The Instigator
espnfan54
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

Obama deserves re-election

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 15 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,638 times Debate No: 21231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (15)

 

espnfan54

Pro

I think Obama deserves re-election and challenge anyone who thinks a republican should get into office.
Zaradi

Con

Sounds fun.

I'll take the stand that regardless of whoever gets elected, it shouldn't be Obama.
Debate Round No. 1
espnfan54

Pro

I say Obama deserves re-election. Obama inherited a debt that was over 7 trillion dollars, 2 wars and the country needed serious change. Obama saved the auto industry, saved the USA from a 2nd depression, created 3.6 million new jobs in 11 months of solid job creation during a recession, he ended the Iraq war and made sure all troops were home, he is ending the Afghanistan war by making sure troops finish combat operations and make a safe transition, Obama has taken out more top terrorist leaders than Bush did in 8 years, Obama killed Bin Laden in his 3rd year in office while Bush tried hard for 8 years, Obama also has improved relations with other countries by using a less aggressive strategy. Obama created 3.7 million jobs in 2010 with his stimulus plan and foreclosure's dropped by 2%.
Zaradi

Con

My case stands on the belief that because Obama has screwed up so many things, anyone ought to be elected over him. My stance will be based off of two contentions. First, showing Obama's actual track record of achievements as compared to how things were before he was inaugerated. Second, showing on the ideals of democracy, where the people have a choice in who to elect, that Obama shouldn't be elected.

My first contention is that Obama's record in achievements sucks so badly that he's done far more harm than good. Why is this good? The picture below will summarize my entire argument for this contention.

Need I say more? Under Obama's reign of horror, the only things that have dropped were home values and our global competitiveness. Everything else, like Americans in poverty, our national debt, gas prices, unemployment rate, etc. have all gone up. Is that someone we want to be running our country for another four years.

My second contention: America generally disproves of Obama.

In the ideal democracy, the people would elect who they want to govern them. So, in theory, whoever the American public didn't want to elect shouldn't be elected. So with this in mind, I'd like you to look at the current report for February 18th, which shows the Presidential Approval Index for President Obama is currently at -12.[1] Yesterday, February 17th, it was -14. The day before was -12. The last time the President had an approval rating that was a positive number? June 29th, 2009. Almost four years ago. So the only time we approved of Obama was at the very beginning of his presidency. Ever since, he only screwed things up.

For these reasons, I urge a con vote.

Resources:
[1] http://www.rasmussenreports.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
espnfan54

Pro

http://www.barackobama.com...
This is an example of the many jobs Obama has created in the auto industry. Just looking at the stats Obama has decreased the republican job killing policies and has put the auto industry back to job creation.
I also would like to point out the consecutive amount of jobs over the last 21 months of solid job creation.
http://www.barackobama.com...
Sources: Bureau of Labor stats
Barackobama.com
My opponent claims that Obama has been in all negatives for an approval rating since 2009 which is simply not true. My opponent has used a made up stat. I suggest people look at what the true stats are. 49% of Americans as of today approve of Obama. Other reports say over 50% approve of Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
http://www.wmur.com...
The experts are saying Obama will win re-election.

http://news.yahoo.com...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
The latest data also shows the economy is improving. My opponent's "accurate data" shows the unemployment rate to be at 8.5% which isn't true.
The current rates 8.3%
http://www.google.com...
My opponent clearly is using false data; he has no sources while I have clearly argued using the latest statistics and I put in six links and government data to show what the latest data and polls are REALLY saying. I am clearly just destroyed his "data". My question to my opponent is who would do such a better job than Obama? Ron Paul, Romney?
Zaradi

Con

Where to begin, where to begin.

First, I would like to point out that BarackObama.com is probably not a legitimate source. While it may contain statistics of things he may or may not have done, it will most likely all be biased toward giving Obama a positive lighting. I could go onto any Republican's page and pull up how they view Obama's achievements, but that would be biased as well.

My opponent has used a made up stat.

...I don't even know what to say to this. I did post my link to the site where I got the numbers from, right? It clearly wasn't made up.

The experts are saying Obama will win re-election

Absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. It doesn't matter wheth er or not he is going to win. We are debating whether or not he SHOULD win. Those two topics are two entirely seperate topics.

The current rates 8.3%

Oh my bad. Off by .2 percent...
Regardless, that's still an increase in the unemployment rate. To this, you pretty much concede. Bummer.

My opponent clearly is using false data

'Course I am. (sarcasm)

he has no sources

I did post my link, right? So I do have sources.

I am clearly just destroyed his "data".

1. Nice grammar kid.
2. No, you didn't. You adressed, barely, only two things. I brought up. You still didn't mention the Unemployed Americans statistic, which is up 1.1 million since Obama's inauguration, the increase in gas prices, up 83%, the federal debt, up 43%, the debt per person, up nearly 14,000$, the misery index, up 53%, the price of college tuition, up 23%, the cost of worker's health insurance, up 23%, the number of food stamp recipients, up 45%, the number of Americans in poverty, up 6.4 million, the value of homes, down 13%, and the US Global competitiveness, down 4 places. I say my data still stands over yours.

who would do such a better job

Not topical. The debate is should Obama be re-elected, not who would do a better job than Obama.

So this debate breaks down in a few ways:

1: The only statistics my opponent is pulling up to defend his position is either a) non-topical (such as people saying he will be elected) or b) biased and un-trustworthy (such as barackobama.com). I've supplied independent statistics that are relevant to the debate that clearly point out exactly why Obama should not be elected.

2. I've refuted all of my opponents claims, whereas my opponent has failed to refute the vast majority of my claims. Unemployed Americans, gas prices, federal debt, debt per person, misery index, price of college tuition, cost of health insurance, food stamp recipients, Americans in Poverty, value of homes, global competiveness, all of these things went unrefuted.

The only two things he DID try to refute, the unemployment rate and the approval rate of Obama, were both done so insufficiently. All my opponent did was say that I got the unemployment rate wrong by .2 percent, which doesn't change my impact in the slightest, and that I made up the approval rate stat, which I didn't. Everything else was irrelevant and non-topical.

So at this point, there really isn't any reason not to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Exactly.
Actually, if Rick Perry were to go up against Obama, I may have to go against my grain and vote for Obama. Thank god Perry dropped out.
Posted by hunnydew 4 years ago
hunnydew
I'm not saying this as in I don't agree Zaradi, but he is what you would call a A.B.O.
A- anybody
B- but
O- obama
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
1. Never said it wasn't. That's actually one of the things I listed as a sign that the plan was working.
2. You literally just conceded it. "I stated that things were getting worse when Obama took office."
Yeah. Awkward.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
1. Slowing the rate of decline is also a beneficial effect.
2. I don't concede that things are getting worse. I stated that things were getting worse when Obama took office. The decline for the year after that was independent of his taking office.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
people votebombed the sh*t out of this debate, it was really a lot closer than what the final score suggests but get rid of all the votebombing and zaradi still would have won anyways
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Okay, I guess you refuse to see logic. Fair enough. Guess I'll just have to give you baby steps.

We can assume that since Obama is in office that he wants to improve things in America (although even I'm not so sure of it with some of his ideas -shudder-). So thusly, we can from that assume that when he designs a plan or bill, that he intends for that bill to do good and aleviate problems instead of a) doing nothing or b) making things worse. Thusly, we can deduce that if his plan is good, that things would either a) stop getting worse or b) improve.

Now, we can both agree, since I think so and you already conceded so, that things are going downhill. As we have already logically deduced, if Obama's plans were good, then things would get better or, at least, stop getting worse. So this allows us to do two things. 1) Take the rate of decline before a plan of Obama's is implimented and 2) compare that rate of decline to the rate of decline after Obama's plan is implimented. If the rate of decline doesn't slow down, stop, or reverse, we can assume that the plan didn't work. If the rate of decline DOES slow down, stop, or reverses, then we can assume that the plan worked or is working. This doesn't assume that all the economic policy of previous presidencies went away. It just takes statistics and compares then with other statistics.

Your ignorance is getting old.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
Yes, because the effects of two centuries of economic policy magically disappeared when Obama took office. All the decline was his fault. It's not like we were declining rapidly before he became president.

These arguments are getting old.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
There is, actually, a way to prove it. Check unemployment rates before certain economic plans of Obama's are implemented. Check after they are implemented. Compare results. Boom, roasted. Perfectly valid reason to blame Obama.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
Unemployment and poverty go up during economic crises. Unbelievable. Let's blame Obama.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
That can't be proven.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ShrawderA 5 years ago
ShrawderA
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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: I have the same table, and although it is almost two years old, the stats have just gotten worse since then.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I agree with Con, Pro had better examples to back his arguments. But Con had better sources and grammar.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con commits a correlation causation fallacy--he basically just says that everything bad in the economy is because of Obama, which obviously isn't warranted. Pro said that Obama inherited a bad economy, and Con dropped that so I have to conclude the economy isn't Obamas fault. Con drops the specific stats (auto industry) by calling the source biased, but makes no other attack. That's enough to vote Pro. Conduct for "nice grammar kid"
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more sources, and as well all of them where reliable. Con only had 1 source, although reliable, pro had 3 times the amount of reliable ones in this sense. Args ties. S/G as con had better S/G. Conduct as con was rude in many of his rebuttals.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 5 years ago
Mimshot
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll admit, I was pretty disappointed in both sides. Con never provided sources for his economic numbers though, and "'My opponent clearly is using false data' 'Course I am. (sarcasm)" isn't really a professional way to refute that challenge. That said, Pro never really made a good argument that Obama should be reelected either.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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: Hmmmm..."where to begin, where to begin". Con contended strongly that Obama had caused massive damage in areas of the economy--gas prices, unemployment, federal debt, and so forth, little of which Pro even rebutted. Pro loses conduct for falsely stating that Con "made-up" data and did not provide sources (?) and then provided a potentially biased source of his own (barackobama.com?) as well as going off onto non-seqiturs...such as appealing to authority (the "experts) or who would do a better...
Vote Placed by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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 refuted all of espnfan's claims. Espnfan used an illegitimate source for most of his information, and tried to refute espnfan on contentions that zaradi clearly had offered ample evidence of. Espnfan also made claims that could not be backed up by legitimate sources, such as Obama creating catching Osama bin Laden, which is factually unfair to say because he was against going after him in the first place.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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: Countering Maricio's votebomb.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's conduct through the final rebuttals of the debate were clearly rude, using sarcasm and jabbing at his opponent for his grammar (when he makes grammar mistakes of his own). CON makes the argument about PRO's sources, even though PRO provides a stat that comes from the US Department of Labor and doesn't explain why a biased source would mean it is inherently unreliable. He doesn't dispute the actual data, which came from the DoL anyways. His own sources were a broken link too.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
espnfan54ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: In Round 2, Pro listed a compelling series of reasons to vote for Obama, however, Con ignored them and listed his own admittedly compelling reasons for the opposite. In round 3 Con mentions how many points Pro did not refute, ..but meanwhile has just as many unaddressed from round 2. In this respect, neither debater deserves convincing argument points. However, I give sources to Con, because BarackObama.com was not his ONLY source. Con is out of date with current polling data.