Obama will not be our next President

May it be a good one! Of course, Negated: "Obama will not be our next President. " This sentence is both the topic of the debate and the debate resolution. joshandr30, as the instigator and the PRO, assumes the burden of proof. Unfortunately, this statement is not capable of being proven, as the election is 49 days away at the time I am writing this, and this debate will be over before the result is known. Refutations "RACE-Unfortunately America is not ready for a African American President. .. " -Fortunately, this conclusion is entirely false from the data my opponent provided as the basis for the conclusion. The most that could be correctly concluded from my opponent's premise is, "Twenty people that I work with in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, are rascists and are not ready for a President that is only half-white. " My opponent's workmates are not exactly a correct population sample, to say the least. "Division-The Democratic Party has developed deep division in this once honorable Party. .. " -An *almost* correct statement. Any division today is because of Obama's not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate. And even this wound is in the process of healing - Clinton went above and beyond the call of duty to give all of her support to Obama at the DNC. "They are not only blue collared but they eat, drink, and bleed blue. But [] because of this the Party was and still is divided today. " -Please clarify. So where are all of these "blue" people, politically? "On the other hand the Republican Party is extraordinarily One house. " -Really? One house of what, exactly? Conservatives? I think not. I'm positive any true conservative will tell you that the Republican Party is, as of late, anything but conservative. Conservatism is about small government, reduced spending, and supposedly, "values. " Do I even have to finish this point, in light of the expansion of government power, the tip of the scale from an economic surplus to a multi-trillion dollar deficit, and Bush and Cheney's explicit manipulation (READ: the use of ANY means to achieve ANY end) of the American people? Then there is the hypocrisy of people like Larry Craig, but that's a separate issue entirely (and not a point). "I say this was the deciding factor in the last two elections and will remain a winning factor in this election as well. " -Also incorrect. The deciding factor in 2000 was the Supreme Court, and in 2004 it was the complete lack of competence from the Democratic party. "INCOME-Money will play a part in the election as well. " -Indeed. I'm sure that it will. However, my opponent will have to back up his points in this paragraph with sources before I pick them apart. To quash the one point that he did make: Obama has raised more than enough campaign money to send buses around every major city and town in America on election day, picking up voters and taking them to the booths. Not a problem:) "With the extremely wise [choice] of a female for VP the Republican Party has seen [an] enthusiasm I have never seen [in] my life. " -I would not say wise so much as politically expedient. Good work, in a cynical and Machiavellian kind of way, by the McCain camp on this one. It was disingenuous to pick a female - they did it for pure political effect and not substance. My argument: Obama *might* not be the next President. The real reasons Obama may lose: 1. Ignorance: Under this category falls those voters who are white (or other) and will not vote for Obama because he is black (mulatto, actually), blacks who will not vote for him because he isn't "black enough," women and men who will not vote for him because Hillary isn't on the ticket, women who will vote for McCain *just* because he has a female on the ticket, and those that will not vote for him because they would rather have a beer and a barbecue with McCain, or rather have McCain change their car tire when they get a flat. 2. "Legalism": There are already thousands of lawyers working for both campaigns, and it seems inevitable with the closeness of the race and how much is at stake, historically and politically, that they will swoop in and take over, much like 2000. 3. Karl Rove: He works with the McCain campaign (all while being an objective consultant on Fox News), and no Democrat can compete with him, either strategically or tactically. His "style" will end up dragging both candidates through the mud and destroy whatever confidence anyone has left in the American political process. Back to you, joshandr30 Britt