John McCain will make a better president than Barack Obama

As many of you may know, Obama has just captured the Democratic Nomination for president. Also, as many of you may know, McCain captured the Republican Nomination for president back in February. Thus, the stage is set for one of the most important presidential race in recent history. Now, that the candidates have been finally decided, I strongly advocate that McCain will be a better president than Barack Obama in terms of experience, national policy, and foreign policy. ========= On to the structure and rules of the debate: First, the challenger MUST be serious about this topic and has considerable time to DEVOTE to debating this topic. The Negative will advocate that Obama will make a better president than McCain (not Ralph Nader). Both sides may use whatever arguments and reasons they so choose. Any arguments advocated by either side that is NOT answered by the other side within 1 round will be considered DROPPED. DROPPED means that side that dropped it is in FULL AGREEMENT with the dropped argument. One exception is that if any side runs out of word space, further arguments can be made in the next round. I.e, If one side runs out of word space in round 3 and did not leave enough space to answer the opponents arguments, he or she can continue the arguments in the Round 4 without the arguments being considered DROPPED as long as he or she includes a statement in the Round 3. If one side fails to respond within the time limit, the arguments are not considered dropped and may be continued within the next round. The other side may make new arguments in the round that was forfeited Wikipedia is considered a legitimate source All Research MUST be cited (a link or URL will do) All Research may be attacked for author or source bias In order to win, ONE side must show that, overall, his or her candidate for president is BETTER than the other (as defined below). ======== Now for my opening argument: (many of the facts are pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org... Definition: "Better" - "4: more advantageous or effective " - http://www.merriam-webster.com.... The position of president is the most important position in American Governemnt today. As the head of the executive branch, the president is perhaps the most powerful person in the UNited States, and perhaps the World. But with great power comes great responsibility. Simply said, Obama is not as ready as McCain is for the responsibility. 1) Experience: as Rita May Brown eloquently put it: "Good judgment comes from experience, and often experience comes from bad judgment." John McCain is 25 years older than Barack Obama, and has experienced many more things than Obama that we will directly benefit. i) His experience in the Navy and as a POW in Vietnam gives him the discipline and knowledge of the military that is VITAL in the dangerous world today, especially with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, his knowledge in the miltiary is much greater than Obama's, who has never served in the miltiary in any form. Thus, McCain will be a better judge of what's right and wrong for the government. ii) He has been serving in the federal government since in 1982, has served 2 terms as a representative and is currently in his 4th term as a Senator. Compared to only 4 years of experience that Obama has on the federal level as a FRESHMAN senator. Furthermore, McCain has crossed the isles more than once in support of bipartisanship, as illustrated by his participation in the Gang 14 and bipartisanship in support of immigration reform, as opposed to Obama's extremely liberal and partisan voting record: see "most liberal senator" in http://nj.nationaljournal.com.... Moreover, he has established ties with all major senators today, and thus is in a position to carry out necessary reforms. Simply put, McCain has the legislative and leadership experience that will enable him to carry out the "change" that Obama has repeatedly suggested. 2) Judgment McCain has better judgment than Senator Obama. As shown by the Obama's flag pin scandel and his association with Tony Rezko, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Averres shows his lack of judgment. Moreover, when Clinton attacked him with the "3 am" phone ad, he responded with one of the stupidest comebacks ever: "My stance on Iraq shows I'm capable of answering the phone" (roughly paraphrased) (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...). This is a complete non sequiter. Remember, his opposition came when he was an Illinois STATE SENATOR, where decisions barely matter. Moreover, he was not under intense scrutiny as he is now. This is a complete non sequiter, let's examine his arguments p1) I opposed the war in Iraq when I was an illinois state senator p2) Opposition to the war in Iraq I can answer a national security crisis at 3 in the morning c1) I am qualified to answer an emergency crisis at 3am in the morning because of good judgment I'll grant p1. But please take a LONG AND HARD look at p2. Alright...my brother's 8 year old friend opposed the war in Iraq, but does he have the capabilities to answer the phone in the white house at 3 in the morning? Probably not. His second premise is completely false. On the other hand, McCain has consistently made good judgments that are necessary in matters such as the Iraqi surge, Immigration reform, and his efforts to keep the war going. ii) Iraq: McCain's judgments in Iraq have been proven correct. First, the War in Iraq was instigated by the Bush administration, perhaps even through questionable methods such as propaganda (see McCellan's new book). Thus, based on the evidence available at the time, the war was completely justified. Second, the war in Iraq MUST be continued, contrary to Obama's policy of IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL, as shown by his senate bill 2007 (see Iraq War-Deescalation Act of 2007). This policy is competely unrealistic as it would leave a huge power vacuum in Iraq and plunge the country into sectarian violence. Moreover, the Surge, is by all means, working as of right now. McCain showed his superior judgment in showing support for the Surge at a politically inconvenient time. 3) Policies. i) No matter what school of economics you believe in, we can all readily agree that a huge national debt is BAD. But....Obama will give a tax cut to the middle class, destroy free trade (he will amend Nafta and oppose new free trade agreements. which almost all economics believe is bad, argue if you want, it has been empirically proven that free trade trumps tariffs, (see Smoot-Hawley tariff and its connection to great depression, in fact, I challenge my opponent to raise one instance of a tariff that has been overall beneficial to the country in question). On the other hand, McCain has proven to be a pragmatist on economic issues, realizing that free trade is essential in maintaining American economic standing. Moreover, he showed his superior judgment in Michigain, when he told laid-off car workers that they are not going to get their jobs back, and should train for something else; rather than giving them false promises of jobs. ii) Foreign Policy...ah...where to begin? OK first...OBAMA HAS AGREED TO NEGOTIATE with rogue states such as IRAN AND NORTH KOREA without PRECONDITIONS. Seriously...for all his inexperience, I could not have seen this coming. Since I'm running out of words, I'll list simple arguments: 1) It'll empower these rogue states 2) It'll encourage a soft line with these dangerous states 3) It'll endanger national security if the negotiations go bad. I have more to say...but i'm running out of characters.