Bernie Sanders should be the Democrat nominee

I thank the honourable gentleman for his retort, and will move to address what he has said. "The issue still stands that the mass part of the pro side's argument is opinion based. I speak from facts." You have said both of these things twice, and I have before stated that it is entirely opinion based. I cannot stress that enough; this entire argument is supposed to be about arguing opinion better than the other, something you seem to fail to grasp. " "Winning" a state means nothing." Yes, it sort of does. It is the best indicator to show that a majority of Democrats in that state support Sanders, and winning 20 out 43 states that have held primaries shows that Sanders does have broad support from Democrats, and thats not even including the many many independent voters who want to vote for him. "The difference is 2293 for Clinton and 1533 for Sanders. The difference shows that Sanders lacks broad support. " You seem to have factored in super-delegates, a mechanism that some states have moved to remove from their primaries. Super-delegates are far more fluid than you make it out to be. In reality the pledged delegate count stands at 1,728 to 1,494, not as wide a gap as you are proposing. "The pro side sits upon a high horse that some how thinks he knows best beyond the general public. " I am going to assume that the pro-side would be outraged if all of a sudden the Fascist Party of America gained a majority of Congress seats in both the Senate and HoR, because even though the majority of people voted for them he would believe that the majority would be wrong and he would know better. Everyone thinks they know better than anyone else when it comes to discussion of politics, and I am no different, just as you are. "The system is in place and Clinton is winning fair and square. She has the most delegates and will reach 2383 needed soon and thus "should" be the democratic nomination." I'm disputing the fact that she is winning fairly, and I am not disputing the fact that she will get the democratic nomination; I am not suggesting we throw democracy into a grave and just chose Sanders, what I am trying to suggest is that perhaps Sanders would be a better nomination, even though he probably won't get it. It seems you have misinterpreted the motion of the debate, and when I gave you an unsatisfactory answer you became offended and took up the debate to try and prove a point. Incredibly petty and a waste of my time. Again, I say this in the comments, the motion makes perfect sense; he should be the nomination because in my opinion he is the better candidate. It boils down to Hillary vs. Sanders, or was supposed to. You even understood what I mean by my motion suggesting an alternative, and when I rejected it you decided to be petty and take up the debate to prove a point. "I do not see why we must assume that the majority of voters are wrong instead of the alternative: you are wrong." Again sir, this is entirely opinion based. It was supposed to be, and you are arguing a point without addressing anything I have said previously. "The stance to elect someone to have nothing done is not "good." " Exactly my point. That is what you are going to get with a Clinton presidency. Sanders on the other hand will try to introduce change, and will most likely succeed like Obama has. Not all his policies will be implemented, of course. "Clinton has one of the most impressive resumes in presidential history" What is it then? "She shares many beliefs as our current president" Except when she started calling herself a progressive on the primary trail, and when she criticized Obama back in 2008 on the primary trail too. And now she can;t voice her true opinions due to the collective responsibility dimension of the cabinet. " While Sanders has criticized Obama on several occasions." Some evidence please. Also, Obama had to work with democratically controlled Congress. Over his administration, politics has polarized and the next president needs to be able to work with both sides." Except that there will be a Congress election this year, and due to the farce the Republicans have made of themselves in Congress, it is likely this year the Democrats may come out with a majority instead of the Republicans. "Clinton...shares many of Sanders views but moderates them." Does she? According to you she shared many of her views with Obama, who was criticized by Sanders on many occasions, suggesting that his views are not the same as Obama's. So who is it she shares most of her views with? What views does she share with both of them? "Sanders is a legislator." Anyone seriously running for president always will be. Clinton is a legislator (although not a terribly good one),Obama was a legislator, etc. "Keep him in Congress where he can do some good." He can do good in any position he takes. "The presidency is not for him." Not this election cycle, but I am not disputing that. I am saying that He WOULD do better as the nominee than Clinton which is, as you never fail to point out despite the fact I already have, it is my opinion.