Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton

First of all, coming through seeing different types of debate, I can agree with you and disagree at the same time. First of all, in policy debate we use info (cards) from articles in our speeches...so....we use that in debate..it's helping with my case. Note: I didn't just copy and paste information. I know what I'm talking about and I actually considered and went through everything. Second of all, I don't think you should decide who wins a debate on the method of debate we chose to use. Um..well, we aren't debating how to debate so enough on that subject. To continue on. Point 1: Using sources that are GOOD sources like I used, means that the information is correct and not just an opinion, only proving my point more. Point 2: The Major League baseball thing..I used that as an intro..not as information. It was creative. I don't feel I should be knocked over for that. Point 3: All of these are my arguments? Are you just scared to answer them? or what's up? Point 4: You said Obama is 45 years old..ok that's nice...What's your point there? I believe I provided information. I can exaggerate on that (in my own words) saying how I felt that this didn't mean Clinton had any more experience. Clinton stated that she represented our country in 80 or so countries to negotiate helping women's rights. That's nice. But how does that create experience to be a president? Maybe she needs to stay in the senator ambassador field. That's where her experience belongs. So I would like to see your arguement on that. Point 5: You say he was voted the most liberal or something like that. Ok, so people voted that as a matter of opinion. How they feel...but Obama has stated that he can bring the country together. He wants to bring the country together. Also, how can Clinton bring the country together when millions of Americans view her so negatively. I feel that even if Obama may not be the greatest at bringing the country together, Hillary is even worse. Point 6: Ok this goes back to Clinton helping out with countries with women's rights. That has nothing to do with being a commander. Ok, so now you want evidence. Isn't that what I was providing all along and you were saying I wasn't supposed to be doing that? Nevermind. Obama would be a great commander. He was the only one who opposed the war from the beginning. Clinton, along with Edwards and others, were for the war at first. Obama knew that it wouldn't be a smart idea. Ok, this may be opinion but I, like many Americans, want to get out and who better to do it then the one who was against it in the first place. Point 7: I believe that you can be a great president without being a good speaker but you can be an even better president if you are a good speaker. The point of the debate is to say who is better. I'm NOT saying Clinton would make a bad president. However, Obama would be better. One of my reasons for this is being a better public speaker. Like I stated before, being a public speaker is extremely important because it helps you communicate with other countries, the American people, and the people you work with. It is an EXTREMELY important skill to have. By the way, wasn't Lincoln famous for his Gettysburg Address SPEECH. Point 8: What do you mean is this the real only arguement I have? Point 9: I watched that 35 minute speech and didn't find it complete nonsense. My cousin, who is a die hard Obama hater found that his speech was well done and informative. And just because girls went all "Hannah Montana" crazy at his speeches, doesn't make them not serious. I'm sure there are people like this at all politican speeches. Point 10: To review some of my points, I will explain why I feel that I am winning on each one. My first point was on how Obama is better at trade. Obama knows a lot about the current programs that we have in the country such as NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm sure you know what those are and how they have cost the American people jobs (both programs) and have hurt countries such as Mexico. Obama voted against CAFTA and Clinton was for NAFTA..hmmmm... My second point was on how Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Clinton is viewed by the American people negatively. I don't know if you watch Saturday Night Live but they recently did a skit and focused on the point of how Clinton is "annoying" (I know, bad word to use but) and how Americans don't really like her. Obama may not be the greatest but he is better than Clinton and that is the point of the debate. My third point was on how Obama would be a better commander. I really don't have anything else to say on this point as I did earlier in this arguement. My fourth point was on how Obama is a better public speaker and I explained why and how this is important earlier in this arguement. Ok, so my opponent basically spent his entire arguement talking about how my arguements were 'copied and pasted' and didn't spend time attacking my points. All he did was ask questions, which I answered. Also, where are his points showing me how Clinton is any better? I have shown Obama's strengths and shown Clinton's weaknesses so I feel that I won the round. Also, Clinton's mocking towards Obama and creating lies about him isn't helping either. It makes her look like a little kid trying to win. I feel I have won because I have shown numerous amounts of information showing you how Obama can be the better president. I may not be old enough to vote but I am in debate so I have looked up my information. In the future I would like you see you attack my points more, creating points of your own, and maybe spend more time debating then fixing my arguements even though I appreciate your opinion. For these reasons, I feel I have won the round and I urge you to vote Pro in this debate. Thank you.