The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Obama is a war criminal and murderer

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 48844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




It is my contention that Obama has committed crimes while in office that are as bad as the crimes that have led to others, such as Saddam and Gaddafi in recent times, to be treated as criminals and murderers.

Far from bringing change the man has continued the exact same foreign policies as his predecessor and shown himself to be a spineless tool of the military-industrial complex - committing crimes against humanity in doing so.


The burden of proof is yours.

You must show that

1) Obama has committed murder


2) Obama is a war criminal

You must present evidence without reasonable doubt for me to concede this debate. If you don't prove these conditions by default the debate goes to me. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Under the Geneva convention "collective punishment" is considered a war crime - drone strikes against pakistan villages amount to collective punishment, this is beyond reasonable doubt.

Collective Punishment is where a whole group of people (eg the village) suffer through murder or just intimidation etc for the crimes or alleged crimes of a minority - the suspected terrorist.

Civilian death estimates vary from hundreds to thousands depending on the source:
- apart from the CIA which stands alone (and unquestioned by US media) with claims that there were "no civilian deaths", such an amazing and inaccurate claim looks clearly like someone trying to cover their own asses. We can conclude from these sources civilian deaths are significant, collective punishment is significant - beyond reasonable doubt.

According to Huffington Post, Obama is aware of mistakes that were made in killing innocent civilians (in contradiction to CIA reports) and was reportedly "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation" over the killing of an innocent boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki the son of a suspected friend of some suspected terrorists

Obama himself authorises these strikes and the targets used, he is as guilty as Hitler was for murdering the jews. Obama's active role is not denied by the White House, in fact it is promoted as a sign of him being 'tough on terrorism' or 'keeping America safe'.

"Extrajudicial killings" as they are known means deciding someone is guilty and murdering without trial which goes against the principles of the American or international justice system - it is cold-blooded murder

Amnesty International no less says America (and by extension Obama) must be held to account for "unlawful killings in Pakistan through drone attacks"


You've made a weak case that Obama is responsible for war crimes but haven't offered any evidence yet to suggest that he is guilty of murder. You are arguing that Obama is both a war criminal and murderer. If you don't prove both allegations then your topic is false.

1) Presidents are never assumed to be responsible for atrocities and other acts of war that've been committed. This would apply to any president or ruler in history during a time of war.

2) Obama's intentions as president are to avoid war atrocities. No sane, rational human being wants to kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians. Obama is a sane and rational individual. Therefore it's unwarranted and an unfair comparison to accuse him of crimes likened to Saddam and Gaddafi that destroy innocent civilians for speaking out against their regime. Here you said:". . . [Obama] committed crimes while in office that are as bad as the crimes that have led to others, such as Saddam and Gaddafi."

3) Obama himself didn't commit any war crimes or murders.

Your "collective punishment" argument is bogus simply because this is an isolated incident of war and it's impossible to prove intent. The U.S. military follows very strict procedures in war to save as many civilians as they possibly can. This has been to the detriment of our military's safety while in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Debate Round No. 2


adhominem forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeits. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
I don't usually defend Obama, but drone strikes are worth it.
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
A January 2011 report by Bloomberg stated that civilian casualties in the strikes had apparently decreased. According to the report, the U.S. Government believed that 1,300 militants and only 30 civilians had been killed in drone strikes since mid-2008, with no civilians killed since August 2010.

My Conclusion: Drone Strikes are worth it whenever far more terrorists are killed than civilians. After all, on September 11, 2001 a small handful of terrorists killed 3000 people. You are potentially saving many, many lives whenever you kill a terrorist. The number of civilians killed does not usually match the number of civilians who would be killed had the terrorists been allowed to live.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited by Pro - Con wins argument and conduct.