Obama is not a good president
During the Syrian civil war Obama announced that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated, and if they were used we would act with force. Then, the Syrian government used chemical weapons, and Obama did absolutely nothing about it, and we still are currently doing nothing.
2) Even though Obama promised to crack down on wall street fraud, during his first term the amount amount of wall street fraud prosecutions were at a 20-year low.
3) Just recently and probably the most known of Obama's failures is his health care. Repeatedly he was told that the Obama Care website was not ready to reach the public. But, when the time came he did not stop Obama care from passing, and to no surprise the website did not work. Now, lets just pretend that the website did work, even before that he lied. He said that if you like your health care provider you would get to keep them, but when Obama care passed, many people lost their health care provider.
All of these have one thing in common. Obama lies to the citizens of the United States to make himself look good, and to gain the approval from the citizens, and to get everything he wants.
Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic, Pro, and thank you readers for your interest. Before we begin the debate, I’d like to make some things clear about the structure of our debate.
1) As framed, I have no burden of proof to demonstrate that Obama is a great, or even good president. While this is one possible strategy I have the option to pursue, please note that I am clearly not required to do this. As both Pro and instigator, the BoP lies with my opponent to show that Obama is not a good president. As long as I sufficiently refute the arguments offered by my opponent to support his case, that would negate the resolution, and I will have won. I only will have lost if I both fail to sufficiently undermine his arguments, and also fail to successfully build a counter-case at least as strong as my opponent’s that Obama is in fact a good or even great president.
2) When voting on this debate, your job is to determine which side argued more convincingly, and not necessarily which side you personally happen most strongly agree with. However you might feel about President Obama should be irrelevant to your decision. No vote in this debate is in fact a vote for him. You are voting either for me, or for my opponent as being the most convincing debater, and that’s it. In your own research, you may come across what you consider to be powerful reasons to believe that Obama is a bad president. However, if my opponent does not make those arguments in his case, then they are not valid for consideration in the context of your voting decision for this debate (the same obviously goes for any points supporting my case which you yourself might know about, but which I fail to make).
3) With the current news cycle being decidedly against Democrats, the Affordable Care Act and Obama specifically, I recognize that I have my work cut out for me. In fact I accepted this precisely for the expected challenge. I don’t ask for charity from the voters, but merely an open mind and an impartial review of our performance as debaters rather than your agreement with our respective positions. Thank you in advance.
4) The definition of what constitutes a “good” or “great” president deserves clarification. Carl Rove, perhaps the greatest conservative strategist of the early 21st century, provided his suggestions for what makes a great president in a speech in 2002. I thought his view was expressed masterfully, and suggest using his criteria in judging Obama’s presidency. Unless I hear otherwise from my opponent, I will assume he does not object to using the following criteria:
Pro’s Arguments Refuted
1) Geopolitics is an extremely complicated, high stakes realm. We can’t do something about one thing like Syria without impacting a thousand other things, not least of which our relationships with allies and rivals. Contrast Syria with Libya, where enemy ground forces were exposed in a long trek through the desert, allowing air support to be sufficient to topple the dictator. Our military options are much more limited where Syria is concerned, civilian casualties are expected to be far higher because of the more urbanized theater for the campaign. This means that a ground presence and large occupation force would be necessary for us to both overthrow Assad and stabilize the country to prevent further loss of life. Retaliation from Assad’s allies is expected to be far more severe than it was in the case of the more isolated Qaddafi. It is true that as the American leader, and thus the de facto leader of Western Civilization, Obama has a responsibility to try to preserve hard fought international treaties such as the chemical weapons ban. However, he has the competing responsibility to protect and promote America’s national interests. He rightly sees the avoidance of war, and even the avoidance of a rebel success as being in our national interest, since the rebels are largely comprised of jihadist anti-Americans. Russia clearly has her own self-interest at the heart of her offer, but Obama’s acceptance of a deal with Russia – even if it proves ineffective, which I expect it to – means that we avoided a worse catastrophe and saved as much face as this no-win scenario will allow for.
2) My opponent sounds as if he wants retribution for the crisis of 2007, but experience tells us that going on a banker’s witch hunt simply would not have been a productive use of time and resources, and would have led to more problems than it solved. Instead, Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and notably proposed that the Volker Rule be included, which prohibits depository banks from proprietary trading. This important legislation reduces systemic risk and addresses threats to the nation’s financial stability. 
3) ACA is off to an embarrassingly rough start, yes. The size of the project may have been overly ambitious for the timetable, but it is still far too soon to claim it as a failure, however. Social security also had plenty of critics when it was first instituted, but there are few politicians or economists who would advocate for its elimination now. Time will tell if Obamacare becomes similarly indispensable, or remains controversial. In either case, the website won’t stay down forever, even if the heroes of this tale end up being volunteer citizen programmers instead of government officials.  As for employers who have dropped their workers from plans in opposition to ACA, we have yet to see what the government response is, so again, it is too early to say that Obama has lied.
1) I would like to revisit the Obama care. Now I will admit that it is too early to officially say that is was a failure, but it is 10% sure that Obama had lied about people being able to keep their health care provider. Yet, when Obama care passed many people lost their health care providers, doctors, plans. (Link 1) Okay for this link watch with an open mind, don't think about what is said here, then come back here and read what I have posted. Obama had repeatedly lied to the American people to get his law to pass.
2) Secondly I would like to go back to the Syria civil war issue. I will admit that getting involved with anyone's war is dangerous and can have bad consequences, but that does not make it okay for Obama to lie to the American people. If he did not want to get involved then he should not have even mentioned a "red line" about chemical weapons. ( Link 2 ) <-- you can't lie about him saying he did not set this "red line". Nope instead he set this "red line" and let innocent civilians die horribly from gas and not do anything about it. WARNING CONTAINS GRAPHIC MATERIAL WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK: ( Link 3) It does not really matter who you think attacked with the gas, because of the "red line" we should have investigated to see who did it. But no Obama decided to do nothing about it and let all of those deaths go unpunished.
Obama lies to get his approval ratings to go up and get his laws passed, but when it comes to see if he will act on what he says, he fails to achieve it. I cannot think of one thing Obama has done that significantly affects America in a good way.
Sorry I am having trouble getting the links posted, I will post them in the comments. Sorry again
Thank you, Pro. Because my opponent is 1) very new to this site and 2) well under his max character limit for round 2, I invite readers to join me in considering his links which were posted in the comments section without any penalty being applied to him, even though Pro admittedly should learn how to incorporate them into the debate itself. It is generally not advisable to use space in the debate itself to respond to reader’s objections in the comments section, and I don’t really feel the need to respond to any of this first part.
Obamacare: Pro’s link is quite fascinating to me. It is a sequence of appearances from Obama in which he is claiming that “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” which has been set to ominous music, followed by a reporter who is trying in vain to trap a senior Obama spokesman at a press conference into admitting that Obama was lying. In the long explanation which followed, the spokesman essentially said that in many situations, people can keep their inferior plans if they want to by being grandfathered in. However if your policy is being phased out, the plans that will be offered in their place will adhere to a set of guidelines that makes them provide more and be standardized for the same price or less.
Let me put it this way. Obama’s statements like “if you like your plan you can keep it” or “no one is taking your plan away from you” may not be true in the strictest sense. If plans do change on you, it will generally mean that you are instead getting something both better and less expensive. Assuming things go the way they’re supposed to and as he describes, then giving consumers either the same (if “grandfatherable”), or more for less (if not) strikes me as a pretty strange thing to demonize the man for. I realize that some of my tea-drunk critics will point out that any government promise actually coming true is a very big “if”. Fair enough, but I reiterate that in the context of this debate, Obamacare is too new to consider a failure or a broken promise just yet. If we have a rematch a few years later you might be able to nail me to the wall with the facts by then, but as of this moment the President still deserves a fair chance to make this work.
Syria: In the clip Pro provided, Obama was pretty clear in defining who his message was directed to – Bashir Assad, not the American people. International diplomacy is often a game of brinksmanship, a poker match where deception is currency. As Robert Greene wrote in commentary of Sun Tzu’s famous axiom “All warfare is based on deception”:
Warfare is based on strategy. The art of war is to win with minimal bloodshed, by making your enemy completely weak even before the battle has commenced. You do not announce your strategy to the enemy. You play with layers of deception. The better you deceive, the more you keep your opponents off balance, and the easier it is to win without bloodshed. All competitive forms of human interaction, including business, are determined by strategy and therefore deception. Not understanding this is a grave mistake. 
Obama may not be the greatest of liar, but I give him credit for trying. He would have been a fool to announce to Assad “Go ahead and do whatever you like. The weakly recovering US economy combined with a war weary and politically polarized citizenry puts us in no position to confront you with any real kind of punishment regardless of what you do, especially considering that your enemies are for the most part jihadists which are also our enemies, so we actually don’t want the rebels to win this civil war. We ultimately need you to win in order to regain stability for this region, even though we despise you.” That’s probably a lot closer to the truth than the firm stance which Obama took, and Obama was right to try to hide our weakness, even though Assad ultimately saw through it. High stakes geopolitics isn’t played with all one’s cards sitting out on the table for rivals to see, it isn’t a game where the most honest player wins, and so if there is any criticism of Obama that should be leveled, it is not that he lied to our enemy, but that he needs more practice at lying more convincingly.
All things considered though, I am not displeased with the direction things are headed. In exchange for not attacking Syria, their Iranian allies are more willing to come to the negotiating table and trade a halt on their nuclear program in exchange for the elimination of sanctions. The benefits of trade rather than war with Iran should also provide the US with an (admittedly modest) increase in economic growth as we, the Great Satan, fill the Persian branch of the “Axis of Evil” with Kentucky Fried Chickens. Mwahahahaha. *ahem*
The last point of Pro that I feel the need to address for this round is his claim that he cannot think of one thing Obama has done that significantly affects America in a good way. This is argumentation from ignorance, and probably shouldn’t do a lot to impress experienced debate judges. Either way, I’ll be glad to help my opponent take a trip down memory lane.
1) Obama made the call to kill Osama bin Laden even though we would have to go into Pakistan. Risky, but necessary. Bush backed down and couldn’t bring himself to take the chance when presented with the same kind of situation. Obama passed his test of resolve.
2) Obama made the correct call in handling the 2009 Somali pirate hostage situation with snipers. Negotiate with them? Sure. *pop*, *pop*, *pop*… “Targets down, negotiations complete. Welcome aboard, Captain Phillips.”
3) Financial crises are some of the worst kind of economic downturns with some of the most long lasting negative effects. For comparison, Japan has endured over two decades of economic stagnation and debt increase from its real estate/finance bust. European austerity has plunged the continent into stagnation. Only the United States with our fast response and aggressive government intervention has any prospects of an early rebound. And indeed, because of increasing revenues from a recovering economy, Obama has overseen the fastest deficit reduction in American history.
4) Obama’s leadership on tolerance towards homosexuals fulfilled an important campaign promise he made to the LGBT community to fight for the rights of all Americans, and led to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the legalization of gay marriage, and anti-bullying campaigns to protect homosexual children from bigots.
5) Wall Street reform, which I mentioned in the last round and my opponent dropped.
6) Ended the War in Iraq
7) Began drawdown in Afganistan
8) Toppled Mommar Gaddafi and told Mubarak to go
9) Improved America’s image abroad
10) Achieved START treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals
11) Gave FDA power to regulate tobbacco
12) Invested heavily in renewable technology
Those are just a few accomplishments, a more complete list is found here 
First I would like to draw everyone's attention to Obama taking credit for killing Bin laden. This is entirely false. Ever since the Bush administration America has been searching for Bin laden. Obama got lucky to be in office when Bin laden made a mistake and allowed himself to be located. All Obama did was confirm the go orders for seal team six. I am not even giving credit to Bush. No president should get the right to say they killed Bin laden that should go to only Seal Team six and the pilots of the black hawks.
Secondly, lets take a look at the troops being drawn out of Afghanistan. Yes, Obama did start taking troops out, but what did that cost the country. Well, after the troops completely withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, it will cost America 4 billion dollars a year. Not, only will it cost us 4 billion a year to train the foreign police force, but we will stand a chance of losing Afghanistan. There is no saying that the Afghanistan will be able to handle the terrorist after we leave. This will cause us to once again lose control of a country that we spent billions of dollars and thousands of live trying to gain control of. There is also the chance of them succeeding, but is that a risk of taking. With the situations there is we are in control losing maybe a hundred lives a week, but what happens if we lose control once we withdraw. All those people who died, died in vain. That is not something I would like to have supported.
Thirdly, Obama has not helped Americas image to the World. In many places I will admit he has slightly improved Americas image, but not where it matters. Now, I am not saying that our image to Europe does not matter, because it does, but not compared to the middle east. We are allies with Europe so why does it matter if we slightly increase our popularity with them as long as we maintain the one we have. Obama has not done anything about our image to the place that matters, the middle east. The middle east is where most of the worlds problems are currently. In the majority of the middle east around 21%-16% approve of America. Is that really the image we need in the most controversial place in the world.
Fourthly, I would like to turn my attention to his voting requirements. Before the elections started in 2012, Obama decided to make it so you could vote without a any form of identification. surprisingly his votes boomed since the earlier election he won. What does this mean, he purposely made it so illegals could vote, and who would they vote for, the man that made it possible for them to vote.
Finally, I will openly admit there are a couple of things that I read that Obama has done good, such as the increased support for veterans. These few good things do not outweigh the things he has done wrong.
1) Obama's removal of Afghan troops, and the cost
2) Americas image
Thank you, Pro. My sincere apologies if something from my previous round offended you, but I did not commit logical fallacies as you claimed. Usually, only the debate itself is scored, and the comments section is ignored. I was trying to be gracious in consenting that readers should allow your sources to be considered. I did not commit an ad hominem attack, but rather explained my rationale as to why your newness might qualify you for an exemption to the norm. Additionally, it was you who added a red herring to our debate by responding to someone else about the historical use of American chemical weapons, which had nothing to do with our conversation. As I said before in the hopes of avoiding confusion for readers, I am not compelled to comment on this. Moreover, debating with other people within the context of our debate is unusual and not really appropriate. For that matter, leveling false accusations that an opponent has committed fallacies is also not appropriate. I’d like to be clear that I am not asking voters to dock you on conduct, but I would appreciate it if you avoided leveling false accusations at me in the future. And now, back to our debate.
“All Obama did was confirm the go orders for seal team six.” This is a much riskier decision than my opponent is willing to give credit for. Imagine that the attack had failed, and/or that the team had been shot down in Pakistani airspace. For the damage that this kind of incident could cause, recall the damage to Carter’s presidency from the failed Iranian hostage recovery. Pakistan is a sovereign nation, and nominally an ally. An unauthorized incursion into their territory to kill or apprehend a target that they are supposed to be helping us to hunt down is no small thing. The diplomatic fallout of doing this unilaterally has been significant, but knowing what we know about the conflicted loyalties Pakistan’s intelligence community, it seems that it was the correct decision not to alert Pakistan to our intentions and seek their aid. Obama did get lucky in the sense that if the mission was a failure, or if the intel was bad and an innocent family had their home stormed by seal team six, then imagine how much damage that would have done to Obama’s Presidency and even more broadly to America’s reputation.
By giving Obama credit for making the right decisions here, I am in no way diminishing the bravery and excellence of our SEALS or other military forces. I’m merely pointing out that Obama, as Commander in Chief, knew what the forces available to him were capable of, had faith in them, and gave those soldiers the opportunity to take their shot. That is all that can be expected of a President.
Before moving on to the next point, I’ll take this opportunity to retract my statement about Bush, and apologize for making an unfair comparison. Circumstances in Tora Bora were different.
For centuries, Afghanistan has earned the reputation of being “the graveyard of empires”  because no occupying power has ever successfully won the country. From Alexander the Great, to the British, to the Russians, all have suffered extremely high casualties in costly ventures because of the difficult terrain and complex tribal loyalties. That doesn’t mean the war was unwinnable, but ignoring history’s lessons of just how challenging this unforgiving land would be, America ventured headlong into Afghanistan - but not with our full might. Instead, the Republican leadership divided our forces in a foolish and unnecessary attack on and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq – a country which did not attack us – based on bad intelligence and an impatience to find out the truth. We cannot stay embroiled in these wars indefinitely and allow costs to escalate forever. If either theater ends disastrously, it will have been because of overreaching in the early phase of the war on terror, and splitting our resources fighting on two fronts. Obama is not to blame for this decision, in fact, as a senator he was an outspoken critic of it. We are not an empire, and we are not colonizing these nations. Getting out of these costly occupations and turning governance and responsibility over to the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan is in the best interests of America. However much we have already spent is a sunk cost. We can’t get it back. We can only decide how much more blood and treasure to spend on this, and what potential benefit will accrue as a result.
This is not to say that we should be indifferent to the welfare of the Afghanis, but ultimately it is their country, not ours. Their patriots must fight for the liberty of their countries just as our forefathers fought for ours. We’ve done what we can for them by spending a decade of blood and treasure, the rest is up to them. And it isn’t like we’re leaving them high and dry - as my opponent provided in his source (which I feel better supports my position), we are still providing 4 billion/year. This is far less than the war had ever cost us, at only 4% of what we were paying on average in the last few years, but it is enough to give them a fighting chance .
Image of America/Popularity of Obama
I would ask Pro to provide clarification of how our popularity in the Middle East would improve by maintaining long-unpopular occupations that most of the Islamic world opposes as being “imperialist”. Additionally, I want to note that the article Pro cited indicates that even after the erosion of Obama’s high popularity around the world, people’s opinion about our country and our leader still remains far higher than when he inherited office. I am therefore confused at how my opponent thinks that article or these facts benefit his case, when it seems more reasonable to conclude that it bolsters mine. After all, an America guided by Obama is, even at its lowest likeability, still much better thought of around the world than his predecessor’s America was. How would this prove that he is not a good president?
Illegals and Voter Fraud
Until my opponent supports his accusations of voter fraud with at least some sort of source or evidence, then he is merely offering baseless rumors and hearsay, which our readers have no cause to accept and I have no obligation to respond to. If Pro offers a source of dubious quality (such as a biased right wing blog), I’ll challenge it as such. If he offers a story from a legitimate news outlet (Fox is close enough) to corroborate his claim, then in that case I’ll be glad to respond, but I’m not going to do his homework for him by searching around for news stories that resemble what he’s talking about.
Thank you all for your time and attention. Back to Pro.
A decision to go in and kill Osama was a big risk and it could have been a thoughtful decision, but there is no telling that. There is no way to say that the decision was fully thought out. For example, what would the American people think if we decided not to act on this lead. We would have been considered cowards by a lot of people and countries. Also even if it was thoroughly thought out Obama only deserves partial credit. Obama is not the only one that decides if they go in. In all actuality Obama hesitated about giving the go orders, and it was truly the CIA who advise Obama to give the orders. (1) Now if my opponent can first prove that this source is not trust worthy and secondly can find a trust worthy site that says that Obama did not hesitate and he CIA did not advise Obama to give the go orders, I will admit that he did give the go orders and drop this part of my argument.
I will agree with my opponent on the one fact that Afghanistan is their own country and that we can not stay there forever, but this still was a bad risk. The Taliban is still in force and we still have American casualties because of the Taliban. We should not pull out of Afghanistan until the Taliban is neutralized or at least suppressed to a controllable level. Now, don't get me wrong I believe that we should have eventually pulled out, but it is to soon. Also I think it is good that we are personally training their local force to defend their country. I believe it would have been better for this war gains the Taliban, which affects America, if we trained their force while we were still in Afghanistan. This would put double the force on the Taliban making it easier to suppress them. Us pulling out just gives the Taliban to take back control of Afghanistan and grow their forces stronger. Their stronger forces will pose a threat against America. Now, it is impossible to say that there is 0% chance of Afghanistan to defend against the Taliban, but it was not a risk we should have taken.
Yes, it is true that Obama did slightly increase our popularity with a lot of places. Now where did he gain our image, our allies. Our allies are not the most important thing to this country. We should have spent our time an money not on increasing our popularity with allies that have proven to be loyal, but with our enemies or neutral countries. With the Taliban increasing in power in the Middle East we should be increasing our image with the Middle East. If a war breaks out between America and the Taliban, what is important. Having our allies being 21% happier with us or having our enemies look at us 21% better. Allies will fight with us no matter how much they like us because most of them cannot compare with our force, politically it would be safer for them to fight with us than just be spectators. If a war did break our the Taliban will have more "land" that is controlled by them. If the Middle east does not like us then they will be willing to support the Taliban in destroying us. If we can become allies with the Middle East then the Taliban will have less "land" to control which means less money for weapons and less troops.
Now, back to the illegal voting. It is not proven that Obama's motives when he passed a law that did not require an ID to be present when you vote, were to allow illegals to vote(2). But, try to think of why he did it, where he did it, and what happened. First of all he passed this law in Arizona. Arizona is known for its large number of Mexicans. (3) This picture shows the number of illegals in 2010-2011 in Arizona. While it may not be the largest state with illegals but it is one of the highest. This is quite a coincidence. Now, lets look at what happened. First (4) this picture shows that his approval ratings were at a steady rate after December 2010, his approval stayed in the 40's. Now in this picture is shows Obama's Latino vote in 2008 (5). Now look at his Latino vote in 2012(6). This shows a significant increase in the approval ratings of Latinos toward Obama. This shows a pretty good motive for his reasoning, while it may or may not be true, but it is something to take into consideration.
The last four are links to Google image pictures. The images in the background are not what they are about, so if there is anything offense if the back I would like to apologize in advance.
Pro: “Now if my opponent can first prove that this source is not trust worthy and secondly can find a trust worthy site that says that Obama did not hesitate and he CIA did not advise Obama to give the go orders, I will admit that he did give the go orders and drop this part of my argument.”
No research or refutation is needed on my part. If you actually read source #1 then you will immediately realize that the site is refuting the misinformation of an e-rumor which has been circulating, and which my opponent has embarrassingly fallen prey to, which paints Obama as indecisive and that he was overridden by CIA director Leon Panetta. The rumor is false, as is indicated by the title of Pro’s source:
President Obama Hesitated to Give Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden-Fiction!
The site goes on to give the transcripts of interviews of Panetta and Obama that aired on NBC and CBS, and which tell a different story than the false claim of my opponent or the rumor going around the internet intended to tarnish Obama. The site goes on to say:
In a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) statement to employees that was reported in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2011, the CIA head wrote. "Persistent hard work produced the results that the American people expect of their intelligence service: We gave President Obama and his team accurate, relevant, timely intelligence—providing the information and insight they needed at key points as this mission developed. I offered my personal thanks to the President for his willingness to make the courageous decision to proceed with the operation."
When voting on sources, I ask that readers to please keep in mind that I have clearly flipped Pro’s reference by demonstrating that it supports my case rather than my opponent’s. If he declines to concede this line of argumentation, then it would seem that the burden Pro demands boomerangs back on him: he must undermine the credibility of a source which he himself provided, and then give a more credible reference which will support his claims of Obama’s indecisiveness and lack of leadership.
Pro’s source #2 is reporting on accusations made against the Obama Administration by a zealous Republican Attorney General named Tom Horne. Since the time of his lawsuit, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down at least part of the law, thus in effect ruling against him . He’s taking his case to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the law. Therefore, using this judicial fight as evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Obama is both speculative in that it has not been made clear what the President even has to do with this Arizona judicial battle, and moreover, the most recent ruling has been against Horne! If this is all Pro has, he’s really shooting blanks.
When the war was starting to turn badly, Obama moved more troops in and stepped up our assault on the Taliban and turned them back. He’s well known to have unleashed drones at an unprecedented scale on our enemies, despite the Liberal boo-hooing about it . At 12 years, 1 month, the war in Afghanistan has been the longest in our history. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have suffered catastrophic losses, though they do keep fighting, and probably will until the very last one of these fanatics is killed. That beautiful day could be decades from now, and isn’t worth it for us to stay until then because Afghanistan isn’t our country to fight for. Our objective has been achieved, and the major threats neutralized (including Osama bin Laden). Now our role is to support the Afghanis. The country is theirs, not ours. Blood spilled protecting it should be theirs, not ours. The ultimate responsibility for its defense is theirs, not ours. If we stayed, an argument could still be made 20 years from now that we’re leaving “too soon”. That criticism is hollow and meaningless.
I sometimes find myself absolutely stunned by the lengths to which Obama’s critics will go to find something bad to say about him. When Obama campaigned in 2007 on reaching out to Iran, and offered to negotiate about their nuclear weapons program without preconditions, his critics threw a fit and called him weak, reckless, and naïve for being willing to sit down and talk with our enemies . Now things have come full circle, and my opponent is essentially arguing that Obama hasn’t done enough reaching out to our enemies when he says, “we should have spent our time an money not on increasing our popularity with allies that have proven to be loyal, but with our enemies or neutral countries.” Really? Really??? Okay, maybe Pro somehow missed the constant efforts Obama has made to improve diplomatic relations with our rivals, which include the Russian “reset”  or the first phone call in over 30 years between the leader of America and the leader of Iran . Obama has probably tried harder to find a way to cooperate with our rivals and enemies than any president since Nixon, who made great diplomatic strides with China. And he has done this amidst vicious hostility and unreasonable partisanship and criticism from Republicans. Just about any success he has ever achieved has come despite them, not thanks to them, as some set out from rather early on to sabotage his presidency at virtually any cost (quotes from Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Michele Bachmann are especially enlightening, but really it is actions that speak louder than words) . Obama has pressed on to do the right things where he can, even when they are not always popular things – such as reaching out to our enemies. This is all one can ask of a president.
Now, lets look at the first many things for this argument, the economy. The current economic debt is the highest it has been since every presidency after the great depression. Now, my opponent might defend this by saying the Obama does not have complete control over the economic. This may be true, but he has had 5 years now to do something about and he has not. The first two years of his presidency the congress was democratically ruled. This means he had the first two years where he could have gotten a law passes since the majority of congress was ruled by his own party, yet he did not try to fix it. Obama during his terms have added about 3 billion dollars of debt.
Secondly lets go to Obama's choices. When it as time to choice a new chairman for the Federal reserve, he chose Ben Bernanke. Ben Bernanke has had a track record for making failures. Some of his failures are
1. Failed to negotiate with AIG counterparties; instead choosing to pay all claims at 100 cents on the dollar without asking for any compensation (preferred shares) in return.
2. Failed to protect taxpayer's interests in deals with AIG, JPM, and Bear Stearns, (with Maiden Lane I, II and III) and the still un-detailed asset guarantees given to Citigroup and Bank of America.
3. Failed the American people with his decision to support and reward the failed banks and the bankers for their malfeasance, excessive risk-taking and criminality.
For more go to Source #2,
Now even after the failures of Bernanke Obama still gave full support of him without even a single doubt. This shows poor judgement on Obama's part for nominating him in the first place, after Bernanke's failures.
Next, another poor judgement. Obama decided it would be a great idea for the U.S. monetary policy to be controlled by a secret panel of "experts" not connected to the American people in any way, shape, or form. This is completely the opposite of what a Democracy is and is more like an Oligarchy where a few people rule. How is it fair that the American people would not have a say in what happens with the U.S. monetary policy. These few "experts" then would control a big part of the American life without the majority of Americans being involved.
Now, the unemployment. With the Clinton administration the average unemployment rate was about 5.2%, with the bush 5.3%. Now these may not be great compared to past years, but it shows that the presidents have been able to keep the rate close to the past. Now, within one moth of Obama taking office the unemployment rate rose to 8%. This is completely the opposite of what a president should do, it should have dropped. Now, if it rose by .1%-.5%, fine he would be doing an alright job, but just under 3% of a rise. How is this a good job?
Next, lets look at the oil problem. Oil has not been the most important topi since the prices have been stable, except for the terms Obama has been in office. With the Clinton administrate there was about a 58% increase in drilling permits, and in the Bush presidency about a 116% increase. With the Obama presidency there was a 38% decrease in drilling permits. Then, Obama started importing oil from the Middle East, making it more expensive for Americans to get a hold of, which is significantly increasing the price. Here is proof in the major increase. The average cost for 1 gallon of gas was $1.85 when Obama took office, then it increased to $3.71 a gallon.
Now, here are some quick facts that I personally think can defend themselves.
1. More then 50% of Americans are now financially dependent on the government.
2. Since 1.3 million people have lost there jobs, about 3.6 million people have been added to social security disability
3. While Obama has been in office house values have dropped 12%
4. When Obama took office 31.9 million people were on food stamps, now 46.4 million people are on food stamps. That's an increase of about 14.5 million people.
Once again thank you to all the readers and to my opponent, And good luck calculatedr1sk.
Thank you, Pro, I’m glad to have discussed this with you and since our views seem to differ on a broad range of topics. I hope this will be the first of many opportunities for us to debate with one another.
Readers, thank you for your time and interest as well. To recap the debate up to this round, here are the topics which we have discussed:
Obamacare: Pro initially attacked it as a complete failure, but as far as I can tell seems to have agreed with me that it is too early to form any definitive conclusions at this time. Many readers are probably deeply unimpressed by the administration’s rollout so far. In all honesty, if he pushed me on this issue there are some questions I would have had a hard time giving a good answer to. But he didn’t gain any traction here because Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
Syria: Pro initially attacked Obama’s handling of Syria, but after my refutation about the complexity of geopolitics and the necessity for deception in dealing with enemies like Assad, Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
Fallacy: In round 3 Pro accused me of committing the Ad Hominem and Red Herring fallacies. I refuted this, and Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
Afghanistan: Pro accused Obama of taking an unnecessary risk of our Afghani allies failing by taking American troops out too early. Additionally, he criticized Obama for still spending 4 million per year on Afghanistan. I rejected his somewhat contradictory criticisms by pointing out that 1) it is the responsibility for the people of Afghanistan to defend themselves, and 2) we can and should still support them to give them a good chance at success, and the 4 billion we spend a year on that now is only a fraction of the tens and even hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve spent per year during the past several years. Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
Osama bin Laden: Pro claimed that Obama provided weak and hesitating leadership in the attack against the head of Al Qaeda, and Pro clumsily cited a source which debunked the exact argument he was trying to make, exposing it for the falsehood that it is. Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
America’s Image in the World: Pro claimed that Obama wasn’t doing enough to make our enemies happier with us. I explained that this charge is baseless because Obama’s foreign policy has led to a number of unprecedented diplomatic successes as a result of his outreach. Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
Illegal Voting: I’m sorry to have to keep repeating myself so much, but after I refuted his flimsy case, which rested on a (so far failed) accusation made by a Republican attorney general, once again Pro completely dropped this line of argument.
According to Fox News, here is what the famous conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer - who is always looking for something bad to say about Obama and almost never had a kind word for the President - said about Bernanke’s reappointment:
“…this is a perfect example of an administration in disarray. The reappointment of Bernanke is one of the good decisions that Obama has made. This is a guy who did save our economy in '08 and '09.
He made a lot of tactical errors, on the big issue, the one issue — we had a mountain of private debt that was becoming insolvent. It was going to destroy our economy. He nationalized it, which was the only way to do it. He has taken a lot of hits, but that was the right decision. Obama is right in reappointing him.” 
ABC News reported at the time:
“Many on Wall Street and in academic circles believe that Bernanke is the best choice to lead the country into a sustainable recovery and would be in the best position to figure out when and how to reel in the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy to battle the crisis.
"Wall Street can rest a little easier now," said Chris Rupkey, an economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. "Having a new chairman come in at this late date would put the Fed-engineered solution to both the recovery and the exit strategy at risk." 
Secret Panel of Experts
What is Pro even talking about? He provided no sources or references and was not specific in telling us about what decisions made by Obama he is referring to. Maybe this is just another one of those “it just sounds good” sort of 007 villain conspiracies and caricatures that are always popping up against Obama but that have absolutely no foundation of truth, like the one Pro clumsily made and then helped to debunk about Obama’s poor leadership in getting Osama. The Fed has always been the one to make decisions about monetary policy, and by design, it has always been insulated from politics. This has nothing to do with Obama, and this has been the structure of things long before he was ever even born.  This is a complaint about the American financial system if that’s what Pro is referring to, this is not a complaint about Obama or his judgment.
Unemployment, Oil, and Other Statistics
Pro cites from Mr. Conservative, an obviously biased and unestablished (since 2012??), and therefore probably non-credible source. Even so, let’s assume all of the statistics provided are completely true. The biggest problem is that they are not put in context. Obama inherited an economy in freefall. In 2007, many were certain that financial Armageddon was on the horizon. To compare the performance of the economy for him at that time period with the performance of the economy for Clinton, or Bush, or any other recent president is completely inappropriate because they were not facing the same situation. Additionally, financial busts are among the slowest recessions for an economy to recover from (feel free to investigate the presentation by Marco Terrones submitted to the IMF) . The fact that we are seeing any kind of recovery at all is largely because of the quick action of men like Bernanke and Obama, and even to some extent G.W. Bush, who did promptly use stimulus.
Summary of the Debate
In the final round, Pro made a very risky gamble by completely giving up on everything that we’ve talked about through the entire debate. He didn’t just fail to summarize his case, he completely abandoned it and started a whole new one. As frowned upon as this might be by some voters, I didn’t assume that voters will penalize Pro for this. Instead, I offered a full refutation of his latest arguments, and thus my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof in demonstrating that Obama is not a good president. Meanwhile, I have given some reasons to think that Obama may have in fact been a very good president overall, and my opponent failed to refute most of those claims, particularly from round 2, meaning that they stand uncontested. My sources have routinely been more credible, have been employed in the service of backing up my claims, and I have even turned some of his sources against his position.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that a “good” president does not mean a “perfect” president. By Pro’s own admission, Obama has made big risks, has taken chances, and tried to solve enormously difficult problems. I’d like to remind readers of the immortal words of one of America’s greatest leaders, Teddy Roosevelt. Like it or not, today it is Mr. Obama who stands in the arena.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”