Senator Barack Obama is a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton.

As I mentioned, my opponent began attempting to define the term 'better' in the middle of the debate. The fact is that the definition of the term itself could be argued. If a definition is not provided as a given at the beginning of the argument, then it is arguable. This is such a situation. As for the point of the debate, that also was not specified. My opponent stated 'Senator Barack Obama is a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton' and decided to be Pro. Since I have chosen Con, my responsibility is to prove either that 'Senator Barack Obama is NOT a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton' or that 'It is not possible for my opponent to prove that Senator Barack Obama is a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton'. So my argument rests on a few points/items: 1) 'Better' refers to the ability to provide the greatest possible value to the nation as President of the US during one's term. 2) 'Better', as defined in (1), relies on competence, intelligence, leadership, cabinet selection and management, willpower, and many other qualities that are not easily quantifiable. 3) The future is difficult to predict. 4) Using the definitions in (1) and (2), there is no absolute proof (from my opponent) that Obama is a better candidate than Clinton. My opponent is now promoting actions taken by Obama without indicating whether those actions were better. Whether or not agreeing/disagreeing with the war was politically correct, there is no evidence that entering Iraq was a poor decision for the US. It is very possible that the whole endeavor was planned, managed, and executed poorly. But Clinton is not necessarily accountable for these failures. I won't spend more time or space covering the remaining points by my opponent, simply because they rely heavily on opinion and accusations. My opponent chooses to use words such as economics in order to imply that he understands economics, yet he does not utilize any information or logic to prove his point. Supply and Demand does not adequately encompass economics, or politics. Terms such as pandering, lying, and 'by far' indicate a strong opinionated bias against Senator Clinton. My opponent misused the term bipartisan from the beginning of the debate. I took his usage of it to mean 'impartial'. Bipartisan relates to a group or legislation including members of typically opposing parties. More importantly, taking part in bipartisan groups/legislation does not indicate the production of greater value for the US or it's citizens. The earned income tax credit existed long before Obama. .. he, like Clinton, proposes the expansion of said credit. False claim on my opponent's part. Not much more to say. .. My opponent essentially used this debate as a platform to regurgitate popular rhetoric promoting Obama and attacking Clinton. He frequently used false claims, hyperbole, opinion, and popularity metrics in order to attempt to make his point. My point stands, per the first few paragraphs in this argument. We do not know who is better, or who will perform better on the job. We do know that their respective stated policy stances are relatively similar, that both are academically and intellectually gifted, and that both have accomplished a great deal politically.