The Instigator
shiv_ramdas
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
cherrytree
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Barack Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
shiv_ramdas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 42768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

shiv_ramdas

Pro

For whomever my opponent is who accepts this topic, my stand is that Barack Obama not only did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but has also by way of his subsequent actions, demonstrated that he never deserved to have it. Indeed, his status as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate undermines the credibility of the Prize. As my opponent, you would need to prove that Barack Obama DID deserve his Nobel Peace Prize and still does.
cherrytree

Con

yo obama is a smart powerfull black man dat led this countrie thru bad finnansial crysis and he repped the averige black man round da USA.. . if u dont believe dat then u jus racist,, obama deserves a nobel prize 4 wat hes done as a american black man.
Debate Round No. 1
shiv_ramdas

Pro

All right, so to begin with, let me restate my stand. I'm not here to rail against Obama. I believe he's a leader who(just maybe) has his heart in the right place. I'm here to argue that he doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. To begin with, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who have performed great and selfless service for humanity- like Mother Teresa. Your opening argument about Obama doing great things for America, even if it stands, is irrelevant in my opinion, because the Nobel isn't awarded to those who have performed great service for the USA, but for the world. Barack Obama received his Nobel prize a few weeks after he BECAME the President for the first time- before ANY major policy had been implemented. And while I think he deserves everyone's respect for being the first black man to hold that post, being a black American President doesn't qualify someone for a Peace Nobel. His elevation may have been a great moment for the black man in America, but it didn't do much for the world. I'm sorry, but Jimmy Carter with his Habitat for Humanity project has done more to aid the poor and suffering in the developing(read Third) World than Obama. Unless we say that the US IS the world, Obama had done nothing at the point he received the Prize to earn it(winning an election ISNT grounds, unless you live in la-la land). I shall ignore the bit about being racist, especially since Im a brown mqan from the Third World and therefore someone with far less rights(both domestically and internationally) than any American, irrespective of colour. Let me just summarize by saying- the logic in what youve said seems faulty- if Obama has done great things for America, give him an American prize- not a Nobel for Peace. I'll expand on how Obama's actions subsequent to accepting the Prize have further undermined his claim to it in my next round of arguments, but for the moment, I'll await your second round.
cherrytree

Con

obama benifited the world cuz he over-came his race to become a succesfull presidint.

also ther r alot of problems goin on across the globe n obama has rly done a good job with goin to other countrys n workin with itnernational leaders to create peace like the middle east.. hes helped wit world peace
Debate Round No. 2
shiv_ramdas

Pro

I shall begin my second round by addressing my opponents arguments. His first contention is that Obama overcame his race to be a successful President and so deserves the Nobel for PEace. I disagree vehemently with this. Many countries across the world have heads of state(for instance India) whose lkeaders are from far smaller and as marginalised minorities as Obama's in the US. By that logic, Manmohan Singh(the Indian PM) also deserves one. As do Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales- both of whom are FAR more popular with their people than Obama. Again, if we accept his argument that being a minority president is adequate reason then every white South African President - including those who institutionalized Apartheid deserve Nobel Peace Prizes. After all they were from even smaller minorities. Since my opponent has not defined 'successful' - I shall take it as popularity- both internally and externally. On both counts, President Obama is nowhere near universally popular. In fact, he has the curious distinction of having enjoyed the peak of his popularity in the runup to his FIRST stint, ie- BEFORE he ever took office. Clearly, that is not a 'successful presidency' by any yardstick, if your most succesful point was before you did anything. As for making the world a safer place, well, Obama has overseen the descent of Pakistan from a US ally into a virtual rogue state, his actions in the middle east(while I personally may support them), have succeeded only in pushing Israel and Saudi Arabia closer to attacking Iran have inflamed the region. His Syria policy has been a disaster- even key allies like the UK didnt back him on it- whereas Russia and France almost openly came to loggerheads with the US. Add to that his insistence on using UAV(drone) warfare- which has killed and maimed hundreds if not thousands of children the world over. How can anyone who has kkilled children be a Nobel Peace recipient? I shall now foreshadow my last round of arguments by saying that his NSA and Prism programs have led South AMerican countries like Brazil and Ecuador to now see the US as hostile, while the rest of the woorld is suspicious of them, Europe included. His insistence on illegally spying on everyone, including heads of allied nations and his own people have made him the President of perhaps athe single most unpopular USA in the lkast 100 years. There is no barometer by which any of this can be termed a success. So I urge you to vote for facts over rhetoric and opinion, and vote for me, because as I have demonstarted, my opponents arguments are not rooted in fact. All the information I quoted is in the puvblic domain and accessible and verifiable. So I conclude this round by saying that not only has Obama not deserved his Nobel, an examination of my opponents claims has undermined his very premise- because as facts show- Obvama hasnt even been a very successful President. And I havent even mentioned the economy yet.
cherrytree

Con

yo i aint readin dat sh** man
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Desciuit 3 years ago
Desciuit
cherrytree sound like some drunk idiot
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
Hey shiv, Since I have not completed 3 debates yet I am not able to vote. Ill say Shiv wins by a landslide, full points to shiv. Pro has present his argument clearly and logically, keep it up! As for con, unfortunately, you will need some work.

I urge a strong vote for pro!
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
@shiv, yeah that sounds great. Once you're done with this maybe we can debate on this.
Posted by shiv_ramdas 3 years ago
shiv_ramdas
Cheetah, sorry just saw your comment. I think I'd be happy to debate on those grounds too(although I believe that his actions subsequent to recieving the Prize are a huge part of why he shouldnt have had it- however, I believe a strong case against the prizwe can be made even without that data-set. Would be happy to take it on, after tis current debate has closed, if youre still interested.
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
I think it will be more challenging if you wish to debate that he did not deserve the Nobel prize then and exclude the "and still does" part, if you change that ill accept the challenge.
Posted by Seek 3 years ago
Seek
Can my position be that the Nobel committee is a private organization, and they can give their shiny thing and money to whomever they so desire?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
shiv_ramdascherrytreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The level of retardation by con is truly spectacular.