The Instigator
breguera77
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

Obama and his policies

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 6 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,789 times Debate No: 29690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

breguera77

Con

I think that Obama's policies have deeply hurt the United States and it is showing. We are about to go into a recession despite what everyone is saying. We are still not creating jobs fast enough. He is trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights, among others. And finally, he denys the fact that Al queda is still alive, which is evident that they are from the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, but still insisted that it wasnt them but a video made in the US so he could cover it up and save his own job.
imabench

Pro

"I think that Obama's policies have deeply hurt the United States and it is showing. We are about to go into a recession despite what everyone is saying."

Any evidence of this or is this just your own opinion? We have a streak going of months and months of consecutive job growth, the Dow Jones has never been higher, unemployment is below 8% for the first time in forever, a good number of companies are making record income.... The economy isnt quite where we would have liked it to be but it sure doesnt look like we're about to enter another recession...

http://www.google.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.alternet.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://seattletimes.com...

"We are still not creating jobs fast enough."

But we have been creating them... Its not easy using 20th century tools to fight a 21st century recession because this recession is not like any of the ones we had in the past....
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"He is trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights, among others."

The second amendment is open to interpretation, and his recent orders regarding gun control doesnt take away anyones guns, it just makes it harder for people to get their hands on more of them.... Nobody is going door to door demanding to take your guns away from you.

Also I would love to hear what 'other' rights Obama is trying to take away from you...

"And finally, he denys the fact that Al queda is still alive, which is evident that they are from the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, but still insisted that it wasnt them but a video made in the US so he could cover it up and save his own job."

Thats the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.... Obama has come out an openly stated that it was indeed an attack by Al-Qaeda and not a riot related to the film "The innocence of Muslims".... He doesnt deny that Al-Qaeda doesnt exist and hes not trying to cover anything up to save his own job.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
breguera77

Con

I was just stating the main idea my argument in the first part.



"But we have been creating them... Its not easy using 20th century tools to fight a 21st century recession"



We may have been creating jobs, but they aren't being created fast enough to keep up with population growth. In fact, it sounds like the jobs report for January will slide backwards. That doesn't seem like something good to point out. And we are really not that far into the 21st century. A recession can be fixable with the technology of our time, you just are looking around what is really going on
___________________________________________________________________________________

"The second amendment is open to interpretation, and his recent orders regarding gun control doesn't take away anyone's guns, it just makes it harder for people to get their hands on more of them"

I'm sorry, but the Constitution of the United States is black and white and CLEARLY states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If I'm not mistaken that means that It should not be made harder for any individual to purchase a weapon. However, I do agree that their should be some tighter weapon laws. Like all states should run a background check, make sure that the person purchasing the weapon does not have a mental condition that could make them aggressive and other things along those lines. I do not, however, believe that it is necessary to ban Assault Rifles, 10 round clips (The New York law of a seven round magazine does not make any sense to me; it's okay for 7 people to die but not 10? That's just a disgrace and quite ridiculous), and banning violent video games. Also guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. Baseball bats are even used more for crime than guns.

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

http://www.cnn.com...

http://www.rrmemphis.com...
____________________________________

"That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard... Obama has come out and openly stated that it was indeed an attack by Al-Qaeda and not a riot related to the film...... And he's not trying to cover anything up..."



I did not hear about his "apology statement" regarding this. But he did for about 4 months deny that it was Al-Qaeda. He did have his office send out the statement that it was the video. He also denied the consulate 3 TIMES on having security increased. Also the media did not help. The only two stations that would report what really was going on and that there seemed to be a cover up was CNN and Fox News. CNN being lean left, and Fox being lean right; so both ends of the spectrum of bipartisanship had agreed that something fishy was going on. Also, if he wasnt trying to cover anything up, why take so long to admit what really happened after four months of lies? That doesn't make sense to me.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com...

____________________________

Just a few reasons why someone who loves this country can"t support BO and wants him impeached
" Running guns to cartels that killed 2 agents and many Mexicans:
" Leaked very important Intel putting our warriors at risk/SF"s have no respect for him
" More deficit than any other Prez, although Clinton did expand Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in the 90"s ; Barney Frank said in 06 things were fine-but Obama"s reckless spending is the major cause; Obama also voted to keep Fan/Mae and Fred Mac going which was the main cause of our 08 fiscal issues so he inherited his own debacle!
" Highest sustained period of high gas/food prices and unemployment ( more women unemployed under Obama and minorities reaching 16% or higher)
" Our Public education system falling further behind the world under Obama
" First ambassador killed since the Jimmy Carter days, and LIED about not knowing about this and 3 times denied help-this is a DISGRACE
" NEVER takes leadership-always passes the buck-juvenile/No vision for the future
" More on food stamps and welfare than ever before
" Stim Package that send millions of $ overseas and jobs, and helping other countries with energy but shutting down our energy resources or not using them at all-inexcusable
" Obamacare that is already costing jobs, raising Insurance Premiums, adding 27 new taxes ( some to the middle class) and many testimonies of healthcare professional saying they may quit their practices
" National security and foreign policy is amateur hour-shameful/Told Medvedev he would be more flexible after the election-real scary!
" Suing his own states for wanting to reinforce laws against illegal
" His budget proposals the Dems even vote down and Harry Reid won"t bring the good ones to the floor-been years since a budget
" Wants to redistribute wealth and raise taxes on the rich which won"t help the economy but doing whatever to hurt the middle class, small business
" Only Prez to print $ twice-QE2 and QE3-hugh inflation coming, and first Pres. to have two credit downgrades
" All the dictators in the world have endorsed him-that tells it all!!!!

Of course there are all the shootings and crime rising among most cities since Barry has been in office
imabench

Pro

"We may have been creating jobs, but they aren't being created fast enough to keep up with population growth. In fact, it sounds like the jobs report for January will slide backwards."

Today is february 1st so the jobs report will come out in a matter of days, maybe even hours. Lets see if we continue making progress or not.

"I'm sorry, but the Constitution of the United States is black and white and CLEARLY states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If I'm not mistaken that means that It should not be made harder for any individual to purchase a weapon."

Then why is it that people are banned from owning tanks, rocket launchers, missiles, hand grenades, etc. but that not a violation of the second amendment? A lot of people believe that the right for people to bear arms is meant only to keep a well-regulated militia because the second amendment can be interpreted that way. The second amendment isnt in black and white, is open to interpretation, has been limited with no complaints, and Obama isnt taking away guns from people who already own them, he is merely restricting access to buying more of them.

"and banning violent video games"

But Obama isnt banning violent video games and hasnt even proposed that he wants to.....

"Also guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns."

And one of Obama's executive orders was to establish a database to make sure mentally ill people cant get access to a gun. Infact most of his executive orders revolve around increasing background checks
http://news.yahoo.com...

"But he did for about 4 months deny that it was Al-Qaeda. "

He only called it an act of terror for about 2 weeks before admitting that al-qaeda was behind it... Not four months
http://www.breitbart.com...

"He also denied the consulate 3 TIMES on having security increased"

That wasnt Obama who did that, that was the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations....
http://www.nytimes.com...

" so both ends of the spectrum of bipartisanship had agreed that something fishy was going on"

The response to the bengazi attack was tremendously uncoordinated because all the other attacks and protests at US embassies going on throughout the Middle East indicated it was related to the anti-islam video that came out.... Its not a cover-up or a conspiracy, its just a terribly slow response to an event, which has happened before (FEMA to New Orleans)

"if he wasnt trying to cover anything up, why take so long to admit what really happened after four months of lies?"

Because it wasnt four months like you keep claiming, it was about two weeks.

"Running guns to cartels that killed 2 agents and many Mexicans"

Fast and Furious wasnt approved by Obama or even brought to his knowledge until after it blew up. That was the fault of the ATF because they authorized that ridiculous program, not Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Leaked very important Intel putting our warriors at risk/SF"

I dont even know what youre referring to with this one but im fairly certain it wasnt Obama himself who did that....

"More deficit than any other Prez"

Most of that was due to the stimulus to try to help the economy from continuing to crash while ever since then Congress has been tremendously unable to compromise and produced a balanced budget for Obama to sign. Obama cant propose his own budget plan, only Congress can do that.

To be fair though the stimulus had very mixed results and certainly fell short of expectations.

" Obama also voted to keep Fan/Mae and Fred Mac going which was the main cause of our 08 fiscal issues so he inherited his own debacle!"

Obama wasnt president in 2008..... His term didnt start until Jan 20th of 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Highest sustained period of high gas/food prices and unemployment"

He's passed bills authorizing construction of parts of the Keystone pipeline and just recently signed a bill to keep mil prices from doubling. Do you have any evidence showing that his policies are why gas and food prices are so high or is this just another claim not backed by facts?
http://www.kcci.com...
http://thehill.com...

"Our Public education system falling further behind the world under Obama"

Hes not the reason why its failing though, infact hes trying to authorize more funding for it.
http://www.sfgate.com...

"First ambassador killed since the Jimmy Carter days"

Obama wasnt the one who killed the ambassador....

"NEVER takes leadership-always passes the buck-juvenile/No vision for the future"

Thats just your own opinion now isnt it...

"More on food stamps and welfare than ever before"

Both of which he is limiting access to and trying to get people off of them.
http://www.factcheck.org...

"Stim Package that send millions of $ overseas and jobs, and helping other countries with energy but shutting down our energy resources or not using them at all-inexcusable"

Thats been proven to have been a massive lie
http://www.politifact.com...

"Obamacare that is already costing jobs, raising Insurance Premiums, adding 27 new taxes ( some to the middle class) and many testimonies of healthcare professional saying they may quit their practices"

Obamacare also denies people from being denied care due to pre-existing conditions, there isnt evidence that obamacare is costing jobs that has been presented, there could be a ton of reasons why insurance premiums have increased, and only a fraction of people are affected by the 27 taxes that come with it.

"National security and foreign policy is amateur hour-shameful"

Unsubstantiated opinion....

"His budget proposals the Dems even vote down and Harry Reid won"t bring the good ones to the floor-been years since a budget"

Obama has actually offered to cut spending in social programs which is what the Dems didnt like, but to you thats somehow Obama's fault and not Congress's? Youre just blaming him for everything you can think of at this point.

"Wants to redistribute wealth and raise taxes on the rich which won"t help the economy but doing whatever to hurt the middle class, small business"

Now youre just acting like a conspiracy theorist...

" first Pres. to have two credit downgrades"

It was just one downgrade and that credit agency even explained that the reason for the downgrade was because of how inept Congress was in trying to reduce the defecit
http://abcnews.go.com...

"All the dictators in the world have endorsed him-that tells it all"

Thats just straight up bullsh*t

"Of course there are all the shootings and crime rising among most cities since Barry has been in office"

Im pretty sure at this point if Pro got a sunburn he would blame that on Obama and his policies as well....

Extend all dropped arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
breguera77

Con

"and Obama isnt taking away guns from people who already own them, he is merely restricting access more of them."

I told you that the constitution states, "Shall not be infringed." Don't you realize what that means? It means they cant restrict the amount of guns people purchase. Now tanks and rocket launchers aren't sold because, who else is going to use a rocket launcher for target practice, hunting, etc. besides the military?

"But Obama isn't banning violent video games and hasnt even proposed that he wants to...."

There has been talk in the Obama administration, advised by senate and led by Biden to ban violent video games. Parts of his Cabinet are in the talks and, as I said is being led by Biden.

"He only called it an act of terror for about 2 weeks before admitting that al-qaeda was behind it"

It felt longer. I should have done more research on that but was it really necessary to cover it up for that long? He lost a lot of ground and he lied about it not being Al-Qaeda for 17 days. He should be impeached for Perjury. It was a very unnecessary lie and he would't have lost so much credibility if he just told everyone that it was a Al-Qaeda attack.

"That wasnt Obama who [denied the consulate], that was the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations...."

It is still his Cabinet. The buck stops with him. I guarenttee that if this happened during Bush's term, he would have been dragged out of his office by the people and beat.

"The response to the Bengazi attack was tremendously uncoordinated because all the other attacks and protests at US embassies going on throughout the Middle East indicated it was related to the anti-islam video that came out..."

It doesn't matter. The consulate asked for more security 3 times and then it was attacked. That should raise some flags. They could have put more security there and none of this would have happened. They could have seen that this was premeditated, but decided to ignore those warnings and blamed it on a video that was made not long before the attack. These warnings were way before any video actually came out. Yes it was a cover up, yes it was a conspiracy.

"Fast and Furious wasn't approved by Obama or even brought to his knowledge until after it blew up."

It was his administration still. The people HE chose are not doing their jobs correctly. And I have a high doubt that he didn't know about any of it. It is his job to keep everything in check. It is also by the same people who want to tighten up gun laws. They think that guns are bad? No, you just have to put them in the wrong people's hands.

"He's passed bills authorizing construction of parts of the Keystone pipeline and just recently signed a bill to keep mil prices from doubling."

If I remember correctly, he had the Keystone project delayed. It might not be able to be run because he delayed it. It was delayed more than it should have.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Obama wasn't the one who killed the ambassador...."

Yes, but he could have given them more security. There is no way that he couldn't have known about the 3 denies.

Me: "Stim Package that send millions of $ overseas and jobs, and helping other countries with energy but shutting down our energy resources or not using them at all-inexcusable"
You: "Thats been proven to have been a massive lie"

You used politifact which is biased so I'm just going to give you the numbers of lies and leave it at that.
http://www.politifactbias.com...

"Now youre just acting like a conspiracy theorist..."

How is that being a conspiracy theorist? I'm just emphasizing how much he has hurt the middle class and small businesses. He even said that he was going to redistribute wealth and raise taxes on the rich during his campaigns.

"It was just one downgrade and that credit agency even explained that the reason for the downgrade was because of how inept Congress was in trying to reduce the defecit"

Congress is failing because he pushes bills past congress through the democrats in congress. Bills that no one on the republican side is supporting. He says he wants to be bipartisan but he isn't showing it. And again, you used a biased source.

Obama is getting praise from people on the radical side of politics.
http://www.foxnews.com...

I know you are probably going to get me on the bias with the foxnews source but i guarantee that its not the only source
imabench

Pro

"It means they cant restrict the amount of guns people purchase. Now tanks and rocket launchers aren't sold because, who else is going to use a rocket launcher for target practice, hunting, etc. besides the military?"

Is that really the actual reason why you think tanks and rocket launchers arent sold to the public? I can guarantee that violent anarchists, gang members, people in the mafia, etc would LOVE to be able to have access to rocket launchers and other insanely large armaments for their own use... The reason why they cant though is because those things are ILLEGAL to own even though the Second Amendment may imply otherwise.

Like I said before, the Second Amendment is open to interpretation, is not universal, and claiming otherwise just because you feel that way doesnt change anything/

"There has been talk in the Obama administration, advised by senate and led by Biden to ban violent video games. Parts of his Cabinet are in the talks and, as I said is being led by Biden."

NOBODY is talking about banning violent video games. The only mention about violent video games anywhere in the executive orders he passed is that he wants the CDC to study to see if there might be a possible connection between violent video games and shootings in real life. NOWHERE does he, or anyone else in his administration, claim to want to ban violent video games.
http://abclocal.go.com...

By the way, if you make a wild claim and dont give any evidence to support the claim, then people are going to treat it s if you made it up, which frankly, im sure you did.

" He lost a lot of ground and he lied about it not being Al-Qaeda for 17 days. He should be impeached for Perjury."

Jesus dude, NOBODY in the administration knew for sure what had caused the embassy shooting because it could have just as easily been an angry mob revolting about that "Innocence of Muslims" video, it could have been another terrorist organization, it could have been any number of things. Obama didnt lie about something he didnt even know about in the first place.

"It is still his Cabinet. The buck stops with him."

So if someone in his cabinet spills hot coffee on someone's lap, then its Obama's fault since its his cabinet? Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard... Obama doesnt get the requests for more security added to his desk, and he most certainly doesnt get increased security requests after theyve already been denied on three different occasions....

"These warnings were way before any video actually came out. Yes it was a cover up, yes it was a conspiracy."

Youre being retarded... Just because the government was tripping over their own feet in trying to figure out what happened, it doesnt mean that there is some vast government conspiracy going on.... By your logic then the terrible response time by FEMA to help New Orleans must have also been a government conspiracy.....

Just because the government isnt efficient, it doesnt mean theres a conspiracy afoot.

"It was his administration still. The people HE chose are not doing their jobs correctly. And I have a high doubt that he didn't know about any of it"

Do you have any evidence to support this claim or are you just pulling this stuff out of your a** again? Not everything the US does passes through Obama's desk, thats not how the government works. The reason we have committees is to do part of Obamas job for him.

"If I remember correctly, he had the Keystone project delayed."

Yeah, because there were environmental issues, the canadian company that wanted to construct the pipeline had a history of fraud and cooking numbers to get funding, and there was speculation on whether the pipeline would even affect gas prices at all.
http://www.nytimes.com...

"Yes, but he could have given them more security. There is no way that he couldn't have known about the 3 denies."

Not everything in the world sits on Obama's desk at one point or another, in fact only a fraction of all decisions the US government makes even requires input from Obama. The reason committees exist is to handle specific tasks on their own without intervention by the president.

"You used politifact which is biased so I'm just going to give you the numbers of lies and leave it at that."

Really? The guy who uses f*cking foxnews.com as his main source for his arguments is going to try to accuse me of using biased sources to disprove an argument? How about you give some valid sources to support your claims for once.

"Congress is failing because he pushes bills past congress through the democrats in congress. Bills that no one on the republican side is supporting"

The Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Democrats only control the House of Representatives by 3 people if you count the two independents....
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Obama isnt ramming bills through Congress through Democratic super-majorities because the Democratic super-majorities dont exist in Congress... If every Democrat in Congress approved a bill by Obama and every Republican rejected it, the bill would be killed each and every time.

"And again, you used a biased source."

1 second later

"Obama is getting praise from people on the radical side of politics."
http://www.foxnews.com......

"I know you are probably going to get me on the bias with the foxnews source but i guarantee that its not the only source"

Then give other sources! Dont just claim they are out there because it suits you. Also dont try to claim that my sources are biased and then go straight to the motherload of biased sources for your arguments.

==========================================================================

Dropped arguments by the Pro:

- 1 - Pro forfeits the fact that the US has had consecutive months of job growth dating back for years (in fact the US added 157,000 jobs last month alone http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
- 2 - Pro forfeits that Obama didnt 'lie' about Bengazi for four months
- 3 - Pro forfeits that it's Congress who can only draft balanced budgets and not Obama
- 4 - Pro forfeits that Obama wasnt president in 2008 so what happened in 2008 wasnt Obama's fault
- 5 - Pro forfeits that Obama has tightened access to welfare and TANF
- 6 - Pro forfeits that Obama is trying to increase funding to education and that Obama isnt the reason why its failing
- 7 - Pro forfeits the fact that his claim about the stimulus shipping jobs overseas is a bs claim.
- 8 - Pro forfeits the fact that Obama offered to cut funding in Social programs like Social Security, and still tries to claim Obama isnt bi-partisian
- 9 - Pro forfeits his own claim that Obama is doing everything in his power to harm the middle and lower class
- 10 - Pro forfeits the argument that it wasnt Obama's fault for the US being downgraded in credit
- 11 - Pro forfeits that the Second amendment is open to interpretation and that there are already laws against gun ownership that most agree isnt Unconstitutional
- 12 - Pro forfeits his original claim that the US is about to enter a second recession after giving no evidence to suggest such a claim is even close to being true.
- 13 - Pro forfeits that companies are making record profits
- 14 - Pro forfeits that the stock market has never been better

All in all, a good chunk of Pro's arguments are based on his own horrendously false opinions, he admits to not having researched portions of his arguments at all, he sources less that 25% of his arguments, and the sources he does give are almost exclusively from foxnews whereas mine are from everywhere but them....

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
BigSky
I'd be hard pressed for the outcome of this debate to have been any different, aside from assigning the role of Pro to an inexperienced or uneducated member. Con's arguments lacked support because they were false...as Pro pointed out with admirable clarity. As for the notion of supporting an argument with no evidence to suggest it is valid or even reasonable, seems a tad incongruous to the advancement of reason.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
There is only one president that took us to iraq, not obama, but bush, but even then the house voted for it. so tech. presidents do not do much anymore, so pointing fingers wont get no where, you can only blame republicans or democrats, the house.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
There is only one president that took us to iraq, not obama, but bush, but even then the house voted for it. so tech. presidents do not do much anymore, so pointing fingers wont get no where, you can only blame republicans or democrats, the house.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
yea same here, con did make some try to good arguments, but pro, debunked them quickly, con did forget to rebute or reply to some of pros arguments, not only con made some arguments that were like uhhhhhh.... with the video game thats what killed it, because that defensive argument has been going before obama term. They already tested it, all depends on the person, but that was before obama, and they were even trying to take it away from the market before obama, but when the officials see the prices, and profit being made they will not budge the thought of taking away video games. All the claims con pointed out, were all in place before obama, some were before bush, this has been going on for a long time all cons claims. Its nothing new to this country, just another president just like the past who cannot do nothing because the house will always fight if it will hurt them. so they will always go against the president, the presidents in this time barely make any choices at all.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
forgiven aceviper :) Also. I meant that I agree with con's arguments, even if they lacked support. This argument could have turned the opposite way if there was a different debater as con
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I noted a concession in R1: "despite what everyone is saying" the US is entering a new recession.

This statement makes the claim that almost no source will agree with Con. I hope that this RFV does not smack of lawyering. I am willing to reconsider my score if this particular mistake can be demonstrated.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
Big sky let me rephrase please What I really meant was that Osama was killed on Obama term, my apoligies for the misquote. lol. we all make mistakes.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I would add, though, he did quite well for his first debate and especially against a strong opponent.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "I agree with con but cannot vote because I haven't finished three debates."

We are not voting for whom we agree with, but rather who made the best arguments. Con's arguments were quite dubious in many places, for example he claimed that Obama lied to us about Bengazi for four months and that Obama told us Al Quaeda no longer exists. First, he provided no evidence that Obama lied to us. Second, Pro proved that the misinformation period was two weeks instead of four months. Third, Pro proved Obama did not claim Al Quaeda no longer exists.

It's not that someone couldn't make a plausible argument for the Obama administration mishandling Bengazhi. Many people have done so. Con simply can't be counted among that group because he didn't take the time to learn and/or research what happened before debating about it.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I often do not agree with Mr. President, but Con's attempts to show his policies deeply hurt America were deeply flawed. Mostly, the problems he presented had little to no substantiation and/or were not directly linked to Obama's policies. He would have done better to present a few well-researched sound ideas.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
breguera77imabenchTied
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 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: Con was absolutely demolished by Pro, as of late more and more Fox News Republicans seem to venture into DDO. Armed with Hannity and Limbaugh rhetoric they attempt to affirm their beliefs of government conspiracies involving a certain Kenyan, Muslim, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, possibly Canadian (at this point) U.S. President. Embarrassing performance by Con.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
breguera77imabenchTied
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: Pro was able to refute each and every argument Con made. That alone is enough to give Pro the win.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
breguera77imabenchTied
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: I awarded sourcing and arguments to Pro. Arguments because Con only recited the oft-repeated insults and baseless accusations fielded by right-wing media. Sources challenges presumed the premise: "Politifact is biased," rather than explanations of bias. Shooting the messenger is common on the right. Gone unnoted by Pro was Cons R1 concession: "Despite what everyone is saying" the US is entering a new recession. This statement rules out any authoritative source that might defend Cons argument (all sources deny that Con is correct.) Is it possible that an extreme minority agrees, and is correct? Of course. Con never demonstrated this, which triggered my sourcing score despite the forgiving rhetoric of Pro.
Vote Placed by superkamal26 4 years ago
superkamal26
breguera77imabenchTied
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: Pro won this debate. Pro's performance was outstanding. Con's performance was pretty good but his arguments got rebutted by pro.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
breguera77imabenchTied
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: I often do not agree with Mr. President, but Con's attempts to show his policies deeply hurt America were deeply flawed. Mostly, the problems he presented had little to no substantiation and/or were not directly linked to Obama's policies. He would have done better to present a few well-researched sound ideas.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
breguera77imabenchTied
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: Republicans control 98% of the media, including fox news, of course they will manipulate the system to blaming obama, plus con only assume things. Obama have more better things to do, then worry about video games. Look at the other presidents, all the debt was before obama and killings were before obama.