Obama deserved the Nobel Prize
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
randolph7
| Started: | 9/1/2011 | Category: | News |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,356 times | Debate No: | 18144 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)
 Pro Full Resolution: Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009. Round 1: Acceptance Round 4: Rebuttals only Standard debate rules apply.  Con |
 |
|
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:
“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)
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.
Con |
 |
|
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 |
 |
|
Pro I'm convinced, so I feel like I have to forfeit this. Sorry for wasting the debate. 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. |
 |
Post a Comment
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HuskyFastpitch1998 1 week ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Double_R 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by randolph7 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by randolph7 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by 000ike 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by 000ike 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by 000ike 1 year ago
Report this Comment
12Next »
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
| 000ike | randolph7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Massdebator255's vote bomb.
F
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 1 year ago
| 000ike | randolph7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: obama mamma fo famma me my mo mommma, obama....YAHTZEE!!!
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 1 year ago
| 000ike | randolph7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: f
Vote Placed by wierdman 1 year ago
| 000ike | randolph7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: F
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 1 year ago
| 000ike | randolph7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 5 |
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 1 year ago
| 000ike | randolph7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: F