The Instigator
headphonegut
Con (against)
Losing
79 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
102 Points

was obama the correct choice for president by the American people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,389 times Debate No: 10350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (27)

 

headphonegut

Con

the burden on the Aff. is to prove that obama is the correct choice for presidency by the American people correct will be defined as best or right choice shall be election and American people will be citizens of the U.S. which he cannot due because all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally what has he actually done except for trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably and tried to get health care, what has he actually done for the united states, nothing because he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice and also please look at the sites below also he cannot prove that obama was the correct choice because he was not elected by the people to be the democratic runner up for president he was chosen by the super delegates

kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/obama-and-the-nobel-peace-prize/

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33240807/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

ibertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/.../america-has-muslim-president-small-town.html - 12 hours ago

hotair.com/.../video-obama-supporter-cant-name-anything-obama-has-actually-done/

I believe I have said and showed what is needed or has been needed to insure that I've won if my opponent doesn't forfeit he is either very brave or very naive whichever even if its both he will fail and I thank him or her for accepting this debate no offense or harm intended.
Mangani

Pro

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. Hopefully we can have a lively and informative debate.

Because of the lack of structure in the opening argument, I will do my best to bring some to this debate by numerating my opponent's points and arguing each one separately.

Contention #1- "all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally"

Though I would agree that PRESIDENT Barack Hussein Obama has done quite a bit of talking, it is ridiculous to say "all he has done...literally" is talk. I will enumerate a small list of accomplishments that no matter how insignificant they may be to any one person, they certainly refute my opponent's "literally just talk" contention.

1- Even as President Elect, Obama successfully requested the release of the second half of President Bush's TARP program allowing access to the second half ($350 Billion) of the $700 Billion set aside by Congress in the legislation. http://www.moneymorning.com...

2- Just two days after being sworn in as President, Obama issued an Executive Order banning torture, and ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

3- A day later, Obama reversed a policy put in place in 2001 that prevented funding of international family planning groups. This reversal has the potential to save lives otherwise harmed by unsafe abortions. http://www.npr.org...

4- A few days later, Obama ordered federal regulators to move swiftly on the applications of 14 states for tougher emissions standards. This order has the potential for a great impact on the environment. http://www.nytimes.com...

5- Though some won't view this as an "accomplishment" as it's effects are still in debate (though on the surface the effects seem to be mostly positive), Obama signed into law the Federal Stimulus Bill. http://www.nytimes.com...

6- Ten days after that, Obama fulfilled his campaign promise of setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

7- In March, Obama lifted Bush's ban on federal funding for stem cell research. http://www.scientificamerican.com...

8- Obama forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy. http://online.wsj.com...

9- In June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com...) which has resulted in a billion dollars in profits for the Ford alone. http://money.cnn.com...

10- For ten I will just rattle off a few other accomplishments:
-Sonya Sotomayor
-The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
- The release of torture memos
- $288 Billion in tax cuts
- Ending the war on Medical Marijuana
- Stopped the financial collapse
- Revival of credit markets
- 3.5% economic growth in the last quarter

Obama has, to the dismay of many liberals, continued and defended a host of Bush's policies including appointing Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, and even defending lawsuits against the warrantless wiretapping program.

Contention #2- All he has done (in contradiction to the "literally...talk" claim) is "trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably".

-As stated above, there is a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Until the first phase of that timetable has been reached, there is no way to say he has "failed miserably" on that commitment.

Contention #3- "tried to get health care" (implication that this won't be an accomplishment)

-Obama already set aside $19 Billion for electronic health records through the stimulus package. This may seem trivial to some, but moving from paper to electronic records has had a significant impact on other industries in recent history. Furthermore, the health care bill is currently being debated in Congress. Until there is an indefinite fillibuster of this bill, or it loses in a Senate vote, it should be considered work in progress. At least 3 Presidents have failed in passing significant and similar health care reform in the past, so it is irrational to expect this to just fly through Congress unobjected.

Contention #4- "he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice"

-First of all, diplomacy is an important role for a President. Though it is true that Obama has broken the record of foreign travel by new President's at this stage in their Presidency, he is also in a unique situation. He is taking over after President who significantly waned America's standing in the world through his own foreign policy blunders, individualistic approach, and waging two wars- one of choice in which thousands of American soldiers have died, and one of necessity which was severely mismanaged for 7 years. The financial crisis that has affected the US is actually a global financial crisis. There are long standing issues with Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, and other countries that other Presidents have either been able to deal with over time, separately, or through other means. Obama has essentially been forced to combine his efforts as a diplomat, head of state, negotiator, etc. in ways that for other Presidents has not been essential to both the security and financial well being of the United States and the world.

Contention#5- "he was not elected by the people to be the democratic runner up for president he was chosen by the super delegates"

-This one is quite simple. Obama received 52.87% of the popular vote to McCain's 45.6% (69,499,428 vs. 59,950,323). That is a difference of almost 10 million votes. He won in states that have traditionally gone Republican, and in states in which Bush held considerable margins- Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida- just to name a few. http://uselectionatlas.org...

My opponent's sources do not support his claims. One even attempts to paint Barack Hussein Obama (though it is a dead link, it's intent is evident) as a Muslim, which is both irrelevant and untrue. It is now the burden of my opponent to defend his contentions against my refutations.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
headphonegut

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for taking on this debate and I will go quickly down the line and refute all points made
although I may have exaggerated a bit and will add various points to why he was incorrect lets start with my opponents list of what obama has done and give you the negatives and some of the positives ( but mostly negatives )

1. was Obama actually the one who allowed access to this money or was it congress while although obama had or was a factor in congress's decision it all factor's down to who actually allowed access too this money congress and if you were to look at the link my opponent has of moneymorning it clearly says he requested the release not made the release even my opponent says it clearly "successfully requested the release of the second half of PRESIDENT BUSH'S TARP program. so in the end he just asked didn't command

2. now was that actually a success in his part was it really his best hour although yes he may have closed it down new problems arise like for example where are they going to put the terrorists and how are they going to get information that might win the war getting vital information cannot be achieved to talking to a terrorist torture would have been there best bet

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...

3.so I guess its fair to say that Obama is for abortions he is doing what he feels is correct and not for the people as seen on my opponents various previous links and although he has reversed this policy now its done legally instead of illeagaly, I mean really no one with moral standards wouldn't help women who wanted to get an abortion except for maybe people who believe that abortions are wrong like Christians and now he lost the Christian votes which is quite a lot and I believe that he will not be voted for again.

4. obama is supposedly doing this for "tougher emission standards" and it "has the potential for a great impact on the environment I will assume this is to stop or slow down global warming

http://www.courierpress.com...
http://www.lewrockwell.com...

5. really I think you meant all won't view this as an accomplishment "set OUR economy on a firmer foundation" please look at the links below for problems with obama

http://www.youtube.com...

6. now was this a great idea obama setting a date for when troops leave this will not only give the enemy a date for when to come out of hiding it also gives them a date for when to continue with their attacks

http://articles.baltimoresun.com...
as seen in the link above obama doesn't or won't leave Iraq completely he will leave behind troops for "peace keeping"

http://www.yelp.com... please read all the conversation

7. http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org...
http://blogs.lubbockonline.com...
now this or that is why people are not or do not agree with stem cell research.

8. question didn't the stimulus package (obama's) bail them out and as far as forcing them into bankruptcy wouldn't that create a huge problem like people losing their jobs and since GM is closely tied in with the economy how would getting it into bankruptcy help the already failing economy and how would they go on about trying to rebuild it?

9.how does getting 1 billion dollars for ford help the American people? since we are debating if or was obama the best choice for the American people not was obama the best choice for ford and the first link actually doesn't help your argument at all it actually helps mine.

10.
a. any president might have chosen Sonya sotomayor for supreme court judge
b. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.thelibertypapers.org...
c. not his best hour http://features.csmonitor.com...
d. Obama is in no way making tax cuts
http://www-origin.usnews.com...
e.as by "ending the war" you mean making it okay or legal then here are a few sites that say this is a horrible idea if your child had a headache would you go to the doctor and say oh can I have some marijuana my daughters head hurts no marijuana in relative and some subjective cases is very bad
http://civilliberty.about.com...
http://ezinearticles.com...
f.not exactly http://www.stop-obama.info...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.infowars.com...
g. again misinformed http://www.ft.com...
h. not exactly accurate http://www.foxnews.com...
contention2- of course although there is a time table and there is going to be a withdrawal he is also going to leave troops behind and this is not a war as described by him they are simply there for "peace keeping" and there is a way to say he has failed miserably for example he has failed miserably see I've just said it
contention3- Health care just because you prepare for something doesn't mean it is going to be accomplished and what impact does it have on other industries. while it is being debated in congress obama has his own ideas about his health care bill as seen on some videos above. "should be considered a work in progress" or it can e considered a lost cause by some. and further more as far as the 3 presidents failing I don't think any one president wants to be known as the president who took away private insurer's and made single payer health care and to pass the health care bill which says that it is obligatory for all to have insurance and it is against the law if you don't and also Reagan was the first president to actually introduce or make health care and the 3 pre presidents didn't fail they just didn't ever introduce health care a failure to present a health care reform isn't a failure to make one.
contention4- you really think so? obama has no experience in diplomacy or with diplomacy and as for bush waning American standings imagine what bush's cousin Obama and also Cheney's cousin would do? and as for the "individualistic approach" obama also has his. And how is the financial crisis in America a global financial crisis? please provide proof. and the "long standing issues" are being dealt with by the secretary of state first of all for the rest of your paragraph you have a negotiator with foreign countries and an adviser to the president on how to deal with foreign relations the president doesn't come up with ideas especially this one who has no foreign experience 2 obama has no skills as to the one referred to above and if he did how has he used them to both "the security and financial well being of the united states and the world .
no moving on to my arguments who would be a better choice since I have only so many characters left I name two people who would be a better choice for example
Johnmccain
1. he has more experience
2.he has been in the military
3.he's been in politics longer
Hilary Clinton
1. she would have been first women president
2. she's been in the white house before
3. she also has more experience
4. she doesn't have kids to worry about
Mangani

Pro

I see my opponent is not really here for debate, rather for criticism regardless of the irrationality of that criticism, or the lack of reliability of the sources he uses to defend that criticism. Let's get on with it anyhow.

Contention #1- "all barack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally"

-Though my opponent has conceded this point, I would like to discuss a little the sub-points he attempts to discredit.

1-My opponent criticizes Obama for not actually making he decision, and goes on to repeat my assessment. Regardless of whether he "asked" or "commanded", the money was tied up in bureaucratic red tape, and his request led to the release of the funds. That much is clear, and my opponent also concedes that point.

2-My opponent, again, seems to concede this sub-point. In saying "was this really his best hour" he at least implies it was a "good" one. The problems he brings up are not really problems. They are decisions that have to be made. No prisoner, obviously, will be moved until a decision has been made as to where he will be moved. Debate as to where the prisoners are moved will become circular as there are people who feel strongly about each position. Furthermore my opponent brings up the question of torture. Unfortunately he does so in the context of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay- none of which have useful information as any plans at the time of their arrest are very likely to have changed. Torture is only effective within a particular window of time, and every prisoner at Guantamo is beyond that window. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

3- "so I guess its fair to say that Obama is for abortions"- No one is "for" abortions, but not supporting legal and safe abortion programs, especially internationally, leads to unsafe abortions. My opponent also argues that 'Obama has lost the Christian vote'. This does not rebut my statement, and again he concedes this point.

4- My opponent concedes this point outright.

5- My opponent concedes this point as well.

6- My opponent concedes this point.

7- My opponent concedes this point.

8- My opponent concedes this point, but raises a question I will answer. Obama did not bail out GM or Chrysler. I have provided links discussing this. The viability of GM and Chrysler at the time they were forced into bankruptcy justifies their being forced into bankruptcy. Because bankruptcy offers other remedies, and courses of action it was deemed the best choice for these failing auto makers. Here is an example of the success of the bankruptcy, and government loans to GM: http://www.pbs.org...
http://www.autoobserver.com...

9- My opponent concedes, and misunderstands this point. The first link simply lays out the Cash for Clunkers program. I did not say "Obama gave $1 Billion to Ford" as my opponent implies, rather that the C4C program earned Ford $1 Billion in profits so far. This helps the American people because Ford is one of the largest American automakers, employs Americans, and is based in Detroit which is the city most effected by this recession.

10- My opponent concedes this point in that he does not argue any of the points, rather expects me and the audience to use his sources as points of argument rather than sources for his arguments.

My opponent concedes Contention #1 overwhelmingly.

Contention #2- All he has done (in contradiction to the "literally...talk" claim) is "trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably".

My opponent concedes this contention. His new argument: "of course although there is a time table and there is going to be a withdrawal...going to leave troops behind...there is a way to say he has failed miserably for example he has failed miserably see I've just said it", does not support his contention. Simply claiming Obama has "failed miserably" does not make it so.

Contention #3- "tried to get health care" (implication that this won't be an accomplishment)

My opponent concedes this contention. His arguments do not support his contention, rather they form a circular logic based on his fears. He also states the following: "I don't think any one president wants to be known as the president who took away private insurer's...made single payer health care...pass the health care bill which says that it is obligatory for all to have insurance". I would argue that the President's who failed would like to have not failed, and Obama is one of them (though he is not pushing for single payer health care, nor is he trying to get rid of private insurer's as my opponent claims). As far as a "public health plan", most polls show American citizens support one. Survey USA's poll in August showed that 58% of those polled believed it was "extremely important" to have access to a public health plan, and another 19% felt it was "quite important". That's 77%!http://www.surveyusa.com...
http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Because it is impossible at this point to say "Obama has failed" in getting health care reform, my opponent must concede this point.

Contention #4- "he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice"

My opponent, again, concedes this contention. Arguing about experience in diplomacy is completely irrelevant at this point given that Obama has had a positive effect on diplomacy in contrast to his predecessor. It is also safe to say that his opponent, John McCain, could not by virtue of his policies have had the same positive impact. My opponent asks for "proof" that the financial crisis is global: http://www.ft.com...
http://thegovmonitor.com...
http://www.forbes.com...

Contention #5- "he was not elected by the people to be the democratic runner up for president he was chosen by the super delegates"

Another contention conceded by my opponent. He doesn't even make an attempt to address this contention.

Now my opponent offers the following alternatives to Obama and offers reasons:
John McCain
1. he has more experience- Experience does not always lead to wise decisions. The decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate pretty much proves this point. Furthermore no one but a past President can claim experience sufficient to be more qualified than any other person as President. On that note, Georg W. Bush has 8 years experience as President over Obama's 1, yet I'm sure Obama would have crushed Bush in 2008 (given the election results against McCain who many considered a surrogate).

2. he has been in the military- This does not necessarily make for a better person, leader, or President. Bush also served in the military, and so has Oliver North.

3. he's been in politics longer- Many would actually argue this is a negative.

Hilary Clinton did not participate in the Presidential election, and so it is a moot point as to whether she was a better choice. The choices were (amongst lesser prominent candidates) Barack Obama for the Democratic Party, and John McCain for the Republican Party. Now I'm not going on the attack against McCain. My opponent has not shown in his arguments any rational reason as to why Obama was not the correct choice for President of the United States. Let's hope he brings an argument of substance in the next round for me to rebut.
Debate Round No. 2
headphonegut

Con

I see how my opponent is not really here for debate rather for entertainment lets go on with it anyway. My opponent makes various claims "lack of reliability" can she actually say the evidence is not reliable absolutely, can she prove it? and while I will reassure my opponent that I am here for debate not criticism, but lets entertain the assumption that I was here for criticism can my opponent prove even if that criticism is irrational and how is it irrational? and can you disprove the criticism?
I will quickly dismantle my opponents argument on conceding everything I did not concede and will not concede she does not offer any proof to how I conceded and instead of taking down all the arguments she just types in the word concede and quickly forgets about it has she offered any proof of the otherwise and If my opponent forgot the Resolution let me say it again WAS OBAMA THE CORRECT CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE my opponent has turned this debate into a totally different point she has implied that obama's bad decisions are accomplishments making a fire sale list for me which means basically that if I fail to address any of his supposed accomplishments with I did not do (fire sale because everything must go) [I didn't address contention 5 because my opponent misinterpreted what I had posted so I will clarify it with just simple common sense I never ever mentioned TO BE PRESIDENT I said to be runner up for president]
quick refutation
1.does this actually mean anything wouldn't any presidents request waver or put in favor congress's votes' in this case the release of the funds so it isn't an accomplishment if any can accomplish this is this really an accomplishment
2.I imply nothing of the sort it is intended as a to be interpreted as a tone with a question without the question mark so her contention is an assumption which is incorrect. yes they are problems the problem is where are the terrorists going to be placed although yes it is a decision again it is also a problem I'm pretty sure that no governor would want terrorists' in their states which he probably did not consider. How does my opponent accurately know that they have no useful information the plans may have changed, but the goal remains the same. and how would you know if every prisoner at guantanamo bay is "beyond that window"?
3. I am for abortions so "no one" is inaccurate and so not supporting legal and safe abortion programs leads to unsafe abortions if you don't support them then you're going to have an unsafe abortion? and how does not supporting legal and safe abortion lead to unsafe abortions? because I don't support abortion programs so am I going to have an unsafe abortions? and if a woman that's pregnant does not support safe abortions is not going to have a safe abortion?
and what lives does it save they are abortions?
4-7. If my opponent means refuting and debating then yes if my opponent means agreeing that there was a decision then not necessarily I agree that he made a decision I don't agree that it was an accomplishment or even a success since I must prove that obama is a bad president I must try to discredit him by proving that his accomplishments are in fact failures.
8. so it's okay that they lost money from the bailout that was given to them, but since their paying 5yrs ahead of time originally planned then it all fine and dandy and since it's market is booming then it must be doing good not according to your link profit still remains flat
9. how can this be tied to #1round 2 which my opponent argues that is was because of obama that is happened with that in mind how could obama be giving ford 1 billion dollars so this only helps a city not America as a whole.
10. where is the rule that says you can't use links for arguments? and my opponent doesn't address any of my refutations on #10 and how do I concede #1"overwhelmingly"
c2- do you have any proof that he succeeded if not then it's safe to say he failed because if you didn't win then you must have failed.
c3- http://www.rightpundits.com... although my opponent makes many statements here is a link saying otherwise and Americans support this plan because they don't even know what the health care plan says

obviously it is going to be a bit impossible if people are competent.
c4- if diplomacy is irrelevant why did you bring it up? and how has he had a positive effect exactly and no McCain couldn't have a "positive impact" because he isn't president. So only the country's that are tied to America economically or depend on America's money is in peril which the 3 don't china,Russia, and Europe.
c5-is explained in intro
john McCain 1. he didn't really know Sarah palin have you ever heard of how a mother tells a 3 yr old to not touch the stove but he does anyway and he gets burned bad this is what happened to McCain. now considering if the American people new the information given in this debate and compare and contrast George bush and his cousin obama against each other I believe bush would win. and who considers McCain bushes surrogate?
2. http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org...
3.how? and why? and proof
Hilary Clinton
1. a failure to asses or consider Hilary is unjust (just-giving each their do) and let me restate the resolution since you have momentarily forgotten it WAS OBAMA THE CORRECT CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE not lets debate on who would've been a better president although this is incorporated in the debate it doesn't say to what extent or limits the negative from saying who can or would've been a better president you must consider who not just the presidential nominees.
contention1- I right off the bat said that the Aff. had to prove that obama was the correct choice for presidency she simply makes a list and implies that they are accomplishments
Hilary
1. she has been in the white house before so she knows what to expect and knows how to handle situations that arise
2. she doesn't have any kids to worry about while in presidency because kids can cloud your judgement when you have kids you have a whole new perspective on life so you'll be clouding your judgement inadvertently although some might view this as good I am not at a position to say whether it's good or bad. 3.she had a better health care plan than obama
Hilary is for government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts, freezing mortage interest rates for five years,create a pipeline for more women in leadership,reform mortage to prevent foreclosure and bankruptcy.
http://www.factcheck.org...
McCain is for
abortions,banning Internet taxes & cell phone taxes,keeping taxes the same not raise anyone's taxes,doubling child tax exemption from 5,000 to 7,000,cutting business taxes so companies will keep jobs in U.S.,telling Americans what is happening,against torture,
conclusion- My opponent makes many claims which she does not back up and instead of destroying my arguments she moves on to type concede she is not very clear bases almost all of her case on her 1st contention she doesn't say how I conceded on c10 and just restates what's already been stated. she fails address some points and completely disregards some because they don't tie in with her case EX. George bush is obama's cousin and he is also Dick Cheney's so obama has two men who are unliked by the populace as cousins what does this say about him.
I should win because I provide evidence am clear have refuted all of her arguments provided alternatives and showed how they're better than obama and finally 2 questions how is Obama better than McCain? proof and how is he better than Hilary? proof
Mangani

Pro

I thank my opponent, again, for the chance to debate this topic. A few quick rebuttals, and then my conclusion.

"My opponent makes various claims "lack of reliability" can she actually say the evidence is not reliable absolutely, can she prove it?"
-First of all, I am a man. I have already explained why my opponent's sources are not reliable. For instance in R1, I made this statement: "My opponent's sources do not support his claims. One even attempts to paint Barack Hussein Obama (though it is a dead link, it's intent is evident) as a Muslim, which is both irrelevant and untrue."

If a source does not factually support your claim, then it is not reliable.

"can you disprove the criticism?"
-I have argued against the criticism. You cannot "prove" opinion, only attempt to persuade others that you are more correct than your opponent.

"she does not offer any proof to how I conceded"
-Again, I'm a man. I don't need to "prove" what is evident in your own arguments. I presented 5 contentions, and you conceded each one. Though you changed your argument, you did not argue your original contentions as laid out in R1.

"my opponent has turned this debate into a totally different point"
-To debate the premise various points must be debated. Because you presented the premise and the initial contentions supporting your premise, that is what I debated.

"he has implied that obama's bad decisions are accomplishments making a fire sale list for me which means basically that if I fail to address any of his supposed accomplishments with I did not do"
-The nature of his accomplishments, whether regarded as successes or failures, were not enumerated for my opponent to contend individually rather I provided a "fire sale list" of actions in rebuttal to Contention #1- "all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally". I effectively proved this contention wrong, and my opponent conceded: "although I may have exaggerated a bit and will add various points to why he was incorrect lets start with my opponents list of what obama has done and give you the negatives and some of the positives ( but mostly negatives )"

My opponent could have dismissed the "fire sale list" in R2, but instead has decided to complain about it in his conclusion.

"I didn't address contention 5 because my opponent misinterpreted what I had posted so I will clarify it with just simple common sense I never ever mentioned TO BE PRESIDENT I said to be runner up for president"
-First of all, this is the United States. There is not such position as "runner up for President". My opponent seems to be referring to the practice in other nations of having a "run-off election". What my opponent ignores is the fact that run offs are carried out when no candidate receives a minimum percentage of a vote, and this does not always occur. http://definitions.uslegal.com... ; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If my opponent is referring to "Democratic NOMINEE for President", then I will address that question in the same manner as I originally addressed it.
Pledged Delegates: Obama- 1,763; Clinton- 1,640. Obama wins in pledged delegates.
Popular Vote INCLUDING Florida and Michigan (Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot):
Obama: 13,460,645 Clinton: 13,403,104 http://www.usaelectionpolls.com...
Obama clearly won the popular vote for Democratic nominee.

So let's look at the contentions one more time so we get this clear:
Contention #1- "all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally"
-I have effectively shown how my opponent concedes this point.

Contention #2- All he has done (in contradiction to the "literally...talk" claim) is "trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably".

This is what he now says: "do you have any proof that he succeeded if not then it's safe to say he failed because if you didn't win then you must have failed."

He did not argue my point. This is what he says in R2: "of course although there is a time table and there is going to be a withdrawal he is also going to leave troops behind and this is not a war as described by him they are simply there for "peace keeping" and there is a way to say he has failed miserably for example he has failed miserably see I've just said it".

He claims that by simply saying something you prove you can say something. This is circular reasoning, and does not prove his contention. My opponent concedes that a time table is in place, and implies that failure to bring the troops home from Iraq is an argument against Obama being "the right choice". The alternative is McCain who favored an open ended commitment on Iraq. This is contradictory to my opponent's argument against Obama.

Contention #3- "tried to get health care" (implication that this won't be an accomplishment)

He states in R2: "just because you prepare for something doesn't mean it is going to be accomplished and what impact does it have on other industries"

And in R3: "although my opponent makes many statements here is a link saying otherwise and Americans support this plan because they don't even know what the health care plan says"

So my opponent doesn't argue his R1 contention, concedes that a plan is still in the works in R2, and posts a link for his argument in R3. Personally I don't click on a link nor do I consider it a reliable source if a point sourced in that link is not first made. My opponent makes no point- no argument. You cannot expect others, through links, to make your argument for you. Regarding Contention #3, as the days pass my opponent's argument becomes more and more erroneous. http://news.yahoo.com...

Contention #4- "he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice"

Here my opponent implies that Obama's heightened level of diplomacy somehow prevents him from doing his job. Let's review his statements on C#4.

R1: "what has he actually done for the united states, nothing because he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice"

R2: "obama has no experience in diplomacy or with diplomacy and as for bush waning American standings imagine what bush's cousin Obama and also Cheney's cousin would do?"

and now R3: "if diplomacy is irrelevant why did you bring it up?"

-My opponent never defends his contention, only changes his argument. I never claimed diplomacy was irrelevant. This was my statement: Arguing about experience in diplomacy is completely irrelevant at this point given that Obama has had a positive effect on diplomacy in contrast to his predecessor. My opponent goes on to claim McCain cannot have a positive effect on diplomacy because he is not President. This is a logical fallacy given that McCain is still a Senator. McCain, per my opponent's own claim, has been in government longer than Obama. This is what McCain would do as President in his own words: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bull**it,'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And his experience? "As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq. -John McCain, Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, March 17, 2008
-For those of you who don't know the difference, al Qaeda is a group of extremist Sunnis. Iran is a Shia Theocracy. See the contradiction?

I have already addressed Contention #5.
This is my opponent's defense of McCain's choice of Palin: "he didn't really know Sarah palin have you ever heard of how a mother tells a 3 yr old to not touch the stove but he does anyway and he gets burned bad this is what happened to McCain."
-Do we really want a President who gets burned by his own decisions???

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RIPxVanWinkle 5 years ago
RIPxVanWinkle
See this is the type of debate you hit with theory and a kritik. Simply take apart the resolution and every link in it go into biast theory and theory of education plus fairness. As for the man who is pro you are good for still getting winning points. As for the con, I must say its retarded to make a resolutio in which you already presume winner especially because there really isn't much of an evaluative term. Oh yea and you use adhomonyms :)
Posted by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
i have so far agreed with headphonegut's debates
i havent seen one that i disagree with
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Mangani, The resolution stands on it's own with it's accompanying burden of proof. That means that you had to make a prima facia case that Obama was a better choice than McCain -- or any other candidate. You made the case that he turned out to be an active Leftist. That only makes a prima facia case if one is a Leftist, but not the "American people" as the resolution states.

==============

Silicon Valley is full of nerds, so the odds of my knowing a particular one are actually pretty small. I know a few people at Ames, but not with the background you describe.
Posted by Laine 6 years ago
Laine
Obama was the worst choice for president. He was voted because he was young and black. Don't believe me? Show me anything else worth while the man has done. Nothing. Zilch! He has made lots of promises, but I promise you that the liberals would have jumped down Bush's throat if all he was doing was making promises and doing nothing. I'm amazed at why the liberals support a man who will lie to their faces and make them look stupid.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
By the way Roy- I just checked your profile and found out you work in aviation in Silicon Valley. This is not about the debate. I went to Fremont High School, and we had this genius in my CAD class. He designed a battle ship and a jet from scratch in 10th grade. I was told he was hired by a local company shortly after that (don't know if it was Lockheed Martin, but I think he went to the Ames Research Center). Ever heard of a guy like that??? Your field, right?
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Actually you are presenting your own arguments. Pro was never obligated to prove Obama was better than McCain (which I believe I effectively did when considering the context of both arguments) rather that Obama was the correct choice. Con presented the parameters detailing his thought that Obama was not the correct choice. Because the premise is subjective, the burden of Pro is limited to the contentions of Con, not the readers' own arguments.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro accepted the burden of proof, which in this case is a large burden. Pro must prove that Obama is a better choice than McCain would have been. That's tough because we know what Obama has done, but we don't know what McCain would have done. The campaign compared promises of the two candidates. We know that Obama did not keep a bunch of his campaign promises, most importantly to govern openly, adopt bipartisanship, and consider all inputs. Senate Republicans have been asking to meet with him every week since May to discuss health care ideas and he flatly refuses to talk to them; he invokes executive privilege for his social secretary, etc etc. But would McCain have kept his promises? We don't know. Pro lists Obamas accomplishments and likes them, but that by itself doesn't argue that voters made the right choice. Obama revealed himself to be a partisan Leftist, that's all.

Similarly, Con doesn't present strong arguments that the McCain choice would have been better, although he cites factors of experience and knowledge. Con agrees that Obama is a partisan Leftist, but claims that is bad while Pro claims the very same thing is good.

At this point, 11 months in, in his Presidency, Obama has the worst approval rating in poll history --or close to it-- which is a sign of buyer's remorse. Con could have pressed that point.

Pro had the burden of proof, so I give the arguments to Con. S&G goes to Pro; Con was sloppy.
Posted by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
Wow! LOL!

Before/After: Pro
Conduct: Pro. Con was pretty rude and accused Pro a lot.
Spelling/Grammar: Pro. I think this one is obvious. Can you say "run-on sentences"?
Argumens: Pro. Con didn't seem to know what to debate.
Sources: Pro. Con didn't make arguments that relied on sources, rather he made statements and relied on the sources to make his argument, like Pro said.

It is amazing Con has any votes.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
"barrack HUSSEIN obama".... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!1!!!!one!!!!!1!!!!
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RIPxVanWinkle 5 years ago
RIPxVanWinkle
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by HEADPHONEGUY 6 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by whatisx 6 years ago
whatisx
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by AlonsoLCS 6 years ago
AlonsoLCS
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Lovebotlass17 6 years ago
Lovebotlass17
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FrenchAbortion 6 years ago
FrenchAbortion
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by VanShiZZle 6 years ago
VanShiZZle
headphonegutManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70