The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,680 times Debate No: 24969
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)




Hello, this debate is open to anyone.

The debate will last 3 rounds.

1st round is acceptance.
2nd round is arguments.
3rd round is counter arguments and closing statements.

7,000 character max per round.

The resolution is: Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy.

I will be arguing in favor of the resolution (Pro), my opponent will be arguing against the resolution (Con).

Good luck and thank you for accepting the debate.


I accept.

Good luck >:D
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and may the best debater win.

Resolved: Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy.

First: I argue that being a good leader in foreign policy means being able to achieve foreign policy objectives and being able to handle international crises of the time in a successful manner. It does not mean being the greatest leader ever on foreign policy. It means playing the cards you have been dealt well under the circumstances.

By this definition, Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy.

Examples of Obama’s good leadership:

-Achieving major policy objectives.

-Appointing good sub-leaders, especially keeping his predecessor’s policies, advisors, commanders, etc. when they were good.

-Giving good orders.

-Handling multiple theaters of operations effectively.

-Handling crises well.

A. Initial achievements of the Obama administration were:

1. The selection of an excellent foreign policy team.

Selecting a team of commanders is one of the most important duties of the President. Since it is the commanders that will do most of the heavy lifting on foreign policy and appointing a bad commander can lead to disaster (example: Donald Rumsfeld). It is one of the major achievements of Obama that he has surrounded himself with excellent, highly capable leaders in major theaters of operation. With Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense (kept on from the Bush administration, even though it was an opposition administration, for his impeccable record on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars followed (by Leon Pannetta)), and General David Petraeus (An excellent general on current day counter-insurgency operations) in various highly effective positions. The President also made the difficult call of replacing top Afghanistan commander (Stanley McChrystal) for showing insubordination. This decision did not result in significant damage to the campaign as he was replaced by David Petraeus.

2. The improvement of America’s tarnished image abroad.

Even before he became President, Barack Obama inspired hundreds of thousands of people abroad, not only as the first viable African American presidential candidate but a substantial change of pace from the bush era image of America as a go it alone rouge that could not be trusted.[1] That the president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based only on the strength of his words is evidence that he successfully changed America’s perception abroad.

B. The biggest foreign policy challenges that President Obama has faced have been:

1. The ongoing war on terror.

President Obama has handled the war on terror extremely well, with no major terrorist attacks on the US mainland since the beginning of his presidency. Continuing the work of the Bush administration, a slew of top ranking Al Qaeda operatives have been killed or captured during Pres. Obama’s presidency[2] including Osama Bin Laden, the most wanted man on Earth and the chief architect of the 9/11 attacks, the most devastating attack against America in recent history. This was one of the major unfulfilled objectives of the Bush administration and it is a clear and unquestionable achievement of the Obama administration. The President gave the order to send in a seal team into dangerous territory without tipping off Bin Laden’s possible Pakistani allies.[3]

2. The war in Afghanistan (And Northern Pakistan).

Inherited from the Bush administration, this war was an incredibly difficult war that was neglected at times by the Bush administration in favor of the optional and perhaps unnecessary war in Iraq. President Obama approved the increase of first 19,000 then 30,000 American soldiers to the war effort. The war continues, with the Afghan Army now numbering 200,000 strong and increasingly ready for the American withdrawal in 2014.[4] The President has maintained the highly successful drone campaign in Northen Pakistan (Waziristan), which has resulted in a high number of Al-Qaeda deaths coupled with zero American casualties and without the need for an expensive occupation as in Iraq or Afghanistan.[5]

3. The conclusion of the war in Iraq.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the president maintained the most successful policies of the Bush administration, and an excellent team of commanders (Petraeus, Gates, Pannetta).Today Iraq continues to develop into a democracy and although there is still some insurgent activity, President Obama was able to pull American forces out of the country in 2011 without the country collapsing.[6] A major achievement in a war that was often considered a quagmire during the previous administration.

4. The Arab spring (Lybia, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen etc.).

President Obama has dealt with the unprecedented Arab Spring which has resulted in the liberation of millions of people from the chains of tyranny. Often walking a tight rope of foreign policy decisions (especially in the case of the Mubarak regime of Egypt, a former US ally that was dumped by the administration in favor of the uprising). One of the major achievements of the President was the fact that the international community was willing to support and participate in the military intervention in Lybia which toppled Muammar Gaddafi without a single American casualty.

5. Iran and North Korea.

The President’s policy on Iran and North Korea has been sanctions and the threat of military force in the case of Iran. The President has so far reframed from attacking Iran, but given the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, this has been the right call so far.


The President faced an incredibly complex foreign policy environment coupled with the most devastating economic crisis since the Great Depression at the start of his presidency, and has so far succeeded in carrying out major policy objectives without major problems. This was by no means a foregone conclusion and the fact that the President has achieved the pullout from Iraq, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the defeat of the Lybian and Mubarack regimes and the overall successful handling of the complex problems he inherited must be recognized. President Obama has not just been a good president, but a great president on Foreign Policy. He was dealt some tough cards, and has played his hand well.

Please vote Pro!



A. Initial achievements

1. FP Team

My opponent argues that Obama is a good leader in foreign policy because he has appointed decently good people, such as Clinton and Panetta. The problem with this is that this doesn’t prove why Obama is a good leader, but rather why his associates might be good leaders. To the contrary, I would say that any good from Obama’s foreign policy, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden, cannot be attributed to Obama’s foreign policy finesse but instead the finesse of those around him.

Moreover, just because good people have been chosen does not mean that this argument links to the “successful manner” condition in the first observation. For example, Brzezinski, one of the most intelligent and accomplished IR theorists in the world, was Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor however that did not make Carter a good leader on foreign policy. Carter did not respond sufficiently at all to the Iranian crises, even though he had some of the greatest minds working on his team.

2. America's Image [1]

Empirically and statistically my opponent is incorrect in asserting that the U.S. has fixed its tarnished image under Obama. According to this PEW research, the world on average has had a decreased positive view of the U.S. continuously over Obama’s past years in office. Even in areas of the world with usually favorable opinions like Israel, Kenya, and India there has been a decrease in favorability. As always however, areas like the Middle East has very low favorability ratings for the U.S.

B. FP Challenges

1. WoT [2] [3] [4]

My opponent makes the argument that Obama has been a good leader in the War on Terror, citing the killing of Osama bin Laden and other ranking officials such as Awlaki.

First, Obama has not altered the War on Terror policy to counter the fairly new Al Qaeda strategy of “death by a thousand cuts.” Essentially this strategy, as evidenced by the recent attempted terror attacks and speeches by various Al Qaeda officials, is that Al Qaeda must simply continuously weaken the U.S. while just taking the hits of the U.S. for Al Qaeda even failed plots are successful since it forces the U.S. to use resources and capital to respond to various asymmetric and terrorist tactics. This strategy is potent since it slowly “bleeds” the U.S. economy with small and frequent terror attacks and is a war of atrophy on the American people. Obama has not changed his strategy to account for this strategy shift in Al Qaeda, even with his apparently strong group of advisors.

Second, Obama has focused more on kill than capture. This is evidenced by the raid on Osama’s compound where the team killed instead of captured Osama. This is even further evidenced by the increased amount of drone strikes instead of special ops raids done on the Pakistan border and in Yemen. Killing is only part of the war on terror because the enemy is not simply a static nation state. Al Qaeda for instance is an entrenched transnational organization to ties to various countries throughout the world including Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Somalia. The organization exists with clandestine intelligence operations and interconnected cells. Whereas Bush focused on capturing terrorists and jihadists to get valuable information Obama is simply attempting to kill them off without regard for increased recruitment or the internal structure of Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Third, under Obama the amount of sanctuaries for Al Qaeda has increased not decreased. Al Qaeda, before Obama, was narrowly confined to the areas of Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, with independent cells in Saudi Arabia. Now under Obama there are sanctuaries in Yemen, Omar, Somalia, Mali and a stronger AQAP organization. The theaters of combat have been so defined within Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, the Arab Spring has left openings in the democratic movements for Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Islamist parties in Libya and the Syrian Free Army.

2. Af-Pak [5]

The policy in Afghanistan was simply an extension of the Bush policies so I won’t be arguing against Afghanistan; however the Obama policies on Pakistan are atrocious and outweigh the gains made in Afghanistan. The Obama policy on Pakistan is one of appeasement and ignorance, despite the ISI relationship with groups like Al Qaeda. The Obama Adminsitration has failed to do anything of significance to make the Pakistanis alter their disjointed policy towards extremism. The gains in Afghanistan are admirable, but Pakistan is just becoming a new Afghanistan internally.

Waldman's work was based off of numerous interviews with current and formers members of the Taliban.

This interviewed work demonstrates clearly the relationship between the Pakistanis and the Afghani Taliban and Haqqani network. Waldman isolates numerous points of contention when evaluating the impact and extent of the relationship between the ISI and these groups. First, that the Taliban and the ISI are involved in a reciprocal relationship which has developed into a necessary synthesis of the two groups. The interviews indicate that to sustain the Afghani insurgency, the Afghani Taliban need and are dependent upon the Pakistanis for supplies, training and sanctuary.

3. Iraq [6]

Unfortunately Obama cannot get credit for the success in Iraq since the success is due to rhe surge which mitigated almost all of the sectarian violence in the region. As such, with a decrease in violence the democratic government was able to form and transition with minimal violence. But moreover within Iraq the Obama Administration was seen more as a hindrance rather than a helper. FA writes,

"Iraqi elites across the political spectrum felt that the Obama administration was focused more heavily on leaving Iraq than on supporting the country's attempt to build a democratic system of government.”

4. The Arab spring [7]

My opponent tries to portray the Arab Spring as a success but where we did intervene and where we did not intervene is critical. We did not intervene in Iran during the Green Movement in the last elections despite the national security interest we have in Iran, we are not intervening in Syria which is the only ally Iran has in the region yet we intervened in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood has won elections and in Libya where we had no strategic interest and instead has created another potential sanctuary for terrorist groups.

5. Iran

My opponent simply asserts that Obama has done the right thing in Iran with sanctions, but seeing as sanctions are not hindering Iran’s nuclear proliferation I do not see how Obama has been successful. I’ll let my opponent elucidate on this argument in his next speech.





[5] Waldman. The Sun in the Sky:…



Debate Round No. 2


Foreign Policy Team

Con makes the popular and illogical argument that appointing good subordinates and using them effectively is not evidence of good leadership.

To this I ask what my opponent would like, for Obama to parachute personally into Afghanistan and Pakistan with an M-16 to take on the terrorists one on one? Reagan didn’t Rambo into the Soviet Union with a knife between his teeth to cut down Soviet agents. Harry Truman didn’t pilot the Enola Gay into Hiroshima. Presidents lead from the Oval Office, through their subordinates. That is their role. There is only so much that a President can do. They cannot be expected to micromanage the day to day operations of war.

Obama’s chosen team has done a much better job than the Bush administration’s Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and L. Paul Bremer who totally mishandled the Iraq war. Obama could have chosen to select a team of democratic cronies; however he chose to put quality, skill and the interests of the US above partisanship.

For these reasons, Con’s argument is invalid.

America’s Image

Con makes the argument that Obama has not improved America’s image, however these are the numbers provided by the US Department of state for US favorability: [1]

President Obama’s first term has seen a major positive improvement on US favorability numbers worldwide. Quoting the PEW article cited by Con “while confidence in Obama has slipped, in many of the countries surveyed, people continue to express confidence in President Obama’s foreign policy leadership.”[2] Additionally the drop is minimal when compared to the nadir which international opinion reached during the Bush administration, particularly in 2002-2003.

Obama’s approach worked well in Cuba, where it put the regime at a disadvantage when trying to blame the US for all their problems.

It is inevitable that some countries will hate the US as it wages war. If Obama has had to anger some people abroad to defend this country, then that is an unfortunate necessity of war. Overall though, Obama has been a net positive to America’s image.

War on Terror

Con points out that Al-Qaeda (according to FA) has shifted strategies and that they wish to “bleed” the US economy, but so far, there have been no attacks on the US mainland during Obama’s presidency. Where are the thousand cuts? Furthermore, the US economy is large enough to absorb anything the terrorists have thrown at us so far. According to the Congressional Research Service, even the costs of 9/11, which occurred years before Obama, where a minor blip to US GDP and that was the largest terrorist attack in history. [3] The US is not the Soviet Union, the costs of fighting terror easily fit within the US defense budget which was only 4.8% of GDP in 2010.[4] In economic terms, the US has not yet begun to fight.

Obama has focused more on killing terrorists but so far the results have been a lot of dead terrorists and no terrorist attacks in the US mainland despite conservative hypotheticals. By the way, the fact that a Seal team member had to shoot Bin Laden was because Bin Laden was allegedly reaching for a weapon.[5] Even so, Bin Laden is better dead than on the run.

That the terrorists are seeking new bases is an inevitable result of our assault on Afghanistan. It doesn’t really mean much unless it causes an increase in successful attacks, which it has not. They can move around all they want, US drones and agents can follow. Unless Con is arguing that the US should invade Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and Mali.


Since it would be extremely difficult to conquer a nation of 190,291,129 people it makes sense to try to work with them. [6] ISI collusion with Al-Qaeda didn’t stop the President from sending in the Seal team against Bin Laden (right in the ISI’s backyard) when it was needed. Infiltration and coercion of enemy terrorist agents combined with drone strikes is working so far and it is a good strategy to adopt for now since it risks few American lives.


Obama does get credit for Iraq. He continued successful policies from the previous administration and shepherded the conflict to its successful conclusion. Whatever the thoughts of FA, America could not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Leaving was the right call as it forced Iraqis to actually rely on their own army and government rather than spend all their time infighting. Nor is leaving American troops based in Iraq a desirable situation since they would be subject to a hostile population and terrorist attacks. Iraq’s own democratic government did not want to keep American troops there without unacceptable conditions.[7] Shouldn’t America respect the sovereign democratic government we installed there?

The Arab Spring

The Arab Spring has yet to play out, though one thing is certain, no radical Islamic party has yet achieved power in Lybia or Egypt despite the fears of pundits. Is Con arguing that we should have crushed the Arab Spring?

Furthermore, intervention in the Green Revolution of Iran would likely not have worked, as the uprising in Iran was by a minority of the educated classes in the cities against the conservative majority which supports the establishment. Not that it would have mattered much since the leaders of the movement were also supporters of Khamenei.[8] Intervention in Syria is being blocked by China and Russia, but it is also an uprising by a small factional segment of the country against the majority.[9] Direct intervention in either country would have had a doubtful outcome for the opposition.


I said Obama is using sanctions AND the threat of military intervention, which has been standard US policy. The fact is that the situation in Iran is likely headed for some sort of military confrontation. Allowing some time for a diplomatic solution is not a bad idea since it might actually work, and at least it allows for time to build an anti-Iran coalition. Why rush to war against a dangerous opponent when diplomacy is still an option?


This debate is not a controversial one. I do not need to argue that Obama has been the greatest foreign policy leader in history or even a great leader in American history. All I have to argue is that Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy. By showing Obama’s leadership in Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, the Arab Spring, killing Bin Laden and fundamentally in keeping America Safe, I have proven my case. My opponent must show that his foreign policy has been less than good and he has failed to do so.

Vote Pro!

PS: Um, when did we intervene in Egypt?



Foreign Policy Team

This argument only matters if he proves that his team actually have good policies. Otherwise its like the Carter Administration.

America’s Image

First, prefer non-biased sources or agencies which have agendas of their own. Using the State Department as a source for foreign policy favorability is like using the White House’s poll numbers on the elections – it must be met with skepticism because there is an agenda at play. But to the substance.

Second, the countries he lists have little to no impact on the United States in a strategic sense. If you reference the source I provided and look to the section dealing with Obama and international politics every country polled (over the past 3 years) have declined drastically in favorability.

Third, in areas of strategic importance, which my opponent concedes in the last round there has been little net positive gain and lots of net negative losses in favorability. It doesn’t matter if Poland has a more favorable opinion because Poland doesn’t produce terrorists that target the West. What is important is countries which have animosity towards the U.S., like Pakistan, and countries which produce threats to the U.S. In this realm, Obama has done pretty much nothing.

But, when evaluating this argument note that my opponent provides no impact or reason why the voters should care about America’s image abroad.

War on Terror

First, death by a thousand cuts strategy.

My opponent’s first response is that there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil…

1) The Fort Hood shooter [linked Alwaki and AQAP]

2) The Time Square bomber

3) The Underwear Bomber

4) The ink cartridge plot

5) The Golden Gate Bridge plot

And these are only a few and the famous ones I could name off the top of my head. Even still, there have been various other plots attempted but foiled on U.S. soil. Remember, the “death by a thousand cuts” strategy does not have to actually be successful to be successful. As indicated by the Ross evidence, failed terror plots still compel the system to react economically and strategically. For example, as indicated by the evidence the ink cartridge plot cost Al Qaeda around a few thousand dollars whereas the response to it cost in the millions and with a whole new set of regulations and administrative costs.

His second response is that the U.S. can take the economic hit. This is true and false. With the debt skyrocketing to 14T and people looking to slash the government budget at some point defense will be put on the table in some regards, even supported among the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. The populist support for the War on Terror in Afghanistan and elsewhere has sharply declined which means Al Qaeda just has to wait and bleed us out till we give up and get tired.

His only response to my capture not kill argument is that dead terrorists are dead. Besides being circular, that misses all the substance of my argument. As per my above explanation, killing is only a part of the equation in fighting the war on terror. Since cells operate clandestinely and with a formidable structure, information is vital. Simply killing a terrorist doesn’t fix the problem since recruitment exists (as I mentioned before) Obama has really done nothing except prolong the issues of terrorism. Capture strategy is preferable because methods can be used to extract information about the workings of Al Qaeda and other related organizations.

My opponent argues against my sanctuary argument that it is a result of the War in Afghanistan which forced these groups to seek sanctuary elsewhere. This is true, but my argument is that Obama has done nothing to substantially rectify the issue. A possible solution would be to engage other nations at risk, such as Mali and the states surrounding Somalia, to engage in their own counter-terror operations. However this we have not done, not to mention make the issue worse with the Arab Spring (e.g. Libya and Egypt).


Conquering Pakistan is not really what I was arguing for, but rather geopolitical strategies can be employed to compel Pakistan’s cooperation. As indicated by the evidence, Pakistan is using terrorism as a political tool while at the same time taking U.S. aid and using it for other purposes. One solution is to switch aid to India which has geopolitical superiority in the region, which would make the advantage Pakistan has of terrorism an actual disadvantage for Pakistan. However, my opponent has yet to explain that Obama has done anything to change the strategy in the region in light of Pakistan’s cooperation with terrorism. His only argument is drones and the killing of Osama, which from a macro-level is insignificant in the region because the Haqqani Network (an ally of the ISI) harbors and defends Al Qaeda in the region. Unless we can deconstruct the root causes of protection of terrorism (i.e. state sponsorship) we will never be able to truly defeat terrorism in the region – killing terrorists only goes so far.

Iraq [1]

His argument does not refute my claim that the strategy which has mitigated most violence in Iraq was the surge. Obama cannot gain credit for this success since it wasn’t his policy, and even worse he opposed the surge in the first place.

The Arab Spring [2]

The Arab Spring has yet to play out, though one thing is certain, no radical Islamic party has yet achieved power in Libya or Egypt despite the fears of pundits. Is Con arguing that we should have crushed the Arab Spring?

My opponent is incorrect that Islamists have yet to gain power: Egypt just elected the Muslim Brotherhood president. For Libya, he misses the argument presented by the evidence that the chaos in Libya has resulted in terror groups moving in creating sanctuaries. The evidence doesn’t claim they won elections in Libya, but rather are exploiting the transition.

On the Green Revolution, he is just blatantly false and probably read his own source incorrectly. His source is quoted as:

“But the bulk of the movement agrees less with the so-called leaders and more with the Islamic Republic's young third generation, who form 70 percent of the Iranian population and make up most of the demonstrators. The true leaders of this movement are students, women, human rights activists, and political activists who have little desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing Constitution.”

Thus, where it mattered we did not intervene, and instead have been fostering clandestine and sometimes outright (Egypt) Islamism.


His argument about Iran is counter-intuitive: he says military intervention will probably occur yet we need to waste time with diplomatic efforts. He misses the fact that the more time we waste the closer Iran gets to a nuclear weapon which would make military intervention much more dangerous and the risk of escalation more likely.



I have enjoyed this debate :D
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Afghanistan was dropped by pro. I didn't see a rebuttal for it. Therefore con gets the win.

Pro argues a Strawman on Pakistan arguing con wanted invasion. That was obviously not the case. Con showed many non military solutions exist would be effective, and Obama has done nothing but fund terrorism. Con gets the point.

On Iraq, pro showed leaving helps our troops. Con showed it increased violence. Pro showed their government is still holding together. Although leaving Iraq was a foolish thing only an inexperienced person would do (McCain recognized this) I feel pro won the point, excluding my opinion.

North Korea: con dropped it.

Pro: 2
Con: 5
Tie: 1

Con won.

**Note I may have mixed up pro/con once or twice. If this is the case sorry, of not then ok**
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Post 1/2

America's image is an important point as it indicates our strategic support around the world. Con showed in countries that have strategic value to our country, our overall approval has been decreasing. Pro counters using a politically charged source. Con shows this means selective bias would occur and the countries pro cited have no strategic value to the US. With this in mind, we see in important overall policies con wins the point as countries which has our vested interest are unhappy, and unimportant countries should play less weight in the analysis.

Terrorism too is another important point. Pro argued leadership. Con shows Obama has been reluctant to change policies needing change. He proved their new strategy is slowly weakening us. Pro argued no attacks on our soil have occurred (nor under Bush's responsibility, as anyone would have gotten 9/11). Anyway, con shows no direct attacks like 9/11 occurred, but many more subtle ones have occurred throughout his term. He wins this point, too.

Con easily won Iran. Con showed all sanctions have failed. Pro responds in a way that sounded this way to my brain: Obama got dis yo, he go peace style and carries the gun dude! Con responds this is true. Obama is wasting time on Iran diplomatically. The more he does that the harder it is to actually do something productive. Therefore he obviously wins here.

In the FP team it's a tie. Con showed pro has the burden to prove their policies where good, but pro showed they had fairly ok policies. Pro also responded the advisors =\= Obama. This is logical. Anyone can pick a team. Therefore the point is effectively a tie.

I will continue more in a next post. Current argunment counter.

Tie: 1
Con: 3
Pro: 0

This will change next post.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
So con won. Dont beat yourself up over my vote Pro, ciRrk is an expert on foreign policy
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
This is one of the few debates that needed more rounds to properly discuss the issues. Both sides did very well at attacking the others arguments, but very poorly at weighing. You should never make the judge weigh the arguments himself, because then they are FORCED to bring in outside knowledge into the debate.

CiRrk in his usual style has so much to say about foreign policy, that often for laymen like me a lot of it goes over my head. The death by 1000 cuts should have been the principle focus of the round, since the reaction to the strategy of the enemy is by far the best way to measure FP success. As it stands, I give this narrowly to Con because, simply put, Pros rebuttal was weak. It's true that its a poor strategy to economically and militarily defeat the US, but a hell of a strategy when it comes to demoralization (the purpose of terrorism after all). Moreover, that terrorist safe havens have increased (dropped) shows poor adaptation, especially given that the administration didnt attempt to get the sanctuary states to change policy.

Pro is correct that Obama is viewed better than Bush was by the world, and ciRrk was wasting characters arguing against it. The fact is that I cant vote on this, because all this shows is that people THINK he's good, not that he actually is.

Pakistan is a non issue, because ciRrk doesnt explain WHAT shouldve been done til the last round when his opponent couldnt respond. I cant vote off that.

Pro drops that the Iraq was ended because of the Bush surge. I find this demonstratively false, but that wasn't brought up in round so the credit for Iraq doesnt go to Mr Obama.

That Obama appointed good advisors isn't a good argument as it makes no assessment of the actual policy initiatives.

A compelling(finally) reason to vote one way or the other arrives with the Arab spring when Pro is proven wrong on Islamic radicalists coming to power and Iran. Even though Con is wrong, pro doesnt refute that we should have interv
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
Reading, will vote shortly.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Before and after data? At least it's not as bad as cross sectional data.
Posted by WMdebate 4 years ago
@Wallstreetatheist don't worry, I also have some teeth. ;-)
Posted by WMdebate 4 years ago
Does using tinyurl actually matter towards the character count? Doesn't DDO shrink the URLs anyway?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
He bites hard and then eviscerates you through your nose. He also gets off to foreign policy literature, so you must remain focused and you must research deep within the bowels of US foreign policy. Oh crap, there's one round left. Pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for noodly guidance, R'amen.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
lol dont worry I dont bite much. :D
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments