Obama has harmed the US greatly
1st round acceptance.
I accept! Reminder: Pro will have the BoP!
Let's keep this civil but impassioned!
Obama isn't called the food stamp president for nothing. There are now 65% more people receiving food stamps than when he took office.  Having so many people getting food stamps hurts the economy. One way being that it's a large expense on the taxpayers.
Obama has also reduced incentives for economic growth in a few areas. First of all he took away important welfare requirements signed into law by Bill Clinton. Second, he made the absolutely partisan move of forcing the ACA on the American people. The bill discourages businesses from expanding and even causes many to downsize or cut their employees hours. He has also added 106 new business regulations, at a cost to Americans of $46 billion annually. 
The ACA raises premiums significantly and forces people to buy insurance or face fines, this includes a lot of young people who probably did not want to buy insurance.
Obama has hurt us on national security. First of all, he made a horrid deal with Russia that hugely reduced our nuclear stockpile. (START) The deal benefited Russia far more than it benefited us, if it benefited us at all. Now more recently, he has signed a deal with Iran essentially trusting them not to run a covert nuclear weapons program. Would anyone argue that allowing a sponsor of terrorism, in a region were Islam is rampant, to be close to having nuclear weapons, is in the best interests of the United States?
He has increased our national debt by $8 trillion , causing the first-ever downgrade in the U.S. credit rating.
I have more but I'll save it for later rounds due to time constraints.
To properly debate this subject, I first must provide a few definitions. (Note: Both are from The Merriam-Webster dictionary.)
1. Harm: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.
2. Greatly: to a great extent or degree : very much
This definitions are important for I shall be arguing that Obama has not harmed to US greatly. To put it more simply:
Every US President has, in some fashion, harmed their country. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise. Therefore, there may be some validity in my opponent’s arguments. HOWEVER, in order to prove his assertion, he must prove how Obama has GREATLY harmed the US. This will be far more difficult.
So, with that in mind, in the next few rounds I’ll provide rebuttals looking for two things: 1.) Actual harm to our country. 2.) GREAT harm to our country.
If neither are supported in my opponents assertions, I shall point them out. I have not done so already because I needed the round to clarify definitions and the debate structure. I’ll post full rebuttals in the following two rounds!
I look forward to a fun and engaging debate.
Teaparty1 forfeited this round.
Since my opponent was unable to post arguments in time, I’ll waive this round of arguments for him to catch up. I’m sure he’s just busy.
I agree with the definitions you provided. I would like to point out that if Obama has harmed the US slightly, but in many areas, that amounts to great harm. If you pull out a few bricks from a house, but you do so in all the corners, a few times on the sides, some near the roof, eventually you've greatly weakened the house.
Because you will only have one round for rebuttals, I'll limit this round to just three brief arguments.
Obama has caused so many people to lose jobs, we now have the lowest labor participation rate we've had since 1978.
Obama supported a $700 billion corporate welfare bail-out for banks, putting more burden on low and middle class Americans.
Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act, intruding on millions of Americans' freedom and privacy.
My opponent has failed at proving Obama has hurt the US greatly. Firstly, he has only provided a few key arguments that only suggest minimal harm to our country. Secondly, he has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. Since he has the full burden of proof in this argument, he must have proven that Obama has harmed the US. He has failed at doing so, and should therefore lose the debate.
I understand that time and availability can be cruel when debating, so, if he’d like to debate this with me again, I’d happily do so. However, for this debate, I must urge you to vote Con!