mitt romney is a better candidate for president then mike huckabee

Because of the absurdity of the argument put forth by my opponent I will take the opportunity to educate the youngster in what limited way I can. I do not claim to be a debate champion or anything but I will address the post for instructional purposes. advidiun you did not address any evidence provided in my first post. In fact you posted an oppositional statement in the face of contrary evidence and a direct quote. You posted: "huckabee has bashed romney multiple times for being mormon and not once has romney made a personal attack on huckabee. " You neglected to provide any proof or evidence for your claim. In my opening post I addressed a specific incident which is the only case you can claim that Huckabee bashed Romney for being a Mormon. At this point you should have addressed the same incident by providing a scenario or statement that refuted mine. Something along the line of "Huckabee has been to seminary and should know that the question he posed was insulting or not true" I also posted an instance where I thought Romney was running a negative add you neglected to address this. While it is not absolutely critical to address every point your opponent makes it is important to at least attempt rebuttal of the "strong points" or statements that seem to contradict your points with evidence or logical conclusions. You posted:"huckabee pardoned a murderer because he used to work for the state gov. huckabee pardoned another man and no one knows why. huckabee pardoned a murderer because a minister said the guy was a good guy 2 weeks later that same man killed another person" These may or may not be valid points to support your assertion. However you provide no source for your claims. You did not provide enough information for each specific incident. For example, a date and a name would be helpful. However your terminology in describing the events cost you these points. If you research the cases you would see that in at least two of the cases you mentioned no pardon was granted. Parole was granted, a practice that the governor does not have the authority to grant. You would have been better served with a statement that said Huckabee pushed for the release of Wayne Dumond. Then you could have quoted a letter Huckabee wrote or allegations from the parole board. This would have strengthened and lent credence to your argument. You posted: "huckabee has said that he wants to take people with aids out of society." Although this was years ago you could have used this one with effectiveness if you gave the specific quote. You could turn this into evidence for your argument, provide when, where, and the direct quote. Then explain why you think it is relevant to your argument. You posted: "Mitt romney brought massechussetes out of a 3,000,000,000 dollar deficit WITHOUT raising taxes." Once again you offered no evidence to refute the evidence I posted in response to this assertion. You should have said that the fees I stated were not taxes but fees. This would support your point that Romney did not raise taxes. Most people would see it as splitting hairs but you could score points with a technicality. You posted: "huckabee took campaign money to buy himself a jet. he took gov. money and bought himself a grill." Your facts are skewed, this would be a weakness. If you were to address these points you would have to research them a little better. The jet was a flight not a whole jet. You could make an argument of misappropriated funds but you would have to list the facts as the relate to the events. You posted: "huckabee has talked on how 80 percent of arkansa voted to raise taxes for new roads. what actually happened was huckabee raised taxes by an absurd 46 percent. then 80 percent of people voted on making better roads. they never voted to raise taxes" This was the best effort of your argument. You gave statistics and an argument for why it was relevant to the debate. Good job. A little more detail would be nice however, like which bill it was and what year it happened in. All and all you need to work on supporting evidence and detail. This will come from research. After you get that done you can work on your delivery.Also try to address your opponents main points and counterpoints. If you just ignore most of them people will think you can't engage on those subjects. I hope I helped you in some way! Merry Christmas! Mormons do celebrate Christmas right?