The Instigator
000ike
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
randolph7
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Obama deserved the Nobel Prize

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 6 votes the winner is...
randolph7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,686 times Debate No: 18144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

000ike

Pro

Full Resolution: Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009.


Round 1: Acceptance

Round 4: Rebuttals only

Standard debate rules apply.
randolph7

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
000ike

Pro

I thank randolph7 for accepting this debate.

Deserved: "to have earned or be worthy of something" (1)



The Targets of the Nobel Peace Prize

As the Nobel Prize was created by Alfred Nobel in 1901, this is his explanation for who and under what situation the Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) in particular is deserved. He says:

"The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." (2)

Therefore, it is not a part of the criteria that the work be done through the course of a lifetime. It is rather the criteria that the person awarded have done "the most or the best work" for friendly and peaceful relations among nations, or the reduction of armies and promotion of institutions of peace.

The debate henceforth would need to adhere to the authority of Nobel's criteria as the basis of justification or invalidity. Did Obama do the most or the best work for friendly international relations, or for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the promotion of institutions of peace?



What did Obama accomplish prior to earning the award

The following is a derived list of Obama's activities:
  • January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
  • January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
  • January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use oftorture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
  • January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
  • January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position ofspecial envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern(3)
  • Obama's speech in Prague to the denouncement of Nuclear weapons and the reduction and abolition thereof. (4)

“I think it’s extremely well deserved. … I think it will take some time before people put together all the different moves that linked his speech at the U.N. on the abolishing of nuclear weapons, his shift on the missile defense program in Eastern Europe and the movement of Russia to joining the international consensus that confronted Iran to abide by the nonproliferation treaty.” — Former Vice President Al Gore." (5)

Referring back to the criteria of the award, we see that in Obama's image and campaign for a world without nuclear weapons, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and the explicit prohibition of torture, which had been compromised in the Bush regime, he is qualified under the "promotion of peace congresses." We also see that in Obama's diplomatic confrontation of foreign and previously shunned regimes, he is qualified under "fraternity between nations."

"A central element of Barack Obama's plan to change American foreign policy is his intention, upon becoming president, to meet with foreign leaders of extremist regimes -- the type of rogue-state dictators that George W. Bush has generally shunned during his time as president." (6)


What other presidents have won the Award and Why?

In order to better understand how Obama fits in to deserve the award, we must look at what other presidents have done to deserve the award, and compare and contrast.

The following is a list of previous presidents who have receievd the Peace Prize award, and why:

  • Teddy Roosevelt won it in 1905 for helping to end the Russo-Japanese War.
  • Woodrow Wilson won it in 1919 after pushing to join the League of Nations.
  • Jimmy Carter won it in 2002 (not while he was elected in office) for humanitarian efforts. (7)
Take Woodrow Wilson's reason for winning, he simply pushed to join the League of Nations. This was a tremendous step under the criteria of "fraternity between nations." Now take Obama's new approach to foreign governments, combine that with his strong presidential advocation of nuclear weapon abolition. They both exist on the basis of mere "promotion" hopefully translating into action. It is often the misconception when visualizing the Nobel Peace Prize that the winners do something spontaneously heroic or lifelong and valiant. While that is the case for some, it is not the case for all.

Someone in as pressured, influential and powerful a position as the president of the U.S actively and fervently campaigning for an idealistic goal in and of itself is a significant step in more peaceful times. This is not to be distorted that all that is required to win is simply to have power, and say something about world peace, no, rather it is to have power and do something, whether it is physical action or simply relentless campaign and effort for greater strides in a more peaceful world and more peaceful relations among nations like in Roosevelt's case. Obama has proved to fall under this requirement, and has proved to deserve the Nobel peace Prize, whether or not even he himself thinks so.


I'll rest my argument momentarily on that point. I eagerly await my opponent's response.


Sources

1. http://www.bing.com...
2. http://www.nobelprize.org...
3. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com...
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
5. http://bumpshack.com...
6. http://online.wsj.com...
7. http://wiki.answers.com...








randolph7

Con

I'm sorry I'm not going to post this round. With my moms wedding and all I've just been really busy.
Debate Round No. 2
000ike

Pro

Very well then, I extend my arguments, and further await con's reply.
randolph7

Con

Obama didn’t do the most or best work for the fraternity between nations, amongst nominees. Take a look at who else was nominated that year: Denis Mukwege, Sima Samar, Ghazi bin Muhammad, Greg Mortenson, Piedad Córdoba, and Wei Jingsheng.[7] In that list we have the father of Chinese democracy, the doctor who’s devoted his life to ameliorate the suffering of women brutalized in Africa and a woman who’s dedicated her life to end the Colombian civil war. Clearly, Obama with his one month in office is out of his league here.

Mr. Nobel’s will said, "The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

So, while perhaps in the future he “may” do some good work towards peace but at the point he was nominated he clearly hasn’t. He hadn’t done the most or best work, he hadn’t abolished or reduced armies and certainly didn’t hold a peace congress.

Promotion is thrown around a bit by my opponent so let’s get a firm definition. Promotion as used in Mr. Nobel’s will means, “furtherance or encouragement” [8]. But even if Obama promoted peace conferences he didn’t hold them; the requirements say “holding AND promotion”.

All of these “accomplishments” are for one month since the nomination submission was due February 1st. However, most are unremarkable. Obama met with the ambassador and commander in Iraq – that’s an accomplishment? Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy – So what, every Democrat rescinds it and every Republican reinstates it (hardly groundbreaking). And what does appointing a special envoy for the environment have to do with promoting fraternity between nations or peace congresses? The only two left is the ordered closure of Gitmo (still hasn’t happened) and the clarification of interrogation procedures. Those are pretty weak accomplishments when compared to the other nominees.

Obama’s speech in Prague was April 5, 2009 - well past the time nominations were submitted [1]. Pro should check his dates better. There’s no way this was considered during the nomination.

Some glaring problems with Mr. Gore’s analysis:
1. The President’s first speech to the UN was September 23, 2009 [2].
2. His abandonment of the missile defense program in Europe was declared September 17, 2009 [3].
3. Russia has much closer ties to Iran than the US and if it really wanted to throw its weight behind forcing Iranian compliance it would have by now.


My opponent is wrong about Obama qualifying for peace congresses. The only definition I found was from Wikipedia so I’ll quote that, “A peace congress, in international relations, has at times been defined in a way that would distinguish it from a peace conference (usually defined as a diplomatic meeting to decide on a peace treaty), as an ambitious forum to carry out dispute resolution in international affairs, and prevent wars. This idea was widely promoted during the nineteenth century, anticipating the international bodies that would be set up in the twentieth century with comparable aims.”[4] With that definition, his accomplishments don’t promote peace congresses and he hasn’t held any. [5]


Next, my opponent goes on to talk about who Obama wanted to meet. It’s irrelevant especially with hindsight being 20/20 – Iran hasn’t budged a bit.

So let’s compare and contrast Presidents then, President Wilson pushed for a League of Nations but was unable to get Congress to go along as the party in power had switched during his term. [6] But to say he merely spoke about it as an abstract concept as Obama had done prior to him winning the same award is ludicrous.


Conclusion:

What my opponent fails to mention is that the real reason Obama received the award was for being not Bush. But even that hasn’t panned out. Gitmo’s still open, the start of a war against Libya which still has a lot of pundits scratching their heads. You can’t be serious? He’s failed to live up to the overhyped expectations as any pragmatist would have guessed (real life isn’t like ideologue’s utopias). Obama may be an excellent President and may accomplish much more but at the point in time the award was given hadn’t done enough to earn it especially when compared to other nominees and recipients.


Sources:

1. http://www.nobelprize.org...
2. http://articles.cnn.com...
3. http://articles.cnn.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.indiana.edu...
6. http://www.nobelprize.org...
7. http://www.independent.co.uk...
8. www.dictionary.com
Debate Round No. 3
000ike

Pro

I'm convinced, so I feel like I have to forfeit this. Sorry for wasting the debate.
randolph7

Con

I'm a little shocked by the concession but it is what it is. My opponent has been most gracious with me and deserves the conduct point. However, as admitted Obama may be great but did not deserve the Nobel Prize. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HuskyFastpitch1998 4 years ago
HuskyFastpitch1998
He also caused a 17 trillion dollar debt... Does he deserve it now? NO
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
no idea, I'm just following the trend.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Why is everybody voting with "F" as their RFD?
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
There is more than 1 similarity still. For example Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to ride in an airplane he and supported airplanes. Republicans today think airplanes are needed for transporation.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
I meant to say it's a little more nuanced than that.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Ok stop bickering. I can't say it was a 180 degree swap but Both the Democratic Republicans (who became the Democratic Party) and the new Republican party (1860ish) have completely different platforms, it's a little bit too nuanced to say they completely swapped sides but they are definately not the same as those original parties before the Civil Rights era.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
lol you somehow believe that 1 similarity that is actually rather common among both parties renders him a republican with modern republican ideals? Thats comical.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Roosevelt was a Republican president, but ran for the progressive after Taft's term. He believed in the United States as a strong military power that can dominate the hemisphere. So in short term he support the military like modern Republicans.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Roosevelt was a member of the Progressive party, not a republican. lol. Furthermore, the republican - democrat ideologies did a 180 across the 20th century, whereas republicans of the past are now current democrats and vice versa.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Roosevelt was a member of the Progressive party, not a republican. lol. Furthermore, the republican - democrat ideologies did a 180 across the 20th century, whereas republicans of the past are now current democrats and vice versa.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
000ikerandolph7Tied
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: Counter Massdebator255's vote bomb. F
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
MassDebator255
000ikerandolph7Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: obama mamma fo famma me my mo mommma, obama....YAHTZEE!!!
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
000ikerandolph7Tied
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: f
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
000ikerandolph7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: F
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
000ikerandolph7Tied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not post in a round (granting a point of conduct to Pro) and also Pro conceded the debate honorably...However, Con pointed out the errors in Pro's arguments, the factual errors, and the fact that Obama's accomplishment were NOT on par with that of previous presidents who won the prize...Con's sources rescinds Pro's, since Con's sources directly negated and proved Pro's sources to be wrong, and also came from more valid sites...
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
000ikerandolph7Tied
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: F