President Obama Should Get a Second Term
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Contra
| Started: | 1/30/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 307 times | Debate No: | 20773 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)
|
I hope that you will accept my challenge & if so I look forward to a good debate. I'll be arguing against the motion.
|
![]() |
|
iEconomics forfeited this round.
I guess I will not see my opponent's arguments, but I'll post some on my own. Job Creation and Economy When Obama was elected President, job losses (net) were -750,000 a month, and GDP was falling at a rate of almost -9%. You cannot expect Obama to end this in a snap of his fingers. However, now new jobs are growing, and a recovery (although still is not strong yet) exists. Plus, the new jobs are from the private sector, so they are real and not government jobs. We have being seeing growth in jobs at about 165,000+, and GDP in the 2-3% range. This is progress. [1] The USA economy has added net new jobs for 23 straight months. Obama also saved the auto industry. You cannot deny that importance, it saved literally millions of jobs (as did the stimulus). The Dodd-Frank law also made Wall Street accountable, and ended predatory lending, and regulates some of the financial securities that caused the recession in the first place. Energy and Environment Obama coordinated an agreement that makes average fuel economy standards 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. This is a great move for the environment and reducing imported oil. [2] Plus, with help from the stimlulus in 2009, renewable energy is now 14% of total energy sources, a promise kept as well. Other campaign promises on energy have been kept. Obama has also signed legislation that conserves land, and also the EPA under Obama's administration has proposed first-ever national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The new standards would require many power plants to install widely available, proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. These standards would also provide particular health benefits for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year. [5] Foreign Policy Osame Bin Laden has been killed, as well as Al Qaeda's second in command. Now, Al Qaeda is severely damaged, with over 2/3rds of senior leadership eliminated. It is unquestionable, that instead of using trillions of US resources and thousands of lives, and disrupting a nation (Iraq), that using several U.S. navy seals to end a terrorist organization was much more effective. [3] The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama. In many countries opinions of the United States are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office. [4] Plus, the War in Iraq is over. The War in Afghanistan is scheduled to end in the near future, in 2013-2014. Plus, the military is now not orientation-discrimatory, since D.A.D.T. was repealed. Also a new START treaty with Russia was signed, reducing the nuclear stockpiles of these nations. [5] Health Care The new law that was signed in 2010 will make the health care system better for the USA. The bill reduces the deficit by about $100 billion up to 2020, then reduces the deficit about a trillion in the following decade. It expands coverage at the same time to 32 million more Americans, getting closer to a Universal Health Care system. This law will also end the Medicare "donut hole" and improves coverage for other Americans, such as college students and people who were previously denied coverage. [6] It also makes the 44 million free riders pay their fair share and fined if they don't, which is a fiscally prudent decision, and frankly, "conservative." [1] ![]() Sources: http://www.thedailybeast.com... http://www.politifact.com... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.pewglobal.org... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.whitehouse.gov... |
![]() |
|
iEconomics forfeited this round.
|
![]() |
|
iEconomics forfeited this round.
Education The Obama administration has implemented the Race to the Top program, which rewards individual states for making tough reforms such as raising standards, helping teachers improve, and turning around failing schools. So far, the rewards have been promising. Since 2010, the administration has awarded Race to the Top grants to 11 states and the District of Columbia—helping 13.6 million students and 980,000 teachers in 25,000 schools. [1] Other states can see the effects and adopt the same policies to their schools as well. Also, Obama has championed an increase in Pell Grants, and a program has been implemented that allows students to get loans from the federal government, and pay them back gradually at a maximum rate of 10% of income after the students finish college and get a job. This is not a ponzi scheme, this program is an smart investment. [2] Here are some accomplishments of the Obama administration thus far:
[3] [4]
Also, when you consider ALL OF THESE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (not all of them), then consider that Obama also prevented a second depression, and helped the economy restart (albeit slowly -- but we were at -9% GDP/ annually; now we are around +2%/ annually, and will rise over time). VOTE CONTRA ------- PRO ![]() Sources: [1] http://www.barackobama.com... [2] Clinton, Bill. Back To Work: Why We Need Smart Government For A Strong Economy. 2011. Print [3] http://www.michigandaily.com... [4] http://www.whitehouse.gov... |
![]() |
|
iEconomics forfeited this round.
|
![]() |
Post a Comment
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Koopin 1 year ago

Report this Comment
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago

Report this Comment
Posted by iEconomics 1 year ago

Report this Comment
Posted by Contra 1 year ago

Report this Comment
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 1 year ago
| iEconomics | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by Mr_Anon 1 year ago
| iEconomics | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Tough call here. Pro failed to refute any of Con's points, but Con didn't have any citations whatsoever. Overall, I'm giving this debate to Pro.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 1 year ago
| iEconomics | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | ![]() | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
| iEconomics | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | ![]() | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | ![]() | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 1 year ago
| iEconomics | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: FF













