The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
alevan
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

President Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
alevan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 43128
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

President Obama has not done anything to deserve the praise he gets.
alevan

Con

I accept and look forward to the debate
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

President Obama hasn't done anything worthy of the praise he gets because almost everything he has done has failed or hurt people. Con needs to tell some things he did to deserve the praise he gets.
alevan

Con

I negate the resolution. Resolved "Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets." The con offers the following observation. The resolution that my opponent affirms says Barack Obama has done nothing... In order to win this debate I will merely have to describe to you one example where Obama did something beneficial to at least a single person.

*Since I understand that this diminishes from the debate I will provide two full contentions which will allow for me to have an overwhelming stance over my opponent.*
I support this stance with the following contentions

1) Domestic Economic Benefits

a) Job Creation
Since Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009 he has helped lead to the creation of over 5 million private sector jobs. On net that's about 3.6 million new jobs for American Citizens to be working. Furthermore, as a result of the economic policies put in place by the Bush Administration the unemployment rate in January 2010 was 9.7%. Now that number is below 7%.
http://www.politifact.com...
http://www.multpl.com...

b) GDP growth
While under the Obama Administration our GDP has never been at a rate in which it was declining. It's currently at a growth rate of 3.07%. This is beneficial to our economy because it slows down inflation, gives our government more spending room and increases the money we can offer to those below the poverty line.
http://www.multpl.com...
http://www.investopedia.com...

c) Fair Pay Act
The fair pay act, which Obama signed into law, helps woman get equal the pay for doing the same work as men. Why was this even an issue? I'm not sure but it was and he helped approximately 156.7 million woman in this scenario.

2) Social Benefits

a) Health care
For over 30 years politicians of both parties have talked about having a major health care reform. He's the first politician to do something about it. The ACA removes restrictions on pre-existing conditions, makes health care more affordable for small businesses, raises the age at which children can remain on their parents plans, removes lifetime caps, and gives woman access to free preventative health care. Aside from the small exception of insurance executives who would not like those things?

b) Gay rights
Unfortunately this is still an issue in our country and quite frankly it disgusts me. Now considering he has already helped many states work towards adopting policies that give homosexuals the human rights they deserve, he is helping in that way. He also worked to remove the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which was a disgusting rule that made our country look ridiculous. Not to mention an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in legalizing gay marriage and even a majority of people on this site.
http://thehill.com...

It is for these reasons we must stand in negation of the resolution and I urge a con ballot in today's debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

"I negate the resolution. Resolved "Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets." The con offers the following observation. The resolution that my opponent affirms says Barack Obama has done nothing... In order to win this debate I will merely have to describe to you one example where Obama did something beneficial to at least a single person."
This is a misinterpretation; It meant that Barack Obama gets praise to great to be deserved by what he has done. In order to win the debate Con needs to provide an instance in which he has helped an extraordinary amount of people.

"a) Job Creation
Since Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009 he has helped lead to the creation of over 5 million private sector jobs. On net that's about 3.6 million new jobs for American Citizens to be working. Furthermore, as a result of the economic policies put in place by the Bush Administration the unemployment rate in January 2010 was 9.7%. Now that number is below 7%."
Here's the unemployment rate over the time Bush and Obama have been in office:
Nov 1, 2013 7.00%
Jan 1, 2013 7.90%
Jan 1, 2012 8.30%
Jan 1, 2011 9.00%
Jan 1, 2010 9.70%
Jan 1, 2009 7.70%
Jan 1, 2008 5.00%
Jan 1, 2007 4.60%
Jan 1, 2006 4.70%
Jan 1, 2005 5.30%
Jan 1, 2004 5.70%
Jan 1, 2003 5.80%
Jan 1, 2002 5.70%
Jan 1, 2001 4.20%
Jan 1, 2000 4.00%

Bush's Years were 2000-2008 The greatest unemployment rate was 5.80% and the lowest was 4.00%
Obama's Years were 2008-2013 The greatest unemployment rate was 9.70%; 2 years after he took office and the lowest was 5.00%.
From these statistics we find that over Obama's entire time as president he has not lowered the unemployment rate to levels below that of Bush. Therefore Obama overall has actually made more people lose jobs than gain them.

"Furthermore, as a result of the economic policies put in place by the Bush Administration the unemployment rate in January 2010 was 9.7%. Now that number is below 7%."
That's 2 years after Obama took office; so no it couldn't have been the Bush Administrations policies. Every year Bush was in office the unemployment remained below 6.00% so it is highly unlikely that within the 2 years Obama took office it was the Bush administrations policies that doubled unemployment rates. If you are going to make that assertion you need evidence for it which you have not provided. Anyways Obama has never brought unemployment below the levels when Bush was in office so that 7.00% doesn't prove he deserves the praise he gets.

b) GDP growth
"While under the Obama Administration our GDP has never been at a rate in which it was declining. It's currently at a growth rate of 3.07%. This is beneficial to our economy because it slows down inflation, gives our government more spending room and increases the money we can offer to those below the poverty line."

You are misinterpreting the data. If the percent is negative it declines so it didn't actually decline while Bush was in office. In fact if you add up the percentages you will find that the GDP actually grew more while Bush was in office than when Obama was. In this comparison I will compare the total rise of the GDP over 6 years for each president:
BUSH: 36.54% increase
OBAMA: 14.44% increase
So in Bush's first 6 years; the amount of time Obama has been in office; the GDP rose ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH THAN DURING OBAMA'S 6 YEARS.
So actually Bush slowed down inflation, gave the government more spending room, and increased the amount of money we could offer to those below the poverty line, more than Obama did.

a) Health care
"For over 30 years politicians of both parties have talked about having a major health care reform. He's the first politician to do something about it. The ACA removes restrictions on pre-existing conditions, makes health care more affordable for small businesses, raises the age at which children can remain on their parents plans, removes lifetime caps, and gives woman access to free preventative health care. Aside from the small exception of insurance executives who would not like those things?"
3 times as many people lost insurance to the ACA as people who gained it; so I'm going with the people who lost health insurance don't like it. Overall the ACA has actually uninsured more people than it insured.

b) Gay rights
"Unfortunately this is still an issue in our country and quite frankly it disgusts me. Now considering he has already helped many states work towards adopting policies that give homosexuals the human rights they deserve, he is helping in that way. He also worked to remove the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which was a disgusting rule that made our country look ridiculous. Not to mention an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in legalizing gay marriage and even a majority of people on this site."
No one ever took rights away from Homosexuals; they just haven't been allowed to marry. Marriage is not a human right and while that may help some people it isn't enough to warrant the massive amounts of praise he gets.

CONCLUSION
Con has not been able to show Obama helping enough people to warrant his praise. In the first point I showed that Obama actually raised the unemployment rate rather than lower it. In the second point I showed that Bush raised the GDP nearly 3 times as much as Obama and he didn't get the same amount of praise for it as Obama does so it shouldn't be considered something warranting the praise Obama gets. The third point doesn't warrant any praise since more people have lost health insurance over the ACA than those who gained it. The only point that is valid is gay rights and that didn't help enough people to warrant the amount of praise he gets. Therefore Con has not proven that Obama has done something to deserve the praise he gets.


alevan

Con

Thank you my opponent for his rebuttal, now let's look at the attacks made against my case.

Also I don't believe necessarily that Obama does get a massive praise? With a 48% approval rating and 50% of people who strongly disapprove that seems to me he doesn't get a massive praise. It's likely the only reason he was even re-elected was because Romney was an idiot. So I don't believe he gets as big of praise as Pro is trying to say he does.

1:A) my opponent stated "That Obama actually raised the unemployment rate fathered than lower it." When we look at his logically it was in fact not Obamas fault the unemployment rate hit the 10% number as it did in 2010, because that was a result of the Great Recession which started, October 2008. Just a reminder that was during Bush's term. Take a look at FDRs unemployment rate numbers two years in, and he was considered the hero of the Great Depression in many instances.

1:B) All my opponent is saying is that Bush did a better job then Obama at raising the GDP and obviously the numbers agree with that but logically we can see that this an irrelevant point because we aren't comparing who is better. He said Bush didn't get the same praise as Obama, well that's probably because he put us in two trivial wars, and then set a country back 60+ years because they "had WMD's." Obviously this attack falls.

2:A) my opponent stated that there's a 3:1 ratio of those uninsured to those insured as a result to the ACA and I hate to be a pain but I really need to see the evidence on that and if it accounts for future projections before I can reply to that because I have not found that number in any of my research. Not to mentioned anyone uninsured can now apply for Obamacare at this point. Now that I mention it why would you not want to apply. If you'll take a look at this it shows the ten major benefits of the ACA and keep in mind it's for everyone in the United States not just MA
http://www.mass.gov...

2:B) Hmm we can debate what the definition of a human right is but undisputedly it's a civil right and nonetheless is just as serious to deny.

http://civilliberty.about.com...

Conclusion: I've successfully shown why my opponents attacks were unsuccessful. I showed that the reason for the high unemployment rate was the Great Recession which was a result of Bush economic policy. If it's not enough for me to say it then check out this article; http://dailycaller.com...
I showed that Obama has been beneficial to our GDP and that earns him a large amount of praise he gets. Then I showed how beneficial Obamacare can be and I requested to see the evidence for his 3:1 ratio which I await. I also showed how marriage is a civil right, so fundamental at the least. Lastly I showed that there isn't this huge Obama "fan club" ,if you will, like my opponent is making it out to seem. Obama has never had an approval rating above 70% and Bush had an approval rating of 90% at one time and was above 70 almost an entire year. Thus I continue to stand in negation of the resolution and urge a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

1:A) my opponent stated "That Obama actually raised the unemployment rate fathered than lower it." When we look at his logically it was in fact not Obamas fault the unemployment rate hit the 10% number as it did in 2010, because that was a result of the Great Recession which started, October 2008. Just a reminder that was during Bush's term. Take a look at FDRs unemployment rate numbers two years in, and he was considered the hero of the Great Depression in many instances.
Con still has not proved that it was Bush's fault. Not only was it two years into his term that it hit the lowest; simply saying that if we look at this logically does not constitute a good argument. How come the unemployment rate barely changed in the years president Bush was in office and then 1 year after he left it suddenly leapt 2% and the next year 3%. That seems highly unlikely it changed so much AFTER president Bush left office.

2:A) my opponent stated that there's a 3:1 ratio of those uninsured to those insured as a result to the ACA and I hate to be a pain but I really need to see the evidence on that.
http://www.lifenews.com...
It has a figure of 4 million for those who lost health insurance and a figure of 2 million for those who gained it. Thats a 2:1 ratio. It is less of a difference because it turns out the data I used was old; but it's still significant. Amount of people expected to lose insurance: 80 million; heres the link: http://www.foxnews.com... Thats in the next few years. The expected number of people to gain insurance from the ACA is 27 million; heres the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com... So from this we find that the ratio is expected to reach nearly 3:1. A net loss of 53 million is expected. So the ACA is expected to actually double the number of uninsured people in the country when it was supposed to half that number.

I just checked your link and the evidence is false. It says that it ensures affordable coverage for middle income families; however if you pay any attention to the news you will hear about people who are middle class and have healthcare MORE expensive now than before the ACA.

Marriage is not included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights so it is not a human right.

Conclusion

Con needs better evidence to support the theory that it was Bush's policies that caused that spike in unemployment. I have shown that the ACA is doing and expected to do more harm than good. I showed how marriage is not a civil right. Finally it's the praise he's getting not how much he's getting.


alevan

Con

First if all I want to thank my opponent for a full and lively debate. I've enjoyed it very much and look forward to perhaps some future debates with him. With that being said I shall begin.

1:A) okay so when we look at my opponents responses in the last round he reiterates a lot of the same points he made in the previous round. Basically what we have to understand when looking at the unemployment rate, obviously what caused that was the Great Recession! Since my opponent did not address that we have to assume he concedes that. Now I provided an article showing that the Recession was a result of bad economic policy put in place by previous administrations (Bush & Clinton) and this also went undisputed, once again meaning he concedes to it. Quite frankly this means two things, one that I've shown him that it was not the fault of Obama, and two that he did not read my last rounds posting because he missed that point and is misconstruing the entire sub-point.

1:B) My opponent didn't respond to my defense against his attack so my point once again stands. So we have to see that this is going to be a major contributing factor because the growth of GDP is vital to our middle class, gives our government more spending room, and slows down inflation.

1:C) Now this point went completely unaddressed by my opponent the entire round. This is in fact one of the most important sub points I provided as well. The Fair Pay Act helped every woman across the country get equal pay for equal work. That's just something that our country should stand for anyways. The fact that it was a problem in our country doesn't make us look to good. However, thanks to Mr. Obama and his administration this is no longer an issue for over 156 million women.

2:A) This is definitely been the main focus of my opponents side in this debate but quite frankly what my opponent is trying to do is cross-apply two studies. Now one of those studies is giving the highest estimate of people who could become uninsured, and the other gives you minimum number of people who will gain insurance. That's honestly ridiculous considering the Washington post article that he also cites says at most 15 million Americans will receive health insurance cancellations. While 25 million will gain health insurance. Now considering Fox News is a bias conservative source I'm going to weigh his Washington Post article considerably more in today's round. You as a voter should too.

-He then attacked my link saying its false and that news is saying all these different things. However I find it interesting that he didn't provide me a single piece of evidence for such an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on him for such a broad claim such as that and so I'm not going to even take note to that.

2:B) My opponent only stated that because it's not in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that it's not a human right. However, interestingly enough it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I cite Article XVI (16)
(1)Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

-You can see the article itself along with the entire declaration at; http://www.un.org...

Also take note that in the last round I stated that Obama does not have a huge praise. He has an approval rating of below 50% and many estimates say that his approval rating will only decrease from now until 2016. Really we can see he doesn't appeal to as large a number of people as perhaps Pro believes.

Conclusion: In 1:A) I showed the Great Recession was the cause of the high unemployment rate in our country which started during Bush's presidency with evidence that went undisputed. My 1:B) defense went undisputed which means he concedes to the defense which means the point stands. Also 1:C) went completely undisputed by my opponent in all the rounds. This shows obviously once again this point stands. I showed how vital that bill was for over 150 million woman and thus should be weighed very heavily in today's round. As we can see two of my economic sub-points went completed undisputed in the final round, one the entire debate, and my first sub point stands for the reasons and evidence I've provided, showing I have overwhelmingly won the economic side to this debate.

Social Benefits as a result of Obama's 6 years in office show once again how beneficial Mr. Obama has been to our country. In 2:A) I showed that his evidence from Fox News states the highest possible number ever, and that his other article completely disagrees with that 80 million number. I found it comical at how much the two articles disagreed because they both contradict each other but considering one is a completely bias conservative article I'll value the Washington Post article which actually reaffirms my own position. In 2:B) my opponent stated that marriage is not a human right because the UN Declaration of Human Rights did not say it is, however when we look at it in Article 16 it actually does say marriage is a human right so this point stands as well. Really we are seeing my entire second contention stand.

Once again I thank my opponent for a lively debate, and for the reasons above I urge a Con ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
alevan
Idk haha iPad is not working I guess. I'm only sending it once
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
Why do you keep posting twice?
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
alevan
Keep in mind you cited it
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
alevan
Keep in mind you cited it
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
Also keeep in mind the washington post article was written before the seriousness of the insurance losses was realized.
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
alevan
Also take note that Bush was still in office on January 1 2009. Mr. Obama wasn't inaugurated until the 20th
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
alevan
Also take note that Bush was still in office on January 1 2009. Mr. Obama wasn't inaugurated until the 20th
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
theta_pinchalevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave himself a very high threshold in this debate with the word "nothing." He couldn't allow Con to win a single argument, even partially, as a reason for praise. One would suffice. And as such, he's practically losing this from the first post from Con. Much of his views are his interpretation of what occurred, and often mitigates instead of negating Con's points. Much of his arguments against the praise are statements that Obama has done less than Bush in certain areas, which doesn't really prove his point. And leaving even one argument unanswered, as he has with several, is a big problem. So this isn't terribly convincing.