The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,334 times Debate No: 31911
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

imabench

Pro

I believe that the Barack Obama who was re-elected president in 2012 would beat the Barack Obama who was elected president in 2008 in a presidential race 1 on 1. Con will argue that the 2008 Obama would beat the 2012 Obama

First round is acceptance only. 6000 characters and 4 rounds.
TN05

Con

I'll accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

I thank the con for accepting this hypothetical debate, lets get started then :D

Reasons why 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama

1) 2008 Obama no longer has the race card at his disposal since hes going up against 2012 Obama

Lets face it, one of the reasons Obama was re-elected both times was because he polled very strong among minority voters, especially blacks, it was actually vital to his victory. Since it would be a black guy vs a black guy though, then the whole minority vote is thrown wide open, meaning that both Obama's would have to rely more on their campaign promises and policies rather then the fact that they are black and stuff.

2) 2008 Obama was a lot more extreme then 2012 Obama

2008 Obama supported the stimulus, he signed the NDAA, he increased the hell out of drone warfare, and ultimately he bit off a lot more then he could chew by promising he would fix the economy, control the national debt, shut down Guantanamo, and a lot of other things as well that he ultimately failed to deliver on.... 2012 Obama though would know exactly what 2008 Obama would never be able to pull off everything he promised, and that what he would do would harm the country. 2012 Obama could point out where 2008 Obama would fail because 2012 Obama experienced it first hand, but 2008 Obama has no idea where 2012 Obama would fail.

This gives 2012 Obama a MASSIVE advantage over 2008 Obama, since essentially 2012 Obama knows what will and wont work while 2008 Obama wont.

3) 2012 Obama would have 4 more years of experience in the White House then 2008 Obama

One of the biggest problems with running against an incumbent is that the incumbent can campaign on what hes accomplished while in office to use against whoever challenges him. 2008 Obama has had no experience in the White House at all while 2012 Obama has. 2012 Obama has had a lot more experience in handling foreign policy, economic policy, immigration reform, LGBT rights, gun control, etc that 2008 Obama doesnt have, which gives 2012 Obama a pretty massive leg up on 2008 Obama.

4) 2012 Obama has a lot less scandals to deal with then 2008 Obama

2008 Obama had to deal with the complete failure in the 'fast and furious' gun deal that collapsed, and the Libyan Embassy attack that still annoys people to this day. 2012 Obama though hasnt had any scandals to deal with, the only thing of significance that happened under him was failing to handle the sequester, but 2008 Obama also has had trouble reaching budget agreements.

2008 Obama has a lot more scandals that haunt him then 2012 Obama does

5) 2008 Obama won against an easy opponent while 2012 Obama didnt.

2008 Obama basically walked into the White House thanks to a pretty sh*tty campaign from McCain and Palin, while 2012 Obama went toe to toe against a much better opponent in the form of Romney and Ryan. 2012 Obama has better experience campaigning and slinging sh*t at tough opponents then 2008 Obama, who didnt have much of a challenge to become president in 2008. This gives 2012 Obama an edge since hes more experienced in campaigning against tough opponents while 2008 Obama does not

Ill end here for now, over to the Con
TN05

Con

Before we begin, I think a few prerequisites need to be established. The most likely scenario for 2008 Obama (who I will refer to as 'past Obama') running against 2012 Obama (who I will call 'present Obama') in an election is if either one of them attains a time machine. The exact time period of the election does not matter as US law is constant, but bue to technological improvements we can assume that present Obama has a more likely chance of attaining a time machine, and such an election would be in 2008 between past Obama and present Obama. Second off, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that past Obama would beat present Obama in a presidential election; a tie or loss by present Obama would result in a win for my side.

The United States allows anyone to run for office.[2] Accordingly, such an election would have to be conducted after every American, with the exception of past Joe Biden and present Joe Biden (who must run for VP under the Constitution), is killed or dies. The easiest way to do this would be to launch our two Obamas and Bidens into space and then nuke the entire world so everyone, including abroad Americans, dies. Once this is done, the election would begin. Since there are only four eligible voters (past and present Obama as well as past and present Biden), the odds are the election would end in a 50-50 tie for the 20 electoral votes from Illinois. Under the Constitution, tied presidential elections go to the House of Representatives, who would determine the president.[2]

Unfortunately, the entire House of Representatives is dead, as they were all killed by the nuclear bombs. Accordingly, a President could not be chosen. The 12th Amendment has a solution for this problem; the Vice President, selected by the Senate, would become acting President.[2] Only two members of the senate, past Obama and past Biden, are still alive " the only candidates up for vote would be the top two-finishing candidates for VP.[2] These would be past Biden and present Biden, neither of whom are present Obama.[3]

I have proven that present Obama would not beat past Obama in a one-on-one election, as such an election would result in a hung vote from a dead House of Representatives.

References:
1: Back to the Future II
2: The Constitution
3: Common knowledge
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"Before we begin, I think a few prerequisites need to be established. The most likely scenario for 2008 Obama (who I will refer to as 'past Obama') running against 2012 Obama (who I will call 'present Obama') in an election is if either one of them attains a time machine. The exact time period of the election does not matter as US law is constant, but bue to technological improvements we can assume that present Obama has a more likely chance of attaining a time machine, and such an election would be in 2008 between past Obama and present Obama. Second off, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that past Obama would beat present Obama in a presidential election; a tie or loss by present Obama would result in a win for my side."

Agreed.

"The United States allows anyone to run for office.[2] Accordingly, such an election would have to be conducted after every American, with the exception of past Joe Biden and present Joe Biden (who must run for VP under the Constitution), is killed or dies."

Ok you kind of lost me on that last little part. You dont have to kill every last American to ensure it ends up being 08 Obama vs 012 Obama, you just have to kill the ones who do run.... Actually you dont even have to kill all of those people, just the ones who actually have a shot at winning. In 2008 and 2012 only about 30 people made a serious run for president in either election and it would be easier to just have them killed then all of America

"The easiest way to do this would be to launch our two Obamas and Bidens into space and then nuke the entire world so everyone, including abroad Americans, dies"

Impossible. We dont have a space program anymore.

Also there arent enough nukes to effectively kill everyone but more importantly we dont have a space program.

"I have proven that present Obama would not beat past Obama in a one-on-one election, as such an election would result in a hung vote from a dead House of Representatives"

No you havent..... You dont need to kill every last american to make sure the matchup is between 2008 Obama and 2012 Obama, you dont even have to kill all of those who do contend, just the ones who pose a threat to actually winning the presidency....

Extend all arguments
TN05

Con

"Ok you kind of lost me on that last little part. You dont have to kill every last American to ensure it ends up being 08 Obama vs 012 Obama, you just have to kill the ones who do run.... Actually you dont even have to kill all of those people, just the ones who actually have a shot at winning. In 2008 and 2012 only about 30 people made a serious run for president in either election and it would be easier to just have them killed then all of America"

The US has about 314 million people. The main reason most people don't run is, well, they don't stand a chance to win. Anyone can run, and the fact of the matter is if the choice is between Obama and Obama, many people will find that unacceptable. At the very least you need to kill all conservatives (about 40% of America according to Gallup[1]) and conservative-leaning independents or moderates. You also need to kill all people of wealth or who have the means to run a serious run, as well as any people on the left who might run. Simply put, it is easier to annihiliate all of America to ensure an Obama v. Obama than to systematically eliminate the very large portions of the country that dislike Obama. It is one action, nuking the world, versus having to send and fund hitmen to kill all people of a certain mold.

Impossible. We dont have a space program anymore.

Also there arent enough nukes to effectively kill everyone but more importantly we dont have a space program.

Ok, but even then there are a slew of nuclear-protected bunkers they could retreat to. Joe Biden already revealed the location of one, and there are likely many more

You don't need to kill everyone in the world, just the US. As of September 2009, the US had over 5,000 nuclear weapons - we can assume it was larger in 2008.[2] The US has only 285 cities with over 100,000 people, so the US could easily nuke all of those and have enough to spread over the rest of the country.

No you havent..... You dont need to kill every last american to make sure the matchup is between 2008 Obama and 2012 Obama, you dont even have to kill all of those who do contend, just the ones who pose a threat to actually winning the presidency....

Extend all arguments

There is not another realistic scenario. There are hundreds of thousands of conservative activists, hundreds of thousands of moderates, who would not want to see an Obama-Obama election. At what point can you eliminate the opposition while still maintaining a country? Keep in mind that Obama-Obama does nothing but split the liberal and left-leaning moderate vote - if anything it would make it easier for a no-name conservative to win! The easiest way to cause an Obama-Obama election is to annihilate the US. You eliminate all possible opposition and get the election to go on as planned.

References:
1: http://www.gallup.com...
2: http://blogs.fas.org...
3:
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

"The main reason most people don't run is, well, they don't stand a chance to win."

Its actually mostly because people are far too lazy to make the effort to even announce their campaign, dont know enough about politics to run for president, dont want to even be president, they arent part of politics in anyway at all, etc. also some people dont run for president because they think they will win, Ron paul continued to campaign for months when it became impossible for him to even be nominated.

So really, thats just your unsubstantiated opinion.

"if the choice is between Obama and Obama, many people will find that unacceptable"

It will be unacceptable yeah, but that doesnt mean people will do anything about it.... The US is FULL of elections where it is often just two different blands of sh*t facing each other. In 2004 it was Bush against Kerry, and even though they were too of the least likeable people in the country and many people didnt like either of them or found it unacceptable, they didnt coordinate to launch a better candidate, they just decided to not vote. Even when we do have someone good running for president, he is always facing someone who sucks! The last really awesome election the US had was when Kennedy went up against Nixon back in 1960. Ever since we have had election after election full of incompetent runners where people chose to simply not vote rather then organize.

Never underestimate the power of laziness in people. Chances are that if youre reading this right now you have something else to do but are just putting off and reading this as distracting entertainment.

"At the very least you need to kill all conservatives (about 40% of America according to Gallup[1]) and conservative-leaning independents or moderates. You also need to kill..... It is one action, nuking the world, versus having to send and fund hitmen to kill all people of a certain mold."

Yeah Ive already shown that this doesnt need to be done and that you without killing off all of America....

"You don't need to kill everyone in the world, just the US."

Repeating the same BS over and over doesnt make it true pro... It does in politics but not anywhere else....

"There are hundreds of thousands of conservative activists, hundreds of thousands of moderates, who would not want to see an Obama-Obama election. At what point can you eliminate the opposition while still maintaining a country?"

You dont need to kill off all the opposition though, you only need to take out their leaders! if the conservatives do get behind someone, then kill that one person and destroy the hopes of thousands of people from having a voice in a single shot, its that easy!

"Keep in mind that Obama-Obama does nothing but split the liberal and left-leaning moderate vote - if anything it would make it easier for a no-name conservative to win"

Assuming that conservative is allowed to live long enough to be on the ballot, which can be avoided by taking him out early in the election season.... Have you been listening to a word ive said Con?

Great, its the final round already.

Rather then have a good old semantical debate about whether or not 2012 Obama could beat 2008 Obama in a 1-1 election, con chose to pull the d*ck move and argue over how they could never face each other due to some absurd reason that he invented that is even more outlandish then a 2012 vs 2008 Obama matchup in the first place.

On top of that Con drops nearly all arguments, including:
- Con forfeits that 2012 Obama has more experiecne then 2008 Obama
- Con forfeits that 2012 Obama knows exactly how and why 2008 Obama's proposals and promises would fail and that he can use those to hsi advantage
- Con forfeits that 2012 Obama is a more seasoned campaigner then 2008 Obama
- Con forfeits that 2012 Obama has a much bigger fiscal policy and spends less then 2008 Obama who wants a stimulus
- Con forfeits that 2008 Obama has a lot more scandals to deal with then 2012 Obama
- Con forfeits that 2008 Obama has never won against a real opponent while 2012 Obama has

Thanks for reading, vote Pro :D
TN05

Con

Due to length issues, I will not be quoting my opponent in responses. They will be seprarated by dashes.

----

I don't believe my opponent has disproven the idea that most people don't run for office because they cannot win. There are plenty of local, state, and federal politicians that won't run because they have no chance of winning against a highly-funded group of 5 or 6 main GOP/Democrat candidates.

To give an example, let's look at a few senate races. In 2008 Arkansas Democrat Mark Pyror, a popular politician, was unnoposed for the statewide senate election. No Republican opted to challenge him. The only challenger was a Green Party (a socialist/environmentalist party to the left of the Democrats) candidate, who managed to get 20.0% of the vote.[1] Keep in mind that, at the federal level, Arkansas is a very red state that only gave 38% of the vote to Obama in 2008 and that voted to reject gay marriage with 75% of the vote.[2] Similarly, in 2010 in South Carolina (another red state), popular Republican Jim DeMint won re-election with 61% of the vote. Due to the incompetence of Alvin Greene, the Democrat nominee, Green Party candidate Tom Clements was able to secure over 9% of the vote.[3] Protest candidates are always an option, even if they present a disagreement from the view of the voter.

-----

You underestimate the power of the conservative movement. In 2010 the Tea Party was able to screw over the GOP chances of winning by nominating Christine O'Donnell as opposed to Mike Castle, a very popular centrist Republican.[4] Had the Republicans nominated Castle, he could very well have won the election.[5] Putting Bush v. Kerry may, on the surface, seem like a good argument but that election was between a mediocre conservative and a medicre liberal, not two liberals. Republicans have shown they are more than willing to nominate unelectable conservative candidates, and there is no reason why they could not at least do that here.

-----

I don't think this is a very convincing rebuttal to my argument, but I will let the jury decide this one. If my argument is clearly incorrect, it should be simple to disprove it.

-----

Who would kill them? Whose to say liberal, socialist, moderate, Neo-nazi, communist, or other person might not decide to run? And whose to say they couldn't be an effective protest vote?

-----

You can always vote for a dead person, and electors can indeed cast votes for dead people. In the 1872 presidental election, major candidate Horace Greeley died before the electoral college could vote; he still received 66 votes.[6]

-----

I could very well have argued in that manner, but the fact of the matter is it much easier to disprove at a technical level. If Pro dislikes argument he should have been more specific as to the conditions of such an election.

-----

In conclusion, I wish to make two more points to augment my main ones. The first is quite obvious - in any election between two people of the same name, there would be obvious confusion as to which is which. Add that to the idea that it could indeed split the liberal vote and, even assuming not everyone is killed, that leaves a much better chance of a split vote.

Second, according to Doctor Emmett Brown (known more commonly as 'Doc Brown'), a leading expert in the field of time travel, any close encounters between the two Obamas could be "disastrous". Doc Brown postulates that there are two distinct possibilites - that such a meeting would merely induce shock and knock one out, or that the encounter could "create a time paradox, the results of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe". Doc Brown assures us that this is a worst-case scenario, and that a destruction of just our galaxy could be more likely.[7] However, either would be sufficient to end an election pematurely. As debates are fundamental aspects of any election, there are at least four chances this could happen - the three presidential debates, plus the VP debate.

In conclusion, my opponent has ceded a time machine is the most likely scenario an election could take place. While he objects to the idea everyone must die, I believe it is very obvious that, to establish a purely one-on-one election (a fundamental point of this debate, as even a single other candidate violates the conditions applied), every potential candidate must die, and any person in the United States is a potential candidate. Further, the research of Doctor Emmett Brown suggests that any face-to-face meetings could result in the end of the world, which would quite obviously end the election before a winner is decided. I believe I have established that, per the conditions of the debate, a win by 2012 Obama would be impossible, or at the very least improbable. Remember that, per agreement, any possible result other than a 2012 Obama in favors Con.

Thank you, and vote Con!

References:
1: http://en.wikipedia.org...
2: http://en.wikipedia.org...
3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
4: http://en.wikipedia.org...
5: http://www.politicsdaily.com...
6: http://en.wikipedia.org...
7: Back to the Future II
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Beginner 3 years ago
Beginner
"Chances are that if youre reading this right now you have something else to do but are just putting off and reading this as distracting entertainment."

Please get out of my head.. D:D:D:
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Sorry, didn't know that.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
TN05, please don't clarify arguments in the comments section. I apologize if my comment came off as a question or a request for clarification; it was merely a general comment about the debate. Comments are sometimes made in passing by people viewing the debate but it isn't fair to the opponent to use character space outside the round to clarify them.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
F-16 Fighting Falcon - My argument is essentially that it would be technically impossible for 2012 Obama to win a one-on-one presidential election against 2008 Obama due to US election law. Sorry if it is confusing - my argument is this:
*The easiest way 2012 Obama could run against 2008 Obama is if either had a time machine
*It is more likely 2012 Obama would get one, and he would travel back to 2008 to run against 2008 Obama
*In order to have a truly one-on-one election, every American except for the Obamas and their VP candidates would need to be killed since anyone can run for office
*Since there are only four voters left, two from Illinois and two from Delaware, it would be impossible for the electoral college to determine a winner
*If the electoral college can't determine a winner, the House must, but the House is dead
*If the House can't decide, the VP elected by the Senate would become acting President
*None of the VP candidates are 2012 Obama
*Therefore, 2012 Obama cannot win the presidency
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I am somewhat puzzled by Con's argument but I like where this is going.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
imabench You can say that now but I have a very convincing case that proves conclusively that 2012 Obama would not win a 1-on-1 election against 2008 Obama.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
F-16, a troll debate is just another phrase for an easy win against me :P
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
But you said it was going to be a troll debate essentially and I don't really feel up for one.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Then accept it ;D
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I strongly disagree with bench. 2008 campaign was one of the best campaigns in history. Obama made all the right decisions to beat his opponents. 2012, he only won because he was an incumbent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
imabenchTN05Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate that I had to look into. Pro used better arguments using logic, while Con actually used sources. Pro convinced me though.