The Instigator
governments_kill
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points

Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist

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...
governments_kill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,928 times Debate No: 13635
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

governments_kill

Con

I want to see if there's anyone that will take pro in this argument. I am totally willing to back up con.
vardas0antras

Pro

I indeed believe that Obama is Secretly a Kenyan Anti-Colonialist.
My proof is that if he wasn't secretly a Kenyan anti-colonialist we all would know about it but we don't.
Unless my opponent can reveal this secret and expose it to the world, I don't see how he cannot secretly be something.
Debate Round No. 1
governments_kill

Con

It's very unfortunate that my opponent chose to attack the proposition at issue in the way that s/he did. My goal was to illuminate the absolute lunacy that characterizes much of the far right in the American political landscape. Unfortunately my opponent chose to take a stance that while attempting to be clever has misunderstood both conventional rules of debate as well as rules of logic. I will now get to specifics.

First of all I will cover the basic presumption within debate and that is that the affirmative holds the burden of proof. If this framework is accepted which it universally is then we can proceed.

Next, comes the absurd proposition from my opponent that constitutes her/his proof. My opponent states "My proof is that if he wasn't secretly a Kenyan anti-colonialist we all would know about it but we don't." This looks at the debate as if the only operative word in the proposition at issue is the word "secret." This is not the case. The entire proposition is in question that phrase being that the current president is both a Kenyan anti-colonialist as well as it being a secret. To illustrate the absurdity of my opponent's position here is an effective analogy. I believe that the president secretly enjoys eating toe fungus. My proof is that if he wasn't secretly (enjoying the eating of toe fungus) we all would know about it but we don't.
Unless my opponent can reveal this secret and expose it to the world, I don't see how he cannot secretly be something.

More importantly the third paragraph/sentence in my opponent's argument is meaningless. The two clauses actually operate as separate sentences, but the comma seems to tie independently operating statements together to cover for the use of a subordinate conjunction. Given the presence of the subordinate conjunction in the first clause of the sentence it renders that totally meaningless. That said I will respond to the part of the sentence after the comma.

"I don't see how he cannot secretly be something." This sentence functions much the same way as many arguments over the existence/nonexistence of god. This comes back to the affirmative burden. Just because something cannot be disproved, does not constitute proof for the affirmative. The affirmative is burdened with demonstrating that their proposition is more likely than not. Just because the affirmative has established that their proposition is possible it is no more possible yet than the fact that my opponent secretly believes that the negative is correct, or that my opponent secretly has no idea how to debate. For that matter the converse proposition that President Barack Obama is NOT a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist is equally likely at this point in the debate and therefore I urge all those reading to negate the proposition.

Yes I just dropped 2500 words to your post of approximately 50. That's not overkill it just symbolizes my frustration that you took this and didn't actually attempt to debate the proposition.
vardas0antras

Pro

"Yes I just dropped 2500 words to your post of approximately 50. That's not overkill it just symbolizes my frustration that you took this and didn't actually attempt to debate the proposition."

I am afraid that my opponent hoped that I'll take this debate head on (I won't search for an easy way), why would he think this is beyond me but I do have an explanation though improbable:

"This sentence functions much the same way as many arguments over the existence/nonexistence of god."
Completely irrelevant ad since I took many religious debates I must say that this is also incorrect.

May I remind you what you said in round 1:
"I am totally willing to back up con."

"1.( tr ) to support or assist
2.( intr ) cricket (of a nonstriking batsman) to move down the wicket in readiness for a run as a ball is bowled
3.(of water) to accumulate
4.(of traffic) to become jammed behind an accident or other obstruction
5.computing to make a copy of (a data file), esp for storage in another place as a security copy
6.printing to print the second side of (a sheet)
7.( Austral ) to repeat an action immediately

— n
8.a support or reinforcement
9.a. a reserve or substitute
b. ( as modifier ): backup troops
10.( US ), ( Canadian )
a. musical accompaniment, esp for a pop singer
b. ( as modifier ): backup singer
11.the overflow from a blocked drain or pipe
12.computing a file or set of files copied for security purposes"

This is from Dictionary.com, I also looked this up in the oxford dictionary but couldn't find anything relevant.
As you can see:

"back up
1 (of vehicles) form into a queue due to congestion
2 (of running water) accumulate behind an obstruction"
oxforddictionaries.com

I ask my opponent to support his claim. If you can't support the negative, I win because he can indeed be a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist. It should be hard because of the word "secret" so good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
governments_kill

Con

Framework:

So we're clear, the statement in support of the Negative in Round 1 is not a concession to change the rules of presumption that operate within debate. Your definitions about a cricket player that will "2.( intr ) cricket (of a nonstriking batsman) to move down the wicket in readiness for a run as a ball is bowled " is not sufficient to change the framework that constitutes academic or competitive debates. The relevant definition of course is support or assist and I am completely willing to do that within the rules of competitive debates which presumes that a statement is false until it is established by the affirmative. That said I will offer a framework that allows the readers of this debate to actually affirm the negative as opposed simply to negate the affirmative. This is still not to be expected of the negative because of the inherent possibility that lies within affirmative propositions I will attempt to establish that it is more likely for the president not to be a secret Kenyan anti-colonialist than it is that he is.
Contentions in support of negating the proposition:
Definitions:
First and foremost, the individual in question holds the office of the President of the United States. According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens of the United States are authorized to hold the office of the President. Given that reality the president cannot be a Kenyan.
We'll now move on to the proposition that I wished to take issue with is the president a secret anti-colonialist. A colonialist is one who advocates colonialism defined by dictionary.com as follows:
co•lo•ni•al•ism
–noun
1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.
2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.
3. the state or condition of being colonial.
4. an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony.

Someone who is anti-colonialist would hold the opposite of these beliefs. Given that the debate is over whether the president is secretly an anti-colonialist and I was not simply attempting to argue "gotcha we can't tell if someone is secretly something or not," I feel that policies were the effective way to argue whether the president holds anti-colonialist beliefs. On the whole, it appears that the president far from being an anti-colonialist holds colonialist sentiments.
Contention 1:
We can start our inquiry at the midpoint of his election cycle. After the comments of Reverend Wright, Barack Obama was placed on the defensive. Instead of making it clear that he believed in what Reverend Wright said who was making an anti-colonialist critique, he harshly condemned the Reverend and said something that no anti-colonialist would ever utter:
"On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.[1]"
He goes on:
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.[1]"

In other words not only did he not support the Reverend's critique, he fundamentally disavowed it arguing that one should not disparage the "greatness and goodness" of this nation by referring to acts of colonial past and present. When given the chance to support and defend and give credence to the anti-colonialist critique that rightly situates the US as a global hegemon that seeks to impose its will and control the destinies of numerous nations he instead took issue with it.
Contention 2:
War in Iraq
Yes the president chose to end the war in Iraq. What he did not do was to restore full sovereign control to that nation. While the war has faded from the news due to increasing coverage about Afghanistan the president has left security forces in Iraq to maintain control fundamentally making the Iraqi government dependent on American support. Additionally and more importantly he did nothing to change the colonial laws that were forced on Iraq under the Bush administration. That government and constitution remained fully under our boot. If we look at Obama's critique of the invasion and occupation of Iraq we see not a radical anti-colonialist but instead a very liberal critique that has a benevolent view of American power. He always maintained that Iraq was a mistake. Anti-colonialists have long maintained not that Iraq was a mistake but that it was a fundamental expression of American power to resituate the global balance of power in the Middle East. Israel is increasingly becoming a strategic liability and so America chose to shore up its support in the region through creating a government that it could count on. Obama has never laid out this analysis and instead pushes forward the myth that the war in Iraq distracted us from our real mission which was finding Bin Laden.

Contention 3
War in Afghanistan
This one is easy. The president continues to perpetrate war against a sovereign nation who has repeatedly indicated that they have no interest in the expansion of war or drone attacks. In typical colonialist fashion the president has shown that what we say goes and increased drone attacks even occasionally crossing the border into Iran.

Contention 4
Iran
Repeatedly makes threats against a sovereign nation that if they pursue policies that are within their legal rights there will be consequences insinuated to be consequences of force. Not only illegal but also the height of imperialist policy.

Conclusion:
If we give weight to actions all of the above actions constitute clearly that the president while not only not opposing colonialism has made it a part of his presidency just as every president before him.
vardas0antras

Pro

" According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens of the United States are authorized to hold the office of the President. Given that reality the president cannot be a Kenyan."
I am afraid that this is no proof against the notion that Obama might be secretly Kenyan. If its a secret then he can be the president of USA though according to the law he shouldn't. I have no other arguments other. Wherefore please provide evidence which suggest the he cannot be secretly a Kenyan.
Debate Round No. 3
governments_kill

Con

Extend all 3 of my contentions concerning how the president is not an anti-colonialist. All of them go unchallenged. Whether he is Kenyan or not at this point doesn't matter because the operative clause for the debate holds two descriptive terms and if he clearly isn't one than the other one doesn't matter. I've proved that there is substantial evidence that suggests that the president far from being an anti-colonialist actually perpetrates colonialism and imperialism against much of the global south. That was the actual part of the debate that I wanted to have, the Kenyan thing was just because that was how the wonderful Dinesh D'Souza had described his ideology. Extend all of my offense, the president is not an anti-colonialist, vote con.
vardas0antras

Pro

I forfeit this round
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Its not like you'll ever lose seeing how I had no chance to begin with and when the debate went on I realized just how impossible it is for me to win.
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
So lilwayneisgod just trolled my debate and gave someone who forfeited their last round verbally 7 points. I swear if I lose this.
Posted by nickd 6 years ago
nickd
Ugh, it seems to me like vardas is using the Glenn Beck argument.

"If it's not true why hasn't it been denied"

That really doesn't do anything for me :/
Con all the way.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
I'm secretly Batman. My proof is that if it weren't a secret, everyone would... sh*t.
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
Sorry, I don't check what kind of debates people take it wasn't an ad hom I just think that's the ultimate non-falsifiable/verifiable statement. No offense meant.
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
You still have 2 days and 5 hours so you should be able to work that in somewhere
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Today I wont be home so don't expect a response anytime soon, in fact right now I'm trying to see if Ill have enough time to respond to all debates I'm in (5 debates!!!)
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
Alright vardas you should probably define the term at issue in the first round. I'm giving you a round for free since I didn't really start with anything in the first round so we'll see how that works for you.
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
OH THIS IS AWESOME!!!!! I can't believe someone took it. I'm so happy right now!!!
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
this debate is rather...idiotic
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by LilWayneisGod 6 years ago
LilWayneisGod
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by nickd 6 years ago
nickd
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
governments_killvardas0antrasTied
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