Fox NEWS' Varney: Obama offering free preschool so toddlers will vote for him

I thank my partner for the previous presentation. The resolution, often repeated, is as follows: Is the sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K to entice affected voters to vote for him? This resolution was made clear in my instigation of this debate (I did not include the entire thing in the title of the debate), and I think that I may have repeated it in every subsequent round. I had wanted to repeat, as faithfully as possible, the exact sentiments expressed by Fox NEWS's Stuart Varney, whose quotes I have also included. Beyond this, Stuart Varney himself is of secondary concern. We are not debating anything else. We are not debating whether or not Stuart Varney is a good, competent, trustworthy journalist; he's not. We both agree that he is a good entertainer, opinionator, and buzz-generator. However, he is little more than a side-topic here. Here we are simply evaluating the veracity of his statement with regards to preschool in exchange for votes. We are not debating Fox NEWS, although this debate does go so far in demonstrating that the credibility of this "news" outlet is (at least) itself debatable. Even if Fox NEWS is (as I say) more entertainment than journalism, or if I am wrong, and Fox NEWS is lollipop unicorns and rainbow chipmunks (it's not), these factors would still not impact the resolution. Either way, these things will not make universal access to preschool only a vote-bribe. The resolution, seeks to verify the statement made by Stuart Varney. That statement is the topic. Stuart Varney is not, although, as a Red Herring, he is high quality. So. with regards to that elusive resolution, so often repeated and clarified. .. has there been presented any evidence at all that proves that President Obama wants the beneficiaries of preschool education to vote for him? Sadly, no. We have seen suggestions that Obama may be legally able to run for some election somewhere, sometime in the future. Does this prove that he will? Think this through for a moment. Any number of extreme things can be dreamed up and then presented as possible. Does this mean that they must happen? Not at all. Our readers and judges can possibly shave their heads and paint them red, but they are not likely to do this. Equally unlikely is Obama's speculated overthrow of our constitution so that he can run for president once more. This reasoning is relevant to the resolution (Is the sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K to entice affected voters to vote for him? ). Yet, it does not prove that this potential event is likely, and it certainly does not prove that this was Obama's only goal with his advocacy of preschool education. In order to answer the resolution, it must do at least these things. Is it absolutely necessary that Pro demonstrate that the "sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K" is "to entice affected voters to vote for him? "Sadly, yes. That is, after all, the very concise resolution. I understand that it has been argued that it is unreasonable of me to suggest that all other motivations must be eliminated somehow. However, I can see no other way round the problem: in order for the "sole" motivation for the Presidents advocacy of preschool education to be vote-bribing, then there can be no 'other' reasons. In other words, if Obama wants to overthrow the constitution, so that he is allowed to run for re-election, and that is why he is pushing education down our throats, then the "sole" reason cannot be vote-bribing. In this case, his re-election is another motivation: the destruction of our beloved constitution and freedom. Put yet another way, in order for any argument that any person does anything for any "sole" reason to be successful, then it must also be proved that anyone does anything for only one reason. It seems a simple argument, but its not. I do not eat, for example, for the "sole" reason that I might otherwise starve. I also eat for completely recreational reasons. I do not breathe for any sole reason either. There are lots of reasons I like breathing. Likewise, there are probably lots of reasons the evil Obama wants to destroy America with an educated citizenry. How could advocating for universal preschool NOT entice affected voters to support him? Nobody can ever vote for Obama for president ever again. It's the law. American presidents can only be elected twice, and there is no reason to expect that this will change. Fox NEWS is good, Fox NEWS is great. We thank Fox NEWS for the food on our plate. I am aware that Fox NEWS is, among conservatives, (as John Lennon might say) more popular than Jesus. The notion that Fox NEWS must be defended at all costs is common among Republicans, and I note an air of this trend in the arguments so far presented by Pro. This makes little difference to the resolution, which asks if President Obama's one and only reason for wanting a better educated citizenry is to entice them to vote for him. (He is term-limited, and cannot be voted for any more. )Final Conclusion: President Obama is term limited, and cannot be elected president any more. He has also sworn off lower office (he won't run for Mayor). His actions may please voters, but his actions cannot attract future votes; he cannot be re-elected. Pro has not proven that he will run for lower office, or overthrow the constitution, which means that no evidence has been presented to counter my claim that he will not run for office Pro has not eliminated other possible reasons that the president might want American children to get a better education. Therefore, other reasons might exist; he might not be asking them to vote for him (they can't anyway. ) Therefore, there are good reasons to think that Varney might be less than accurate in saying that the "sole" reason for Obama's advocacy of preschool education is to bribe future voters into voting for him.