Barack Obama is not qualified to be the next president of the US.

Might I remind everyone that this debate is about whether Obama is qualified to be the next president. Even if his plans are not perfect I only hope to prove that he is qualified. As an Obama supporter I will address the off topic claims made by my opponent as well as in the comment sections. 1. The Surge Please read the comments section though I will post my example about erroneous causation "Assume a nuke goes off in New York. Immediately many people will die and that 1st week many more people will die from radiation poisoning, etc. . Lets say we mandate that everyone in NYC must drink Pineapple Juice. During that second week, less people die from radiation posioning. During the Third and fourth week this trend continues. Is this b/c of the pineapple juice? Maybe, but I would assume its really because the people most susceptible to death from radiation sickness would die quickly while the people least susceptible to it would survive or die very slowly. But death rates have decreased so it must be the pineapple juice having an effect. And I won't even delve into sampling error in a population with so much variance as this one. My point is that w/o a randomized controlled experiment we cannot prove causation or what causes the decline in death rates. It could have been the surge or a host of other factors. Or maybe over time the death rate is meant to decline. Who knows? Not you or me." No one here can prove why less people are dieing in Iraq now than before. Maybe it is the surge but we are not debating this nor has anyone done a randomized controlled experiment on this. 2. Leaving Iraq The process of America leaving Iraq isn't an all or none situation. Obama advocates slowly leaving, by bringing up to 2 brigades home a month, and increasing troops levels if needed. I have stated this throughout the debate. If we packed up and left everything I bet there would be a lot of instability but that is not the issue here. The issue is slowly withdrawing troops and if instability occurs, we can stop withdrawing. I am for complete immediate withdrawal, nor is Obama. We are for maximizing utility and currently too many troops are in Iraq to maximize utility. Maybe we do kill more terrorists with the increased troops but our success is not based on how many people we kill. This isn't vietnam. 3. Al Qaeda Why Am I even arguing this point? Al Qaeda is in Iraq. The vast majority of damage done to our troops is by other factions. Just because a group is terroristic in nature doesn't mean they are part of Al Qaeda. Just because a group kills Americans doesn't mean they are terrorists. Please read this page as it explains the different groups http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent states, w/o evidence, that Al Qaeda will make a return if we leave Iraq. Please present evidence for this otherwise I assume it is a typical scare tactic. Since we are talking about Al Qaeda, I'll mention that the more we are seen as invaders in Iraq, the more Al Qaeda get recruited. Al Qaeda recruits mostly people whom America has harmed (either accidentally) or people whom seriously disagree with what we are doing (guantanamo bay). It's been shown that Guantanamo and our use of torture has increased recruitment levels. So has the Iraq war. http://www.commondreams.org... That page links to a reuters article that links to the actual article by the Military Balance but that links isn't working fyi. I hate to make claims of causation but the larger presence we have in iraq, the bigger/worse Al Qaeda gets. 4. Iran Neither of us can claim to know what Iran will do if we slowly withdraw but we always have the option of bringing more guys back in or not withdrawing or (even better) bringing our troops to a safer place like Israel. In regards of speaking to foreign leaders, you still have not stated a benefit we get from talking to them. Maybe sanctions don't work, but this is not related to whether or not we talk to them. War is always an option but I'd rather it not be the only option. Obama has stated repeatedly that he is not against wars, but he is "against dumb wars". Maybe war with Iran wouldn't be dumb. But I'd like to have the option of finding out by speaking to its leader. 5. Healthcare Socialized healthcare as done in Canada is bad imo but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a national policy. If we spent a buck on prevention today it'd save a lot more in future illnesses. That is a form of socialized healthcare which both parties agree on. 6. Experience Obama has spent years in the state senate and has demonstrated his ability to effectively work within party lines to get votes passed (a.k.a with the present votes) Obama has passed plenty of beneficial bills without the aid of his advisers(anti nukes or arm smuggling) with well known senators (Sen Hagel, etc.) He has worked with both parties and has been able to work across party lines. He is not against war but against "dumb wars". He is willing to talk w/ other leaders and he has made many visits to places like Kenya, Russia, Israel, etc. I hoped to have shown that Obama is qualified to be president. I also hoped to have shown you many of his policies and I do hope I have convinced someone to vote for him. Either way, whether or not he wins in '08, he is qualified to be America's next president even if he isn't the best candidate.