The President should be commander-in-chief of the military

Alright I'll go on a line-by-line and the summarize why I won >>>>Appeasing the right, not doing what the people want. The President is the supreme representative of the people, and should not be involved in petty politics. -He shouldn't, but he is, and even if the SOD was instigated as the CIC (commander in Chief), he would get involved with politics just as much >>>>This would not disrupt checks in balances, because the position would remain in the hands of the executive branch. - He just contradicted himself. First he says that to give power to the executive branch would disrupt SOP and then he says that the executive branch wouldn't disrupt it >>>>though he did when the most popular votes, lost in the Electoral College. This is the way our government works. Then you just conceded that this is not a government for the people, or by the people, and certainly not of the people >>>>FDR during World War 2. He did not single-handley command the military. - What is an impact, we're America and the fact remains hat we have big guns and no matter who the commander-in-chief is, we can still blow any enemy off the face of the earth (and handley isn't a word) The SOD would still disrupt the SOP. Extend his contradiction Also, he gives no example or citation of how the SOD becomes more qualified >>>>If you were paying attention in class you would realize this -If you'd pay attention in government, you'd realize that the president should be CIC >>>>Read the Constitution. -I have, It's pretty vague, but if he had complete power, why cant he declare war? >>>>You just said that the President does not have as much power as I was saying, and now you're saying Article 2 gives all power to the POTUS? You obviously don't know you're contradicting yourself. --As the contender, I declare Multiple worlds good. All I have to do is find flaws with your case, then I win. even if they contradict Basically, my opponent is also calling you unqualified to choose the CIC >>>>The more leaders of the military who are Sect. of Defense, the more lives are saved because of good command decisions. If you like America, if you love soldiers, if you are patriotic in any way, you would agree that the Sect. of Defense is the best man or woman for the job. -The fact he can site no place where the SOD did a better job than POTUS at his own job. If you really are patriotic, then you >>>>First of all, it "lose", not "loose". -It is "Its" not "it", and it's "Effectiveness" not "effectivness. " and it's efficiency not "efficency" >>>>This is also abuse because you aren't giving me time to debate you're next speech, and thus are taking advantage of the situation. -I'm not bringing up new JCS evidence. there is no abuse >>>>switch him with the Sect. of Defense, and nothing changes except our efficency and effectivness. -He can't prove it plus The JCS is highly sensitive to the degree of their influence- Herspring 5, They won't work without the president >>>>If you like America, if you love soldiers, if you are patriotic in any way, you would agree that the Sect. of Defense is the best man or woman for the job. Making an amendment to the Constitution to allow the Sect. of Defense the best. -Basically, he is also calling the founding fathers, which he claims to love, stupid. They chose him for a reason The fact of the matter that the president would still have power over the military, we did not elect the SOD, we elect the president, who APPOINTS the SOD. 1. He dropped that it avoids political backlash, this solves for the president involvement in politics 2. He dropped that it gives American Leadership 3. The president solves armed conflict 4. He dropped that President is most informed on foreign affairs Therefore, he is most informed 5.