Bob Barr is the best Presidential Candidate of 2008.

First, I asked my opponent exactly WHAT Bob Barr will cut spending on that the others will not. My opponent responded with a video where Bob Barr simply talks about cutting the deficit without saying how he plans on doing it. He also said he was going to quote him from his site, but I saw no such thing. All I saw was a link. As debaters, we have to make our arguments here, my opponent should have, literally, "quoted" from Bob Barr's site if he wanted to make an argument directly from it. My opponent claims that Bob Barr is the only candidate who has proven that our debt is goign to engulf us if we don't pay it off now. I wouldn't be too proud of this, seeing that it's completely false. The size of the national debt is only significant when we compare it to our GDP. for instance, if we had a GDP of 10000000 trillion USD, a 100 trillion USD debt would be meaningless. Here's a graph of the Debt/GDP ratio for the past 50 or so years: http://zfacts.com... Interestingly, we see that it isn't even as high as it was during some of the Bush/Reagan years, and the slope under Bush Jr. wasn't even as steep. If our only objective was to make the debt better, we should not have someone single-mindedly focused on cutting spending. The most effective way to reduce the debt is to increase GDP, since this has the side benefit of helping our nation, and the world in general, become more prosperous. Cutting spending can sometimes lead to the opposite - reduced productivity. What we need is a president like any of them from 1950-1980, or like Clinton. That is, if reducing our debt is the only goal. However, consider that there might be another goal more important - national security. If a country truly poses a theat, we should do what we can to neutralize this threat, whether they attack us or not. My opponent has made it clear that Bob Barr is only willing to defend our country if we're attacked, he's not willing to intrude another country just because they're a threat. That is a major reason why Bush increased the debt - he spend a great deal on national securty, such as the war on terror. Whether the war on terror is something we should be involved in or not, one of Obama or McCain is going to do the right thing. It's true that no candidate talks about the economy as much as Bob Barr. But no one's wrong about it as much either. Like when he said our debt was engulfing us. It's not even that high compared to many periods in the past. And if it means not being able to proactively deal with threats to our national security, what good is single-mindedly lowering the debt good for? My opponent claims that third parties are getting more and more votes every year, and that Bob Barr will begin the revolution that will end our two party system. Maybe he could have, if he got his name out there. Probably less than 5% of people know who Bob Barr is, let alone would vote for him. He's been completely unable to do what's necessary to have a shot at winning this election: why would we want someone like that running our country? And sure, the president has persuasive power in congress, as well as the power of Veto. But Bob Barr seems kind of passive to me, seeing that he hasn't campaigned very hard, he isn't willing to fight anyone unless they attack us, etc. I don't want a candidate who's going to let threats build up across the globe. I want a candidate who's going to neutralize a threat before it's too late, and Bob Barr won't do that. Not only that, but how many Libertarians are in congress? At least with a Republican or Democrat, you have like-minded people in congress who can persuade the other congresspeople. With Bob Barr, it'll be Bob trying to convince everyone else of something their political party doesn't usually stand for. I'd rather have someone who can get something done with congress. And RE: freedom. Let's pretend freedom is the all powerful ideal we like to pretend it is in America. If we know that young people doing drugs or alcohol causes many of them to infringe on other people's liberties [steal stuff, hurt people, etc], then how is it any better to allow it than to disallow it? Next, Georgia and Russia. My opponent claims that Georgia made the first move, but does not back it up with anything. I have also heard that Russia made the first move, and that Georgia made the first move, but it was only to retake rebel-held territory that belonged to it. The problem with Iran is that religious fanatics don't care about mutual destruction, some even long for it. It wouldn't be such a problem if Iran was a civilized place, but that happens to not be the case. The abortion issue is rather moot. Some people agree with Obama's stance, some don't. If it's as radical as people say, it won't pass congress. Also, try using a more reliable source than "Illuminati Videos". I don't know all the change Obama will bring. One is that the est of the world will like us again. I'm out of room.