The Instigator
killerqueen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

presidential elections- mcCain is going to win

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: 2/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,478 times Debate No: 2981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (7)

 

killerqueen

Pro

John McCain is going to win this election because the best person for the job has already dropped out of the race.(Mitt Romney) I think tho that John McCain is the second best choice becaus he is experienced and knows how to win. He believes in the right things that God has taught us to believe in and he's a fighter and will definitely push for good causes. You see Hillary Clinton is just like her husband she gives us a story and says she'll make a promise but she will just go break that promise and spring some other idea on us that she hadn't already told us about. Also, I believe that Barrak Obama is a good canidate to but he's just not fighting for the right causes and he is still really young and has a lot to learn before I believe he could become a president and keep the nation intact.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I can hardly believe I'm supporting the same presidential candidate as a catholic communist... :P

I wish mccain were going to win (precisely because he won't do the things "god" told you to believe in), but frankly it's not likely.

Obama's been sweeping primaries like crazy. He will have essentially all the democratic vote, and probably some of the republican vote., as well as drawing in independents.

The average of polls indicates Obama winning against Mccain 47 to 43%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Clinton's machine is falling apart, she has low odds of nomination. Obama's currently ahead by 98 delegates, and would be by more if the primaries mattered. The democratic party knows it can't afford to appear undemocratic, and the people definitely favor Obama.

And he's getting stronger every day.
Debate Round No. 1
killerqueen

Pro

killerqueen forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Sheesh I'm in three debates, two of them forfeit within hours and the other one essentially concedes.

This hopeful, misguided, communist youth was under the impression he could put up a debate, which was apparently wrong. The impression that Mccain is somehow likely to win the election just because he's the best candidate is no doubt just as wrong. Well intentioned perhaps, but wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
killerqueen

Pro

im just a lazy catholic comunist and my opponenr may think obama will win and even other politicians and the press are saying this but like i said before if obama becomes president he wont stick to his plans and he is still very young and doesnt know everything he needs to. so i think that when McCain wins i would be fine with seeing obama as vice president that way he learns the ropes and will be a fine and maybe even one of the best presidents in the future.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

It does not matter in this debate whether Obama knows enough to be capable of performing the tasks of the presidency. What matters is whether he or mccain (or hillary) is actually likely to win. The evidence presented has solely favored the interpretation that Mccain will not win this election.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
"I'm saying that we'll be able to pay off the programs and the taxes because everyone will be able to pay everything, since rich people will have more taxes and poor people less. Programs AND taxes."

This is textbook socialism. You really are an "redistribution of wealth" anti-capitalist.
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
Ok, this sentence makes absolutely no rational sense: "Paying off all of Obama's programs wont be a problem because he'll raise taxes so much that he'll be able to cover it."

I'm saying that we'll be able to pay off the programs and the taxes because everyone will be able to pay everything, since rich people will have more taxes and poor people less. Programs AND taxes.

You say that being able to pay all of his stuff won't be a problem because we won't be able to pay it off. You're seriously making no sense.

LIKE I said, it'll be curved. I've said and explained this many times, and am not going to do so again if you lack the ability to "learn".
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
"$608213552.36 per day/301621157 people in the US (http://factfinder.census.gov......) = 2.02 dollars per day per person. It's a government site, by the way, so if it is bias at all, it'd be against me.

You saying that paying if off won't be a problem and then saying he'll raise taxes doesn't make sense at ALL. You're contradicting yourself. And he'll curve the tax, as will Clinton. Get a grip."

Again, I'll repeat myself because you seem to lack the ability to fully comprehend rational thinking.

Paying off all of Obama's programs wont be a problem because he'll raise taxes so much that he'll be able to cover it. AKA raise taxes like we have never seen before in our history of the United States. Last time I checked, people dont want to pay incredible amounts of money in taxes.

2.02 dollars per day per person?

I didn't know infants could pay taxes. Or teenagers. Or anyone without a real job. You cant divide by the entire population of the United States, since way more than half of it can't pay! Haha you've got to be kidding me with this mathematics. How about you divide that number by TAX PAYERS and then we'll see what it actually is.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Yet again, curving the percentage of income is something that is a basic liberal idea, that every liberal believes in"

Depends how you choose to define liberal.

In the original meaning of the term, it is an idea any liberal would fight against :D
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
Yet again, curving the percentage of income is something that is a basic liberal idea, that every liberal believes in. It's rather obvious this is going to happen. Clinton and Obama run off of the fact that rich people get tax cuts that they don't need. Hm...wonder what that means, shwayze? It IS going to happen, which is exactly why I keep bringing it up.

Why, I'd be happy to! Here it is:

888.6 billion dollars = 888600000000 dollars over a term, which is 4 years.

888600000000/4 = 222150000000 dollars per year.

222150000000/365.25 days in a year = $608213552.36 per day.

$608213552.36 per day/301621157 people in the US (http://factfinder.census.gov...) = 2.02 dollars per day per person. It's a government site, by the way, so if it is bias at all, it'd be against me.

You saying that paying if off won't be a problem and then saying he'll raise taxes doesn't make sense at ALL. You're contradicting yourself. And he'll curve the tax, as will Clinton. Get a grip.

Well, if government is the problem, then why don't we just abolish all government interaction with people, then, shwayze?

Hey, although it's bias, I can still do basic math.

You mean what he SAYS? Personally, I hardly trust any politician, but if its anyone that I can trust out of the three candidates, it'd have to be Obama. Especially since the other two have lied in the past.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
"if they didn't curve the tax, it'd be 2 dollars for each American every day. However, since they WILL be curving it, and the same percentage will be coming out of everyone's income, so paying it off won't be a problem at all, unlike what you think."

Why do you speak in hypotheticals? If this, if that? It's not going to happen so why bring it up?

2 dollars for each American every day? Haha please show me the math on this one. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

paying it off wont be a problem? Of course it wont, because Obama will raise taxes like we've never seen before.

If you haven't realized, government isnt the solution, IT'S THE PROBLEM.

Why do you have such trouble with the GOP.com article. I gave you examples from the article, since apparently you cant read it, and proved to you it's entirely true. They have recorded all of Obama's plans and created an Obama Spend-O-Meter based entirely off of Obama's words.

Are you that paranoid that you can trust even Obama's words?
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
What, bringing out the falsity in your arguments? You surely know the basic liberal!

Even if it wasn't bias, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, which you obviously didn't pay attention to at all, if they didn't curve the tax, it'd be 2 dollars for each American every day. However, since they WILL be curving it, and the same percentage will be coming out of everyone's income, so paying it off won't be a problem at all, unlike what you think. Also, keep in mind that a large portion of the money will go towards improving the economy, something that we desperately need to do. Not too long ago congress put a few billion dollars boost into action, but that didn't really help. This is what we need to prevent a drastic recession. And the point still stands that if it's not bias, you won't have a problem finding it on any other site on the web. I'm sure you can find a non-bias site, shwayze. It is, of course, the internet, which is kinda big. That is, of course, only if what you say is actually true.

I think it's rather hilarious how you only focus on one part of my argument every time, and fail to talk about the rest.

Oh, and sorry about my double post. The computers at my school are a tad slow, and screw up often.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
"I'm not sure if you're truly capable of connecting the dots in the first place, shwayze. However, generally "connecting the dots" is generally referring to "common sense", something which I don't believe you have."

Liberalism 101.

Why don't you actually read the article? Everything GOP.com has on that article is direct quotes from Obama and Clinton on their exact amounts of spending. Here is an example:

"Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year--Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. "[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it." (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, "Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage," The New York Times, 5/30/07)."

Please tell me how this is biased.

"Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years--Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)."

How much more objective reporting can you get? And you want to know why this isnt on other websites? BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA'S INCREDIBLE SPENDING RAMPAGE HE'LL GO ON.
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
It's possible, but knowing the crap that comes out of both parties' mouths against the other, the chances are astronomical.

Besides, I doubt that gop.com is the only site that keeps track of such things. Although they are biased, so it doesn't exactly count.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
It's just simply not cold hard fact if its from such a bias site as "gop.com". If it IS cold hard fact, then you won't have a problem whatsoever coming up with the exact same numbers from a non-bias site.
"

False in fact. If the only research done is done by a "biased" party, it is possible to have something be fact without it being available on a "nonbiased" site.

By the way, Hillary clinton is not a "pure" socialist. "Pure" socialists die quicker than Mussolini or Stalin, two of the closest to that term. A "pure" socialist is frankly incapable of life in the proper sense :D
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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 mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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 sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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 Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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 Hypnodoc 9 years ago
Hypnodoc
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
killerqueenRagnar_RahlTied
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