was obama the correct choice for president by the American people

I see my opponent is not really here for debate, rather for criticism regardless of the irrationality of that criticism, or the lack of reliability of the sources he uses to defend that criticism. Let's get on with it anyhow. Contention #1- "all barack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally" -Though my opponent has conceded this point, I would like to discuss a little the sub-points he attempts to discredit. 1-My opponent criticizes Obama for not actually making he decision, and goes on to repeat my assessment. Regardless of whether he "asked" or "commanded", the money was tied up in bureaucratic red tape, and his request led to the release of the funds. That much is clear, and my opponent also concedes that point. 2-My opponent, again, seems to concede this sub-point. In saying "was this really his best hour" he at least implies it was a "good" one. The problems he brings up are not really problems. They are decisions that have to be made. No prisoner, obviously, will be moved until a decision has been made as to where he will be moved. Debate as to where the prisoners are moved will become circular as there are people who feel strongly about each position. Furthermore my opponent brings up the question of torture. Unfortunately he does so in the context of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay- none of which have useful information as any plans at the time of their arrest are very likely to have changed. Torture is only effective within a particular window of time, and every prisoner at Guantamo is beyond that window. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3- "so I guess its fair to say that Obama is for abortions"- No one is "for" abortions, but not supporting legal and safe abortion programs, especially internationally, leads to unsafe abortions. My opponent also argues that 'Obama has lost the Christian vote'. This does not rebut my statement, and again he concedes this point. 4- My opponent concedes this point outright. 5- My opponent concedes this point as well. 6- My opponent concedes this point. 7- My opponent concedes this point. 8- My opponent concedes this point, but raises a question I will answer. Obama did not bail out GM or Chrysler. I have provided links discussing this. The viability of GM and Chrysler at the time they were forced into bankruptcy justifies their being forced into bankruptcy. Because bankruptcy offers other remedies, and courses of action it was deemed the best choice for these failing auto makers. Here is an example of the success of the bankruptcy, and government loans to GM: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.autoobserver.com... 9- My opponent concedes, and misunderstands this point. The first link simply lays out the Cash for Clunkers program. I did not say "Obama gave $1 Billion to Ford" as my opponent implies, rather that the C4C program earned Ford $1 Billion in profits so far. This helps the American people because Ford is one of the largest American automakers, employs Americans, and is based in Detroit which is the city most effected by this recession. 10- My opponent concedes this point in that he does not argue any of the points, rather expects me and the audience to use his sources as points of argument rather than sources for his arguments. My opponent concedes Contention #1 overwhelmingly. Contention #2- All he has done (in contradiction to the "literally...talk" claim) is "trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably". My opponent concedes this contention. His new argument: "of course although there is a time table and there is going to be a withdrawal...going to leave troops behind...there is a way to say he has failed miserably for example he has failed miserably see I've just said it", does not support his contention. Simply claiming Obama has "failed miserably" does not make it so. Contention #3- "tried to get health care" (implication that this won't be an accomplishment) My opponent concedes this contention. His arguments do not support his contention, rather they form a circular logic based on his fears. He also states the following: "I don't think any one president wants to be known as the president who took away private insurer's...made single payer health care...pass the health care bill which says that it is obligatory for all to have insurance". I would argue that the President's who failed would like to have not failed, and Obama is one of them (though he is not pushing for single payer health care, nor is he trying to get rid of private insurer's as my opponent claims). As far as a "public health plan", most polls show American citizens support one. Survey USA's poll in August showed that 58% of those polled believed it was "extremely important" to have access to a public health plan, and another 19% felt it was "quite important". That's 77%!http://www.surveyusa.com... http://www.reuters.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... Because it is impossible at this point to say "Obama has failed" in getting health care reform, my opponent must concede this point. Contention #4- "he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice" My opponent, again, concedes this contention. Arguing about experience in diplomacy is completely irrelevant at this point given that Obama has had a positive effect on diplomacy in contrast to his predecessor. It is also safe to say that his opponent, John McCain, could not by virtue of his policies have had the same positive impact. My opponent asks for "proof" that the financial crisis is global: http://www.ft.com... http://thegovmonitor.com... http://www.forbes.com... Contention #5- "he was not elected by the people to be the democratic runner up for president he was chosen by the super delegates" Another contention conceded by my opponent. He doesn't even make an attempt to address this contention. Now my opponent offers the following alternatives to Obama and offers reasons: John McCain 1. he has more experience- Experience does not always lead to wise decisions. The decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate pretty much proves this point. Furthermore no one but a past President can claim experience sufficient to be more qualified than any other person as President. On that note, Georg W. Bush has 8 years experience as President over Obama's 1, yet I'm sure Obama would have crushed Bush in 2008 (given the election results against McCain who many considered a surrogate). 2. he has been in the military- This does not necessarily make for a better person, leader, or President. Bush also served in the military, and so has Oliver North. 3. he's been in politics longer- Many would actually argue this is a negative. Hilary Clinton did not participate in the Presidential election, and so it is a moot point as to whether she was a better choice. The choices were (amongst lesser prominent candidates) Barack Obama for the Democratic Party, and John McCain for the Republican Party. Now I'm not going on the attack against McCain. My opponent has not shown in his arguments any rational reason as to why Obama was not the correct choice for President of the United States. Let's hope he brings an argument of substance in the next round for me to rebut.