The Instigator
ImpeachObama
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Did The Obama Administration Cover Up Benghazi

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...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 54603
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

ImpeachObama

Pro

I Say they did as they still are! People are saying oh investigate 9/11! AND WE DID
Now i'm saying to investigate Benghazi!, but that's never going to happen as Obama will get impeached and Hillary Clinton's chance of running for pres will die.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing against this resolution.

As is expected, Pro is making a positive statement and therefore has the burden of proof to demonstrate to us conclusively that the Obama Administration "covered up Benghazi." He must provide us with some hard evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
ImpeachObama

Pro

Ok Not hard to find evidence and for the people in the comments saying the the GOP are using it as a talking point. They're not! And you wanted proof? Explain the emails found! Explain why even though Obama Knew about it being a terrorist attack but he blamed it on the youtube video!

If you need more evidence then you more brain washed (If you even have one) Then I had believed! He Left our boys! But yet with the Nigerian girls they're all over it..... Explain that to me, Yes the Nigerian kidnapping is terrible and I feel terrible for those girls but if they are all over that and that's a different country they should atleast try to act like they cared about J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, then later, Tyrone S. Woods, and Glen Doherty! We NEVER Leave A man behind, But that's apparently a concept Obama doesn't understand. And you know it's bad if I a measly 12 Year old can see this but you ignorant butt can't! BTW I'm a SHE.

There's your proof, And I'd like you to try to strike that down.
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org...
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

There are a few things I'd like to get to in this argument.

First, I did not know that my opponent was a girl, so my sincerest apologies for referring to her as "he."

Second, calling people like me "brain washed" and "ignorant" should be seen as nothing other than a stream of ad-hominem attacks, and I would highly advise voters to consider these when dolling out conduct points.

Third, my opponent has not actually made an argument, nor has she provided proof. She can't simply provide three links and say, "The proof is in these links." This is a debate site. We are not expected to explore your links, nor are the links capable of making the arguments for you. You need to make the arguments yourself.

Fourth, even the sources that my opponent has provided are highly biased right-wing websites. I asked for objective proof, and the best she can provide is Fox News, which has been fact-checked and proven wrong at several occasions beating the drums of Benghazi. I would highly advise my opponent to make the arguments, even citing these if she so chooses, and we will debate over the particulars.

Fifth, how in the world is the tragedy in Nigeria even remotely relevant to this? Pro claims that the President and his Administration didn't care about the deaths of four Americans. That is a flat-out, bold-faced lie. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden vowed to get to the bottom of it. Invoking the tragedy in Nigeria is nothing more than a petty, unsubstantiated partisan attack.

Sixth, I would like to re-explore my opponent's burden of proof. She must not only prove that there was a Benghazi coverup -- which inevitably entails explaing how it was covered up, the intent of covering up, proof that it was covered up, etc. -- but, perhaps most importantly, how the points she is raising connect to a coverup. It's one thing to suggest that something appears suspicious, but another to say, "And this is how I know with 100% certainty that the Obama Administration covered up Benghazi." If she cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, she cannot possibly win this debate.

But there were a few contentions that my opponent raised, but has not properly sourced. I will respond to these contentions at this point.

These contentions were:

1. "Explain the emails found!"
2. "Explain why though Obama Knew about it being a terrorist attack but he blamed it on the youtube video."


Contention 1 Rebuttal:


Because Pro hasn't provided a source for this, I can only conclude that she is speaking of the Ben Rhodes e-mail from September 14, 2012 that Fox News mendaciously ran with and distorted.

But this story has already been debunked, and the email is public record and was released, even, by a conservative group, Judicial Watch [1. http://tinyurl.com...].

Basically, there is nothing incriminating in this e-mail, and all it does is detail possible questions and answers along with goals for the Sunday talk shows. There was nothing suspicious about the e-mail, and in fact, everything in it was consistent with prior intelligent briefings and discusses more issues than simply Benghazi. At the time the e-mail was sent, actually, there were anti-American protests across the world -- in countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Quatar, Pakistan, Sudan, Bangladesh, and Yemen -- in response to an anti-Islam [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. The Congressional Research Service released a report saying this same thing as of September 14, 2012 when the email was sent [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. The report says the following:

"Muslims in a number of countries have responded in recent days with anger at the United States that many observers describe as a response to a privately produced film circulating on the Internet that denigrates Islam and the prophet Mohammed."


To get more into the specifics of the e-mail, though: in 20 paragraphs of Rhodes advising Susan Rice on what to say, there were only two references to Benghazi: one was that the Libyan government supported U.S. diplomatic actions in Libya, and the other debunked the notion that there was ever "actionable intelligence" prior to the attack. Rhodes states [4. http://tinyurl.com...]:

"[T]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex."

Note that this language was identical to the CIA talking points created earlier that day
[5. http://tinyurl.com...].


Contention 2

First, the president did call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror -- several times, almost immediately following the attack. It is flat out wrong to suggest that he didn't. To provide you with three quotes, all from the Washington Post [6. http://tinyurl.com...]:


Quote 1
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." (6) -- Rose Garden speech, September 12, 2012

Quote 2
"We want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America." (6) -- campaign speech in Las Vegas, September 13, 2012

Quote 3
"I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America." (6) -- campaign speech in Colorado, September 13, 2012


Also, CIA acting director Morrell testified that the CIA station chief in Libya also believed that the video may have been the motivation behind the attacks [7. http://tinyurl.com...].

And, not to mention, a report by the Senate Select Committee in January 2014 further supports such a conclusion, saying the following [8. http://tinyurl.com...]:

"Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."

Let us also bear in mind that a Senate report already debunked Pro's entire resolution. The report states as follows [9. http://tinyurl.com...]:

"There were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes."

Conclusion:
I have already negated Pro's resolution, so this debate is largely over. She has not made a single credible, substantiated argument to prove her case, and I've provided plenty of evidence proving her wrong.

I highly advise that you vote Con.


Sources:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ImpeachObama

Pro

ImpeachObama forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent has forfeitted, in the process dropping all of my arguments. I'd like to remind both her and our audience that she has the burden of proof, and at this point has yet to fulfill.

Extending all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
ImpeachObama

Pro

There are a few things I would like to say

(Note) I Did not forfeit I have school and A life. So I was not able to respond.

First, its fine

Second, My Apologies as I get flustered when it comes to this issue.

Third, I have made a argument. And about the links, My apologies for posting links. And I'm just getting started.

Fourth, I Provided ONE Fox News link and Send me Poof that Fox News has been proven wrong. But don't worry your not going to be able to use that as I will use congregational Hearings.

Fifth, I Was using that as a example that The Obama's Care more about opposite country's then our own, As they haven't Done anything.

Sixth, Don't worry dear, I'll give you the proof you request. I always love a game of connect the dots! :D

Alright now to get to work!

So you want me to explain the email? No problem. Juditial Watch Released a Article on the email and several other document that i was going to quote from is down currently so expect a paragraph on that soon. Dont believe me heres the link: http://www.judicialwatch.org...

Alright the other was Contention that you felt i didn't do good enough to explain. Another item i will touch up on when i have time as its 11:07 pm where im at and im tired. Expect a full timeline in round 5.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Well, once again, there isn't much to rebut because Pro hasn't made an argument and has in fact dropped every single piece of evidence I have provided, including a Senate Report negating the resolution. But I'll take this time to respond to what Pro has said line by line.


"Note) I Did not forfeit I have school and A life. So I was not able to respond."

That is called a forfeit on DDO. It does not mean that you forfeitted the debate, but that you forfeitted the round.

"First, its fine."

Ok, cool.

"Second, My Apologies as I get flustered when it comes to this issue."

You get flustered? Well, you could've fooled me. This resolution was fairly daring, and that's quite a massive burden of proof to take on for your first debate, so kudos to you for that.

"Third, I have made a argument. And about the links, My apologies for posting links. And I'm just getting started."

No, you haven't made an argument. You made two almost-contentions about an e-mail from Mr. Rhodes and about the Obama Administration's language regarding the attack, both of which I have countered extensivley.

But, ok. It seems a bit unconventional to be "just getting started" in Round 4 when, in my mind, I've already negated your resolution by providing a Senate Report which says that the Obama Administration did not cover this up. If you can fulfill your burden of proof sometime between this round (since I'm reading your argument step by step as I go through this) and the next, I'll be very impressed. I see it as a nearly impossible BOP, but let's see.

"Fourth, I Provided ONE Fox News link and Send me Poof that Fox News has been proven wrong. But don't worry your not going to be able to use that as I will use congregational Hearings."

You did, and the other sites were quite biased as well, but I'm interested in evaluating your arguments, as are our voters, not links that you provide that you think can make the arguments for you.

And, sure, there's plenty of proof. The Media Matters link from the last round addressed a massive distortion regarding the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and many ran with the "you didn't call it an act of terror" narrative that I've already disproved last round [1. http://tinyurl.com...].

But, by all means, use Congressional (you meant congressional, right?) hearings. I've already provided plenty of information regarding hearings and reports and so forth, but I digress. I'm still waiting on your proof.

"Fifth, I Was using that as a example that The Obama's Care more about opposite country's then our own, As they haven't Done anything."

I know what your intention was, and I was pointing out that your argument was completely fallacious and insensitive.

"Sixth, Don't worry dear, I'll give you the proof you request. I always love a game of connect the dots! :D"

Well, it's Round 4, and still no proof.

"So you want me to explain the email? No problem. Juditial Watch Released a Article on the email and several other document that i was going to quote from is down currently so expect a paragraph on that soon. Dont believe me heres the link: http://www.judicialwatch.org...;

First of all, linking me to this page is not explaining the e-mail. Once again, the link cannot do the talking for you. I want you to make an argument on this, but it seems that you're waiting until Round 5 for that.

That is fine, and I eagerly await your paragraph. Just note, however, that I've already addressed this e-mail extensively and even cited Judicial Watch, as they released the e-mail in full. I've already debunked the notion that the e-mail was in some way incriminating for the Obama Administration. But I await your arguments.

Also, I'd like to just point out that the link doesn't appear to be working. I'm not sure if it's me or the site. I found it on Google and it doesn't appear to be working, either. So it may be best if you could quote from the e-mail and the parts of it that you find suspicious, since the link I posted from last round does work and obviously we both have access to it. I'll leave that up to you, though. It is important that we can both access each other's sources.

"Alright the other was Contention that you felt i didn't do good enough to explain. Another item i will touch up on when i have time as its 11:07 pm where im at and im tired. Expect a full timeline in round 5."

To be perfectly honest, neither of your contentions were really contentions since you didn't back up either of them, neither have you done that now. As I said, you have an immense burden of proof to fulfill.

And, with that, I'll pass this back to Pro and wish her the best of luck with her Round 5 argument.

Debate Round No. 4
ImpeachObama

Pro

ImpeachObama forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent has forfeited without fulfilling her BOP.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 3 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Thanks for the thorough RFD, bladerunner.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD:

I try not to often award 7 points (except under the new 1-category-framework, of course). But it's obvious that Con made a clean sweep here.

Conduct for the forfeits and, frankly, for Pro's behavior throughout the rounds she did participate in. I rather suspect, and kind of hope that she's just trolling. S&G should be obvious--Con obviously spent a great deal of time on his case, while Pro's was, from an S&G standpoint, very poorly done, every round is riddled with errors.

As to sources, Pro tried to use sources IN LIEU of arguments, which is simply inappropriate. Con, meanwhile, constructed a case and sourced it appropriately. As to arguments, Pro never seemed to present any case of her own. She just posted links...that's not how debate works. You don't get to not make any case of your own and just post links to make the arguments for you. Pro, look at Con's case--it's an example of how to construct a good case. Arguments to Con.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 3 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
There's also the fact that Watergate and Iran-Contra were actual scandals, whereas Benghazi is a right-wing talking point -- even though the Republicans cut embassy security and there were more embassy attacks under Bush than under Obama. It's a scandal to fill a void since the GOP currently has no ideas whatsoever.

Granted, it was a horrible tragedy, but blaming Obama and Clinton for it is unbelievably asinine, and every single argument he may bring up has already been debunked.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Even if Obama DID cover up Benghazi, he wouldn't get impeached. It's like Reagan and Iran-Contra, or Nixon and Watergate -- the president is NEVER gonna get impeached, only the people who are lower down.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
ImpeachObamaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
ImpeachObamaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.