The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Remove Barack Obama from white house yes or no & explain your reasons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,867 times Debate No: 77783
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




I am convinced we need to remove president Obama from the white house ASAP I will make all my points in one single post and I will allow you guys to do the rest. Do you agree that Obama should be removed from the white house or not? and explain yourself.

His recent nuclear deal with Iran is an outrage, multiple countries are against this act not just Israel. It is also a blatant and open statement of where he stands with his own country. Iran has openly stated multiple times that they hate America so why should we offer them nuclear technology? At the same time Obama has demanded to reduce America's nuclear arsenal.

He has committed borderline treasonous acts especially with the Iran Nuclear deal. His Amnesty policies are illegal. We should not be promoting open boarders and allowing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants many of whom are known convicted criminals and violent offenders including sex offenders. Many of these people are unskilled and illiterate in their own language.

His health care policy AKA the Affordable Health Care Act is not only unsustainable but it is also a violation of the constitution... under the commerce clause, the government is not allowed to force people to buy goods or services. The ACA is a violation of our rights. (I also believe that forcing car insurance on everyone is also a violation of the commerce clause.)

The Obama Admin knew about the Benghazi attack before it happened, recently it was discovered that the CIA was smuggling and selling American weapons to Al-Qaeda and other terrorists, After the release of her emails it was discovered that Hillary Clinton knew what was going on and allowed it to happen.

Obama also allowed the supreme court to illegally impose gay marriage on all 50 states. Marriage is a state issue not a federal issue, and the supreme court alone does not have the authority to write laws. Judges cannot make laws, but they can make decisions to force legislators to act or not act a certain way which is of course unconstitutional. The states that voted against gay marriage now have it forced on them. If I'm not mistaken it is the gay community that constantly lectures conservatives to not impose their views, but now the gay community has forced gay marriage in all 50 states. Which is hypocritical.


Thanks, Steven, for allowing me to accept the challenge. Although you didn't personally let me, you did make an interesting one and arguably my first political debate. Good luck, mate. I hope to have a fun discussion on this.



To start off, I do not think President Obama should be removed from office on a very simple basis. He has yet to have done anything wrong to legally remove him from office. I, for one as a Liberal, have disagreed with Obama on a many number of things -contrary to the Republican and Fox News' belief we all worship him-, yet I am content that he does not warrant removal on his actions, or at least that which has been listen by my opponent.

Since I have no long opening, where as Pro has his for reasons to have impeachment, I will simply address a few of his points -or rather common beliefs that he may or may not share in his post to counter the reasons for his impeachment being warranted.


The first point I wish to make is the immigration reform, or rather the Amnesty granted by President Barrack Obama. First off, for anyone who is to complain it is illegal, I point, and most off all every Conservative who worships Jesus Reagan, to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Aside from saying that companies should not hire immigrants they knowingly are illegal, it directly made many illegal immigrants legal citizens. All he asked was that they know a few basic things, such as: candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language. It legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. This is coming from the guy the Right worships and also declares Obama to be un-American. Obama did the same thing, in a few parts. The most similar aspect is that Obama's Amnesty required them to have been here for X amount of years ( believe it to be 10 years, but I am not 100% on that) in order for it to allow you to be legal officially. His amnesty was perfectly legal by all means of Presidential power, and the same exercised by former President, Ronald Reagen. [1]

To claim they are mostly murders, rapist, and so on, like Trump thought he should say, there is no evidence supporting that and it would be silly for anyone to target the Amnesty plan being bad on the basis a few bad guys might appear. That is simply a chance that is going to happen regardless. An, as the Right like to argue with guns, criminals do not follow the law anyways, thus them getting Amnesty or nor would not matter. The plan does not allow people to come to America, you had to have been here for X amount of time and met a certain requirement set down. It wasn't an open arm thing. It was like his College plan, where you needed to have a certain GPA to remain in. We should add that George H.W. Bush did the same that affected 40% of undocumented aliens, where as Obama's was simply 45%. not much of a chance. [2] "Up to 3.7 million undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents in the country for at least five years, are eligible for the new deferrals, as are about .3 million immigrants who arrived as children before January, 2010. (The second group are eligible by expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA previously covered 1.2 million people; the expansion brings it to 1.5 million)." [3]


For two other points, the Nuclear Deal with Iran was not bad and I will address that in my next post. I will say now, the Supreme Courts decision was legal and followed via the same case of Loving v. Virgina. Marriage is a federal issue and is indeed involved in federal aspects. Just like when a private school, or private building/company, organization, takes any money from the federal government, it officially is 'public' in the sense is must follow federal guidelines.


Cited Work



3) New York Times, "What Is President Obama’s Immigration Plan?" (November 20, 2014, retrieved 2014-11-21)
Debate Round No. 1


FIRST: The Obama administration is circumventing congress on the nuclear deals with Iran, The majority in congress is against the nuclear deal, when they vote against it, obama will veto the vote, when congress overthrows obama's veto he will then declare congress to be non compliance, this will allow obama to use the UN (united nations) to approve the deal and force it into international law and force it on America. This is not what's best for america nor her allies or the world, we should not be giving nuclear tech to our enemies.

Second: You cannot compare, Obama's amnesty with Regan's not only did regan and bush's amnesty also fail to legalize the amount of illegals they planned on, due to the broad spectrum of requirements and legal issues. Both Regan and Bush were in conjunction with congress it was also riddled with fraud and malpractice once it was passed, Obama is leveraging congress into passing amnesty by manipulating the law and bypassing congress not only on illegal immigration but also on the Iranian nuclear deal.

THIRD: The ACA or Obamacare is a direct violation of the law specifically the commerce clause in the , because the government can not force anyone to buy goods or services. Obamacare alone, is an impeachable offense. Obama also violated the law by changing the laws in Obamacare, Obama is only authorized to propose and veto legislation, he is not authorized to change existing laws. This is an impeachable offense, as it involves multiple violations of the law... you seemed to ignore my points about Obamacare.


R1 & P1

While yes the majority are a against it, they are all majority Republicans who listen to Prime Minister. Netanyahu, who, by the way, has been making the same empty threat for a long time. More than twenty years. They have also threatened Iran with nuclear weapons in the past and is also one with out a clean slate, and as such has no right to argue Iran as he has. If Obama does as you said he would, he would be in complete power. There really seems to be two outcomes, and I do not mean to create a bit of a false dichotomy.

First, Iran had eyes on a nuclear weapon for a while. You can't really blame them with Saudi Arabia (SA/S.A.) not far off who dislikes Iran. If we do not do the deal, the only other option to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons would be invading them, which is not a good idea at all.

Second, the Nuclear Deal is nothing as you stated it, and quite clearly the opposite. On just page 3 on the 3rd point of the document on the nuclear deal with Iran (out of the 159 pages), it specifically says: "iii. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons". There is not a single thing about the Nuclear Deal that has to do with giving Iran any form of nuke tech. [1]

What the deal does say in regards to Iran and nuclear technology is as following: "iv. Successful implementation of this JCPOA will enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the nuclear None-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in line with its obligations therein, and the Iranian nuclear programme will be treated in the same manner as that of any other non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT." [1]

So as you can see, the deal in just these two of the hundreds of points, is to, as transparent as it is, not produce, seek or otherwise similar approach to nuclear weapons, but able to use nuclear energy for power like any other sovereign nation, such as the United States, Germany, Russia, and so on.

It has become quite clear, with the two sides in order to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you have the deal which is more peaceful, less lives lost, a chance as trust, nation building and so on, or you can go to war with them. The former is abundantly clear to be best for the nation.

Both the left and right do not want Iran to get nukes, and even the right who oppose the deal made that very clear, which means their only choice is war. Choosing war vs a peace deal is not best for the nation and is a good reason why Obama doing as pro said would be better than shedding blood because we wanted to be the police of the world.

R2 & P2

It was quite fine and acceptable to compare Obama's amnesty to both Bush and Reagen, because all three of what they did were perfectly legal and within the power of the President of the united States. Sadly, Obama can not go through congress anymore. Even on things they agree with or say should happen, they disagree with and will not support or simply refuse to vote on things Obama brings too them. Such as the fund for the boarders he came to Congress about only to tell him no. On a subject they support, obviously, and clearly Rick Perry who has asked for aid. So there is no reason one could not compare the plans, especially when the purpose was very much the same. Allow illegals to be come legal in a sense, but they must meet a certain level, thus does not encourage Mexicans (let's face it, that is what you mean) to arbitrarily jump the boarders and become legal. Especially when it officially puts those who qualify on the radar.

R3 & P3

To address the point on Affordable Care Act (ACA) or commonly known as Obamacare. You claim it is a direct violation of the commerce clause, but it is in no way a violation. You only support is that it forces (because that is what the clause is in regards too) the people to buy a good or service and therefor subjects him to breaking the clause and therefor impeachment. The reason he has yet to be impeached is because Congress has no case. Obamacare doesn't force anyone to buy a service. Obamacare is simply you use the portal to find a healthcare service that fits your budget (it gives you companies based on your income and so on) or, if you do not want healthcare, then you can have between $300 something or 3% of your total income of the year taken out on tax day. That is in no way forcing you to buy it nor has he changed any laws that he can't do.

So no, I did not ignore it, but I can only write out 5k characters and thus can not completely give everything I can on your post. It does not violate any laws, not is it impeachable. It is also sustainable enough to be used. It's not perfect and no one has implied it is perfect universal healthcare. It's just a footstep. So not does not force you to buy healthcare at all.

Cited Work

1) Iran Deal Text, pg.3, points 3-4.
Debate Round No. 2


It is not wise to believe what a document says about the Iran nuclear deal, Iran is indeed after nuclear weapons, and they have lied multiple times, no one trusts Iran not to develop nuclear weapons because that's what they have been trying to do all along, this deal does not prevent Iran from developing or getting a nuclear weapon, it simply delays the process. Iran has been working with North Korea on nuclear weapons, North Korea has even conducted tests on their weapons in 2006 and 2013. We also should not be giving any nuclear technology to a state that sponsors terrorism, not only that but this deal also involves giving Iran 150billion dollars to Iran, guess who is forced to pay for that 150billion, that's right the US tax payers, lets not forget that the majority voters is against the nuclear deal. Netanyahu has only threatened Iran because they continuously rage their proxy war against Israel, Israel is on the defensive, not offensive. Iran is the one who is threatening nuclear war, Netanyahu only acted in defense.

America should not be funding terrorist states like Iran. We cannot trust Iran and some comments that you cited from the documents don't mean anything either, Iran is known for lying and not keeping their promises. Their reputation is against them. The majority who are against the vote are not just republicans, in fact, there are many democrats against the nuclear deal.

Affordable Care Act: absolutely does force people to get health insurance, if you do not get health insurance you will be penalized, millions of Americans where told they could keep their doctors, well guess what, many Americans were denied coverage. The ACA has directly impacted businesses, and has even causes many to shut down, many of these businesses already had health benefits packages, when Obamacare was passed, they were no longer able to afford it and they had let go of many employees and like I said, many businesses have been shut down because of it. The ACA has gone through changes that were never approved by congress. The Obama Admin has no authority to change laws they can only veto or propose legislation. The ACA is a impeachable offense.

You need to stop believing everything they tell you, because it is all lies.


Closing Statement

As I make my closing remarks, I would like to say that the official document is enough to say what the deal is about. As many might have said on the right, we are funding the Iranians. This is just not true, they are actually getting their money back. It was their money that was on hold/frozen and has been thawed for their use. The money doesn't come all at once. If we dismiss the official papers of the deal, we are simply falling to confirmation bias by saying we can only trust what article and not what the papers say. If Iran fails to follow the deal, they don;t get their money. If they wanted to make nukes, they would just not do the deal. It's that simple. And again, there are two options. Invasion or the deal. I don't think we should trust anyone claiming the former is better than the latter. And most of the democrats agree with the deal. This mythos that the right hates it and most of the left is false and has no true backup. I ask the viewers to just do their own research and read the deal themselves and look at Iran themselves.

Here is why you should ignore the critics. They have never once given better alternatives. They are against it and what do the all say? "Iran will get Nukes" and I think pro even saying we are giving them money, nuclear tech for nukes and so on is obviously false. Nothing supports it and those that do support the truth even show that this lie is false. I believe the fact pro stated "giving Iran 150billion dollars to Iran, guess who is forced to pay for that 150billion, that's right the US tax payers, " is evidence enough he has not researched the deal. The nuclear deal that says they get money is actually Iran's money that had been on hold. So no, we are not, as tax payers, giving anyone in Iran money based on the Nuclear deal. I think the fact pro stated my comments on the documents not meaning anything just shows that pro does not want to listen to the facts of the deal.

As I have stated, and I will say my points extend to this argument, the ACA is not impeachable and nothing about it warrants impeachment. That s why he has not been impeached, because it doesn't violate the constitution as cited by pro. And no, the ACA has not caused people to be let off or companies to be shut down. all the ACA does is create a portal to insurance. The insurance one would go and buy themselves, only the ACA lets you enter information, your income and where you live and about yourself, and then gives you a list of insurance companies with their premium and the cost and the quotes. That is all it does. In fact, the ACA has given people insurance and helped millions as the numbers will show you. Are you going to impeach a man and remove the bill that gives millions of people insurance, like me, and impeach a man for doing what, getting people insurance? The next step is universal health care paid by the tax payers. Are you going to try and impeach a President for helping the American people on a deal that obviously is better than not having it?

Under the Constitution, the Gay Marriage act was legal by "all men are created equal and should be treated equally" and no one should vote for others to not get something that doesn't affect the person voting. Gay marriage doesn't affect the person who is heterosexual in a monogamist marriage. Al t he law does is say that marriage for homosexuals is legal. It isn't illegal. If anything voting to prevent people do to do something that is is not religious based, but rather government based, is illegal. The state can marry people, not just religions and it isn't a religious thing anymore and is not a Christian thing nor is this nation founded on Christianity. So the fat straight people can vote to say these gays can not get married when it doesn't affect straight people is wrong and discrimination. The documents of this nation stated all men are created equal, doing what the anti-gay crowed does is not following the word of the Founders.

And the reason the Court can do it is the same as the past. The past. The state can not arbitrary vote and say these x people can not do what we can (the majority) on illogical bases. Like saying interracial couples can not marry or that blacks can not be with whites and must be separated. By saying marriage is a states right is the same as saying the state can tell blacks to not marry whites, in which case you might as well say blacks can not be mixed in places with whites. You can't because it's illegal. Why? Because blacks can not change their skin and as such you should not treat them differently on the basis of who they are and you also can't change gays, as it's not a choice, therefor they fall under the same protection.

I hope the audience can make their own choice. Please for con.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by drouell 1 year ago
It would be difficult for any president to run a country where the focus of its politicians, is to insure the presidents failure. Obama would of been a far better president if he had a supportive team behind him. Honestly, these past 2 terms, has been reminiscent of a high school cafeteria food fight, republicans out numbering the dems, its this imbalance of power that makes us unhealthy as a country. How does our government look after its citizens, fairly. Give corporations tax breaks? While executive levels see the the highest raises and share the profits amongst themselves- Profits should be shared among all company employees- Regardless of who takes the 2017 presidency, the repubs and dems, will still sling mud at one another in the sandbox- So Proud to be an American, while the world scratches its head at our amazing government! :(
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Not sure if trolling or just stupid.
Posted by Isum25 1 year ago
I say remove cuz he's black.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: PsychoScientist// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Arguments, Conduct) and 2 points to Con (Sources). I agree with Pro's opinion on removing Obama from the office. He has been recently and constantly breaking the law multiple times. He also lied in his campaign on running for president, after he promised to never intent to increase the cost of any American citizens that are paid under $250,000 a year, we all know he lied. He has been making deals with Iran in giving them nuclear power, or $150 billion dollars. The ones that were destined to pay that money were the American citizens. And Finally, he has been lying to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico about giving them money, when he doesn't even control Puerto Rico, the ones that control Puerto Rico is the congress, and they simply don't care who they give the money to. To keep going on with this argument there are more than 100 reason why Obama should be kicked off the White House. Since Pro, didn't provide any sources, I shall give a vote to Con.. I don't have any more space for any more arguments. Thank you for the Debate.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The conduct vote is unexplained in this RFD. (2) The source vote is insufficiently explained. The lack of sources on Pro's part does not justify a source vote for Con unless those sources played an important role in the debate. (3) Merely listing off reasons why Obama should be despised is insufficient to explain why Con's case utterly failed. The voter makes no effort to examine any of Con's case. (4) The voter adds arguments to Pro's case, including the $250,000 a year argument and all of the points on Puerto Rico. He even insinuates that there are "100 reason why Obama should be kicked off the White House", which insinuates that he's injecting both his opinion and view of the facts into this debate.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
More out of curiosity, I have to question PsychoScientis' vote. If you are going to say X has better conduct than Y and X had more convincing arguments then Y, could you please explain? Because I find it odd you would say X has better convincing arguments with absolutely no cited work even stating things that didn't follow with reality (if you follow my arguments and even sources) that were proven to be false. And how is his conduct better? If it was a tie, that is one thing, but you should explain why they are better then one or the other. Not parrot the same thing that "Obama is doing this and should be taken out". It doesn't really sound like it makes sense. I mean your RFV was essentially a rant, not an actual reason.

Can you please go into detail?
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
Starting off with an ad hominem? I don't rely on wiki for information most of the time, only when the cited sources are there that you can follow and that justifies what is on the page to be valid. How is what I posted invalid at all? It's not. I posted the wiki so you,yourself read the page on the P5+1. I've already known about them long before I knew of that wiki. Hence me stating it in the debate. And no, nothing suggest they will use it for Israel, nothing shows them being violent other than right wing propaganda. And it's their money, they can use it and have it if they follow the deal. Are you demanding we don't get a nation their money? That's insanity. The entire European Nations and Russia could invade us and do the same on the basis of a few international laws we have broken and invading nations with no true justification. You wouldn't be saying what you are now if that happened.

I want this to happen because it is far better then just invading Iraq to prevent nukes. That would cause war and the death of thousands. Why would you want that? Are you personally going to fight it? Iran hasn't threatened the U.S. any time recently. In the past? Sure. But it's more convoluted than that. There were reasons for it and this Nuclear deal has been around since the 50's to the 60's when the revolution occurred that we were forced to stop. No, many democrats (Why would I care about them?) and atheist do not side with you. Nothing supports that and in fact I'd greatly argue most atheist liberals would be for the deal. We also don't hump the leg of Israel like the Christians do. The vast majority of Americans do not dislike the deal and one who has provides no alternatives other than the obvious war. And those who oppose it almost always lack knowledge on it, as you so clearly have.

I say Conservative because they are the ones who challenge it the most and with no real knowledge on it. Like Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly, etc. This is my view on the issue based on facts.
Posted by steven8 2 years ago
Oh, berend, you're so naive and using wikipedia to get your information is not benefiting you or others. Iran will receive 150billion dollars to help their economy, and they will use it to go after Israel.

I cannot understand why you want this to happen. Iran has threatened America it has threatened it's allies, they want to kill us and Israel Obama is helping them not the united states.

And you need to stop making this about conservatives and republicans etc. many democrats and atheists are against this deal with Iran. You need to stop believing the crap you're hearing from the white house and stand with your fellow Americans. The overwhelming majority hate this deal.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago

There you go. Simple and easy information. It is the P5+1 that is doing the deal together with Iran, not just the United States.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
We're not giving them any money. I'm sorry ,you don't even know what the deal is and likely parroting information from the Right Wing Republican Conservatives who are ignorant on the topic. Just by saying we are giving them money and it comes from us tax payers alone proves my point.

Iran is getting their money. it was their money that was frozen. They had no way to get it and if they follow the deal, they can use it. It has nothing to do with American tax payer money.

"this is not what America wants."

Yes, because war/invasion is so much better. Unless you will personally fight that war, we are not going to send young men and women to die for idiotic choices when we can go it though other means.

China and Russia are in the pact with the U.S.

It is the United States, The United Kingdom, Germany, China, France, and Russia that are doing this pact with Iran. So saying they have China and Russia shows you do not even know what the deal is. It's not America making a deal with Iran. it's the UK, US, Russia, China, French, and German nations that are making a deal with Iran.

1) The money is Iran's and has been their but they could not access it. It is not coming from us.

2) China and Russia as well as Germany, France and the UK are all in the deal with Iran as with the US. It is the 5+1 pact.

The majority do agree with this. Because anyone who knows what the deal is and what the alternative is knows this is better then going to war.

Of course Saudi hates the deal, but not for the reasons you think. Please educate yourself on this Nuclear Deal, thank you.
Posted by steven8 2 years ago
the majority of American voters do not like this nuclear deal. They do not trust Iran to follow this deal, the deal should've been a treaty but it is not.

Second this absolutely does not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, because they still have Russia and China, these imports are untouchable the U.S. military would never attack Russian and Chinese transports and yes they could use this to get nuclear weapons. If you think there is no way Iran could cheat on this nuclear deal, then you are naive.

Lets not forget the 150 billion dollars we will be giving to Iran to allegedly help their economy. Courtesy of American tax payers money.

This is not what America wants and several Arab states also hate this deal. We are only creating more unrest, not peace.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Boesball 2 years ago
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: Con used sources and had more organized arguments. If you have any questions, ask me in a private message or in the comments!
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
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 litterally never uses a source whereas con uses many, in fact I will be borrowing his title for work cited lol. Anyway the reason that pro loses is because he never makes an argument for why obama should be removed from the whitehouse. Pro has burden of proof and so by not doing this he forfeits the round. The only things talked about in this round were acts that pro disliked or thought were illegal however he never says why these things merit removal of the whitehouse. I think what he meant to say was that it merited impeachment however he also never argues this. Judges come at debates like they have never heard the things in the topic before so in this debate I was left wondering why the arguments being discussed concerned the resolution. Clear victory for con.