The Instigator
RepublicanMan
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Obama's policies and ideals

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,600 times Debate No: 35626
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

RepublicanMan

Con

I don't believe Obama is good at all. His idiotic ideals have cause the American people to see change they never quite asked for. I feel as though Obama never knew what he was doing. Thanks to Obama, we have seen a Drone Strike increase. Where dozens of people are bombed at a time and the president hopes that at least one person he hit was a terrorist or connected to Bin Laden. Obama has some of the worst policies, his healthcare reform (Obama Care) makes for a horrible medical supply, not to mention his crummy Welfare system. Since Obama had not lost the 2012 election, his bill forms into place and Obama care is now safe from being repealed until he is kicked out of office. Welfare is a backwards piece of crap, taxes have gone up, Obama lied us into another war. He hates not letting illegals into the country. He is clearly not an ideal fit for president.

Sources: Drone Strikes-http://www.policymic.com...

Welfare: http://leftsolutions.wordpress.com...

Obamacare:http://endoftheamericandream.com...

Immigration/Foreign Policy:
http://www.mrconservative.com...

Taxes: http://www.heritage.org...
Mikal

Pro

I accept your challenge and look forward to this debate. Where as we established no rules as what the rounds shall be for, I will only offer my case on the first round and save rebuttals for later. I would like to start by saying, I am not entirely in favor of Obama in fact in most ways I disagree with him. I will however play devils advocate in this debate and promote his policies, the ideology behind it(as worded in title), and how they have helped or ideologically could help our society. I will now establish my points. I would use more but I would run out of space so I will focus on 4 main points. I will ignore how these could actually effect us and merely show the ideology behind it, since per the title I am allowed. Let us define ideology.

Also let me define the word Ideology

Definition of Ideolgy
1: visionary theorizing


(1) Redistribution,

(2) Obamacare and healthcare(slang word for reform),

(3) Energy policy,

(4) Immigration policy


(1)

Redistribution of wealth at its core, is the framework of socialism. While I openly acknowledge that this can not work in America, the ideals and hopes behind it are something that we can admire. Just from the title of this point we can see what it entails. It adopts this Robin-hood ideal of take from the rich and give to the more, but it does it in more of a modern day sense. This is accomplished by raising taxes on the rich, and lessening taxes on the poor. While this not may be practical or work in America, I think the ideology behind this is irrefutable. If we are looking at this from a perspective of hope and how it could work, it seems like the moral act to do. It helps the poor and is a way to get rid of poverty. As long as we ignore the practicality of it, it makes logical sense and appeals to our sense of morality. This could even stretch as far as raising minimum wage. People who work for hardly nothing and may not have the money to attend school have a shot at making a little more money.

http://www.quick-facts.co.uk...




(2)

This is Universal healthcare and reform. Again I am going to ignore how this will affect us as a nation and argue ideology. Just a few thoughts on why this a moral ideology behind it. The main point is that it helps support and give care to people whom may not have been able to attain it previously. Companies can no longer turn down people with preexisting medical conditions. This goes as far as any type of terminal illness such as Leukemia. Prior to this companies could simply refuse coverage because it could be a possible loss of profit, and individuals were actually dying because they could not get coverage. It also allows kids to stay on their parents insurance longer.

https://www.healthcare.gov...
https://www.healthcare.gov...


(3)

His energy policy speaks for itself. Partially the reason the key stone pipeline has not been approved. It is a way to cut down on global warming, and provide clean energy. The basis behind this is that at some point either when prices in oil get to far out of hand, or we drain our resources and topple most of the oil, we need a viable alternative source on energy. He went with clean energy. This could extend to solar energy and electrical forms of gars that do not produce fumes. Since we all know or at least most know that global warming is a fact and major issue, this would help keep the planet safe.

http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org...
http://www.whitehouse.gov...


(4)

I could debate this from a practical or ideological but I will stay with ideology since that has been the foundation of my points. This entire policy makes it easier for immigrants to attain citizenship legally, and makes the process smoother. One of the central reasons behind this line of thought, is that we can not stop illegal immigration. They are using our government and attaining an education, and then taking that education back to their home country because they can not get citizenship. It states we should make citizenship easier for them to attain, so that they can help stimulate our economy instead of abusing the system and leaving. There is way more to it than this but since I am running out of room, I will just tackle pros rebuttals. This also helps children who were born over here because of illegal parents keep their citizenship. This is just morally ethical, unless you love the bible so much that you believe the sins of the father be passed to his children. We have children being born in this country by illegal parents, and could not call them citizen. The very children that have only knew this country as their home. They were born here, raised here, worked here, and went to school here. This is all they know and this is their country. This to me is moral ideology at its core.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...


I have established 4 main points and shown how Obama policies are ideologically sound and look forward to hearing my adversaries response.
Debate Round No. 1
RepublicanMan

Con

While I see Obama has done something or other, I don't believe he is actually the president because we wants to fix us. He's whittled the middle class and low class citizens of the US into rocks for house. Heck, Obama made it possible for people to live inside their cars. Look, I understand why Obama's policies and ideals have two sides. But I'm telling you, it's all lopsided, the cons of Obama are bigger than the pros. Have you looked at the links I put in my last post? Well if you did, you probably know those were some examples of the horrible jokes Obama's pulled off in the US so far. In fact, the New York news supply asked a question: Is Obama as bad as Nixon when it comes to targeting the press? Well, here's the article:http://nymag.com...

You must understand that Obama also has done some of the most devilish things in the oval office. Think about all the Drone Strikes like I'd mentioned them. Also, imagine what Obama is doing to all of our allies disregarding the supplies they used to give us, oil, coal, natural gas. Obama's even cut funding to the educational system, popping the veins to the universities of almost every state in the US. Which means that we can't focus on projects that run Great Works like Clean Coal and Clean oil. Which is made possible by strong education. There are actually over 300 reasons to not vote for Obama. I don't believe I'll have time to get through all of them though in this one debate. So here are some 218 (some links broken) of Obama's failings and bad intentions exposed:http://www.postlibertarian.com...

You need to see that no politician is perfect and Obama is far from it. I endorsed Mitt Romney in the last national presidential election (2012). After 2 weeks of becoming a Democrat and going away from Independent like I was. Then I saw the light (not FOX), but another stance...I dug deeper into the election, deeper into the records that were leaked of both Romney and Obama, and Barack compared to Walker Bush, nothing changed but white to black. I mean, the Obama administration is slowly, slyly taking down the economy...trust me on that. Obama is doing something bad to the economy behind our backs, and he hates to say it. Obama hounds the budget of America...here's the article:http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Now, Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts showed positive results, look at this compared to Obama's job as president. Now I know we're thinking Country to State here, but Romney had a better record working with the economy and remember the whole country's economy affects each state as well because we are United States.http://www.theatlantic.com...

Obama has also lied time and time again much like Romney did, except Romney did this in good intent and redeemed himself by making Massachusetts free from the brink of collapse. Where as Obama flat lied to get elected TWICE.

Any response? Of course you have one. But before you share your ideals, let me talk about one more thing...Obama's healthcare reform is NOT universal http://www.nationalreview.com...
It's insanity to me that anyone trusts Obama enough to vote him in twice. It's exactly like Bush and like I said, only thing that changed is the skin color. Obama Care makes for bad medicine, bad service and health denials. The government is so stingy they denied my grandfather coverage for his cancer until a few months after his diagnosis when he was already at stage 3.
Mikal

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for sharing this thoughts. I would like to say alot of his arguments is based off of opinions. As you can see he provided a link to 200 reasons not to vote for Obama. We all are aware this is merely is opinions as to why not to vote to them, and he back none of these up with facts

Also I would like to conclude that my argument for the ideology behind Obama's policies are confirmed and acknowledged by CON, see as he offered no rebuttals to anyone of them other that health care. I would first like to state that this is false depending on how you perceive it. He could argue that universal health care is given to each and every citizen, obamacare is a direct branch of this and has its core principles based off of it.

http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com...





I will now try to break down my adversaries main points.


(1) Drone strikes

(2) He cut education funding

(3)Obama has not fixed America



(1)

I offer a direct quote the president gave recently in response to this

"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or a shotgun — without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil,"

This topic is illogical and impossible to debate. To debate this we would have to have classified information to know why they were authoring them. We do know that Egypt, Syria, and most of the middle east hate us. We have seen terrorist attacks and our soldiers are constantly dying. While we are at war or in the midst of fighting, drone strikes are a viable option if it is necessary. The president has stated this himself. Along with admitting that if it is his only option he would use them. However since we have no information other than knowing there are people who hate us and that are trying to kill our soldiers, I can say its safe to assume there is a viable cause behind them. While others may offer speculation there is no evidence for this. His source earlier stated that 50 civilians are killed for every 1 or 2 terrorist. There is no way to know this fact for sure and again it is mere assumption. I will state if we are at war with another country, and have the chance to take out a high powered target. It is never a easy call, but it is the presidents job to take the fall out from the choices.


(2)

I will not take long on this because pro missed the mark. I believe what pro is referring to recent money Obama pulled from education budgets and put it back in different funds for other types of education. Where as he has proposed to pull money from direct programs, he wishes to put it right back into education for kids who are poor and have disabilities. It is essentially cutting money from kids that have parents that can afford to send them to college. Needless to say this would improve our educational system. Seeing as how most people can not afford to go to college. If he is making it easier for people who can not afford it by cutting pell grants and other types of loans for people above a high income level, I would propose this is a great idea.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


(3)

He essentially believes Obama has did nothing to help the economy or possibly employment. Instead of arguing this I made a Chart to demonstrate the point. This simplifies the results of what Obama has done for unemployment and it speaks for itself.

https://www.facebook.com...




In closing

Con has offered no rebuttals and has not been able to refute any of my arguments about the ideologies behind his campaign. I in turn have addressed his points and have shown iron clad facts that Obama helped bring unemployment down in this country. I would urge you to think of the ideologies behind his campaign. While it may not be practical sometimes, it is all about helping the poor.

Debate Round No. 2
RepublicanMan

Con

First of all Mikal, check both your grammar and spelling. I felt like I needed to use some foreign power to decipher your first 3 sentences. Second, I pointed out each thing I felt Obama should fix and be recognized as a moron for. You told me that I showed over 200 reasons not to vote for Obama and you then said that there was nothing to back those ideas up with. If you went to the link there are links that follow each paragraph and ahead of time, I pointed out that some of those links were broken. Now, your idea of "proof" behind the drone strike is obnoxious, a piece of something Obama said, really? You are basing your ideas on Opinions, not me. I have put up a link for each and every thing I've said to prove myself right. You back yourself up with bias. Coming out of Obama's mouth, pure lies. Now, I was not saying the drone strikes happened in America, they happen in the Middle East and sometimes US citizens are put down by the government, and that happens not matter what party or politician, because it sometimes needs to be done.

As for education, Obama cut so much funding for education, his plan has been going into a decade. $89,000,000 cut from the American education funding. Also, he cut health benefits for soldiers and makes them pay slightly more for medical service. Of course, this affects warfare which affects drone strikes. Now, other countries like Pakistan are beginning to question if America is worse than the Taliban, because they are terrified of Drone Strikes. This is where the idea of Obama being a terrorist comes into play. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Now please tell me you don't seriously support the healthcare reform Obama spends so much money on all the time! His idiotic healthcare ideals have been making America's revenue slow and turn to negatives. Obama also seems to like making people miserable with his tax cuts related to Welfare and financial aid. I think that Obama has not intention of REALLY helping. Welfare proof:http://www.bloomberg.com...
Obama's tax and Healthcare reform (relevancy):http://www.newsmax.com...

I think that you are good debater, but you need more practice with pulling out the facts. I like your format, I like your vocabulary, but, you need to realize sugar coating everything you say won't help. That's the exact kind of bias that brings American politics into the ground and into the oil, but let's not get ourselves carried away here. And immigration, like this debate, has pros and cons. Cons most than pros unfortunately. Because immigration is lopsided, recent US studies have shown lately that 4% of the America's population consists of illegal immigrants. Immigrants bring new culture to countries and infusions, workers and of course, taxpayers. But, 11 million immigrants in America are illegal aliens and that's not acceptable, which is why we need to buckle down on our foreign policies. We need to squeeze the borders with our fingers and tunnel in more legals than illegals, but immigrants are literally saying "Obama would let me go" to the few border security people that catch them sneaking in.http://www.socialissues.us...

I wish you luck pal. In my opinion, you struck out, but, let's have the voters decide. Tea Time now. Ta Ta.
Mikal

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for having such amazing conduct. Most people who know me on this site know that I use an I-phone and I-pod for most of these posts. Since I am not afforded the luxury of Microsoft when I am at work, it is an issue that I work with. I would like to point out the irony of you calling me out with grammar errors though when you seem prone to post sentence fragments. "Cons most than pros unfortunately". Even if I could guess what you were trying to say, it seems you forgot a subject and a verb. I do admit auto correct kills me, but at least I am witty enough to make a sentence look pretty.

I will now break down my opponents main points again.

(1) Drone strikes again, since he seems fixated on this.
(2) Education
(3) Healthcare



(1)

Since he mixes points on this first paragraph I will try to offer a rebuttal based off of what he was saying. He says "Also, he cut health benefits for soldiers and makes them pay slightly more for medical service. Of course, this affects warfare which affects drone strikes." Lets assume this is accurate for the sake of this debate. He is saying because Obama cut health benefits from soldiers, it will ultimately cause a drone strike. I am seriously hoping whoever is reading this can do basic math. Lets break this town. When you say because health care was cut(if this was true) from soldiers, we could logically assume it would affect a lot of different things. It would affect their families, it would affect the quality of work, it would affect their salaries. An argument like this could be considered a 1+1=2 argument. This is not the case though. He states because healthcare is supposedly cut from soldiers, It will somehow cause drone strikes. This is not a 1+1=2 argument it is a 1+1=3, actually its more like a 1+1=9. It is fine to play connect the dots, but you have to have all the dots in between. He merely says this, and offers a link showing how Pakistan responds to drone strikes. I will repeat what I said in my prior argument, it is impossible to debate this due to the type of information we would have to have. We would need to know the nature of why they are bombing certain groups of terrorists. I am actually quite happy they are bombing some of them, and I would imagine most people who do not want attacks to come on American soil are too. I think the most illogical part of his entire argument is this "they happen in the Middle East and sometimes US citizens are put down by the government". I think the stupidity of this statement speaks for itself. He is saying that our government is bombing terrorist while killing our citizens whom happen to be over there. Unless he is referring to us randomly bombing places, and accident killing reporters or missionaries, I have no idea how to even combat this golden piece of information. As i previously stated the absurdity of this remark is evident.

(2)

As for education I have shown links above to show what they are planning to do. Obama wants to make it easier for people with disabilities and that are poor to be able to go to college. I do not see why this is a problem. It is making people who can actually afford it pay to get in, and offered up pell grants and different types of loans to children who would not normally be able to afford it. The one thing I am sure that everybody knows is that it is an economic necessity for children to be able to educate themselves. He has not addressed this nor even bothered to bring it up or refute it. He merely states that they are cutting $89,000,000 dollars from education funding. I have always addressed this point in my previous argument so I will not both to repeat it again.

(3)

Again I have no idea how to even refute this. He merely blames Obama care for single handily causing our nations debt crisis. Once again the absurdity of this remark speaks for itself. We have been in an economic down turn long before Obama got into office. We have dubya to think for that. He also still has not addressed how Obama care would help people with pre exisitng medical conditions and terminal illness. I have shown above where they could not be turned down. He then proceeds to rant on about immigration and restates the point he made earlier without even addressing my rebuttal to it.


In closing

Con has not addressed 95 percent of the points I offered in rebuttals. He has not addressed any of my ideology stances in the first round. He has fought this whole entire debate with personal opinions hidden behind a wall of assumptions. I have shown you the ideology behind some of Obama's policies along with refuting all of pros claims, and have even explained the practicality
of some of the current policies that are in place. While he has shown us his opinion, and provided some reasons to why he believes it, he has yet to combat any one of points that I provided. I think there is no question that Obama's policies have good ideology behind them as I have demonstrated all throughout this debate. I think we can even go as far as to say, that some of his policies that he has in place now have our best interest at heart.

All throughout this debate I have shown that while they may not be perfect, the ideology behind his policies have the possibility to benefit our nation and some are doing just that. Con has not answered any of my questions so I think we can conclude that all of my points are valid and stand as is. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.



Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RepublicanMan 3 years ago
RepublicanMan
Fix it Mikal.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
He had the debate said to "Obama" before, I was asking him to make it specific. He changed it without realizing that he did not or could not change is position that he original position. If you could rep, cancel this and start new. No restrictions and make the title specific to his policies or whether or not he is good for our country. That will establish a BOP

I await for this to happen and look forward to the debate
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
If you can cancel this debate entirely and make an entirely new one. Maybe that will help, just make the new one entirely open. I really want to take this but something you have set in the requirements is not allowing me to
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
Wait, I am terribly confused. He is Con on this debate. Shouldn't he be trying to say that Obama is a good president, but a bad father?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Also i would like you to remove the part about good father, because this is entirely subjective and will be impossible to argue.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I still not not meet the requirements lol. I have no idea why i can not accept it
Posted by RepublicanMan 3 years ago
RepublicanMan
Well it's up now so have at it my friend. Restrictions are gone but you should not be surprised if you use Wikipedia and I judge what you had use as your source.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
No problem, when you open the debate up or remove restrictions, I will take it. Maybe then try "Obamas policies are not good for our nation". That would establish a BOP
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
No problem, when you open the debate up or remove restrictions, I will take it. Maybe then try "Obamas policies are not good for our nation". That would establish a BOP
Posted by RepublicanMan 3 years ago
RepublicanMan
Sure...here...I'll reopen the debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by HostileBelief 3 years ago
HostileBelief
RepublicanManMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: While I disagree with Obama's national security policy and foreign policy, I do think that policies mentioned from Mikal are valid and sound whereas Republicanman arguments are nothing more than redneck ramblings.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
RepublicanManMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro was simply the better debater. He has clearly shown good intent and ideology on behalf of Obama. S/G s a tie, as I saw plenty of errors in both spelling and sentence structure on both sides. Sources go to Pro, as Con does not seem to understand how sources work. They are not meant to provide argument for you, but rather to validate the arguments you provide. Research and analysis is the responsibility of the debater, not the audience.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
RepublicanManMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave a point to con because pro made more S/G mistakes. Pro had actual arguments and rebuttals in this debate, con made little effort to refute pro's points, therefore arfuments goes to pro.