The Instigator
MistyBlue
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vere_Mendacium
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Compared to most politicians, Obama is an okay 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 2 votes the winner is...
Vere_Mendacium
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,655 times Debate No: 58670
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

MistyBlue

Pro

First round is acceptance.

My stance: Obama doesn't deserve all the hate he gets. Policy-wise he's not been GREAT but has definitely done many great things. My opponent must argue that basically he sucks as a president.

Rules of the debate:

1.) Policy-related material only (speeches etc. are also fair game)
2.) Polite conduct at all times
3.) Include at least one political cartoon or poster/slogan relating to your argument in each round (Cartoons are usually rude, so cartoons are excluded from polite conduct ratings)
4.) All sources are to be listed using the following system ( blah blah blah [1] blah blah blah [2] then, at the very end of the argument, put the sources [1] google.com [2] cnn.com)
5.) The format of the debate is as follows:
1st round- acceptance (NOTHING else)
2nd round- 1st arguments (NO REBUTTALS yet)
3rd round- Rebuttals (NO new arguments or points that are irrelevant to a rebuttal may be presented)
Fourth round- Closing statements and final arguments
Fifth round- Pure cartoons and posters (just for the fun of it) (NO words may be written by either debater in this round, there may only be pictures, cartoons, posters, slogans etc.
6.) Failure to follow any of the above rules should be penalized as a FF

Vere_Mendacium

Con

Hello :) This should be a fun and enlightening debate. I shall do my best, as a novice debater, to stay in line with the rules and on message. While I believe Obama does suck as a president, I would like to entertain the ideas that he does not do so that bad, while providing as many of the ways he does as I can :)
Debate Round No. 1
MistyBlue

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate!! I am definitely not a debate master like some people on here, but this should be interesting and fun.

Now, just for the sake of complete clarity, I will state my purpose and what I will (try to) prove. Saying that Obama sucks is saying that he barely did anything right, and botched everything. I am NOT arguing that Obama was a perfect president, I will express points that prove that he handled many situations well and passed some good policy. No politician tells the truth 100% of the time, and although I realize that it's terrible for them to lie, please refrain from going over the "Obama said... but..." arguments because those arguments can be made against practically any politician.

Obama has done a lot of work to help people as president. I will be detailing his work in civil rights, education, and the environment, but will talk about other aspects in my final argument.

Civil Rights

Obama has always been a figure for civil rights. Aside from being the first African American president in United States history, he has passed many laws helping minorities. He is especially active in LGBT rights. Very recently, he has announced plans to sign an executive ban on sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace [1]. Gays, lesbians etc. are often discriminated against in the workplace, in fact many are fired just because they are gay. Many lawmakers, however, refuse to admit that it is even a problem. I know that this isn't representative of all politicians, but there are many anti-gay politicians like Al Melvin who don't even agree that its a problem that LGBT's are being unfairly discriminated against. Watch an interview of Al by Anderson Cooper here [2] (I was shocked by Al's denial) and thank the lucky stars that we don't have an anti-gay president like that. Also, Obama works with improving the situation of minorities. Low income minority families have significant educational and emotional disadvantages, for example, a child raised in a low-income scenario hears about 30 million less words than a child raised in a family with money in only the first 3 years of childhood. Minorities have had problems, but Obama is passing legistlation to help them get out of their rut with the help of many foundations. [3] One of his great characteristics is that he relates to people, and isn't afraid to admit that he made many of the mistakes that these minorities have made. Ability to relate to his fellow countrymen is an important skill for a president to have.






Education


Obama knows that smart kids make a smart future. He has done SO much for education. This includes increasing funding for the nation's future (smart), initiating Race to the Top (which has helped MILLIONS of kids benefit from higher education standards), and starting programs to aid college students in paying their debts. No child should worry about affording an education as a reason to not go to college. [4]


Environment

Again, Obama is looking to the future in terms of the environment as well. The president illustrates humour and planning in this speech [5]. His ideas are important, and make sense. He recognizes global warming as a problem that must be corrected, unlike many lawmakers, and proposes many steps to help solve the problem, unlike many lawmakers. These steps include limiting the pollution produced by big companies, investing in clean energy technologies, and more savvy steps [6]


So my punch line is that Obama has unarguably screwed up on many occasions, just like practically every politician that ever existed. And.... just to satisfy me.... I want to say this to the people who say Obama=Hitler, but Severus beat me to it. :D

s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" data-src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; data-sz="f" />
Vere_Mendacium

Con

Vere_Mendacium forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MistyBlue

Pro

I am giving my opponent a chance to express their round 2 arguments, as stated in the comments.

Vere_Mendacium

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for allowing me to fairly make up for a lost round I missed, and to post my arguments.

To also clarify my position, I will concede with my opponent that Obama is, for my argument, NOT a compete failure, but to express points that show, through the loose definition of 'sucks' vs 'okay', that President Obama has dropped the ball on numerous occasions, performed hypocritically, acted counter to the constitution, and subsequently qualifies for the qualifier of 'suck' in contrast to 'okay'. As requested, I will do my best to not reference "Obama said.. " arguments (however many) merely to catch a 'lie', but rather to attempt to show the larger issue at hand.

Drones:

This is Obama's weapon of choice; quick, quiet, cheap, and left under the C.I.A's command rather than his armed forces. However, the have shown to be reckless, crude, and the full details of their activities and locations used have been shrouded in the typical military classification system. What the drone program has allowed is for a president to use military force in another nation without boots on ground, while having a barrier of responsibility between him, that being the CIA. While the drone has the potential for being a great war utensil and deterrent, it has been used, just like Truman's A-bomb, inappropriately and regrettably. In Pakistan alone, where Obama takes credit for taking out Osama, a reports claim that drones may have killed over 900 civilians, with a good portion of those being children [1], aside from those numbers reportedly being fudged from higher command. As a vet myself, I know how easy this is and was to do by staff officers, such as labeling people assisting to provide medical aid (pick up dead/wounded) who would subsequently be 'militants' killed [2]. The numbers of civilian casualties will continues to leak in means outside of official reporting. Additionally, the line continues to shrink when it comes to the constitutionality of military killings of people, especially American citizens, such as Anwar al-Awlaki on Sept. 30, 2011 [3] As his right as a citizen to trial was trumped my military interpretation of 'threat', some could wonder could a stateside citizen be killed in a similar fashion with the same justification, or better yet, a leak document justifying such: see [4].

Complicit with NSA / CIA troubles

I won't go too heavily into the position of whether or not our current (and now failing) spying/surveillance program used worldwide is beneficial to us/all, as I have a specific position outside of this debate, however, I will state that it is through Obama and his administration the has allowed something worse, something that I and everyone can/should disagree and react spuriously about, and that is reports that the program metastasized into the other branches of government for their own intrinsic purposes, outside of it's official justification of counter-terrorism. [see video, 5]. (FYI, I hate Fox 'News', but Napolitano is on point!) The problem with this that implicates president Obama, is that a president must explicitly sign-off on this such tyranny. Those who have the power to see, find, and even change intimate details and information about you can and are sharing that with those who have no authority outside of counter-terrorism; IRS, DoJ, Police Departments, etc. Basically, if you are a government alphabet group, the NSA/CIA/FBI can give you what your asking for. It would be one thing if the agencies who had this power were actually mandated and monitored to follow constitutional provisions regarding these activities, but Obama has not done this, and we even complicit. Even his peers in other countries are sick of either his inability to control his own military/spying, or his lying of such, as in the case of Germany, were despite denied reports last year of tapping Merkel's phone, Obama was caught with pants down AGAIN just this month with more spying [6]

Hypocritical 'FOR-WAR' stance

While the recipient of the Peace Prize claims to be fighting/bombing/droning for justified reasons, they are not consistent. Obama bombed Libya for reasons that Ghadafi was using air assets against his people and justified a forced no-fly zone (via bombing their air assets)[7]. If so, then how/why are Ukraine and Israel still allowed to use and do the same indiscriminate air strikes now on CIVILIAN targets? [videos] . If Obama is going to bomb one country for that justification, and then fund/supply others while they do the same thing, he is ethically and legally unjustified, and 'sucks' as a leader.

[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2]https://www.youtube.com...
[3] http://alj.am...
[4] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com...
[5] http://www.forbes.com...
[6] http://rt.com...
[7] http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 3
MistyBlue

Pro

MistyBlue forfeited this round.
Vere_Mendacium

Con

In an effort to maintain a fair and equal debate, I will forgo this round, and we will (should) move directly into rebuttals in the final round. See comments.
Debate Round No. 4
MistyBlue

Pro

MistyBlue forfeited this round.
Vere_Mendacium

Con

Misty, I am sad that you were unable to provide a response or defense to my argument, but I will pursue to respond, in short (very), to your argument for the sake of validating my own position.

In your argument, you brought three issues that you believe Obama has handled quite well, that removes him from the 'sucks' category: Civil rights, education, and environment. These issues are important, of course, and anyone willing to ignore or downplay these issues is not only deserving of a leadership position, but also damaging their own political success. But,, that is just the point. Anyone can (should) agree that all men are created equal, and thereby subject to the same birth rights as everyone else. Anyone can fight, or merely just appear to fight, for the advancement and improvement of our educational system. And anyone can agree that, aside from the debate of global warming, we as a people need to change the way we produce, consume, and live in order to manage resources and provide waste management. The difference is how a leader and/or his administration go about defining these issues and how best to address them, which is best contrasted in the difference between the political right and left. Ultimately, this is expected, and what one president/party achieve in their term, is easily reverted in the other. These issues will flip back and forth because of the majority's difference of opinion, and how their leaders defend their constituency.

However, the issues that are hard, the ones that leaders don't wish to address publicly with the people are the tough decisions and issues I mentioned above. The advent of global militarization via drones, privacy rights of the individual counter to constitutional provisions, and a flip-flop foreign policy justification for either taking direct action or providing indirect consent for action. Obama has avoided confronting these issues publicly because he believes (I believe) that he is and has been in the wrong on these and other issues, and cannot address these issues, until information on how they are being handled behind the scenes is leaked out. Obama had a chance to make a change, and to undo so many things from the previous Bush administration that he publicly stated were wrong, but sadly, he has not only allowed them, he has advanced them.

I'll give credit where credit is due, he has done, as you mentioned, many great things to better our nation and humanity, but in the end we have to remember that it is not the easy decisions that anyone can make, but how they react to the tough issues, pressures, and circumstances that make or break any leader. In this aspect, Obama has failed in my reasons provided, in addition to many others, both know now, and later to be declassified.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
test
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
Misty, I thought I would have heard from you earlier while you were on, but perhaps your not getting updates on this debate. Shortly, I will go ahead and forgo arguments for round 4, so we can then use the last round with 2 turns to make it even. I suggest we use the last round to provide rebuttals, with closing statements, without any new major arguments. Less than 6 hours are left at the time of this posting, so I will wait just a little more before continuing with above plan of action.
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
Misty, I see that you were unable to argue in found 4. How do you wish to proceed. I have a little more than 1 day to provide my response, so if I do not hear from you, I guess we can just bypass this round and use 5 for final responses with no new arguments. What say you?
Posted by MistyBlue 3 years ago
MistyBlue
It's absolutely fine, I get it. To make it fair, I won't say anything in my argument, to give you a chance to say what you wanted to say in round 2. Then, we'll just get rid of round 5, because its the least useful round. I don't want to have 2 main arguments, because then rebuttals and everything gets very tedious for you, and I am quite busy for the next few days, so win-win (right?). We'll rebut in Round 4, like you suggested and Finishing arguments will be in round 5 (Like you suggested).
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
I know how frustrating and annoying a forfeited round can be, so I heavily apologize.
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
Hello, I apologize for not participating in round two. I won't waste your time with the excuse. How do you wish to proceed? May I suggest that we repeat round 3 for arguments and 4 for rebuttals? This also allows you another round for additional arguments. Your call :)
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
'Suck' in this instance does not mean the actual meaning of sucking something with one's mouth or creating a vacuum. 'Suck' in this instance is used in the 'slang' term for something "very bad, disagreeable, or disgusting" : (see definition #3 under verb: 'http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Posted by iheartNK 3 years ago
iheartNK
Hello, I am not fan of obama because he is that american president. Compared to presidents in past he is the more communist yes? If he more communist I like little bit because he make america less capitalist. Also, I have question when vere say obama suck. What is suck mean? I know suck something you do with a mouth. Why you say he suck?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
MistyBlueVere_MendaciumTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
MistyBlueVere_MendaciumTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture