The Instigator
Julian.reynoso1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hcps-jainap
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Obama has been the worst president in the last 100 years

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,259 times Debate No: 30882
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Julian.reynoso1

Con

It"s impossible to fully evaluate Barack Obama"s presidency because it"s not over, but he has already done a devastating amount of damage in a freakishly short period of time. Happily, there"s still some hope that the utter destruction of the American health care system that he"s trying to implement can be reversed. The socialistic takeovers of whole segments of American industries that began in the final days of the Bush Administration and expanded under Obama can also still hopefully be reversed in the coming years. Additionally, we can still hope against hope that Iran will be stopped from getting nukes, that Obama won"t lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that none of his other disastrous policies like Cap and Trade will be passed. (The word "hope" comes up with Obama as often today as it did during his campaign, just in a different context)
hcps-jainap

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for opening up this topic! Although Obama certainly isn't perfect, he is not, as my opponent claims, the worst president in the last 100 years. In order to prove my point, I will give examples of worse presidents in the last 100 years and will attempt to refute my opponent's arguments.

My opponent claims that Obama is destroying America's healthcare system. I believe that he is attempting to fix the flaws of America's healthcare system. Currently, American Healthcare expenditure $8,233 per person per year [1]. This is 2.5 times the OECD average [1]. Healthcare also takes up 17.6% of our GDP, which is a proportion higher than virtually any developed country [1]. You might claim that this expenditure is worth it, and that America's healthcare system is the best in the world. This is incorect for a number of reasons:

  • There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people -- well below below the OECD average of 3.1 [1].
  • The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds [1].
  • Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that's less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years [1].

The Affordable Care Act attempts to address these issues. In essence, it attempts to provide health-care to the majority of Americans and reforms current practices in the private insurance business. Here are the pros of the system:

  • 32 million Americans are currently without health insurance. Thanks to this Act, a larger portion of the general population will now have access to the coverage they need.
  • Patients with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage by insurance companies, and companies can no longer drop someone once they get sick.
  • College students can stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26.
  • Each year, $125 million will go towards funding school-based health centers and programs to reduce teen pregnancy.
  • States are required to set up insurance exchanges to make it easier to find the best deals on private health insurance.
  • If an insurance company denies someone coverage, that person can go to an external appeals process.
  • The number of bankruptcies caused by health-related issues will be severely reduced.
  • Inefficient Medicare Programs will be cut by $500 million. [2]
  • The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision aims to increase accountability and regulation of insurance companies by introducing federal mandates with room for stricter state-wide regulations. The MLR provision limits the percentage of premium revenues that insurance companies can spend on overhead, advertising, and other non-claims-based expenses. As such, it requires all insurance companies spend 80% of premium revenues on health care claims and quality improvement, thereby limiting administrative, overhead, and advertising expenses to 20% of premium revenue. [7]

From this, we can see that the ACA will not ruin healthcare. Although I don’t completely agree with it, I think it’s a step in the right direction. It will increase access to healthcare for all people and will also reduce costs of healthcare by making private insurance pay more attention to internal improvements rather than external advertising. Also notice that it is not Socialized Healthcare as some Conservatives claim and should not be revoked.

Now let's look at my opponents second contention: that there has been a socialized takeover of American industry. This has no proof. The definition of Socialism is "to place government ownership. I believe my opponent is referring to the bailout of American Auto and Financial Industries. This is hardly Socialized Industry. The government invested $80 billion into GM and Chrysler after they filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy [3]. They didn't take ownership of the industry, and actually saved Michigan from the total destruction of its economy. Both companies are still privately owned. Thus, Obama did not socialize these industry and actually did a whole lot of good. Similarly, under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the government used $700 billion to buy bad mortgage backed securities and other bad assets. The companies remained private and were thus not socialized [4]. The only significant instance of true socialization was the buyout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was done under the Bush Administration, not the Obama administration.

We’ve already won the War in Iraq, which ended in 2011. Our goal was to make sure that there were no weapons of mass destruction, to take Saddam Hussein out, to improve Iraq’s economic situation, and to install a democratic regime. We’ve done all of these things. There are no weapons of mass destruction there, Saddam Hussein is dead, the economy is growing at 10% a year, and Jalal Talambani has been elected as president [5]. Similarly we’re on the way to winning the War in Afghanistan. Our goal in Afghanistan was to reduce the strength of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and perhaps bring in a democratic regime that would bring economic and social stability to the region. We’re well on the way to accomplishing our goals. The Taliban has been driven out of power in Afghanistan, Osama Bin-Laden has been killed, Al-Qaeda has been weakened, and Karzai has been elected as president [6]. In addition, the U.S. is investing $50 billion to improve Afghan military forces so they can defend themselves in the future [6].

Regarding Iran, the country doesn’t have the capacity to create ICBMs nor does it have a sophisticated air force. Thus, their nukes aren't a threat. Even though Obama is afraid of Iran, and is initiating tougher sanctions on Iran, I’m not afraid of them. Even if they did launch one at Israel, they'd have 200 from the USA heading towards his direction, so they wouldn't do it. Regarding Cap-and-Trade, preventing harmful greenhouse gas emissions will help to prevent global climate change. This can help to reduce the massive number of droughts we’re seeing here in the USA and will thus help to prevent declines in industries such as agriculture, logging, and other renewable resource industries. Thus, cap-and-trade isn't harmful.

Now for one president from the last century that is worse than Obama: Herbert Hoover.

Herbert Hoover grossly mismanaged the government under his term. He did not put limits on brokerage firms, who on average lend $9 for even $1invested into them. He failed to stop banking runs following the Great Depression, causing the collapse in America’s banking system. He then passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts in 1930. This put tariffs on 20,000 imported goods. Foreign governments responded to these tariffs with their own tariffs, which reduced the amount goods imported by other countries from America. This further cemented the depression. Thus, we can see that Herbert Hoover, unlike Obama, both caused and intensified the Great Depression.

By showing a president from the last 100 years that was worse than Obama, I have already disproven my opponent’s assertion that Obama is the worst president in the last 100 years. VOTE PRO-OBAMA!

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://blog.debate.org...
[3] http://www.forbes.com...

[4] http://articles.washingtonpost.com...

[5] https://www.cia.gov...

[6] http://www.fas.org...

[7] http://www.policymic.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Julian.reynoso1

Con

Julian.reynoso1 forfeited this round.
hcps-jainap

Pro

hcps-jainap forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Julian.reynoso1

Con

Julian.reynoso1 forfeited this round.
hcps-jainap

Pro

hcps-jainap forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Julian.reynoso1

Con

Julian.reynoso1 forfeited this round.
hcps-jainap

Pro

hcps-jainap forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Julian.reynoso1

Con

Julian.reynoso1 forfeited this round.
hcps-jainap

Pro

hcps-jainap forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by hcps-jainap 4 years ago
hcps-jainap
Anwar al-Aulaqi was a terrorist associated with al-Qaeda. He was planning treasonous activities. It was not feasible to capture him. I admit that I don't like his decision to avoid due process and that he was incorrect to do what he did, but his decision is nowhere near as bad as, say, the Iran-Contra affair. His one-month presidency over the UN Security Council was indeed a violation of the Constitution, but seeing as it was mainly ceremonial (each month, a new country gets a leader to head it), I don't see it as that big of a deal, especially considering all the presidents that have already broken the constitution. Abraham Lincoln broke the constitution when he said that states were no longer free to leave the Union. Roosevelt defied the Constitution during the New Deal. Truman seized the nation's steel mills in 1952. Nixon defied US Law by lying about US involvement in Cambodia, government kickbacks on his properties in San Clemente and Key Biscayne, and his involvement in the Watergate Scandal. More recently, Bush's Patriot Act also broke the Constitution. From this, we can see that Obama's actions in office do not qualify him as the worst president in history.
Posted by DrHaz3 4 years ago
DrHaz3
Iono, assassination of american citizens and the evasion of due process and failure upholding his oath to office and holding a titled head postion with the UN security council clearly in violation of the constitution could have SOMETHING to do with him being the worst...
Posted by hcps-jainap 4 years ago
hcps-jainap
To Wolfman4711: I do realize that I am arguing for Obama! Although he isn't a great president, he certainly isn't the worst president in the last 100 years. I will prove this through my arguments.
Posted by hcps-jainap 4 years ago
hcps-jainap
Actually, I'll begin the argument! This argument is very interesting and I wouldn't want to miss it!
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
You realize you arguing for Obama right?
Posted by hcps-jainap 4 years ago
hcps-jainap
I'll accept if you reduce the number of rounds to 4, not 5.
No votes have been placed for this debate.