The U. S. Presidential elect is not a measure to determine my safety.

The description will serve as the first round.

I will attempt to use the Socrates method to negate the premise, "U. S. Presidential elect is not a measure to determine my safety."

The first problem is the statement, "Common sense dictates that this is irrelevant". In other words, whoever elected will not impact whether you feel safe or not. But obviously this is false. We all know dictators have dominated the past, and therefore the election is then significant; if we could not decide who to be voted, it would be either a chaotic anarchy, or a dictator would take power without our permission, causing massive stress and anxiety among the people, as they did not decide on this person taking power. Now consider, if an insane man took power as president, obviously, you would feel very unsafe. He tells America, "I will launch all the nukes. I will destroy the planet." Surely, now you see the important of electing someone who actually deserves it. 

Secondly, "To say that this is any person's America like it's one of their possessions is off putting from the start. It shows the frame of mind." This statement is a strawman. He assumes that being elected is like saying it is "his America" as in his ownership of the country. That doesn't make sense. When people say "Trump's America", the mean that he has the responsibility to protect it like his family. He has the need to value it as much as he values his personal life. That is why we call it someone's America, not to demonstrate ownership. 

"Just like I hear people now , not regularly, talking be safe , be healthy due to this current state of a pandemic like there was nothing to be safe from before." Could you clarify precisely, precisely what you mean by this? How is it comparable to the president election, exactly? I can kind of understand that different issues are brought to light regardless of who is elected, however, if the President is able to handle it very well, then you would be far less scared. Imagine instead of Trump's response, someone like FDR immediately implemented strong policies to help restrict spread of the virus, and solidly established a base for vaccine distribution. He would be praised and everyone would feel safe. Everyone did feel safe during the Great Depression due to FDR's incredible first 100 days. Clearly, it's a big measurement to determine your safety. 

Remember that contractism is a highly valued political position where people fear for their safety so they ask for people in power to give them protection. The people support the government and vice versa, that's how life works. Pro must negate the idea of a contract in order to win this debate.

pro gives empty and unreasonable claims that no matter what the president does to make him feel safe or unsafe, he will not feel impacted at all. This is ridiculous. Imagine if Biden's dementia and insanity was as bad as republicans really made it out to be. Are you really telling me if he declares he will begin world war 3, you will still feel as safe as you do right now? If he believes in those people who take the black lives matter movement too far, and completely defunds the police, leading to a ridiculous nation where crime is free to run rampant? Pro's statement is as bad as saying the US Congress doesn't matter and impeachment shouldn't even be a thing. Based on pro's thoughts, it wouldn't matter if Biden personally killed people as a mass murderer and caused severe chaos in the nation; he would personally still feel safe regardless of how extreme or how benign Biden is being. He is going down a ridiculous slippery slope and devaluing human security and safety as a fundamental. Regardless of who becomes president, it is assumed that they are of sound mind and will follow the US Constitutional rights of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But if we allow any presidential candidate to be picked at random, it could be a severely big difference. Consider Andrew Yang's plan to give everyone monthly 1,000$. You would definitely be personally impacted by this and feel at least somewhat financially more stable. As such, it is definitive that president election is a decisive measure of how safe you are. Remember, it doesn't have to be physically safe either. Some people feel their jobs are being taken by immigrants outside the US. When Trump prevents these immigration quotas, do they not feel that their jobs is secure, and hence, they are safe? Now you can see, the president elect with different policies can effect how safe people actually feel.

pro provides the case that he is the ultimate final line of defense, but a lot of times one person isn't enough to provide a change. He stresses that world war three would not affect him at all, despite the possibility of him being deployed to the front lines, if he is a male above 18. Even if he is not, if we lose WW3, opposing forces would likely occupy the US and the president election would lead to there being no president at all. Pro keeps on asserting that he thinks he is able to maintain a safe facade no matter what policies the president implements, but it was the president who implemented social security, banking security, so on and so forth. Imagine the president outlawed banks. There goes your investment. He takes 100% of you finance when you are trying to invest. There goes your money. And there goes your safety. The people only feel safe because the president gives them a choice and gives policies that are meant to help people. Pro does not think being financially stable is safe, because he already feels safe. But he doesn't think of the fact of the laws that allow him to feel this way. The president is able to implement huge laws, declare war, so on and so forth, all that greatly impact the people in the US. As a result, you inevitably, even if subconsciously, have already felt a bit more safe or bit less safe. Pro cannot know for sure if Trump will miraculously pull a FDR in the second term and revolutionize US to the point where everyone feels much safer, even pro, despite already feeling safe. Pro can't know for sure if Biden isn't as insane as I said and completely removes all law enforcement and turns the world into anarchy, or takes power as a dictator and puts pro into a concentration camp like Hitler did. True, the majority of the presidents are not this immoral, but a lot of presidents have undermined safety by taking away important services and ideas.

Pro keeps asserting no matter how severe the hypothetical situation it will still not affect his safety. But was it not a president, George Washington who upheld the constitution and gave people their rights? It’s the presidents job to be a model for the country and implement laws, if pro does not think that even the constitution can impact his safety, then we might as well not have any president or laws at all. Our rights are crucial to be human. Pro did not negate this. Vote con.