FREEDO would make a bad DDO president

Thank you very much, Con. My opponent begins by saying I never asked him what about Freedo would make him the best presidential candidate. Indeed in R1, my exact third question asked, "What can Freedo in particular do as president that none of the other candidates (or members of the site, for that matter) can do, have done, are capable of doing, etc.?" As you can see, my opponent's assertion that I never asked this is not in fact true. However Con is correct - he doesn't have to prove that Freedo will be a good president, but merely that he would not make a bad president. My reason for asking this question was pertinent, but it STILL has not been answered, meaning this dropped argument (bad conduct) has inhibited me from making a relevant point: that if Freedo lacks leadership abilities or other qualities typically attributed to a competent president, then he would not be fulfilling his obligations by either technical or even DDO standards. Regarding why other members should look up to or respect Freedo, Con's said that the title of president alone would be enough to scare new members. First, fearing and respecting are two different things. If my opponent expects a good president to inflict fear, then he's already negated his own argument by proclaiming Freedo is non-threatening in the last round. By his own standards, he's pointed out why Freedo would be a bad (insufficient) president. Additionally Con did not give any reason why older members - many of whom have been around longer than Freedo - would respect his authority. Without people respecting or acknowledging one's authority or control, then clearly one does not have a good grasp on authority or control. So far we see Con's been unable to give sufficient reasoning as to why anyone (including Phil) would support Freedo being in a position of power. In that case, we can assume that members have no real reason to revere his authority and therefore will probably not accept it. Let me clarify further: my opponent is basing his argument on a double standard. In the first round I brought up the fact that what constitutes a DDO president was not clearly defined, thus I presented the standard definition and expectations of any president. Con responded by saying that the qualifications of a DDO president in particular were not typical, and were in fact not based on real authority but essentially a "pointless and powerless" position primarily created for fun purposes where a figurehead leader is elected to represent the site. In the last round, I pointed out why Freedo would make a bad president by both traditional and DDO standards. To re-cap, Freedo's complete inability to physically alter the site's content means he cannot exercise actual authority or control (making him a bad president by traditional standards). My opponent's responded by saying theoretically the owner/moderator of the site, Phil, would exercise any advised changes made by my Freedo. However by Con's own acknowledgement, Phil would not recognize any of Freedo's authority meaning this is all hypothetical. As such, technically speaking, Freedo would make a bad DDO president. So far Con's convinced us though that the expectations for a DDO president are different, and are based mostly on member's satisfaction with the candidate. Well, in the last round I explained exactly why Freedo would be a bad president by THESE standards as well. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." In other words people have to believe that it actually makes sense for a figurehead to be revered. However as you can see, Con was unable to explain exactly why any members should vote for Freedo in the first place. To re-cap some of my arguments, Freedo is considered inconsistent and flakey; he considers himself insane with absurd views; he's exercised some tyrannical behavior noteworthy of concern; he hasn't participated in an impressive amount of debates on a debating website; people are concerned about his ability to defend various positions; and Freedo has proven careless, irresponsible and arrogant in not providing the Party Party's platform -- and perhaps STILL would not have done so, had my opponent not reminded him publicly after my noting it in this very debate. As you can see, then even in theory, members on this site would probably agree that Freedo would make a bad president. Why? The inability to be an adequate president (let alone good) makes one incompetent or bad for the position. To be remotely average, Freedo must be able to execute any of the expectations of him as leader. However my points have shown where he would fall short, and my opponent has not been able to defend that Freedo would not fall short. Indeed many of my opponent's arguments have been outright contrary. For instance, in the last round Con defended Freedo's versatility by saying it was a positive quality insofar as Freedo genuinely being able to understand various points of view. First, it should be noted that if you change your mind so often, then you're either completely flimsy with your values or you did not adequately understand that which you proclaimed yourself an ardent adherer to -- both of which would make for qualities of a bad president. Second, it's one thing to be sympathetic to an ideology; it's another to be able to defend it. By my opponent's logic that Freedo switches so often, it means he will perpetually be arguing with people and focusing more on justifying his new beliefs than serving as any kind of leader, role model or figurehead. If you don't buy that, take a look at my opponent's presented alternative, that Freedo "chooses to really live his life standing inside the fire by making himself as obscure as possible, not allowing anything that might bring up conflict between him and the people he disagrees with." So, Freedo will be forced to make the choice either to man up and defend himself - which will create even more unnecessary hostility and friction far more often considering the frequency of his changes - OR, Freedo will make himself look weak, incompetent and spineless by shying away like a coward from adequately debating his point of view -- a trait that would make a bad president, or questionable at absolute best. You'll note that a questionable president is likely an insufficient or upsetting one. Moreover Freedo's maturity comes into play when considering his hang-up (slight obsession?) with being portrayed as overly hyper, attention seeking, annoyingly optimistic and downright silly or nonsensical. You'll notice that Con never challenged the idea that Freedo would be a nonsensical president considering Freedo's acknowledged appreciation for nonsense. Further Con's defense against Freedo being insane is shoddy; he claims that because a fictional television character said crazy people don't know they're crazy, that by this logic this somehow constitutes a self-declaring crazy person to be sane. However this doesn't follow anyway; just because some crazy people don't know they're crazy doesn't necessarily mandate that every self-aware crazy person is indeed sane. Plus insane is synonymous with maniacal (pertaining to mania), and mania is excessive excitement or enthusiasm [2]. I've advocated these qualities to most definitely be associated with Freedo, and my opponent has cooperatively not denied this reality. In other words, Freedo might very well be literally insane. In the last round I explained why an insane president would be a bad one, which was rightfully not challenged either. In conclusion, I've explained why Freedo would be a bad president either by technical or even theoretical DDO standards. My opponent has not successfully negated my claims, meaning my points stand and the resolution has been affirmed. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...