Barack Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
Debate Rounds (3)
ProWritingSkillz forfeited this round.
Kc1999 forfeited this round.
A Nobel Peace Prize a lifetime award achievement that garners worldwide recognition as well as subculture recognition. It is awarded to an individual that has spent their life pursuing their dreams and arriving at a culmination of all your lifetime dreams and desires. A breakthough or groundbreaking discoveryin a field could also warrant it. An example is John Nash, the mathematician in A beautiful mind. Watch the movie as my source.
For becoming a U.S. president... Barack Obama has not achievednothing of what he set out to do and promised to tge grsatest nation in the world. He's in his mid 40's I believe, still a yound budding age as a President. How does this warrant being able to receive an award the same as Teddy Roosevelt, The Great Titan that rescued the great nation and turned it into an even stronger nation for the next president. Barack Obama's failed action and policies in his 2nd term is something that really deserves an award similar to the former president g.w. bush, and that is to be put in the white house hall of shame and mocked and joked upon.
I lost the perfect opportunity to win. :(
I guess I shall open, rebut, and close in this one post.
The Nobel Peace Prize, unlike the other five Nobel Prizes in the World, is awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".  It is not awarded to those "whose expansionist programs have made a nation stronger", whose "imperialistic policies have threatened the world", and to those who "seek to use nationalistic means to make a nation stronger". Teddy Roosevelt, although hailed as a hero in the United States, has done nothing to increase fraternity between nations, he has only increased it. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was incited by the explosion of the USS Maine: a controversial one, since there are many theories that the US did it as a pretext to invade Cuba and Philippines. President Roosvelt also did nothing for the abolition of standing armies, but he has only increased it and have used it openly to gain territories for his country. President Roosevelt is a model patriot, but how does that make him such a rightful and great delegate for the Nobel Peace Prize? Nevertheless, our debate is not about whether Mr. Teddy Roosevelt should receive the award, but whether President Obama should do so.
President Obama has been keeping, or at least attempting to, keep tranquility, peace and prosperity in the many nations that are now at war. He is trying to make the United States more allies by travelling all over the world to promote fraternity and equality internationally. For example, when famous Anti-Apartheid Revolutionary and First African President of South Africa died, President Obama travelled and made a tribute to this hero who apart from fighting for equality for all men, fought for democracy in his country too. Another example was that he was attempting to lower tensions with the United State's number one enemy in Latin America: Cuba . He can be seen shaking Raul Castro's hand, promoting friendship between the two nations. His work in these areas have enjoyed mixed successes, with Raul allowing some tourists to depart to the United States. Let me ask the opponent: if the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who attempt to reduce tensions and create friendly bonds between countries, then President Obama is a very good candidate, as he attempts to reduce tensions between many of the US's old enemy, is he not?
Presidnt Obama has also been trying to reduce the size of the US Military, although his incentives for doing so are more economical than humanitarian. He has announced budget cuts for the military , which means the military will have to demobilize some of it's men to keep up with it's payments. President Obama is also trying to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq by withdrawing troops from there, many of whom were from the reserves and would do anything to get back home. He is trying desperately to reduce the size of the American military, as the threats to national security were weakened. Unlike President Bush, who would intervene at any moment in other country's affairs, President Obama has taken steps to "De-Bushinize" warzones, and this, in itself, means reducing the size of standing armies.
President Obama's biggest successes in his foreign policy is certainly his highly effective way of suppressing the communist threats from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The DPRK's new dictator, Kim Jong Un, in 2011 announced that "we are now entering a state of war". This highly concerned Obama, and he sent more troops to South Korea: but even when DPRK arrested two US citizens (they have released one), President Obama (with more justification to launch a military offensive than Bush when he took actions against Iraq) still did not attempt to launch a military offensive against North Korea. Promoting peace, prosperity and tranquility between nations, he is hailed as a hero of the modern world.
It is not true that President Obama has achieved nothing: ask yourself, what would President Teddy Rooselvelt done when a country declared that it was entering a state of war with his country? Then ask yourself, after President Teddy Rooselvelt took actions, would he have received the Nobel Prize? President Obama did not bring the US into a mutually destructive war with a country that could incinerate the US within days. Promoting fraternity, peace and diplomacy, President Obama does not belong in the Hall of Shame where President Bush currently resides. His domestic policies; although a failure, are no better than Bush's.
It is for these reasons, I urge you to vote con in the following ballot. I would like to thank the host for hosting this debate, I would like to apologize for the rounds I forfeited, and I hope that those do not affect your decision, and I would like to thank you for reading my case, and I would like to say that this debate has been a good debate experience for a first timer.
Thank You and Have a nice day
 "Nobel Peace Prize", The Oxford Dictionary of Twentieth Century World History (Retrieved from Wikipedia)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had arguments that were backed with good sources. Both forfeited, which was a disappointment.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.