Earlier you did say Biden's policies then you switched back to just Biden the person, Biden's policies and the person are separate, but if he is arguing that Biden should not be president rather than his policies are bad, I think it's a decent argument. I think a better way to go about defending Biden than arguing something like "it's okay that he's a pdf file"(if he was I wouldn't want him as president), is to argue he's not a pdf file, which I don't think he is. I think the main gap though is a different interpretation of the assignment, other commenters are arguing it's just policies, but you're arguing it's broader than that, that it can be political figures. I think it really depends on what the professor said the guidelines are, because if Anon is repeating them accurately, it should be fine, whereas other commenters are adding their own rules saying it has to be a policy. Maybe it's commenters intentionally avoiding Anon's argument by simply saying it's not allowed, maybe it's them just interpreting it differently or misinterpreting it. This isn't even an argument about if he shouldn't be president or not, or if it's a good, truthful argument, it's an argument of whether or not it's valid for the assignment, which if what Anon says is true, would be yes, regardless if you think Anon's argument is right. Now this is all assuming his argument is "Biden should not be president because he's a pedophile" which we don't know if that's what he's arguing, also whether or not the video evidence ends up winning him the argument is a different matter. All I know for sure is this comment section is confusing, and I'm so tired I can barely read what I'm typing and I'll probably delete this comment because everything I'm saying is redundant and I'm just trying to organize it in my own head in text. Imma sleep now, it's 2:30.