The Instigator
blond_guy
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
artC
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

Barack Obama

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,238 times Debate No: 3177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (21)

 

blond_guy

Con

So I noticed you're now against the war on terrorism. You ruined our beautiful disagreement ratio :(
But we'll talk about it later, this is about Obama. I don't support Obama for the following reasons.

1) He's not debating the issues often enough. Hillary is obsessed about her health care plan and she talks about it everywhere she goes, however, Obama doesn't risk to talk about what he wants to do. I watched a whole speech and the only thing he talked about has how he opposed Iraq from the beginning, which is easy to do when you're not in the Senate.

2) His health care plan is terrible from the economy. I read Paul Krugman all the time because he's always dead on on his predictions like the crash of the housing market. And Paul Krugman believes Obama's plan is not going to work because people will be showing up to the hospitals without insurance, and their costs will then be absorbed by doctors and hospitals that treat them, doctors and hospitals will then have to cover that expense so they include things like crutches and aspirins on their medical bills, and then insurance companies, having to cover that expense, higher the price of their premiums. That's why health insurance is so expensive, but if everyone has health insurance this won't happen.

3) Obama is living a pipe dream, he thinks that once president he can work out the good intentions he has for this country. I think that even if he does get in the white house, he's not going to handle it as well as Clinton would because Clinton has her husband and her own experience. Not to mention that in a campaign against McCain, McCain will throw dirt at him like there's no tomorrow. For example, Larry Sinclair (I'm not saying I believe him but he oculd change a lot of people's minds). Hillary Clinton will pound McCain because McCain has nothing new to say about her. Bill Clinton now has a 70% approval rating. If McCain says "Hillary will just be Bill Clinton all over again!" like the Republicans said when she ran for Senate, Americans will say "Great! It's better than Bush all over again!" and Hillary wins.

I know some people just dislike Hillary for no reason. In a poll 12% of people said they'd have trouble voting for a woman and only 6% had trouble voting for a black. Not to mention silly attacks on Hillary like the ones about her clothing and her hairstyle. Obama doesn't get that at all. The pictures of him wearing those traditional clothes didn't even sting a bit. I'm not saying they should, but if Hillary dressed up like a Middle Eastern woman her numbers would go waaaaay down. Obama also called the prime minister of Canada a president and no one notices. Meanwhile everyone's talking about how Hillary can't pronounce that Russian guy's name. I'm 14 years old and I know that Canada has a prime minister, and it's not like Obama could pronounce that guy's name either.

I'm looking forward to your response.
artC

Pro

"So I noticed you're now against the war on terrorism. You ruined our beautiful disagreement ratio :("

Yeah, sorry. I decided I can't support this administrations "war on terror". It sends the wrong message.

"1) He's not debating the issues often enough. Hillary is obsessed about her health care plan and she talks about it everywhere she goes, however, Obama doesn't risk to talk about what he wants to do. I watched a whole speech and the only thing he talked about has how he opposed Iraq from the beginning, which is easy to do when you're not in the Senate."

I've watched quite a few debates and I've seen and heard Obama talk about real issues. As a matter of fact, he addressed almost every issue I'd like for him to address at the rally I went to at my school. I hate when people say that Obama is only about hope and feeling words. That's not true, he just happens to be good at inspirational speaking. That may not be the most important thing but it is one of the most important things. Obama's message of hope and change is a huge reason that young people are voting for the first time and that people who usually don't care about politics are following this election. We need to think of a 100% turn out for elections as the norm, not the exception. THAT is what this country was suppose to be founded on. If we're going to toot democracy at every opportunity we need to start thinking of it as a priority.

In my view, it is more important to elect someone who has similar values and worldviews as I do, rather than someone who has a fully developed plan on absolutely every issue. Don't get me wrong, I support most of his plans for foreign policy, education and health care, but it's not enough to see eye to eye on JUST programs. Hillary Clinton may or may not have a better health care plan but she's been working on it for about twelve years. Given the opportunity, I'm convinced his would evolve to be more inclusive and have more potential for success.

About the war...Yes, he has been against the war since the beginning, yes, it's getting a little old. BUT, it has to be said to every new audience. It isn't easy to be against the war if you're not in the senate. How about all the people who were in support of the war that weren't even involved in politics? It's important for someone, especially someone who may potentially lead our country, to have the ability to wait before going to war. To think of war as the last resort, not the immediate solution. With all of her "experience" why didn't Hillary Clinton have that ability?

"2) His health care plan is terrible from the economy. I read Paul Krugman all the time because he's always dead on on his predictions like the crash of the housing market. And Paul Krugman believes Obama's plan is not going to work because people will be showing up to the hospitals without insurance, and their costs will then be absorbed by doctors and hospitals that treat them, doctors and hospitals will then have to cover that expense so they include things like crutches and aspirins on their medical bills, and then insurance companies, having to cover that expense, higher the price of their premiums. That's why health insurance is so expensive, but if everyone has health insurance this won't happen."

First, no one is ever dead on about the economy, if they are, they're lucky. However, for the most part I agree with you here. That is something I've struggled with. He doesn't have the greatest health care plan. I know this gives you a great 'in' for your rebuttal but remember we're debating about the candidates as a whole, not on this one issue.

What I'm keeping in mind here is that a president is not just his thoughts and plans but his entire cabinet and a plethora of other advisers. I am confident, that as president, Obama will develop a better health care plan that will work for more people and cover all the bases. He is an extremely intelligent guy who has worked in run-down communities for many years. This gives me some bases to believe he cares enough about the downtrodden and poor to develop a better system with some help and time.

Yes, we want a president to get it right from day one, but that's unrealistic. His views on other just as important issues are better than Hillary's. That is why this particular issue doesn't dominate.

"3) Obama is living a pipe dream, he thinks that once president he can work out the good intentions he has for this country. I think that even if he does get in the white house, he's not going to handle it as well as Clinton would because Clinton has her husband and her own experience."

I believe he can as well, intentions ARE important. If they weren't I'd be voting for Ron Paul. "Clinton has her husband"....ouch. The Clinton's have proved to be a badly oiled muckraking machine. I consider it a negative that he's involved at this point. He has shown us he will make mistake after mistake on the campaign trail and never admit to anything. Do we need another administration that doesn't admit when they're wrong??? Hillary wont admit she made a mistake voting for the war either. We need HUMANS in the white house. They make mistakes but they own up to them and fix them. Not machines like the Clintons and Bushes.

"Not to mention that in a campaign against McCain, McCain will throw dirt at him like there's no tomorrow. For example, Larry Sinclair (I'm not saying I believe him but he could change a lot of people's minds). Hillary Clinton will pound McCain because McCain has nothing new to say about her. Bill Clinton now has a 70% approval rating. If McCain says "Hillary will just be Bill Clinton all over again!" like the Republicans said when she ran for Senate, Americans will say "Great! It's better than Bush all over again!" and Hillary wins."

Yeah, McCain will, that's what republicans do most of the time, so what? People are tired of that, they want honest, transparent government with integrity. I think you're oversimplifying this. It's not as easy as A) McCain says she will be Bill Clinton B) People like Bill Clinton C) Hillary wins presidency. They will be Bush all over again. They will change and are already changing the view people have of the Democratic party. We're not supposed to be campaigning this way. We should be given two proper, honest candidates to choose from, not the one who can throw more mud.

Obama is getting votes not just from Democrats but from Republicans as well. He is changing the minds of Independents. He is able to do this because people don't just want another president but they want a new way of electing one and a new kind of government. One controlled by people not, I hate to use the line, but not special interest groups. Most of the money he has collected has been from individuals, contributing small dollar amounts. Hillary is collecting money from anyone and everyone, including huge corporations and special interest groups. You think they give out they're money because they're kind? No, they want things in return, she hasn't even been elected and she's beeing controlled by money.

I'm cutting out that last quote from you because this has gotten very long. I will address it by saying I don't think it's true that either one or the other is attacked more by the media, and if people care more about Hilary's slips of the tongue than Obama's, it's just an indicater of how much people like him. Neither one of those instances matter. Being president isn't about being perfect.

I'm very excited to hear your reply, after all, I am open to having my mind changed, regardless of how unlikely that is at this point. I know I digressed on some points but I figure as the debate goes on we'll gather our thoughts and points more clearly.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Con

blond_guy forfeited this round.
artC

Pro

So do you forfeit this debate really? Or did you just run out of time to respond while meaning to? If so we can start again.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Con

Sorry, but I'm moving to another place and I've been kind of busy. I'll restart the debate later once I'm done moving.
artC

Pro

artC forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kgantchev 8 years ago
kgantchev
"To all you libs who think this war is only for personal gain, how are Bush and Cheney supposed to gain from a war that isnt over, and a mission that wont be complete until they are out of office?"

That's precisely the reason they gain :), Halliburton is gaining money by working in Iraq on reconstruction projects which they estimate to cost $10 million and getting that funding, yet they get it done for $1 million by using local construction companies to do the work. This is just one of the many war profiteering organizations operating in Iraq, and if you don't believe that these groups are allowing members of the white house to profit GREATLY, then you're gravely mistaken!

What happened to the $12 billion that was sent to Iraq? See the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk...

With $12 billion Bush and Chaney can safely retire and ensure the never-ending prosper of their families :).
Posted by kgantchev 8 years ago
kgantchev
"how is it that Barack Obama immediately called for the firing of Don Imus over one comment in a rather spotless record, yet he doesnt blink an eye when his pastor has spewed this racist vitriol FROM THE PUGH for 20 years?

Liberals have such a double standard."

AAAH! Look at that! :) When white men are being "discriminated" against, then white men start crying about it! :) But when black people are discriminated against their WHOLE LIFE, how should they feel?

I'll tell you what's a double standard: one group constantly pounding on another and not expecting any repercussions.

What you perceive as discrimination coming from minorities (such as blacks and Hispanics), is actually a sort of defense mechanism which they build up in order to deal with the institutionalized discrimination conducted by our government...
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
all you libs, explain this to me:

how is it that Barack Obama immediately called for the firing of Don Imus over one comment in a rather spotless record, yet he doesnt blink an eye when his pastor has spewed this racist vitriol FROM THE PUGH for 20 years?

Liberals have such a double standard.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
if you didnt know, evil exists. Life is unfair. Terrible things happen to innocent people. War is hell. It is also inevitable. People will die needlessly, People will prosper needlessly.

To all you libs who think this war is only for personal gain, how are Bush and Cheney supposed to gain from a war that isnt over, and a mission that wont be complete until they are out of office?
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
explain to me how the U.S. troops are "oppressing" the people of Iraq. Why do you have such disregard for our military? Is everything they do oppressive or evil?
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Jack, Oh, Ok now I get it, George Bush and Dick Cheney started a war in Iraq to simply enrich themselves and fooled the entire U.S. govt into going along with it. You would probably be in the category of people that call Bush a dumb a## and he doesnt know what he is doing and then give him credit for being smart enough to fool the entire U.S. govt into following him into a war. As far as the other countries they have no hope if you have the same opinion as artC "No country has the right to invade another country"
Like I said before you can't help those people in all those other countries without killing civilians, civilians are always killed anytime another country invades another country. They are pretty much doomed to that way of life forever under the "No country has the right to invade another country" way of thinking.
Posted by JackBauerPower 8 years ago
JackBauerPower
You missed the point again sadolite. She was saying that if we are in their country solely for the purpose of liberation and humanitarian efforts, then why are we not in the dozens of other countries who are FAR worse off then iraq EVER was? This is the same point i made earlier. The point is that we are NOT in iraq for these reasons, but rather because of greed and the personal agenda of Dick and Bush.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"I ask you, why are we not in countries across the globe who are far more oppressed than the people of Iraq, countries where people are dying of starvation because of their governments, countries where being raped is a norm for women, countries where people experience imprisonment for speaking their minds? One of the answers that comes to mind is personal gain. We have far more to gain from being "liberators" of the Iraqis."

We would have to invade those countries and change the govt and civilians would most definitely be killed in the process. This Is a complete contradiction to everything you have said so far. "No country has the right to invade another country" If this is what you believe then there is nothing that anyone will ever be able to do for them. There future is utterly hopeless.
Posted by artC 8 years ago
artC
You asked me whose side I was on and I told you. Don't quote me out of context.

I can very well distinguish between terrorists and U.S. soldiers.

Are you attempting to say it is okay to kill innocent children in order to get to terrorists? Really? The end justifies the means with you, well it doesn't with me. Each means must be justified, not just the ends. John Lyly said "All is fair in love and war", well he was lucky to never have heard of the War on Terror.

<Our military does everything in its power to prevent the loss of innocent life.>

I couldn't agree more. That is NOT and never will be the point. Innocent life IS lost, the lives of those who you are saying we're fighting for, and those practically forced to fight for a cause they don't believe in.

Why aren't you in Iraq if you believe in this war? Why aren't you sacrificing your life and the happiness of your family, if you so believe in freedom?

<Was it wrong for the U.S. to go in and liberate that country?>

The root of your delusion about this war lies in that statement. Are you still fooling yourself into believing we went there with humanitarian intentions in mind? Again I ask you, why are we not in countries across the globe who are far more oppressed than the people of Iraq, countries where people are dying of starvation because of their governments, countries where being raped is a norm for women, countries where people experience imprisonment for speaking their minds? One of the answers that comes to mind is personal gain. We have far more to gain from being "liberators" of the Iraqis.

And again, we are causing far more harm than good there. I don't deny that there is SOME good being done. And this is not an attack on the military or military forces, it is a attack on the current administration's foreign policy and a CRITICISM of the people who still believe we have some right to decide for others what is best for them.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
OK then, you don't address the complete failure of the United Nations to enforce a treaty between two countries which was supposed to prevent all of this from happening in the first place. You don't acknowledge any of the repeated and repeated attempts by the U.S. to try and solve this problem without it coming to war by pleading with the U.N. to take action. All you can do is give a useless non answer like "I am for the people of Iraq" Well who the hell isn't ! I am for the people of Iraq! I think your inability or blatant refusal to make a distinction between terrorists who purposely, knowingly and willingly target civilians with no other purpose other than to murder them in cold blood and a U.S. Soldier patrolling the streets of Iraq to capture or kill these terrorists is mind boggling. Our military does everything in its power to prevent the loss of innocent life. It is the terrorists who put innocent lives at risk by hiding like cowards behind women and children trying to draw the fire of our troops. The people of Kuwait were invaded by Saddam Hussein. Was it wrong for the U.S. to go in and liberate that country? Remember what you said earlier no country has the right to invade another country. So I guess the best thing to do in that instance should have been to let that country be over taken by Saddam Hussein. The fact that the U.S. went in to free Kuwait would be the same thing as two wrongs don't make a right from your point of view. Or do you pick and choose arbitrarily. If the world cant rely on the U.N. to handle these things what are countries suppose to do. Call you? You can tell the evil dictator to stop committing genocide or you will smack him on the wrist.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
blond_guyartCTied
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:
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by artC 8 years ago
artC
blond_guyartCTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by ally93 8 years ago
ally93
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
blond_guyartCTied
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 
Vote Placed by eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
blond_guyartCTied
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