The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: Obama should be re-elected

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,259 times Debate No: 23878
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

Microsuck

Pro

This will be one of my first political debates so I'm not sure how well this will go.

Resolved: President Obama should be re-elected for a seond term.

Note that I don't support everything Obama has done, but he has done a very good job for his first term (much better than Bush!) and I believe that he should be re-elected.

Structure

1. Acceptance
2. Opening arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/closing

Good luck.
socialpinko

Con

Accept. Even though Pro didn't defne the terms of the resolution, I think it can be pretty clear what it surrounds. President Obama obviously refers to Barack Obama, the current President of the United States. Whether or not he should be re-elected come the next election will depend on a variety of perspectives on what makes a good President (mantaining national security, adhering to the law of the land, etc.) which will be a point of contention most likely between my opponent and I. I haven't debated this specific opponent since our Pinnochio debate half a year ago and so I'm certainly excited for this debate. Best of luck to ya Kohai.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. Given our previous track record together, I foresee a very tough debate for me considering that this is the first political debate that I have done in a long time.

[ABSTRACT] Barack Obama is one of the greatest Presidents of modern times because he has greatly helped the economy, the middle class, and improved the standards of living despite the tough opposition form the Republian Party. Obama has had the toughest job of any previous President because of the feirce opposition from his opponents and the extremely hard economy when he became Presidet. When he became President, the US economy was in free fall headed in the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, 750K jobs were being at a loss each month, and Wall Street was on the verge of collapse. Moreover, Obama has inhereted a trillion+ dollar deficit.

I. ECONOMICS

Obama has improved the economy since becomming President. He has shown his strong, bold, and coreageous leadership throughout this economic downfall. There are three things that I will examine under "economics": 1) Health care; 2) Wall street reform; and 3) Recovery Act

A. HEALTH CARE

Barack Obama has successfully enacted the health care reform bills that will improve the standards of living for the middle class and improve the economy of the US. Moreover, it will decrease our deficit by threefold.

The Health Care will Decrease the Defecit

Despite the attacks from the GOP, the health care law will decrease our deficit and thus improve economy. How will this occur? Let's examine the facts.

1. Extend healt care to over 34 million Americans - Without the reforms, health care costs have hurt American citizens into bankruptcy to get the care they need. Consequently, this has driven up our nations's deficit. When Obama took on the insurance companies, he ended the worst practices which will reduce health care cost and make coverage more affordable for all Americans. Because the cost is lower, the reform is predicted to reduce the deficit by over 1 trillion USD over the next 20 years [1]

2. Holding insurance industry abuses - The Affordable Care Act begin by preventing abuse from the health insurance companies, correcting marketing failures, and securing coverage for Americans who may go uninsured and uncared. (More on this later). [2]

3. Beinding the growth curve of health care spending - Finally, it will reduce our deficit by saving more than $200 bilion over 10 years because it reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals, ad other providers that deliver high quality care, making investments to fund research into what works, and cracks down on wastes, fraud, and abuse. [3]

The Health Care Reform will improve the standards of living for the middle class.

As a result of the health care reform, 37million + Americans will have access to health care that they never had before; you will now be able to stay on your parent's health insurance until you turn 26; and insurance companies cannot deny you based upon pre-existing condition. [4]

B. WALL STREET REFORM


When Barack Obma went into office, Wall Street was on the verge of collapse and was on the verge of a failure neve seen since the start of the Great Depression. Since then, Obama has heled Wall Street accountable and prevented such a disaster from occuing once more.

In short, the Wall Street Reform does the following things:
  1. Tax payers will not be held accountable for Wall Street's irresponsibility. Instead, Wall Street will have to pay the price because they (and arguably Bush, though he is irrelavent), caused the financial disaster.
    1. The "Proprietary Traidint" Will be Seperated from the Business of Banking
    2. Ending bailouts. - In other words, no business should be such a monopoly that it is "too big to fail." Arguably, there are many companies that are like that today such as Bank of America and Bernie Mae and Fredie Mac. [5]

C. RECOVERY ACT


Not sure where to begin on this one. There are a lot of great things that Obama has done th the recovery act. For example, it has created 3.7 million jobs [6] and in 2010, more jobs were created than in the entire Bush administration. [7] This chart [8] illustrtes such improvements:

Additionally, the payrolls surges by 162K. [9]


CONCLUSION


Obama has faced many challenges along the way. Although he is not perfect, we can reasonably say that Obama deserves to be re-elected. Not only has he improved the economy, but has done much to keep it from collapsing again.

__________________________________________

Sources and Footnotes

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Fact from Obama's website on health care. URL: http://www.barackobama.com...
5. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
6. http://thehill.com...
7.
8. This chart is courtesy of http://www.democraticunderground.com... though this chart is slightly outdated as it does not contain the information from 2011-2012. Needless to say, it is still accurate and jobs are still growing.
9. http://www.boston.com...
socialpinko

Con

===(A)-Health Care===

A1.Extending Coverage

My opponent argues that without healthcare reform, many citizens would go bankrupt in order to get care. I agree that in too many instances this is the case. However my opponent must show why Mr. Obama's specific reform plan is the best way to deal with this. Just the fact that it IS a way doesn't help my opponent's case. There are many other ways to successfully lower costs, for instance lowering government restrictions on the ability for new or experimental drugs to go to market and allow the patient and their doctor decide between themselves whether or not the amount of risk associated with the new drug is sufficient or not to warrant using it. Presently, clinical research and testing required for FDA approval cause the average drug to cost 802 million dollars and 90.3 months[1] before they're set to go to market. Obviously drug companies need to make a profit and thus they're forced to pass the cost of this on to customers, resulting in higher prices.

Eliminating these restrictions would lower costs without sacrificing the safety of consumers. Private certification agencies would be given the chance to develop, wherein products who's quality is up to some set standard is officially recognized by the agency as a means of being able to gain the trust of customers with various risk assessments. Some agencies like this have already developed such as OK Kosher Certification[2] and other Kosher certification companies.

A2. Insurance Industry Abuses

I'll be brief on this point as my opponent was. My opponent was ambiguous and unclear on how the AC Act will do the things mentioned. Just posting a link for an argument will not suffice and as my opponent said he would have more on the point, I assume he will be coming back to clarify the point.

A3. Growth Curve of Healthcare Spending

My opponent in this point ignores the reason why healthcare costs are correlated with the government's deficit. This is because the government already provides a large amount of free-of-expense healthcare services, as in cases of emergency care. When the uninsured go to the ER for care they may not be turned away.Therefore the cost of their care is passed on to either the taxpayer or the deficit. De-socializing the aspects of the healthcare industry which were already socialized to an extent would in itself lower the deficit by discontinuing the practice of assuming the cost of coverage for the uninsured. My opponent is attempting to resolve a problem caused by government intervention with more government intervention when simply de-socializing the aspects of the healthcare industry which already are would fix the problem in itself.

A4. Pre-existing conditions

As I already responded to my opponent's point on coverage, I'll respond here to his arguments about (A) pre-existing conditions and (B) staying on a parent's health insurance plan. On (A), my opponent provided no reason why insurance companies don't have the right to not cover someone from a pre-existing condition that they may have. So long as this is written into the terms of the agreement between the patient and the company, there is no reason transaction like that ought not to be allowed. If the insurance company lies about whether they treat such conditions, that's a clear case of fraud and may be prosecuted in either civil or criminal court. On coverage for children to the age of 26, lowering costs as I argued de-socialization would do would do much to help young adults afford healthcare of their own.

===(B)-Wall Street Reform===

B1. My opponent misunderstands the initial cause of the financial disaster, which was the Federal Reserve distorting (artificially lowering) natural interest rates in the economy. This lead to increased investment in longer term investments which did not correspond to real change in investment. Malinvestments were created and the economy had to correct itself in the form of a recession. The fault mostly lies with the Federal Reserve, an institution which Mr. Obama has done next to nothing to stop. More on this on my refutation of my opponent's 'Recovery' point.

B2. My opponent has not shown how this contributed to the current financial crisis.

B3. Mr. Obama actually presided over one of the largest bailouts, over 700 billion dollars in fact.[3] Moreover, even if Mr. Obama stopped the policy of bailing out firms, my opponent has not shown why simply refusing to prop up failing businesses will stop them from being "too big to fail".

===(C)-Recovery Act===

On the creation of jobs as an act of recovery, my opponent misunderstands the nature of the economic crisis experienced recently. Its not as if Mr. Obama can misdiagnose the disease and then treat the symptoms correctly. Mr. Obama is working on creating jobs while ignoring what caused the recession in the first place, the Federal Reserve. The economic recession which we now find ourselves in is merely the bust end of the boom.[4] In short, expansion of the amount of credit available by the Fed distorted the natural interest rates on the market.[5] These interest rates, like prices, are vital tools for investors to determine the optimal place of investment at any given point. When they are lowered as they were by the Fed, it appears as though people are saving more when in reality the content of investing decisions hasn't changed in the way it appears. Investing in capital goods (longer term) thus appears more profitable as investors believe enough revenue will be generated so as to pay back their credit loans.

However, since the signals they were basing their predictions on were not based on reality, but in an illusory picture of the economy, the Fed simply ends up breeding malinvestments. Eventually, this leads to a bust in which the malinvestments and loans must be liquidated so the economy can start functioning again. Mr. Obama is trying to get people to work again, however he totally ignores the reason for the crisis in the first place and has done little to nothing to actually stop the policies which gave way to it. All we can hope for then is that the symptoms of the crisis are temporarily mitigated while the disease continues to flourish.

===Sources===

[1] http://healthcare-economist.com...
[2] http://www.ok.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://mises.org...
[5] http://wiki.mises.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

===(A)-Health Care===

A1.Extending Coverage

My opponent concedes this point. He misses the entire argument. I accept that it is not the only way; but the point is that it was done.

A2. Insurance Industry Abuses

For one thing, the AC will hold health insurance fraud accountable. In the Obama years, health insurance fraud prosecution is up.





Other examples are these: [1]

1. They are now prohibited from canceling coverage when someone gets sick;
2. They cannot impose lifetime limits on coverage; and
3. Cannot deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions (more later).


A3. Growth Curve of Healthcare Spending

Please forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.


A4. Pre-existing conditions

On (A), my opponent provided no reason why insurance companies don't have the right to not cover someone from a pre-existing condition that they may have. So long as this is written into the terms of the agreement between the patient and the company, there is no reason transaction like that ought not to be allowed.

"According to a new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent of) non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition. Up to one in five non-elderly Americans with a pre-existing condition – 25 million individuals – is uninsured. Under the Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, these Americans cannot be denied coverage, be charged significantly higher premiums, be subjected to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by insurance companies...

As many as 82 million Americans with employer-based coverage have a pre-existing condition, ranging from life-threatening illnesses like cancer to chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma, or heart disease. Without the Affordable Care Act, such conditions limit the ability to obtain affordable health insurance if they become self-employed, take a job with a company that does not offer coverage, or experience a change in life circumstance, such as divorce, retirement, or moving to a different state. Older Americans between ages 55 and 64 are at particular risk: 48 to 86 percent of people in that age bracket have some type of pre-existing condition. And 15 to 30 percent of people in perfectly good health today are likely to develop a pre-existing condition over the next eight years, severely limiting their choices without the protections of the Affordable Care Act." [2]

So the consequences are:

1. Americans will have to go deeper into debt in order to afford treatable disease;
2. Many more Americans may have to skip coverage all together, thus being forced to suffer and/or die from a disease that is curable.

===(B)-Wall Street Reform===

B1. My partner blaims the entire crisis on the Federal Reserve. Although it is undoubtedly a cause, it is still not the only cause. For example, gas prices also were undoubtedly causing part of the recession [3] as was Wall Street.

B2. This will ensure that banks are no longer allowed to invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or propeirty trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. Why does this help the financial crisis? Because it forces resposible trading.

Out of time, wil respond more in full in the next round. (REmember, I'm pretty much playing Devil's advocate from here).

__________________________________________

socialpinko

Con

socialpinko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

Please extend.
socialpinko

Con

===(A)-Health Care===

A1. My opponent has argued that the only point to his contention was to show that coverage for health care was extended to some that were not previously covered. The means to this end or any unintended consequences it might lead to are left completely out as irrelevant for some reason. An analogy of my opponent's reasoning would be if I killed seventeen people because one was likely a murderer. Even though the end result is a murderer being brought to death, it would be utterly incoherent to attempt to separate my actions against the other sixteen entirely from the end result. My opponent fails to understand the nature of my refutation. My point is that the government has helped to create this problem in the first place via FDA regulations which corporations spend millions upon millions of dollars to abide by. They then past these costs on to consumers, resulting in higher health care costs. How does it make sense to add on top of that more government intervention, rather than simply repeal the cost-adding regulations which contributed to the problem in the first place? Also, remember that I showed that consumer safety is not necessarily lost along with FDA regulations. Refer to OK Kosher Certification for an example of a non-government quality certification company.

A2. As my opponent did not clarify on his point in R2, I waited until R3 for him to expand on it. However, as I forfeited R3, I would not be able to respond to these points without being abusive (in that my opponent would never be able to respond to my initial refutation). Therefore I will concede A2.

A3. My opponent claims not to understand my argument. My opponent argued in R2 that Mr. Obama's health care plan would reduce the government deficit by reducing health care costs. I pointed out that again, there are ways of reducing the deficit without getting the government MORE involved in the health care industry, as its current involvement already contributes to the deficit via hospital emergency rooms lacking the ability to turn away patients in critical need of attention. They then pass these costs on to the government which either goes into higher taxes or the deficit. A better way to reduce the deficit without getting more and more government involvement in health care transactions would be to simply de-socialize those aspects of the health care industry which already are.

A4. Instead of responding to my point about health insurance providers possessing the ability to set the terms of contracts with customers via the principle of mutual trade, my opponent argues that allowing this forces Americans to go (1) more in dept to afford health care and (2) possibly skip it altogether. This of course is a by-product of artificially risen health care costs, due to extremely expensive FDA regulations which all corporations MUST abide by. You can't simply opt out and leave out claims of FDA approval. As stated before, removing these costly regulations would both lower health care costs and salvage quality certification.

===(B)-Wall Street Reform===

B1. My opponent claims that the Fed was not the only cause of the current financial crisis; that gas prices as well as "Wall Street" were also partly to blame. On gas prices, not only was the only link my opponent provided in support merely to a link to a base assertion by Rick Santorum with no empirical back-up, but the article linked doesn't even seem to support Santorum's conception of the cause, calling it a "novel interpretation of what actually caused the 2008 recession".

B2. My opponent nowhere shows in his defense of B2 why (1) the practices prohibited actually force responsible trading or why (2) responsible trading is even possible given the Fed's gross distortions of market interest rates. No matter how much you regulate Wall Street, my opponent cannot get past the fact that even going off of market indicators of optimal 'responsible' trades, investors are epistemically strangled by the utter unreliability of interest rates under the Fed.

Thanks to Kohai for an interesting debate. Good luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Just realized you dropped Point C, lol.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
It's ok. I forgive ya. I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate so I understand.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Sorry Kohai. Like I told PCP I'm on vacation and don't have time atm to write a real case.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
Why didn't you bring up the auto-bailouts?
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Yeah, agree. Though I feel there are some inaccuracies in my opening round and perhaps I'm more or less, playing devil's advocate on Obama.
Posted by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
@ Micro

I understand that reasoning. He is president and thus due some measure of respect. No one agrees with a politician on everything but they may like that politician personally.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Thank you, johnnyboy.
As to your question, there is a side of me that loves him, and a side of me that still despises him. Though whatever side prevails (which is why I instigated this debate),I'll still have respect for him because of his position as leader though disagree with some of the stuff he has done.
Posted by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
Ohh! Favorited! This should be good.

... Micro, I thought you were a against Obama a few weeks ago?
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
I'd debate Ron-Paul separately.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Cool.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
MicrosucksocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I may disagree, Pro made a better argument. Also conduct goes to Pro for FF.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
MicrosucksocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems Con kind of gave up there near the end round. There was also the forfeit. His last argument was really as strong as it could have been Thus I give conduct and arguments to Pro. I will give S/G to spinko though for Great organization and effort.
Vote Placed by yoda878 4 years ago
yoda878
MicrosucksocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave Pro conduct b/c con forfeited. Also because pro's arguments were mostly based on opinions, I left most convincing arguments a tie.