Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Barack OBAMA

As this is the last round, I will refrain from presenting anyew arguments.I will, however, attack his evidence.In the last round of a debate, it is important to take a step back and look at the debate as a whole.Which one of us has used better evidence?I think the answer is very plain to see.Although I have fewer citations, it is largely because most of what I have said are historical facts. In addition, as clearly stated, sources are only needed if the opponent asks for it, which he has not. (Although if you want some numbers on the auto industry, SHAZAM: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...) Looking further at my opponent's evidence, the vast, VAST majority of it is from biased sources. My opponent's opening argument, for example, cites the Romney capaign exclusively which is an organization much more committed to getting Romney elected than to telling the truth. Just like the Obama campaign, which is the very reason why I have not used them or cited them. One of the arguably BETTER sources is his sources from The American Spectator, although it does have a very conservative bias. Now let's look at this paragraph: "The president-elect had said he wanted most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. But late last year, the Bush administration signed an agreement with Iraq that takes a different approach, requiring the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by June, and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the entire country by the end of 2011."This doesn't have any place in the debate and is very clearly out dated. Although it does strength Obama's position on his foreign policy record because he followed up on Bush's plan to get out of Iraq completely by the end of 2011. On to his attack of Keynesianism. I won't bring up any new points, I will simply point out the problems with his quote of Keynes. First, the quote: "But the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean will be flat again." I am going to attack the quote because it has been fundamentally misinterpreted by my opponent. In his quote, Keynes isn't saying "screw the long term" he is simply saying that "In tempestuous seasons" (in economic downturns) the "long term" is not what we should be worrying about. Because, in the long term, we are all dead. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus on the long term, but rather that in economic downturns we should focus on getting out of recession before focusing on the long term. This quote don't actually support his claim that Keynesians like me believe that we should go into massive debt during good years. As a follower of Keynes, I have stated numerous times that because of Keynesianism, I support deficit reduction during good years, and economic stimulus during bad years.Now, I am just going to say one more thing about his Keynesianism attack. "There's no real mystery about why Keynesianism fails. There are numerous reasons why and they've been known for decades. Keynesians have an unrealistic and unsupportable view of how the economy works and how people make decisions." My opponent provides no specifics. Therefore,withou evidence to back up this claim, his point is invalid. My opponent has not provided a single example of a failed Keynesianism policy and has not been able to prove why that policy failed because of the principle behind it rather than the executionof it. First, allow me to outline why I win in a general overview. My opponent has cosistently failed to give proper causation i.e, he has shown correlation between two things but hasn't even attempted to show that one thing causes the other. For example, there is a startling statistic that shows piracy decreases at the same rate that CO2 emissions increase. Does this mean pirates are good for the environment? Of course not! In this case, there is corrolation, but absolutely no causation. The same is true for virtually all of his evidence. I am going to now move on to the specific arguments. The stimulus. I win. My opponent hasn't even attempted to prove how the auto bailout didn't work, whereas I have already proven that the auto bailout potentially saved a quarter million jobs and rejuvinated the economy. Obamacare. I win. My opponent hasn't touched this argument at all, and I have succssfully shown how Obamacare was a fiscal as well as social success. Income inequality. I win. Again, my opponent hasn't touched this argument and I therefore win this argument by default. Keynesianism. I win. Once again, I have provided specific details about how the economic stimulus-the bailout of the auto industry, saved jobs and rejuvinated the economy and potentially saved us from an even deeper recession. Having proven that Keynesian economics works in practical application, I win this argument as well. Mitt Romney's record. I win. Despite my opponent's advice to me, he has failed to even defend Romey's record on anything. He failed to prove why Romney "saved" Massachussets, and he failed to prove why leading the Salt lake City winter games qualifies you to be President of the United States. Having won all of the ignificant issues this debate has boiled down to, I urge a STRONG negative vote on this issue. I thank my opponent for a very interesting and intense debate :) p.s I apologize if a lot of this in here apear to have letters missing, for some reason the computer is glitching out and deleting some of the letters I type. I've tried my best to eliminate all of the mistakes, but I'm not perfect. Thank you all :)