The Instigator
bluesteal27
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

President Obama has not benefited the United States during his presidency thus far.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Johnicle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,493 times Debate No: 15626
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

bluesteal27

Pro

This will be a Public Forum style debate. Round 1: state your main arguments. Round 2: Refute your opponents arguments as well as rebuilding your own.

Resolved: President Obama has not benefited the United States during his presidency thus far.

I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution for these two main contentions.
President Obama is driving us into deeper and deeper national debt. Obama has done nothing except proposing Obamacare which has so far only taken up time without benefiting the country.

Contention 1: The timing of a presidency is crucial. It has to fit the specific needs of the country at the time in order to be successful. When Obama was elected president the country needed a president that was tight on spending in order to pull us out of debt as well as lowering taxes to help stimulate the economy. However, Obama has only dramatically increased national spending to an all time high which will eventually be severely detrimental to the United States. According to thenationaldebtcrisis.com, it is projected that the United States national debt will increase by 6.5 trillion dollars by the end of Obama's first term. That is almost a trillion dollars more than George w. Bush's two terms combined. The national debt was 10.6 when Barack Obama took office. Therefore, he will have increased the national debt by more than half of what it was by the end of his first term. Furthermore, this new Obama care program that he has put his entire presidency on is estimated to cost over 1 trillion dollars! How is putting the United States into deeper and deeper debt beneficial?

Contention 2: During Obama's campaign, his slogan was "change." However, he has pretty much done the opposite of change. He has continued the reckless spending in Washington, and the only major aspect of change to the United States he has proposed is Obamacare which I stated in my first contention is not beneficial and even detrimental to the United States today.
Johnicle

Con

Thank you for the opportunity and I wish you luck!

Topic Analysis

The resolution asks us to analyze if Obama’s time in office has established a net-benefit to the United States.Thus I propose that the most accurate to determine this is by comparing the effect of our policies at the end of the Bush era to the current effects during the current Obama era.

Contention One: Foreign Policy

A. Under Bush, America practiced torture constantly.This is clear acts of War Crimes

1. “Zubaydah was waterboarded. That much we know - it was confirmed recently by a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who even used the plain English word “torture” to describe what was done.” [1]

2. “Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba served as the deputy commanding general for support for the Third Army for ten months in Kuwait during the early days of the Iraq occupation. In a statement released today, he bluntly accuses the Bush administration of war crimes and lays down a challenge for prosecution.In 2004, Taguba released a classified report detailing abuses committed at Abu Ghraib Prison. The "Taguba Report” urged Pentagon officials to follow up on its findings by enforcing adherence to the Geneva Conventions in interrogations.” [2]

B. We sanctioned and even created worse instances of torture through Extraordinary Rendition.

“Abu Omar says his torture lasted 14 months; the worst of it taking place at the secret police headquarters in Cairo. To date, more than 60 prisoners are believed to have been sent there by the United States. This is the dark story of “extraordinary rendition,” says Grey, a secret program in which the United States captures terror suspects around the world and flies them to countries like Egypt, Syria or Morocco, where, critics say, torture is routine.” [4]

C. The damage of such actions is extremely severe, not to mention that little information produced is extremely inaccurate.

1. The Bush administration Monday formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies. [3]

2. Now released from jail, Abu Omar maintains his innocence, saying he’s willing to defend himself in court if the Egyptians or the Americans ever charge him with a crime. Guilty or not, Abu Omar and his rendition have become a disaster for the CIA. Italian police investigating the case were able to identify the CIA agents involved. They are set to go on trial, in absentia, on charges of conspiracy to kidnap -- a rare and politically embarrassing instance of a U.S. ally in Europe trying CIA agents in court. For the last four years, Stephen Grey has been investigating stories of extraordinary rendition like Abu Omar’s. The Bush administration hasn’t spoken about Abu Omar, but under increasing pressure to reveal information about terror suspects apprehended and jailed secretly, they’ve officially acknowledged dozens of cases like his. They claim that when they send terror suspects to other countries, they get assurances they won’t be tortured, but even former CIA officials admit those claims are worthless. [4]

3. A high-level American Special Ops interrogatorsaysthat information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists. Indeed, hesays that torture of innocent Iraqis by Americans isthe main reasonthat foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraqin the first place.A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically thattorture doesnothelp collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that tortureactuallyturns people into terrorists. [5]

Contention Two: Economy

A. Trickle down economics is a joke.

1. “So-called supply-side economists don’t like raising taxes on anyone, of course, and argue that raising them on the well-off will slow economic growth. They say people at the top will have less incentive to work hard, invest, and invent.Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again.” [6]

2. Bush’s strategy of giving more money to the rich failed to provide an incentive to create jobs with it.There was never a lack of supply (money) in our country, but rather a lack of demand (job creating opportunities).Bush merely increased supply (unnecessarily), while Obama has increased demand.

B. Comparative evidence of Obama and Bush economic policies.

1. “For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism… Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush producedthe worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.” [7]

2. “Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.” [7]

3. “Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist.” [7]

4. “The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.” [7]

His Case:

Contention One merely shows that Obama is spending more:

1) He isn’t spending that much more.
2) He provides no warrant as to why this is a bad thing.
3) The aforementioned evidence shows how this has actually saved capitalism.
4) The spending of Obama is better.Bush gave loads of money to the rich in which they gave to themselves in bonuses rather than helping out the economy.

Contention Two argues that he has not “changed” our country:

1) The changes he has provided is enormous (probably more than any President).
2) Even if his change is little, it does not prove that he has failed to benefit our country.Refer to my topic analysis where I show that I only need net-benefit.

As a fair warning, for round 2 I will be going into depth about the magnitude of each argument I have made.

Sources

[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
[2] http://www.truth-out.org...
[3] http://www.alternet.org...
[4] http://www.pbs.org...
[5] http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com...
[6] http://www.salon.com...
[7] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bluesteal27

Pro

I would first like to point out that in this debate, we are not discussing whether or not the country has improved since George W. Bush. We are discussing whether or not Obama is a benefical factor in that improvement or a detrimental factor in that improvement. I apologize for this confusion. To clarify further, in order for the Con to win this debate, he must prove that the policies of Obama have helped to accelerate the improvement of the United States opposed to the Pro which has to prove that the policies of Obama has slowed down the improvement of America. This said, i will now refute the arguments of my opponent.

In my opponent's first contention, he states that Obama has improved the foreign policy of the United States. His example of this would be the water boarding instances during the Bush administration. My opponent states that waterboarding, a supposed form of "torture";used on terrorist suspects was overall a bad thing for America and that Obama has improved America by banning the use of waterboarding. I do agree that waterboarding was detrimental to the image of America and that it could be interpreted as a war crime. I also agree that waterboarding may result in an increased amount of terrorism. However, I negate my opponents entire first contention by simply pointing out that waterboarding was banned during the end of the Bush Administration.

According to ABC News, "waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director"; The article also states, "Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14, 2007, that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex ration, had been banned by the CIA director (Michael Hayden) at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes."

This proves that Obama actually had nothing to do with the matter. Therefore, his entire first contention doesn't even relate to the resolution.

My opponent's second contention states the the economy has improved since the bush administration, and this is true however it is not because of Obama as i stated previously, my opponent must prove that Obama has influenced this improvement in a positive manner. However he has not shown any evidence to support his statement thus far.

My opponent attacks my case by saying that I have not provided a warrant as to why national debt is a bad thing. Increasing the national debt is a bad thing because it will result in increased inflation as well as high interest rates.
He also says that he hasn't increased the debt that much, but as i stated previously, it is estimated that by the end of his first term will have increased the national debt by 6.5 trillion dollars. Which is almost one trillion more dollars than the two terms of the Bush Adminisrtation combined.

I apololgize, I had a lot more written however it was erased accidentally and I do not feel like re-writing it.
Johnicle

Con

Thank you for the timely response and for this debate.

I urge both sides of the aisle to put ideological bias aside when deciphering a winner.

========================================================

1. There is no reason to affirm this topic.

Not only is Pro responsible for supporting the topic but he himself was the instigator of the debate. Therefore, he has the burden to prove a statement true while I have the burden to prove a statement not true. The arguments in favor of the topic are lacking. Instead, in his last round, he only initiates defense against my points. Therefore, even if there is a small risk that Obama's policies have benefited the United States, you must vote Con (For example: If I were to present 10 policies that benefited the U.S., and he defeated 9 of those, you still vote Con because there is benefit to the United States).

I am the only side that has offense in this debate.

2. The decision then becomes easy since my opponent decides against re-typing his arguments and instead to take Snoop Dogg's advice and "Drop it like it's Hot" [1]

He fails to address:

Contention One / B:

I clearly state that the United States took part in Extraordinary Rendition (which means that even if he wins that we have stopped waterboarding, he fails to win that we stopped sanctioning and even creating torture.)

Contention One / C / 2:

I make it clear that Extraordinary Rendition is extremely damaging. No attack against this is made.

Contention One / C / 3:

He also drops my evidence that states that torture has minimal benefits (that are unreliable) and that torture creates more terrorists.

A specific Obama policy that establishes a net benefit:

"Two days after President Barack Obama was sworn into office, on January 22, 2009, he signed an executive order entitled Ensuring Lawful Interrogations. This order specifically addresses the practice of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States." [2]

Even if this does not end our use of waterboarding (which seems to have been already ended), it does effectively end the use of Extraordinary Rendition and it effectively increases our image to undo damage done by previous administrations.

Contention Two: Everything

He has no answer to the failed policy that Obama has undone in Trickledown Economics.

He has no answer to the fact that Obama is the first president in a decade to increase the demand of jobs rather than unnecessarily increasing the supply of money to pay for them

He fails to refute the claim that Obama has saved capitalism. He rather only asserts that a better stock market doesn't prove Obama helped. Well I will concede that the stock market isn't proportional to Obama's actions but I will not concede that it is a valuable indicator, and I won't concede that it's a better indicator than anything my opponent has provided.

He fails to refute that because of Obama, there are "1 million jobs" that would have been lost if it wasn't for Obama. He saved the American auto-industry.

He even fails to refute the Health Care argument. Millions of people will now be healthy because of Obama. We have always ensured that a criminal charged with a crime is guaranteed a lawyer, but because of Obama, we can now promise that every child who gets sick is guaranteed a Doctor. This is something more valuable than money.

Each of these arguments provides comparative analysis as to what our country was like before Obama, and where our country is going now that he has taken office.

========================================================

Now to his defensive arguments:

"We already ended waterboarding":

1. Fine, but I don't have to win this to prove that Obama has benefited our country.

2. Even if waterboarding was ended before Obama, he is the one who repaired the poor perception of the world (Contention One).

3. Extraordinary Rendition is actually a worse form of torture in that it is not limited to just waterboarding. This was something previously sanctioned by our country, but now it is ended because of the current President. [2]

"Increasing the debt is bad":

1. Our country was in debt without Obama, we are still in debt with Obama. The net-loss of his spending is minimal when compared to the millions of jobs he's providing our country as well as the millions of people who can afford to take their kids to the hospital.

2. He has no evidence for the claim that increasing the debt increases inflation nor does he have any evidence about the economy whatsoever.

3. "Is the debt bad? I looked it up on Wikipedia. Currently, the national debt is about $9.5 trillion, or $31,100 per U.S. resident. If unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, etc. promises are added, the figure rises to $59.1 trillion. That means Medicaid, Social Security, etc. will cost about 5.2 times the amount of our current national debt. When put in that perspective, the $9.5 trillion isn't bad at all. Medicaid, Social Security, etc. are a far bigger problem." [3]

Certainly this doesn't prove that the National Debt isn't a concern because it is. But it does prove that the National Debt isn't the worst problem America has.

========================================================

I know many people don't agree with me, but as far as the debate goes, it is concluded that Obama has in fact benefitted the United States.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://letters.mobile.salon.com...
[3] http://www.intelliot.com...
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
there wasn't any as far as I know
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
How did they clear up the votebombing that went on here?
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
2 rounds is a little short. Which is why I warned that I would be doing magnitude of actions in round 2 (which may seem like "new" arguments)
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
only 2 rounds?
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
Their is a fairly high probability we will go into another financial crisis, except this time only worse.
Obama is causing inflation, which could lead to an extreme devaluing of the dollar.
Just look at Zimbabwe. previously called the "bread basket of Africa" Now you have to bring a wheel barrow fool of money in order to buy bread, it cost millions just to buy coffee. I'm not saying that will happen to America, but you never know.....
Quite likely it won't, but I think buying gold or silver would be wise.
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
you can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
Most people will agree with you.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
bluesteal27JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off with a broad statement and failed to prove it. Con showed that Obama has benefited the US.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
bluesteal27JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't source anything, and so cannot win those points, while Con did provide some decent sources. Pro was also littered with typos and grammatical mistakes. Even though Con made a few, that point also goes to Con. The actual arguments were not even close. Pro made several assertionds but nothing substantial, while Con made several good arguments and defened them well.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
bluesteal27JohnicleTied
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 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: Con actually brought sources to back up his contentions and showed that Obama's outlawing of extraordinary renditio, creation of jobs, and saving of the auto industry have benefited the country.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
bluesteal27JohnicleTied
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 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: Con only had to show one benefit and he did so he wins. Plus, more sources.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
bluesteal27JohnicleTied
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 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: Con cited his sources better and had a lot more. How are we supposed to find Pro's? Also Con was correct that Pro has the BOP and he did not prove anything. I would have liked the debate to be longer, though. Two rounds typically is not enough.