McCain is more a more suitable president than Barrack

I hope you've had a good weekend, Labrat228. I will now respectfully resume: In response to Pro's contention that I wasted a full round on assumptions, I can only say that such was necessary because Pro's R1 statement was simply an enumeration of facts, unsupported by logical analysis. Failing to link facts to rationale renders no support for Pro's thesis. I will not challenge Pro's statement that "The 2 major founding values of the USA are Freedom, The belief that all men are created equal, and they should be treated this way." However, I see that as three different values. Pro's statement here lacks any citations, but I will assume that he derived this concept from the Declaration of Independence. Pro's first basic contention is that McCain is a more suitable candidate for President than Obama because Obama supports abortion. First, it seems to me that this is a policy choice to be made by a legislature, not by the executive; the executive carries out the laws given by Congress and presented to the executive. Secondly, there is no federal statute declaring the point at which life begins. If there was, Pro's contention may be lent support by the notion that the executive's position would be adverse to the rule of law; but, such is not the case. Third, Pro makes a leap in logic by beginning with the contention that organisms require certain things, and that such requirements indicate life. He then jumps to the conclusion that humans are due certain rights. The question left unanswered then is whether organisms require certain rights. Pro did not address this. Pro then claims that he is listing the positions of Obama concerning homeland security. However, none of the positions delineated concern domestic policy. Rather, the statements made by Pro concern international relations. Homeland security is a survey of the topic of domestic policy and investigation, emergency preparedness and defense generally. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Secondly, this is just another enumeration of facts. Contrary to Pro's belief, facts do not speak for themselves. If one is of a certain bent of mind, this may be true. However, in a debate between two presumably neutral positions, to a presumably neutral audience, all facts must be supported by reason to support a these concerning policy or preference. Pro then poses a direct query in regard to Obama's alleged refusal to wear a flag pin or recite the pledge. In regard to the pin, it seems that Obama does not agree with the philosophy of wearing one's politics on his or her sleeve (or, in this case, the lapel). (http://www.youtube.com...) This is actually reasonable, given that most people hold the belief that a candidate's positions and ideas should be given more weight than their looks, their name, or any other number of arguably superficial characteristics. Indeed, do we really want a President who "displays" patriotism by wearing a pin and then undermining the rule of law? In regard to the allegation that Obama refused to say the pledge, I have two comments. First, Pro offered no citation showing that Obama blatantly refused to say the pledge. Rather, it is my understanding that Obama perhaps was simply not aware of his surroundings, had a slip of the mind, or just made a mistake. (http://www.snopes.com...) Everybody makes mistakes: it's part of being human. John McCain makes mistakes as well. (http://www.youtube.com...) Secondly, I fail to see why a person running for President would flatly REFUSE to say the pledge. Doing so would greatly undermine their chances of being elected. This just does not make sense. Finally, Pro contends that Obama was not tough on crime, and so he could not be trusted to aggressively pursue the war on terror. Pro fails to make a logical connection between the death penalty being imposed for gang killings and an aggressive pursuit of the war on terror. Furthermore, the death penalty is always an option for murder in the state of Illinois. (http://deadlinethemovie.com...) It would therefore be unnecessary to establish a second death penalty for gang killings. Such may also run afoul of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Imposing a criminal sentence different from what may ordinarily be imposed simply because of a person's social affiliation would face a serious constitutional challenge. Having answered my opponent's arguments, I now make my attack on my opponent's thesis: that Sen. McCain is a more suitable candidate for the office of the executive than Sen. Obama. I first want to note that both men are well qualified for the position. McCain has many years of political experience and understands the logistics and functions of the military. Similarly, Obama does have some political experience (albeit some of it in state government), and is well versed in constitutional law. (http://www.law.uchicago.edu...) However, suitability is a matter of "fit": which candidate would most fit the demands imposed by the office of the President? I want to take a moment just to note that Pro never made any contentions in regard to Sen. McCain's suitability for President. Rather, he simply attacked Sen. Obama. Conversely, though, I will attack Sen. McCain's suitability and argue in favor of Obama's. Sen. McCain has a bit of a "short fuse." (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) The office of the Presidency often requires an individual with a cool head. JFK confronted a situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis that may have led a person with a more aggressive personality into an all-out war with the USSR. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) However, JFK simply stood firm, and the Cubans backed down. The commander of the most potent military force in the world should be wary of how that power is used. Such power should not be used without great need, because it endangers many, is a large financial expense, and sometimes leads to long-term commitments that compound the previous two considerations. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Secondly, Sen. McCain, admittedly like Sen. Obama, has no executive experience. This consideration cannot be used in favor of Sen. McCain; it contributes nothing to his suitability. Sen. Obama is intimately familiar with the workings of government. As mentioned previously, he was a professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years at Chicago Law School, which is very elite. (http://www.top-law-schools.com...) Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard law school called Obama "the best student [he] ever had." Tribe is considered to be one of the preeminent constitutional law scholars. Obama's demonstrated familiar with concepts such as federalism, separation of powers, equal protection, due process, and the myriad other aspects of constitutional significance show that note only does he understand the responsibilities of the office of the executive, but also the importance of the other branches. McCain has no demonstrated knowledge of such topics. In closing, I would like to remind the audience that: - Pro listed only one citation - Pro mostly listed facts without connecting any rationale to those facts - Pro posed no facts or rationales concerning Sen. McCain's suitability - I responded to all of Pro's contentions with fair facts and analysis - I examined both the aspects of McCain and Obama - I provided citations where necessary - This is the first debate for both of us Thanks, Labrat228 for the debate. Have a great week!