or legislor is better. it's the same difference.

something tells me you're only debating this, if you continue to debate this that is, because the media is telling you that you're suppose to.
zander

Con

Even if I give you that Bill was qualified, which is debatable, its not an age issue. Who cares that Clinton was three years younger, thats irrelevant. You have to look at qualifications.

Its more than legislator vs governor. Clinton had positive results running a state and Obama raises his hand. He hasn't instigated any significant legislation. The only thing he can say is that he gave a sweet speech against the war 7 years ago. Clinton had infinitely more political experience. How does Obama practicing civil rights law for a couple more years relate to presidential qualifications? Clinton was Attorney General. Obama was a law professor. Clinton raised up a state, Obama raises his hand.

So, even if I give you that Clinton was qualified, that in no way means Obama is. Personally, I don't think Bill was qualified. The only reason he won in 92 is because Bush I messed up so badly.

Notice you fail to mention anything Obama has done of substance. You just list the same law practice record that has no relevance to presidential qualification. Is this because Obama lacks substance and merit? It would appear so.

How am I the one getting played by the media? The media is SO FAR up Obama's rear its ridiculous. The debates are even becoming slanted his way, while all of the negatives get swept under the rug. Notice I'm the one backing my opinion with numerous solid arguments while you spoonfeed me the same old same old irrelevant biography.

He lacks substance and merit. This is obvious because you can't name anything he has done post-Harvard. Its ok though, he sounds pretty, and apparently thats what counts.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

one thing i notice in debating you. you never actually present new info. all you do is work with the facts i give you. you could have very well shown what clinton did... but instead assert that he raised the state, and that obama didn't do anything during his prerun for the presiency. any facts you cite, were first cited by me. your arm chair debates are amusing.

unlike clinton, obama was a civil rights attorney for a longer period of time. he actually worked with teh people. and being a little older, he's had more time to do wht he did.

he spearheaded laws that were enacted in: health care changes, criminal investigation reform, death penalty reform, racial profiling reform, ethics reform (reminsienct of his lone voice in campaign finance reform), to name a few thigns he did.
i'm not going to make the case for clinton. if you think there's a difference, that's your's to study.

while i think gov is better btw, it's a reasonable debate and merely different to be obama... cause he's had state experience and federal perspective. they both have good qualities to them. and, by your reasoning, you'd about have to be a governor in order to accompanish much by their age.
again, it seems your only ocnclusion is that age is teh sole factor as there's not mucm ore they could have done.

the media is up obama's @$$ in good. but, those in the media who detract from him all talk about his supposed lack of experience. it's okay, i won't fault you too much for not beng able to think for yourself, and being a media puppet. if that makes you feel better that you're rationalizing voting for someone simply because they're older, then more power to you. that someone like you can vote is what makes this country great.
zander

Con

I love the personal attacks. They hold so much relevance. If it angers you that I beat you last time using your own evidence, don't hold it over into all of our debates. All of this 'armchair' quarterback stuff i just you venting about the times I turn your own support against you. Here, I'll show you.

"unlike clinton, obama was a civil rights attorney for a longer period of time. he actually worked with teh people"

Who cares? I asked you two rounds ago to point out how this is relevant to being president and you have failed to do so. There are people that have been civil rights attorneys for half a century, do all of them get to be prez? Also, your argument here is one of years. I thought you didn't like counting years and judging the amount of time spent. It doesn't cut both ways. Either you think more years is better or irrelevant.

"he spearheaded laws that were enacted"

The only bill he has initiated is the Ethics bill that passed 96-2. Not exactly pushing through tough legislation is he? I would hardly call one of 96 senators the lone voice. That bill hasn't done anything to clean up Washington, as we can see. He gets credit for spearheading things because he comes out and speaks about how glad he is this bill passed. Just another commentary on how he uses oratory as a crutch.

"it's a reasonable debate and merely different to be obama"

No, its not. As I pointed out, Clinton had much more valuable experience. He lead a state (gov IS better), he was attorney general, and despite the fact he was younger was more experienced and qualified.

"it seems your only ocnclusion is that age is teh sole factor"

You just keep repeating this in the hopes it will come true. Quite the opposite though. I value experience and qualification. Would you hire someone without proper training? If the fact that having little to no experience is a consequence of being young, then yes, being young is a problem. I think that those who have the experience, accomplishment, and merit for the job are more apt rather than someone who can speak eloquently.

You can't look at Obama's record objectively and I'm the media puppet? They spoonfeed you facts like "he lectured on con law, he was an advocate for civil rights" and you're like "Ooo!! Ahh!!". You should look at the things he has done objectively instead of buying everything he TELLS you he did. Look at the congressional record sometime and try finding Obama's name under anything but yea or nay. I too wish all voters were objective and critical, thanks.

You have continually failed to produce ANYTHIHG Obama has done that would make him a viable presidential candidate. You duck my arguments and kick sand at me in the hopes of detracting from the argument. Still, you haven't provided me any reason Obama is qualified. You just want us to give him a handicap because he "hasn't had the opportunity yet". Come back when you can find something that sets him apart and makes him worthy of leading the nation.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
As much as I root for you Dairy, Zander's right. Your argument consists of moot points and ad homs. The fact is, the objections raised by Zander are objections to raise. Whereas you responded by try to draw a parallel with Clinton. The debate isn't about Clinton or involving Clinton.

Vote Obama,
Yes We Can.

Yeah, bad argument, vote con.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 redinbluestate 8 years ago
redinbluestate
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 8 years ago
blond_guy
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 Jokerdude 8 years ago
Jokerdude
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 zander 8 years ago
zander
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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