The Instigator
negan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PotBelliedGeek
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Is obama fit to be a president???

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
PotBelliedGeek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 41976
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

negan

Con

Obama is not fit. He lies like he breathes and that's not good. And trying to pass Obama care without passing it through congress. What crooked person would do that.
Seriously!!! He trys to slip, slide, and slither around every question thrown at him so he turns to a tele-promter to help him speak even though the prompter doesn't say
"uh, uh, uh" so much...
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
negan

Con

Okay man, is this gonna be a run of the mill argument or are we gonna put heart and hard facts into this?
Starting why would someone with your profile picture ever like Obama. And no that was no a racist comment but still people should pay attention. Congress said no to letting Obama try to land troops in Libya. Tell me that's not responsible.
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

1.Obama is not fit. He lies like he breathes and that's not good.

Here my opponent accuses the president of dishonesty, and asserts that this makes him unfit for president. I have two rebuttals.

1. My opponent has made an assertation of dishonesty. It is upon him to provide evidence for this claim. I will not attempt to defend the President against these claims, as they are unsubstantiated as far as this debate goes.

2. My opponent argues that dishonesty renders one unfit for the office of President. This claim is fallacious, as every single president has lied over serious issue during their presidency. If my opponent wishes to challenge this assertation, let him name a president and I will illustrate a lie of said president, along with credible sources. If my opponent wishes to argue that none of our past presidents have been fit for office, then this should have been expressed in R1.

2."And trying to pass Obama care without passing it through congress. What crooked person would do that."

"The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress and then signed into law by the President on March 23, 2010.
On June 28, 2012 the Supreme Court rendered a final decision to uphold the health care law." [1]

As is clearly shown by this quote from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the ACA was passed by congress and upheld by the predominantly Republican[2] Supreme Court, as constitutional. The bill successfully passed through all three branches of the government, and is entirely legal. I will comment that it is by definition impossible for any bill to be passed without congress. The president never tried to pass the bill into law without passing it through congress.

3."Seriously!!! He trys to slip, slide, and slither around every question thrown at him."
My opponent must provide justification for this statement. Note that in order for this to be justified, my opponent must demonstrate that the vast majority of the Presidents answers to questions are as he described. This is because my opponent stated that this is the case with "every question".


4."so he turns to a tele-promter to help him speak even though the prompter doesn't say
"uh, uh, uh" so much..."
Again, my opponent must substantiate his claims. Second, my opponent makes a jab at the presidents ability to speak properly. I assert that the president is in fact one of the most eloquent presidents to date[3].


5."Okay man, is this gonna be a run of the mill argument or are we gonna put heart and hard facts into this?"

Here my opponent poses a very legitimate question. Lat me point out that so far my opponent has yet to include a single fact in his arguments, and I have yet to make an unsupported claim.

6."Starting why would someone with your profile picture ever like Obama. And no that was no a racist comment but still people should pay attention."

Here my opponent asserts that there is something in my profile picture that should indicate an opposition to the president. Here is a copy of that photograph.



After carefully reviewing this picture I can pick out two things my opponent may have been referring to.

1. It becomes clear from this photograph that I am involved in a college level politics club. My opponent may be wondering why someone who is knowledgeable enough in the realm of politics to be involved in such a club would like the president.I will elaborate.

I am the president of the Georgia Perimeter College History and Politics Club. This unique organization serves as an intellectual discussion center for current events. We are highly successful in our mission to educate our members of the global political spectrum. Our members are diverse, some conservative, some liberal. One of our alumni is currently running for the presidency of his home country, Liberia.

My involvement in this organization has given me the experience and knowledge neccesary to see through party propaganda and political rhetoric, and I am able to see the president's policies for what they are. I do not support all of them, but many are immensely beneficial.

2. It is unfortunate that this is an issue today, but my opponent may also be referring to the fact that I am white. If this is the case, then my opponent may likely be under the impression that the president is only supported by minority groups. This is only speculation. In response, I say that according to the University of Connecticut, 39% of White Americans voted for Obama[4].

My opponent goes on to mention race as a factor in his evaluation, imploring us not to think of him as a racist. This indicates that it was indeed the second photo trait that my opponent was referring to.

I say this in reply:
You say that that is not racist, but I tell you that it is immensely racist, no matter haw you try to justify it.


7.Congress said no to letting Obama try to land troops in Libya.

Here my opponent claims that Obama tried to place troops in Libya without the consent of congress. I will explain the issue.

1. In 2011, the U.N launched a policing operation Libyan airspace. The operation included aerial patrols and a few strategic missile strikes. The U.N. asked the president to to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles and assist with a naval blockade. As the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military, the president authorised the operations[5].

Please note here that not once did the idea of sending troops to Libya come into discussion.

The right wing politicians in congress raised a hoot about this operation, and forced the president to back out.

I assert that the president was in no way irresponsible for this, nor did he act outside of his authority. By definition, that is his job, and he did it.

2. After the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the president sent combat armed troops to American embassies in Libya and Yemen to act a security forces there. He did this without the consent of Congress, as he is clearly allowed to do[6].

I want my opponent to look my profile pic in the eye and tell me one more time that this was not a responsible move.

Please note that at this time the same right wing politicians who had a cow in 2011 were in an outrage that there were no troops in Libya at that time, and blamed Obama for the lack of security.


Sources:

1. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.hhs.gov...

2. FindtheData.org
http://supreme-court-justices.findthedata.org...

3. The New York Observer
http://observer.com...

4.The UConn Roper Center Public Opinion Archives
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu...

5. ABC News Archives
http://abcnews.go.com...

6. ABC News Archives
http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 2
negan

Con

Okay first of all, whose side are you on man. Seriously! Yeah your debate is strong but you need to make your point clear when it comes down to which side your on. I think that Obama needs to shape up when it comes to politics i mean , if your gonna lie, lie without making it obvious. Cant you agree?
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

1. "Okay first of all, whose side are you on man. Seriously! Yeah your debate is strong but you need to make your point clear when it comes down to which side your on."

Here my opponent wishes that I take a clear stance as to my position in this debate. In the following clause I will do so.

The topic of the debate is "Is Obama fit to be president". My opponent instigated this debate and established his resolution: Obama is not fit for president.

As instigator of this topic, my opponent must prove his assertion.

I accepted this debate as Contender. My function is to disprove my opponents assertions.

My stance in this debate is to defend the president from the accusations of my opponent in a logical manner, based on evidence.

My opponent has so far made only two direct assertions supporting his resolution, both of which I refuted effectively in the previous round. My opponent then made a third assertion, not against the president, but about the fact that a white person is defending him. I also addressed this effectively in the previous round.


2."I think that Obama needs to shape up when it comes to politics"


Here my opponent has restated his resolution in different wording. He still does not provide supporting material for his resolution.



3. "i mean , if your gonna lie, lie without making it obvious."

Here my opponent revises his previous assertion, that "the president is unfit for office because of dishonesty", to "the president is unfit for office because he is not a very convincing liar".

I ask my opponent for clarification on this point.

Are you arguing that he is unfit for office because he lies, or because you think he needs to be better at lying? Please clarify.


4.Cant you agree?

Here my opponent asks if I agree with his resolution. I cannot answer this until my opponent makes the clarification requested in point three.

Debate Round No. 3
negan

Con

Alright man this is when I let the demons loose
I start at point one "lies"(look its already in quotation!)
I am not talking about the lies where everyone knows he is lying but there is no definitive proof because he hides it (like fast & furious). I am talking about the well documented lies.

Additional Details

like the Benghazi terror attacks
http://www.examiner.com......

He lied about the number of illegals being deported

http://hotair.com......

He lied about the tarp funds being paid back

http://www.nationalreview.com......
Here is one thing that President Obama should do to elevate America"s public discourse: Stop lying.

Obama has been caught red-handed lying about the sequester, the $85 billion in automatic budget cuts that commenced Feb. 29, unless Congress panics and scuttles this 2.4 percent reduction in Washington"s heroin-strength spending addiction.

"The sequester is not something that I"ve proposed," Obama said in his October 22, 2012, debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney. "It is something that Congress has proposed."

Many, Many more.
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

Due to an intense work schedule, it is quite difficult to find the time to debate. I would like to request that my opponent continue his arguments, and I will rebute both rounds in R5. I thank my opponent for his understanding.
Debate Round No. 4
negan

Con

negan forfeited this round.
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

1.I start at point one "lies"(look its already in quotation!)

My opponent repeats his only argument, an alleged dishonesty on the part of the president. He simply linked to articles without presenting any evidence. I would in essence be debate the articles rather than my opponent. In this case, I refer the voter to R2, in which I effectively refuted this argument.

My opponent then forfeited the final round of this debate.

Conclusion: My opponent failed to illustrate Obama's incompetence as president, and I successfully refuted the arguments put forth. I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Why thank you!
Posted by Stirling 3 years ago
Stirling
Dear PotBelliedGeek,

You destroyed the competition on this debate. I loved reading this!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
neganPotBelliedGeekTied
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 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: Con was sporadic in this debate from using personal gibes to making claims without facts. Pro provided refutations and detailed explanations with sources. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
neganPotBelliedGeekTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This is my first time putting all of my checks on one side. Conduct: veiled racism and personal comments. Plus the FF. S&G: Pro made a very easy to follow argument. Argument: pro?onceded that Obsma may have lied, but that the election is still binding. Sources: Again Pro's sources were much less biased.
Vote Placed by Bannanawamajama 3 years ago
Bannanawamajama
neganPotBelliedGeekTied
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: Contender made a more detailed and logical argument. Many of Instigators were unsubstantiated, and in the round he did support his arguments, they were mostly from disparate news articles with little analysis. There was no real conduct breach on either side.