was obama the correct choice for president by the American people

A few quick rebuttals, and then my conclusion. "My opponent makes various claims "lack of reliability" can she actually say the evidence is not reliable absolutely, can she prove it? " -First of all, I am a man. I have already explained why my opponent's sources are not reliable. For instance in R1, I made this statement: "My opponent's sources do not support his claims. One even attempts to paint Barack Hussein Obama (though it is a dead link, it's intent is evident) as a Muslim, which is both irrelevant and untrue. " If a source does not factually support your claim, then it is not reliable. "can you disprove the criticism? " -I have argued against the criticism. You cannot "prove" opinion, only attempt to persuade others that you are more correct than your opponent. "she does not offer any proof to how I conceded" -Again, I'm a man. I don't need to "prove" what is evident in your own arguments. I presented 5 contentions, and you conceded each one. Though you changed your argument, you did not argue your original contentions as laid out in R1. "my opponent has turned this debate into a totally different point" -To debate the premise various points must be debated. Because you presented the premise and the initial contentions supporting your premise, that is what I debated. "he has implied that obama's bad decisions are accomplishments making a fire sale list for me which means basically that if I fail to address any of his supposed accomplishments with I did not do" -The nature of his accomplishments, whether regarded as successes or failures, were not enumerated for my opponent to contend individually rather I provided a "fire sale list" of actions in rebuttal to Contention #1- "all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally". I effectively proved this contention wrong, and my opponent conceded: "although I may have exaggerated a bit and will add various points to why he was incorrect lets start with my opponents list of what obama has done and give you the negatives and some of the positives ( but mostly negatives )" My opponent could have dismissed the "fire sale list" in R2, but instead has decided to complain about it in his conclusion. "I didn't address contention 5 because my opponent misinterpreted what I had posted so I will clarify it with just simple common sense I never ever mentioned TO BE PRESIDENT I said to be runner up for president" -First of all, this is the United States. There is not such position as "runner up for President". My opponent seems to be referring to the practice in other nations of having a "run-off election". What my opponent ignores is the fact that run offs are carried out when no candidate receives a minimum percentage of a vote, and this does not always occur. . http://definitions.uslegal.com... ; . http://en.wikipedia.org... If my opponent is referring to "Democratic NOMINEE for President", then I will address that question in the same manner as I originally addressed it. Pledged Delegates: Obama- 1,763; Clinton- 1,640. Obama wins in pledged delegates. Popular Vote INCLUDING Florida and Michigan (Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot): Obama: 13,460,645 Clinton: 13,403,104 . http://www.usaelectionpolls.com... Obama clearly won the popular vote for Democratic nominee. So let's look at the contentions one more time so we get this clear: Contention #1- "all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally" -I have effectively shown how my opponent concedes this point. Contention #2- All he has done (in contradiction to the "literally. .. talk" claim) is "trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably". This is what he now says: "do you have any proof that he succeeded if not then it's safe to say he failed because if you didn't win then you must have failed. " He did not argue my point. This is what he says in R2: "of course although there is a time table and there is going to be a withdrawal he is also going to leave troops behind and this is not a war as described by him they are simply there for "peace keeping" and there is a way to say he has failed miserably for example he has failed miserably see I've just said it". He claims that by simply saying something you prove you can say something. This is circular reasoning, and does not prove his contention. My opponent concedes that a time table is in place, and implies that failure to bring the troops home from Iraq is an argument against Obama being "the right choice". The alternative is McCain who favored an open ended commitment on Iraq. This is contradictory to my opponent's argument against Obama. Contention #3- "tried to get health care" (implication that this won't be an accomplishment) He states in R2: "just because you prepare for something doesn't mean it is going to be accomplished and what impact does it have on other industries" And in R3: "although my opponent makes many statements here is a link saying otherwise and Americans support this plan because they don't even know what the health care plan says" So my opponent doesn't argue his R1 contention, concedes that a plan is still in the works in R2, and posts a link for his argument in R3. Personally I don't click on a link nor do I consider it a reliable source if a point sourced in that link is not first made. My opponent makes no point- no argument. You cannot expect others, through links, to make your argument for you. Regarding Contention #3, as the days pass my opponent's argument becomes more and more erroneous. . http://news.yahoo.com... Contention #4- "he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice" Here my opponent implies that Obama's heightened level of diplomacy somehow prevents him from doing his job. Let's review his statements on C#4. R1: "what has he actually done for the united states, nothing because he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice" R2: "obama has no experience in diplomacy or with diplomacy and as for bush waning American standings imagine what bush's cousin Obama and also Cheney's cousin would do? " and now R3: "if diplomacy is irrelevant why did you bring it up? " -My opponent never defends his contention, only changes his argument. I never claimed diplomacy was irrelevant. This was my statement: Arguing about experience in diplomacy is completely irrelevant at this point given that Obama has had a positive effect on diplomacy in contrast to his predecessor. My opponent goes on to claim McCain cannot have a positive effect on diplomacy because he is not President. This is a logical fallacy given that McCain is still a Senator. McCain, per my opponent's own claim, has been in government longer than Obama. This is what McCain would do as President in his own words: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bull**it,'" . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... And his experience? "As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq. -John McCain, Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, March 17, 2008 -For those of you who don't know the difference, al Qaeda is a group of extremist Sunnis. Iran is a Shia Theocracy. See the contradiction? I have already addressed Contention #5. This is my opponent's defense of McCain's choice of Palin: "he didn't really know Sarah palin have you ever heard of how a mother tells a 3 yr old to not touch the stove but he does anyway and he gets burned bad this is what happened to McCain. " -Do we really want a President who gets burned by his own decisions? ?? Thank you.