John McCain will make a better president than Barack Obama

Overview: This debate has devolved (imo) into 2 or 3 main points, which I have won clearly. My opponent apparently threw away all his reasoning abilities over the past few rounds and has been resorting to phrases such as "LIES!" and "w/e you're wrong" instead of giving reasoned and articulated arguments. If anything, that's a reason to vote affirmative. Paygo + Economy: My line of reasoning is this: My opponent has stated that Obama will return the country to the Paygo system; however, given the massive amount of social programs Obama wants to push through congress, there is no choice (due to paygo) but to raise taxes, which is essentially harmful to both the government and the average consumer. Furthermore, Paygo itself is empirically demonstrated to have failed when the Democrats tried to employ it last year. i)First off, Obama has far more social programs than Clinton. Clinton was a centrist who advocated small government programs (and even cut back on some, like welfare). But Obama's massive healthcare, insurance, college, ect programs will cost FAR MORE than Clinton's ever did ii) "Data is a lie" – My data cites the COST OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS, not tax code reform. Your source merely estimates the effective cost of TAX REFORM, not SOCIAL PROGRAMS advocated. If the cost is included, Obama's total will go far higher than McCain's. iii)What programs will be cut? Highway maintenance? Welfare? Education budgets? How do you offset 1.5 TRILLION dollars worth of social programs each year? The only answer is to RAISE TAXES, as advocated by my source Experience: The simple fact is, McCain has far more experience than Obama, and this will make him a better president. My opponent offers token arguments about Obama being in all 3 classes and being a community organizer, while McCain had been a navy captain for 13 years and a legislator for 26. i)"lots of president had experience and failed" - Of course they all had experience, no one would elect a president with 0 experience. The fact is, there are numerous other examples to counteract this: Polk, Andrew Jackson, JFK, LBJ, Madison, Jefferson, Washington all had large amounts of experience coming into the white house. Furthermore, you have already agreed with me that experience is beneficial for a president. ii) Democrats =/= general electorate iii) "Obama = wide social classes" – ok, McCain was never poor, but Obama's comments about bitterness shows that he has cast away his poor background and has taken the mantle of an Ivy-league elitist. iv) "bitter comment" – Why would poor people agree with him? He was INSULTING them, not praising them. Furthermore, I have not heard of one single historian who is in agreement with both the tone and content of Obama's comment. v) The fact is, Obama abstained on 130 votes in the Illinois senate. As the president, you don't get the chance to abstain on anything. Judgment: The simple fact is, Obama has not shown good judgment over his short legislative career. He has been the affiliated with figures such as Wright and Averres, and had only repudiated them after his poll numbers were dropping. i)That still does not explain why he sat in the church for 20 years ii)I don't see how he got rid of Middle Eastern nukes… iii)What kind of strategy? A strategy of irresponsibility perhaps? You have proved nothing beneficial that has arisen from abstaining. Iraq a)"killing =/= stabilize" – We're not going around killing random people, we're killing people affiliated with Al Qaida who are intentionally destabilizing Iraq. Furthermore, your citation came from 4 months ago; furthermore, Al-Sadr could turn against us at any time, especially if American forces withdraw. There will be no counterbalance against his massive mahdi army. Secondly, it is a "truce" not a direct cession of fighting, that means fighting can erupt again soon. Even your article says the conflict could worsen the situation: " A return to hostilities could seriously jeopardize those gains." b) Your arguments show otherwise d) Talking brought about the Cuban Missile Crisis (see JFK in Vienna article), furthermore, it cost American missiles in Turkey to solve the situation – a strategic defeat. e) You have proved nothing. The violence declining is due mostly in part to the surge. Because we have more boots in the ground, we can deter the Mahdi army from taking over. f) Ok…resorting to personal attacks will not counteract the fact that we will be saving millions of lives from an Iraqi Civil War. Policies: McCain's policies are more rational and more sound for both the economy and national security. i)"Obama = negiotate" To what end? To destroy free trade? To raise tariffs? NAFTA is clearly beneficial to all three treaty members, and destroying it in a capricious act of populism will only worsen the current recession ii) If you understand anything about economics, The Federal Reserve is the main actor keeping inflation down (due to interest rate adjustment/printing money). Furthermore, Paygo worked due to the fact that Clinton did not have many social programs and he actively sought to balance the budget. On the other hand, Obama has massive plans that need massive infusions of cash, which the country does not have iii) But the current economic situation still precludes Paygo from working iv) Then why argue? v) "filibuster" – since u dropped this argument, you cannot guarantee solvency on any of the massive social programs. vi) JFK first talked to Khrushchev in Vienna, which became a disaster that led Khrushchev to think the novice American president as weak, and thus he sent nukes to Cuba. Furthermore, the situation in the world is far different than the Cuban missile crisis. Back then, we were about to get nuked; however, terrorists present little threat to mainland America, and thus we have lost the urgency to negotiate. vii) Threatening is not negotiating, negotiating ins the civil exchange of services/ideas Other points I + ii)Talking legitimizes the terrorists; it shows that we're weak and susceptible to attack. iii) Talking to Hitler turned the people of Sudetenland and Rhineland over to Germany iv) This kind of socialist mechanism will not solve the cost of his massive social programs v)Filibuster destroys any solvency of his plans vi) You said that it was another debate first. Murder is between two people, in this case, the fetus and the doctor vii) look, there are plenty of institution that treat kids for free (st. Judes) we don't need a trillion dollar healthcare program to cure fatally ill kids viii) PAYGO WON'T WORK, the federal reserve keeps the dollar low, and oil prices are controlled by OPEC ix) Look, the fact is, the surge is working, and if we continue to pressure the terrorists, we can win. Talking, on the other hands, shows our weakness and gives them a temporary reprieve. x) I never said anything xi) First, I gave 3 reasons why NCLB is good, you gave one counter. 3 > 1. Perhaps your argument is correct, but the fact is, NCLB has raised the standards of education in this country, especially in poorer schools. xii) Prove it 1)I linked it back to Paygo 2)I never conceded it, I said it was highly debatable 4)So what's the point if they're never to be released back into society? You lose on the fact that McCain has far more experience than Obama. You lose on the fact that Negoiating with Terrorists fails due to the negative repercussions. You lose on the fact that Obama enforcing Paygo and his massive social programs will drive the Country into another great depression. You lose on the fact that half your arguments are "you are lying". You lose on the fact that you have repeated your self over and over again during this debate. You lose on the fact that Obama has less judgment than McCain. You lose on the fact that Obama clearly does not wtf he's doing.