The Instigator
cstidham
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
jbeh
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Barack Obama is a bad president.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
cstidham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,386 times Debate No: 33665
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

cstidham

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Good Luck.
jbeh

Con

He allowed everyone to get married to anyone they want.

He is a good president because he allowed everyone to have the right to get married to anyone we pleased, whatever the sex. According to one of the statements he made making him the president, he specifically said that he would not allow Mit Romney to cancel our food stamps and in addition make getting married to anyone a law! I completely support Obama care and I'm now proudly married to my wife.
Debate Round No. 1
cstidham

Pro

I hope my opponent can come up with an actual argument.
Debate Round No. 2
cstidham

Pro

1. President Obama is responsible for six trillion dollars of debt.

2. He has not helped the economy at all.

3. His presidency has been consumed with scandals such as Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS targeting groups.

4. He has been unwilling to work with Congress.

5. Obamacare is a disaster.

6. He has not pursued Immigration reform.

7. He has not pursued entitlement reform.

8. He has let Iran continue to pursue a nuclear weapon.
jbeh

Con

I decided to support Barack Obama pretty early in the Democratic primary, around spring of 2007. But unlike so many of his supporters, I never experienced a kind of emotional response to his candidacy. I never felt his election would change everything about American politics or government, that it would lead us out of the darkness. Nothing Obama did or said ever made me well up with tears.

Possibly for that same reason, I have never felt even a bit of the crushing sense of disappointment that at various times has enveloped so many Obama voters. I supported Obama because I judged him to have a keen analytical mind, grasping both the possibilities and the limits of activist government, and possessed of excellent communicative talents. I thought he would nudge government policy in an incrementally better direction. I consider his presidency an overwhelming success.

I can understand why somebody who never shared Obama"s goals would vote against his reelection. If you think the tax code already punishes the rich too heavily, that it"s not government"s role to subsidize health insurance for those who can"t obtain it, that the military shouldn"t have to let gays serve openly, and so on, then Obama"s presidency has been a disaster, but you probably didn"t vote for him last time. For anybody who voted for Obama in 2008 and had even the vaguest sense of his platform, the notion that he has fallen short of some plausible performance threshold seems to me unfathomable.

Obama"s r"sum" of accomplishments is broad and deep, running the gamut from economic to social to foreign policy. The general thrust of his reforms, especially in economic policy, has been a combination of politically radical and ideologically moderate. The combination has confused liberals into thinking of Obamaism as a series of sad half-measures, and conservatives to deem it socialism, but the truth is neither. Obama"s agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit. Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at once.

Bipartisan panels of economists had long urged Medicare to reform its payment methods to curb perverse incentives by hospitals and doctors to run up costs as high as possible; Obama overcame fierce resistance in Congress in order to craft, as part of Obamacare, a revolution in paying for quality rather than quantity. He eliminated billions of dollars in useless subsidies to banks funneling (at no risk) government loans to college students. By dangling federal public-education grants, Obama unleashed a wave of public-school reform, over the objections of the most recalcitrant elements of the teachers union movement. And he forced Wall Street to accept financial regulations that, while weaker than ideal, were far tougher than anybody considered possible to get through Congress.

It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration. Numerous Democrats in Congress and the White House urged him to throw in the towel on health-care reform, but he was one of very few voices in his administration determined to see it through. Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry. On Libya, Obama"s staff presented him with options either to posture ineffectually or do nothing; he alone forced them to draw up an option that would prevent a massacre. And Obama overruled some cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden.

The latter three decisions are all highly popular now, but all of them carried the risk of inflicting a mortal political wound, like Bill Clinton"s health-care failure and Jimmy Carter"s attempted raid into Iran. (George W. Bush, presented with a similar option, did not strike bin Laden.) In making these calls, Obama displayed judgment and nerve.

A year ago, I wrote about the pervasive disillusionment felt by Obama"s supporters. It is a sentiment that has shadowed every Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt, and even Roosevelt provoked long bouts of agony and disillusionment among his supporters. All were seen by many Democrats at the time as failures, weaklings, or unprincipled deal-makers. It's true that all of them, including Obama, have made terrible errors. What this tells us, though, is that we need some realistic baseline against which to measure them.

Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt. The only president that comes close in gross positive accomplishment is Lyndon Johnson, whose successes were overwhelmed by his failures to such a degree that he abandoned his reelection campaign. The immediacy of the political moment can " and usually does " blind us. (In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the wide and even bipartisan sentiment prevailed that George W. Bush was exactly the right sort of person we would want to have as president at that moment.)

The sense among Obama"s wavering supporters that he has failed rests upon a two-part indictment. The first and most potent is that he has presided over a weak economy. This line of attack on Obama became inevitable starting on approximately September 14, 2008, when the U.S. financial system imploded. The economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have established that financial crises wreak vastly deeper harm than regular recessions. Financial crises freak out consumers, and they freak out political elites in a way that creates a panicked stampede toward exactly the wrong sorts of policies (like reducing short-term deficits) that in turn makes the crisis even worse.

This panic has impeded Obama"s recovery measures. But the fact remains that, by the standards of a financial crisis, the United States suffered through a relatively shallow trough and has enjoyed a fairly rapid recovery. (Here is a chart laying out the comparison between the United States and other comparably afflicted economies.) Obama managed to stabilize the financial system and, through the stimulus, avert a total collapse in consumer demand.

But while America has suffered less since 2008 than other victims of a financial crisis, it has suffered. Obama"s notable success in containing the damage has not redounded to his benefit for another, even more historically durable reason: Voters tend to blame or credit incumbent politicians for the state of their lives utterly regardless of responsibility. This is not even limited to things like the economy, where politicians can affect the outcome. Voters reward or punish incumbents based on the weather or the success of local sports teams. Mitt Romney"s campaign theme attempting to assign all blame to Obama for the state of the economy is a clever manipulation of this long-standing form of irrationality. In 2004, Romney dismissed any attempt to blame George W. Bush for the decline of jobs under his watch as "poppycock." In his most condescending tone, Romney explained that of course outside forces were to blame " those outside forces being the vastly milder 2001 recession " and that attempting to hold Bush responsible for the economic record of his term was sheer stupidity. Now Romney has made that very theme the central basis of his presidential campaign.
Debate Round No. 3
cstidham

Pro

1. If you look at the Democratic Platform in 2008 (provided in the sources), Barack Obama did little of what he strived for. I am not saying he has to achieve everything on the list or he is a bad president, but he has accomplished so few of it. To name a few notable ones, Prevent Iran from gaining Nuclear Weapons, Immigration Reform, create a better relationship with Pakistan, Jump start the economy, make adjustments to Social Security, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, and creating good jobs with good pay. President Obama has not even attempted to do one of these thing.

2. Any argument that says he had no cooperation in Congress is false. He had a Democratic supermajority for half of his first term. This is preemptive.

3. Obama's economic policies are not successful. He has attempted to push money into the economy without it working. Unemployment is still above 7%, and the median household income is dropping. Yes the economy has improved since 2008, but anyone who understands economics understands that the economy goes up and down without government intervention. But government intervention can have an effect.

4. You talk about these "economic experts" and how they praise Obama's agenda. Who are these experts?

5. Once again, who are these bipartisan panels in which you speak of? Please cite your sources.

6. Obamacare is a disaster. It increases taxes on the middle class by 165 billion dollars. Premiums are skyrocketing in prices. It is also unconstitutional to force someone to buy a product.

7. Which advisers told the president not to pursue health care reform. Also, if " Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry", than is that a good thing. Also, who told Obama not to get bin Laden other than Biden.

8. Obamacare is not popular, the people are split on the auto bailout, and no one cares about Libya. But why is Libya a good thing. He spent American tax dollars trying to rid a country of someone who has been peaceful to the US for 20 years. Also, we don't even know who helped over there. It could be a terrorist group for all we know.

9. Obama has not stabilized the financial system. The economy is so slow because people are unsure of the system, and its potential vulnerability.

10. What does Mitt Romney have to do with anything??? WHo cares about MITT ROMNEY?????

11. My opponent hasn't addressed Obama's scandals.

12. My opponent ignores the 17 trillion dollar debt.

Sources:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

http://americanlivewire.com...
jbeh

Con

Benefits of Obama's health care plans

Expanded coverage
A new, affordable national health care plan would be created for any individual American and small business, with benefits similar to government employees. All Americans would be eligible for coverage, regardless of illness or pre-existing condition, and monetary assistance would be provided by the government for those in need of it.

Lowered costs
Premiums would not rise for those with pre-existing conditions. Employers would be required to alleviate health care costs for their employees, and COBRA would be made more affordable. Competition in the insurance and medicine field would increase, thereby decreasing costs. Distribution of drugs from other countries that have been proven to be safe and effective would also be legalized.

Increased choices
Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a government program that matches state money for health insurance to uninsured children who don't qualify for Medicaid, would be expanded and made more readily available to those in need. President Obama signed the legislation, called the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, in February 2009.

Improved quality
An alarming number of mistakes in the health care system leads to deaths every year in the nation's hospitals. Money would be spent for the best medical technology available to decrease the amount of errors and increase the quality of care.

Advanced medical research
Hospitals would be required to keep computer records of health care expenses and the quality of care given to their patients. Emphasis would be made on medical research and training to provide doctors and other medical workers with the best knowledge possible.

Increased preventive care
Access to important information and programs on preventive care (such as health screenings) and chronic illnesses would be expanded and improved. Preventive care would be covered by insurance. The importance of better nutrition would also be emphasized, leading to a decrease in America's problem with obesity and, therefore, a reduction in the cost of health care.

Read more: Benefits of Obama's Health Care Plan | eHow http://www.ehow.com...
Debate Round No. 4
cstidham

Pro

1. My opponent only addressed one of my 12 points, therefore conceding the rest.

2. Studies have shown that premiums will go up in price drastically, by 32%.

3. Your source provides no statistics or studies; they just make unjustified statements

4. SCHIP, which is not part of Obamacare, raises spending and raises taxes.

5. What studies of yours show that Obamacare will improve quality, because it does not.

6. Again, none of your arguments are sourced with stats or studies. The reason why everything you said is wrong is that we are dealing with one big government trying to do everything for everyone. They can say what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the government will ruin healthcare. Name one service that the federal government has effectively provided to the people, excluding the military.

7. On a different note, President Obama is not a good president. He has broken his promises, and enacted his mistaken ones. The debt is 17 TRILLION DOLLARS. HIS DEBT WILL BE MORE THAN ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED. Also, he mismanaged the Arab Spring. He supported people we don't know and gave them military support. The economy is bad, inflation is rising, and unemployment is high. The fed is ruining the dollar, and is being naive at best.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://cnsnews.com...
jbeh

Con

Here's a look at what people are saying about President Obama's clear win in the debate against Mitt Romney:

"If Mitt Romney"s foreign policy was an unknown to average voters, President Obama came to the table for the third presidential debate ready to sum it up in one word: dated."
"Los Angeles Times

"Obama pressed his case that Romney"s worldview as well as his prescriptions for the domestic front were not just wrong but also rooted in the past."
"The Washington Post

"On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night"s final presidential debate, [Mitt Romney] had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost. That"s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan."
"The New York Times

"There"s no question debate coaches would score this one for the President."
"John King

"Mitt Romney mostly ducked questions about his military plans in the third and final presidential debate Monday night"offering President Barack Obama the opportunity for perhaps his most devastating strike of the three verbal jousts."
"The Huffington Post

"If this had would"ve been a Little League baseball game, they would"ve called the thing after four innings."
"James Carville

"I think that Mitt Romney botched a lot of things tonight."
"Neil Cavuto

"" Mitt Romney repeated what he said before, that the President went on an apology tour when he became president. We"ve looked at all those speeches on those foreign trips. The President didn't apologize for America."
"ABC Fact Check

"I do think that the Democrats and President Obama have a legitimate argument. The guy who came into these debates was not the candidate we saw in the primaries. We go back to the Etch-A-Sketch."
"David Gergen

In the final 2012 presidential debate, President Obama dominated"outlining a clear vision to make Americans safer and maintain our country"s leadership in the world. Governor Romney was all over the map, with an unclear and uncertain performance that showed once again he is not ready to be commander in chief. Across the table, President Obama projected strong and steady leadership, showing how he"s been able to restore respect for America around the world and keep our country safe over the past four years.

Here were some of the highlights.

On national security:

"My first job as commander in chief ... is to keep the American people safe. That"s what we"ve done over the last four years. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, al Qaeda's core leadership has been decimated. In addition, we are now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security, and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats."

On bringing Osama bin Laden to justice:

"I said if I had bin Laden in our view, I would take a shot. [Governor Romney] said we should ask Pakistan for permission. If we asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten it. It was worth "moving heaven and earth" to get him."

On Romney"s blundering foreign policy statements over the course of the campaign:

"A few months ago when you [were asked] what"s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. Not al Qaeda. Russia. The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years, but, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

And on Romney"s plan to add $2 trillion in military spending the Pentagon isn't asking for, without saying how he"d pay for it:

"I think Governor Romney maybe hasn"t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them, we have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines, and so the question is not a game of "Battleship" where we"re counting ships, it"s what are our capabilities. And so when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our Defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home, and that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you"re putting forward because it just doesn"t work."

In his closing remarks, President Obama outlined the choice that Americans now have before them:

"You've now heard three debates, months of campaigning, and way too many TV commercials, and now you"ve got a choice.

"Over the last four years, we've made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And Governor Romney wants to take us back to those policies. A foreign policy that"s wrong and reckless, economic policies that won"t create jobs, won"t reduce our deficit, but will make sure that folks at the very top don"t have to play by the same rules that you do."

If you want a leader who"s steady and reliable, chip in whatever you can afford tonight and tell your friends in the last two weeks of this election that you"re #ProudOfObama.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 4 years ago
PatriotPerson
cstidhamjbehTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: BOO OBAMA!
Vote Placed by mananlak 4 years ago
mananlak
cstidhamjbehTied
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: Better argument.
Vote Placed by Ardenwa 4 years ago
Ardenwa
cstidhamjbehTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Why did pro list all of his contentions without having sources in round 3, but then complains that Con did not address them. It is impossible for con to refute something that is an opinion in a list. The listing style of Pro hurts his ability to debate. Moreover, Con is better able to make her side known. Neither side used more or less reliable sources.
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 4 years ago
AgentRocks
cstidhamjbehTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has 'Plagerism'.
Vote Placed by SaintMichael741 4 years ago
SaintMichael741
cstidhamjbehTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources, but I didn't care for his list approach. I think that con had solid arguments once he got going, and I was impressed by his ability to convey his point.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 4 years ago
Greematthew
cstidhamjbehTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for not giving away the first two rounds. Arguments were good from both when con actually decided to debate. Pro used more sources and citations.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 4 years ago
HeartOfGod
cstidhamjbehTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a much more detailed case and rebutted Pro's claims about Obama quite efficiently. Pro had more and better sources though. Thus, I will have to give Pro sources.