FREEDO would make a bad DDO president

Thanks, Con! Let's jump right into this... A president is supposed to exercise control over an organized body of persons. In the last round, I questioned the extent of authority FREEDO would be able to exonerate if he were elected DDO's president. It was explained that the owner/moderator of this site has given FREEDO absolutely no authority over site governance. Then I asked what extent of knowledge FREEDO had regarding computer programming. I was wondering what literal physical improvements FREEDO could make to the site even if Phil had given him permission to do so. As far as I can tell, FREEDO lacks any technical capacity to do anything that would improve or even change the face of DDO's content at all. In that case, his contribution is greatly inhibited, meaning his ability to exercise authority or control is non-existent. In that case, he would be an insufficient (bad) president. Still, let's consider for a moment that these elections are simply for fun, and essentially a representation of who and/or what ideas are popular on DDO at any given time. For instance, in previous elections the parties were divided based primarily on political sentiments: libertarians vs. liberals, for example. Well, it might very well be that FREEDO or a particular ideology he holds happens to be pertinent to most members on the site. As such, I asked my opponent what about FREEDO in particular would make him the best candidate for president; in other words what about him made him the best representation for the members of DDO. Con has chosen to ignore this question, leaving us to assume that there is nothing about FREEDO that would make him a particularly good leader or even figurehead. However, my opponent does take the time to acknowledge several alleged rumors about FREEDO, which I will respond to later on in this round. For now, I'd like to bring up my fourth question - why it is presumed that other members and/or new members will revere FREEDO in any capacity. This too was ignored, except for Con's note that FREEDO is apparently harmless because he is an anarchist. First, FREEDO does not consider himself an anarchist [1] making this entirely irrelevant. Second, physical harm is also irrelevant considering this is the internet where violence isn't necessarily an issue. Finally, whether or not FREEDO would "harm" anyone does not answer the question of why anyone should respect or revere him particularly. Further, my final question asked why a leader should be democratically elected to represent DDO in any capacity to begin with. In other words, what is the real purpose of this election? My opponent reveals, "In the context of this website, [president] is just a title... the game [is] campaigning... [and] we are to judge the candidates for being ‘good' or ‘bad' for the role based on them hypothetically getting power... so the criteria for what one looks for in their own cannadite is the same as with real elections." Well, ignoring the fact that my question wasn't answered at all, let's consider how FREEDO would fare in the context of this role description... Let's suppose FREEDO was given authority by Phil to serve as a moderator of sorts to the site. First and foremost he wouldn't actually have the technical know-how to do anything, so he couldn't exercise any control thereby making him an insufficient or defective leader. As you recall, these are synonyms for bad. Another thing to consider is that leaders who are inconsistent, flakey or careless are often considered bad. By his own admission, FREEDO is generally apathetic [1] meaning he shows no interest or concern [2] in matters of principle or policy. As the saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything -- a quality that would make a bad president indeed. Moreover, FREEDO lacks the highly coveted and important quality of stability. It was the highly respected leader Thomas Jefferson who said, "In matters of fashion, swim with the current. In matters of conscience, stand like a rock." FREEDO's inability to commit to particular principles for even a very short amount of time proves he is probably just as frenetic in other areas of critical thinking and decision making. Considering people's ideas about what's good probably would not change as often, the beliefs of those who elect him will probably no longer align with FREEDO's in a short amount of time. As such, he could not possibly be a good representation as DDO president. My opponent mentioned this in regard to people's concern that his stance on things is volatile at best. Some other things to consider are how FREEDO conducts or even views himself. In his profile, his 'About Me' section notes "I'm quite insane" [3]. Of course considering insane means not of sound mind, then indeed I think this is a trait that would make FREEDO a bad president. Additionally, he describes his beliefs as absurd (obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to reason or common sense; foolish or false - 4) and references an appreciation for nonsense. A nonsensical president would be a bad one for obvious reasons. I also contend that holding illogical or senseless beliefs is another quality that would contribute to being a bad president. In response to Con's contentions, I'll first address the rumor that FREEDO is responsible for prohibiting Koopin from consuming his beloved KFC, on the basis that FREEDO is an intolerable boss who's paranoid about a potential traitor amongst his ranks. We cannot ignore a similar fate bestowed upon their subordinates by none other than the likes of former leaders such as Hitler and Pol Pot, infamous for a plethora of atrocities included but not limited to accusations of treason that ultimately led to the tragic downfall of their minions [5]. Clearly the similarities between FREEDO and these evil dictators is already apparent, proving he's on the path to being a bad president. Next, Con mentions that people have concerns about FREEDO's ability to stand up for the beliefs of others when he cannot stand up for his own. Indeed this would be a contention I'd extend, as one quality you'd assume is important about the president of a DEBATE site is their ability to successfully debate and persuade others of their convictions. However, the example my opponent mentioned is just one of many where FREEDO's proven too unsure of himself or his abilities to successfully defend his point of view. Moreover, after over a year on the site (he was formerly known as the user Freedomaniac), he has only participated in about 3 debates per month. A president is expected to lead by example with heavy participation in the forums and/or debate content, which my opponent has not provided. Not leading by example of positive advocation makes a bad (lazy/ incompetent/ hypocritical) president. I'll conclude by noting that a good president would generally make good on their campaign promises and party platforms. However despite candidates from the other parties making public all information that was pertinent to their campaign weeks ago, nowhere could FREEDO's promises be ascertained. Even when I asked him to provide information about his platform, he responded that it would be made available on November 29 - just 2 days before the scheduled election [6]! Ladies and gentlemen, it is clearly very presumptuous, arrogant and irresponsible to assume it's acceptable or likely that you'd win a debate without even giving people a reason to vote for you. Clearly a candidate that so careless and/or distracted that he could not even bother to tell you about himself or his goals would make a bad president on the basis that they're capricious and careless. A shady president would be a bad president. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...