Bernie Sanders for U.S. President

Note: There has been a rule change.I have spoken with the Con, and come to an agreement to shorten the debate to just 4 rounds.Voters should disregard Round 5.Because of the rule change, I will in this round give my counter-arguments to the Con's counter-arguments, while also giving my conclusion.To start, I will start with my opponents first "counter-contention", so to say.In this contention, the Con goes on to say that Sanders should not be president just because he is popular-- and I couldn't agree more. However, there was a reason I left this argument for the very end of my introductory arguments. This being because that statement was meant to back up the prior contentions, never giving the sense of fallacy.Popular people should not be leaders unless they have something to back them up; which I have not failed to show for Bernie Sanders in Round 1. There's the old saying, in the Bible, from Matthew 7:16,'By their fruit you will recognize them...'And although not every person on this planet believes in the Bible, this short scripture applies universally. Fruits mean true beliefs put into action, not facades put up as a front. Infamous dictators from all over history bore "bad fruits", which should have shown they would have been bad leaders. Adolf Hitler was only elected because of the conspiracy he brought against the Communists in Germany at the time, swaying the people to the Nazi party. Josef Stalin only came to power in the Soviet Union mostly because he murdered the competition. (Technically he did murder some of the competition, but also led a conspiracy against the rest.)It is true, that the people in these times just simply were not capable of knowing these things or seeing the "fruits" that these would be dictators had bore. However, in the 21st century, (while secrets still exist) it is almost impossible for something to occur in a person's life that the media won't find out about and cover. Some people like to express their frustration over how partisan this country is, and how the two party system just stalls us from doing anything. Yet, the two party system is actually working for us. Like so: Democrats and Republicans believe strongly that the other party is wrong in what they believe, and sometimes even do cutthroat things to ensure that other party won't hold federal offices of any kind-- and in this way, they keep each other in check. Say, if there is a skeleton a Democrat is hiding in his closet, it won't be long before a Republican would find it and expose it to try to keep that person out of office.There have been plenty of examples of this happening, and most of them being fairly recently. People like Mark Foley were caught in scandals incumbently, and delt with appropriately. [1] Even in the past month, with the accusations against Josh Duggar from his past and the criticism of the way his family dealt with it. My argument being that when I said Bernie should be president because he had the popular vote, it wasn't just because of that.Also, a majority of infamous dictators through out history weren't even popular or brought up by the people. As a matter of fact, I'll say more were just there, rather than put there by the people. A few include, of course, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Un, amongst many others. For the rest of my oppenents rebuttals, I respond by recognizing that it was a partisan issue entirely. Please don't assume that I am not able to respond, it's just that as I said in the beginning of the debate, I don't wish to wade into partisan social issues-- which I have involuntarily done. Income equality and the need for finincial assistance are just issues that I believe are important that Sanders shares with myself; it is not a viable bipartisan argument, and I apologize for it.As I conclude, after responding to the Con's arguments these few rounds, my contention still stands. Bernie Sanders should be the next President of the United States for multiple reasons, but one of the reasons stand out among the others. Sanders has a history of doing a good job representing the people of Vermont as a US Senator, and has experience, along with the people of Vermont to back that up. Sanders hasn't been involved with any scandals of any kind, that we know of- and it is assumed that there aren't any to start with. This is in comparison to the other options for the people to vote for to be the next POTUS. People like Rick Perry have inarguably not done very well jobs in presiding over or representing their states or districts. (Don't forget O'Malley, while presiding over Baltimore lately). Others like Trump , Fiorina, and Carson have no poltical experience at all. The rest, for example, Christie and Clinton have been involved in scandals that show "bad fruits," and should be taken into consideration. Bernie Sanders on the other hand, remains the best option for the job. I argue that Bernie Sanders should be the next president of the United States, and I rest my case.I apologize to the Con for brief arguments and contentions, and long waiting times for those rebuttals. I also thank the Con for the debate, and would like to let him know he has done a great job and had obviously been a challenge for me.Vote Pro![1] http://abcnews.go.com...;