The Instigator
jamccartney
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Is Obama a good president(pro) or not(con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 42561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

jamccartney

Pro

I would like to debate anyone who does not think Obama is a good president. I want good, reasonable opinions and proper English.
Again: Anyone willing to disagree with me, please accept the debate.
OtakuJordan

Con

I accept. Please state your case, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Pro

When Obama was elected, the economy was in the toilet. But once he started working, the economy went back up. I will now list many of the things he has done to help the country: Health care reform, Wall Street reform, ended war in Iraq and killed Osama Bin Laden, boosted fuel efficiency standards, repealed "Don't ask don't tell", and many more. How can anyone read that list of accomplishments and say he is a bad president? He ended wars, brought the economy back up, and has created millions of jobs.
OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you for your response, Pro.

Rebuttals


"When Obama was elected, the economy was in the toilet. But once he started working, the economy went back up."


As I am sure my opponent knows, correlation does not equal causation. Because it is in the nature of economies to fluctuate, my opponent must prove that there is a causal link between President Obama's actions and the positive change in the economy.

"I will now list many of the things he has done to help the country: Health care reform, Wall Street reform,"

In order for this point to be valid, my opponent must prove that these reforms were needed and beneficial. Please detail the reforms implemented and the positive effects they had, if any.

"ended war in Iraq and killed Osama Bin Laden,"

Actually, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq was negotiated between United States and Iraqi officials in 2008, under President Bush.[1] According to the Huffington Post, President Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal date set by the Bush administration.[2]

As for killing bin Laden, he authorized his death, but any President would have done so. George W. Bush certainly would have.[3] Also, it is interesting that Obama's Vice President opposed the raid[4] and that Obama passed up a chance to kill bin Laden three times before authorizing it.[5]

"boosted fuel efficiency standards, repealed 'Don't ask don't tell'"

I will grant you these.

Arguments

Obama sought to wage war on Syria.[6] This solidly refutes the picture my opponent tried to paint of Obama as someone who is responsible for ending U.S. involvement in wars in the Middle East.

Our recovery from the recession has been so unimpressive in contrast with recession recoveries engineered by other U.S. Presidents, that a Forbes article was titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?"[7]

The debt rate nearly doubled under Obama, which is unprecedented.[8]

1. http://reason.com...
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
3. http://www.theatlantic.com...
4. http://www.thedailybeast.com...
5. http://townhall.com...
6. http://www.npr.org...
7. http://www.forbes.com...
8. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Pro

Hello, and thank you for responding.

I first want to point out that Forbes not only created an article titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?", but they also created an article titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?"[1] That may loose the debate for you. You commented to the article that backed you up, while leaving out the article

Now, to answer your questions about my previous points. You say that I did not elaborate enough, which is true. So that is what I will do:

When I mentioned how Obama fixed the economy, I am speaking from truth. You see, the economy was so far down, it cannot fix itself in that steep of an incline. I am speaking from economical experience here. I just don't see that happening without the support of a president. That is why I believe it was the doing of Barack Obama. If you really want proof, look at what Forbes said about it[1]. Now, they also have some facts against it, but I do not feel that they are as strong as the other article.[2]

When you talk about how he nearly doubled the debt, I sadly have to agree with you on that. It went up 58%.[3]

I want to now talk about the number of jobs President Obama has created during his terms. As of August of this year, he has created 2.5 million jobs, which "is nearly two-and-a-half times the number added during George W. Bush"s entire eight years in office". [3] That is a significant increase, which is one reason I enjoy having Obama as a president.

As for Obamacare, I agree it could have been better, but was still a brilliant idea. It is a great reform because it requires people to have health care. The only problem is that is makes people switch health insurance. But besides that, I see nothing wrong with it.

Sources:
[1]http://www.forbes.com...
[2]http://www.forbes.com...
[3]http://www.factcheck.org...
OtakuJordan

Con

Rebuttals

"I first want to point out that Forbes not only created an article titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?", but they also created an article titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?"[1] That may loose the debate for you. You commented to the article that backed you up, while leaving out the article"

I do not understand why one source being countered would cause me to lose the debate, or why my opponent felt a need to say that it would. I did not present the article simply because I was not aware of its existence.

"When I mentioned how Obama fixed the economy, I am speaking from truth. You see, the economy was so far down, it cannot fix itself in that steep of an incline. I am speaking from economical experience here. I just don't see that happening without the support of a president. That is why I believe it was the doing of Barack Obama. If you really want proof, look at what Forbes said about it[1]. Now, they also have some facts against it, but I do not feel that they are as strong as the other article.[2]"

Given that my opponent is fourteen years old, I highly doubt that he is qualified to speak from experience on such matters as trends in the economy. I say that with all due respect.

Outside of this vague assertion that he knows what he's talking about and therefore we should just trust him, Pro has presented no evidence that Obama's economic policy is responsible for bringing America out of recession. And since he has admitted that Obama is responsible for an unprecedented rise in the national debt, his argument is even weaker.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant. Peter Ferrara is certainly as qualified Bob Dietrick and Lew Goldfarb to comment on the economy, and so I think we may agree that the sources cancel each other out.

"I want to now talk about the number of jobs President Obama has created during his terms. As of August of this year, he has created 2.5 million jobs, which 'is nearly two-and-a-half times the number added during George W. Bush"s entire eight years in office'. [3] That is a significant increase, which is one reason I enjoy having Obama as a president."

First of all, not all or even most of those jobs were created by Obama. The statistic is simply the increase of jobs during his office.[1] Secondly, while saying that more jobs have become available under Obama than Bush sounds good, let me remind you that unemployment was only 5.3% under Bush and 5.2% under Clinton. Under Obama, employment has reached 7.3%[2].

When these statistics are presented, it becomes clear that previous administrations were better for job-seekers, not worse as my opponent tried to prove by presenting only half of the data.

"As for Obamacare, I agree it could have been better, but was still a brilliant idea. It is a great reform because it requires people to have health care. The only problem is that is makes people switch health insurance. But besides that, I see nothing wrong with it."

My opponent failed to explain how forcing the American people to sign up for anything, let alone health care, is beneficial. When did the taking away of a freedom become the hallmark of a good president? Also, since he did not explain how ObamaCare is superior to the old health care system as I challenged him to, how do we know that what we are forced to sign up for is good?

Conclusion

My opponent has conceded and dropped quite a few points. These include:
  • Obama sought continued involvement in Middle-Eastern affairs and wars

  • Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq beyond the Bush administration's set withdrawal date

  • Obama passed up the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden three times before authorizing his death

  • The debt rate nearly doubled under Obama, which is unprecedented

  • My challenge to him to prove that Obama's Wall Street reforms were beneficial and needed

  • Obamacare "could have been better"

On top of this, the only evidence my opponent was able to present for his points in R3 were bare assertions and skewed statistics. Also, the only reason Pro presented as to why ObamaCare is beneficial is that "it requires people to have health care."

Thank you for debating me, Pro. Please vote Con.

Sources
1. http://www.factcheck.org...
2. Ibid.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
Hello. This is Pro from the debate. I would like to point out that the fact I am fourteen years old has nothing to do with "speaking on such matters as the economy". I want to point out that I check the stock market every day. I follow the trends and I understand how it works. My age has nothing to do with this.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Does pro realize that he also added 6,000,000,000,000$ of debt and his health care reform has removed 2,000,000 people from there insurance, all the times he lied, AND doctors say he is narcissistic
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
jamccartneyOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con, for spelling errors like using "loose" instead of "lose," a peeve of mine. I am also giving Con arguments, with a few reservations. A debater who is this good at 14 years old will be much better with a little practice - most of the arguments were not really formatted correctly with a conclusion and supporting premises. One Pro gets the hang of that, he will do much better in debates like this. I would have also liked to have seen a more narrow focus. Debates this broad only really allow for opinions.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
jamccartneyOtakuJordanTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con. Con destroyed Pros arguments using logic without even delving into fact. I actually expected more facts or stats from Pro to try refute Cons rebuttals but they never came. It was over all a nice debate to read, and so grammar and conduct are tied. Con takes source points for offering multiple sources. Keep up the good work both of you.