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

Resolved: The GOP's staunch opposition to the presidency and the left has caused more harm than good

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 989 times Debate No: 64844
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




Hi, I go by Liberal Canadian, and here is some information and clarification on this debate. It is very important that these rules and structures are followed (I know its a lot):
The Debate will be structured in 4 rounds:

1. General Acceptance, as well as any clarification needed on the topic, I will answer the information briefly before the second round.

2. Constructives, essenitally a presentation of all of the evidence and arguments structured by your contentions, the evidence must be cited, preferably in MLA format with the URL below.
Like This (this is an example article) use to cite (its easy):
Rosenberg, Matthew, and Jawad Sukhanyar. "3 Explosions Rock Afghan Capital After Months of Calm." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Nov. 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.;
You can present as many arguments as you would like they just have to be extended (just type "extend my argument on...").

3. Rebuttals, address the other side's arguments and provide legitimate counter arguments against as many as you can. Feel free to bring in new evidence, just no new contentions.

4. Closing arguments, a wrap up of the debate, just close out your arguments, there can be no new evidence in this round.

About the topic: This debate will revolve around wether or not the GOP's (republican party) constant opposition to Obama and other left leaning figures is doing us any good. I will argue that it is harming us more than it is helping us. Con will argue that it is justified and that it is indeed helping us.

Other rules:
1. Have good behavior, no trolling, swearing, or one sentence comebacks, just be a good sport.
2. I am a busy person so stay patient if I can't post my arguments right away, there is a 3 day limit to posting, so there should be more than enough time. Its completely fine to post last minute, I get we are all busy.
3. Just have fun, present good arguments and I look forward to my first debate on this site.


I accept, the format seems clear, and let's begin.
Debate Round No. 1


CASE:The GOP's staunch opposition to the presidency and the left has caused more harm than good

Opening Thoughts

Over the course of the last few years, America has been at crossroads, a partisan divide has caused several key problems in our government. We have one one side the Democrats, who have been able to win election after election because of their more centrist policies. Now, that statements may seem false, considering the recent Republican win in the Midterm Elections. But, according to the PBS newshour, "turnout in these midterms was the lowest overall in 70 years." Especially in blue and purple states, where many democratic seats were lost. Also, according to Slate magazine, most of the voters were older white males, and 64% of them voted for Republican candidates, youth, women, and minority votes were down, all categories that lean more democratic

So, what does this mean, well, Republicans over the past 6 years have constantly bashed the president, called for his resignation. Figures such as Donald Trump and other Republicans have called him out for not releasing his birth certificate, and claiming that he was born in Kenya. Which is a ridiculous notion since Kenya declared its independence 2 years after President Obama was born. According to the Huffington Post, nearly 20% of all Republican voters still think Obama is a Muslim, though he has affirmed that he is a Christian. Republicans have had backwards logic, and they seem to oppose every single policy idea Obama and the Democrats put on the table. My goal in this debate is to show that:

Contention 1: Obama's policies have worked, and a list of common misconceptions about his plan

Adam Hartung. "Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 5 Sept. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.;

This fascinating article shows how the jobs and investing market has actually boomed under Obama.
Just in 2014, the United States is expected to create over 2.5 million new jobs, and throughout his tenure as president, Obama has created 10.3 million new jobs. The Dow has hit 17,000 points for the first time in years, and more Americans view the economy favorably than before.


Look at this chart comparing the unemployment rate under Obama compared to Reagan
As you can clearly observe, there has been a more consistent descent in unemployment, just last month, it was announced that unemployment fell to 5.9%, and it is predicted to fall to 5.4% by the summer of 2015. President Reagan and his policies could not achieve this at all. The job market was also very saturated at this time with Baby Boomers, who were actively seeking jobs, while Obama has had to deal with a huge amount of retirement removal from the job market, which makes it very difficult to deal with unemployment. Under Reagan, there were thousands flooding the job market, making it easier to fill in all of the gaps, but with Obama, there are actually less people seeking jobs, since the amount of jobs available does not change.

This graph shows overall participation in the job market, as you can see, Obama has struggled with very sharp descents in workforce involvement and interest. While Reagan was brought into an era of very sharp job market growth.


If I have not proved my point yet, here are even more statistics, a dollar invested when Reagan assumed office would be worth 190% of its value after 8 years these numbers have been squandered under Obama’s leadership. Now, a dollar invested under this administration leads to 220% in return after 5.5 years, that is more than double, and unheard of prior

Social Advantages of Obama’s Leadership
The Affordable Care Act

The most controversial piece of legislation passed under the Obama administration. This law has been very strongly opposed by Republicans and the party has led several repeal attempts against the Affordable Care Act. However, I will prove that the ACA is working and it is a fantastic option to help Americans all over.

Point I: The ACA helps Corporations, and works for the free market

Bruce Japsen. "Another Sign ObamaCare Works: Wellpoint Boosts Profit Forecast." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

We often hear the rhetoric that the ACA is a socialist scheme, however, the ACA is not that at all, it works directly with private insurance companies in order to help them boost profits in a way that is fair to consumers. This, in turn, makes sure that these corporations can provide better care with these increased profits. Lets look at some statistics:
WellPoint, which is the company that runs BlueShield and Blue Cross plans, has increased its profit forecast from 8 dollars per share to 8.20 per share, which may not seem significant, but it adds up fast. Why, because the ACA has brought 12 million Americans into the healthcare market, and provided them with quality, low cost options. WellPoint has added between 1-1.3 million new recipients of the healthcare law. Now, healthcare companies from WellPoint to companies like Aetna, Cigna, Humana, United Health Group, and even Kaiser Permanente are all seeing profits go up. Its just common sense that with higher profits, a company can do more, it can overall improve care for its patients, and even train better doctors.

The reason why most Americans are still skeptics of the law is because they simply are not sure how it works yet, rest assured, here is some general info on how the healthcare law actually functions.

Obamacare Facts. "How Does ObamaCare Work?" Obamacare Facts. N.p., 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.

The ACA works through an Individual Mandate system, in other words, one can access the new healthcare law through several means, they can purchase from a broker, from a provider (like WellPoint), obtained through your employer (like most Americans), or through government healthcare systems like Medicare or Medicaid, or through individual states’ systems. All of these options make it easy for anyone to get onboard, and the low cost options makes it so anyone can afford healthcare, youth can now stay on their parent’s plan until they are 26 and can then move onto a very low cost catastrophic plan until they are 35.
Secondly, the ACA ensures that Americans can’t be turned away because of preexisting conditions, or dropped when they become ill, it makes large corporations cover all of their full-time employees with a healthcare plan by 2016, and offers generous tax credits to small business who choose to participate.

What has the GOP been doing, well, that’s a different story. Last election, the GOP pledged to repeal large portions of the ACA, and have already tried nearly 50 times to repeal it. However, they will not be able to, here is why:
There are already 12 million Americans on the exchange, and 26 million are predicted to purchase insurance by 2022. The GOP would be shooting themselves in the foot of they attempted to repeal the ACA. According to a new NBC poll, 52% of Americans approve of the ACA, and 48% disapprove of the law. But, it was found that many simply were not familiar with the law and agreed with most of the provisions in the law.
Contention II: Politics throughout history has relied on compromise- the GOP has hurt this notion
We can all agree that there is something wrong in our political system, we have a system in which the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. A system where 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. It’s a disgrace, and the GOP, particularly factions like the Tea Party have just made things worse.
As I have proved above, Obama’s policies, and the policies driven by Democrats have worked, and our country is on the road to economic success once again.

DAVE HELLING AND STEVE KRASKE. "National News from McClatchy DC News | Washington DC." National News from McClatchy DC News | Washington DC. N.p., 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.

The US is struggling once again to meet the demands of the people. The GOP is not helping one bit. According to the article cited above. Experts agree that we are more divided than any time since the civil war. It’s a partisan gridlock, and the perpetrators are the GOP. The only thing the Democrats aren’t doing right, is that they have been too focused on pleasing the republicans. Congressional approval is four times lower than that of the IRS, now that’s saying something. Whats going on here, well 70% of all republicans identify themselves as conservative or very conservative. While only 40% of democrats say that they are liberal at all. Why, because the Democratic party is now the party of the center in the US, poll after poll after poll shows that the American People agree with the Democratic plan of action more.

In Closing

It is common sense to vote pro in this debate. I have proved that the Obama policies have worked, and the American people are becoming acclimated to them. While in 2014, Republicans have run an agenda that targets programs such as the ACA, has vowed for tax reform that will end up just benefiting the wealthy and large corporations. I urge you to vote pro in this debate on the grounds
a) the left’s policies have worked, and Americans agree
b) Republicans have not helped at all
c) Compromise has worked in the past, and it will work again



DavidMGold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent forfeited the prior round, it will be up to the judges how, and if a penalization will occur, I extend all of my arguments, and due to this anomaly and a lack of material to rebut, I would rather not post any new arguments this round to allow for a debate that is more balanced. A vast array of credible evidence above, and a forfeiture by the con highlights a necessity to vote pro in this debate.


Case: The GOP's Opposition to Obama has been weak and his presidency has caused damage

Opening Remarks

Throughout the course of Obama's Presidency, America has witnessed a President that has proven to be a partisan warlord, shedding all his lofty pledges to change the tone in Washington and work across the aisle,[1] often attacking his opposition in a very demeaning manner to become the most polarizing President ever.[2] According to polling, most Americans view his presidency as a failure[3] and new poll found Barack Obama is the worst President since WWII.[4] The Left is always trying to shift the goal posts continually moving it further left running a senator in 2008 with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate[5] while the republicans ran a senator who was actually reprimanded by the GOP in his own state for his liberal voting record[6] and many conservatives were wondering how a liberal republican like Mitt Romney came to be touted in 2012.[7] This is how George W. Bush's expansion of government and spending, even the Welfare State, were redefined as conservative or right wing positions thus the liberalism of a decade ago become the conservativism of the present. Left wing ideologues are keen on labeling relying on key words like moderate, extreme, and far right to give a few examples.

After the recent mid-term election that costs Democrats seats in the house, the senate, and governorships, the Democrats have suffered an embarrassing defeat.[8] The President talks about the rich getting richer or the poor getting poorer, the gaps expanded under his presidency.[9] One-third of the entire country depends on welfare,[10] but defying all reason Democrats don't see this is a damning fact about how impoverished the country has become as Obama stoked racial tensions.[11] His foreign policy disasters are piling up.[12] It adds up when poverty is rising to the highest levels since the 1960s,[13] even black residents of Chicago are describing him as the worst President ever,[14] and Obama's family cost $1.4 billion to American taxpayers (20 times higher than the British Royal Family).[15]

Exhibit 1 - What Happened to the 5,000,000 Energy Jobs?

"Report: Energy Dept. Spent More Than $11M Per Green Job Created." CBS DC. May 9, 2013

"The Institute for Energy Research report revealed that the Energy Department has doled out $26 billion in taxpayer-funded loans to green energy companies, helping to create 2,298 permanent jobs. That equates to $11.45 million per job created for these companies."

Obama's promise of creating 5 million green jobs is a huge embarrassment and failure that actually proves Government cannot create jobs. The cost to American taxpayers is even more outrageous. Where you do find jobs in a thriving energy sector are found in oil and natural gas, which Obama remains hostile to in addition to holding up the Keystone pipeline and since the 1990s Democrats have blocked all efforts to extract oil in ANWR that could have created as many as 750,000 jobs. When it comes to energy and job creation you can be absolutely sure Democrats will impose higher costs and job destruction.

Exhibit 2 - Stimulus: Outspending the Iraq War in one bill!

"CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act." Fox News. August 30, 2010

"According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations. The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion."

The left enjoyed criticizing the costs of the Iraq War but took to ramming through a Stimulus Bill that outspent it in one bill. Obama's own former chief of staff admitted that there was not working and that the Obama Administration gave up on defending it two years later. We can look at the President's personally backed failures such as Solyndra or A123 Systems. Construction job losses of half a million. It demonstrates a complete failure of planned economy by government. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid should not be in charge of an economy involving 318,000,000 people. Ultimately it failed while creating a massive deficit. Keynesian economics failed to work. That's leaving aside QE 1 ($1.5 trillion), QE 2 ($600 billion), and QE 3 (infinity) that so far amounts to $1.5 trillion.

Exhibit 3 - Record Deficits

"Obama Has Presided Over 5 of 6 Largest Deficits in U.S. History." CNSNews. October 30, 2013

"President Barack Obama has now presided over five of the six largest annual budget deficits the U.S. government has ever run, according to data released yesterday by the U.S. Treasury. In fiscal 2013, which ended Sept. 30, the deficit was $680.276 billion, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Wednesday. In fiscal 2012, the deficit was $1.089193 trillion; in fiscal 2011, it was $1.296791 trillion; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.294204 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.415724 trillion."

Leaving aside the fact that the U.S. Government actually runs much larger deficits (trillions larger), this year the White House is hailing the "good news" that our federfal budget deficit will be just under $500 billion. I don't know about you, but I don't consider half a trillion dollars to be good news by any stretch. Our national debt has exceeded 100% of our GDP.

Exhibit 3 - Obamacare

"NY Fed: Firms 'widely' see Obamacare boosting health costs." CNBC. August 18, 2014

"Many businesses said Obamacare is jacking up their employee health coverage costs, and they expect it to do so even more next year, two new surveys of businesses by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have found. As a result, consumers in the areas covered by the bank could be paying more next year"and some workers at the firms might need to look for a new job, the surveys found. The median respondent to the N.Y. Fed surveys expects health coverage costs to jump by 10 percent next year, after seeing a similar percentage increase last year."

"Obamacare Will Cost 2.9 Million or More Jobs a Year." Forbes. Febuary 24, 2014

"Nearly two years ago, I assured readers Obamacare would result in the equivalent of a loss of 1 million or more jobs. Little did I realize the true figure would turn out to be closer to 2.9 million. What changed? The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that Obamacare will shrink the economy by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time (FTE) workers"roughly tripling its earlier estimate of job losses.[1] But I"ve added to that some important components of potential job losses that CBO did not take into account. When all is said and done, nearly 3 million will lose their jobs with over 500,000 of these (18%) representing involuntary job losses (workers fired)."

Just one aspect of Obamacare, the excise tax placed on medical devices, according to the Advanced Medical Technology Association led directly to the cutting of 14,000 jobs and foregoing the hiring of an additional 19,000. According to Gallup just recently[16] hit a numerical low with 56% of Americans opposing it while only 37% support it. Obama had promised to lower spending for a typical family by $2,500, but in fact they will be spending an additional $7,540. Healthcare premiums are rising faster than inflation. It is astounding to look at the amount of job loss that our economy will incur every year this massive law remains on the book shamelessly passed by Democrats who rammed it through even saying there's no need to even read the law while Democrats run away from it in the election. The $2 billion dollar Obamacare web site[17] even crashed on it's first day.[18] Now we have the stunning admissions by Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare architect, bragging about intentionally lying to the public about the contents and even the CBO only to have Obama and Pelosi lie and pretend they don't who he was! So higher premiums, higher taxes, higher medical costs, high deductibles, massive job loss, increased deficits, etc. are all the failures of this law.

Exhibit 4 - Foreign Policy Nightmare

"New Poll Is A Disaster For Obama." Business Insider. June 18, 2014

"President Barack Obama has seen support for his foreign policy plummet to an all-time low, according to a new Wall Street Journal-NBC poll released Wednesday. According to the poll, just 37% of respondents said they approved of Obama's handling of foreign-policy issues, an all-time low. Meanwhile, 57% said they disapproved, an all-time high."

His record on foreign policy is a complete nightmare. We have the revival and establishment of an Islamic Caliphate by ISIS that controls large portions of Ira and Syria following his debacle of war against the Syrian government on behalf of jihadists. He bombed Libya without any congressional approval after Ghaddfi ignoring his surrender to te Bush Administration of all WMDs, taking responsibility for his terrorist attack on an airliner, and agreeing to pay the families of victims so that our embassy could be destroyed and our ambassador murdered with al-Qaeda effectively running the country. U.S. soldier deaths spiked under Obama and the war effort there is a complete and utter failure. He supported the radical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and has harmed our country's relations there following that debacle. He has consistently undermined and insulted our Israeli allies and has been secretly back-dealing with the regime in Iran. He has stirred up a Cold War with Russia. America now has no credibility in the world.
Debate Round No. 3


Liberal-Canadian forfeited this round.


My opponent has asked for this debate to be postponed given he was unable to meet the deadline for the final round and given my own forfeit I can agree that we were both constrained by our daily lives and that this may well be the best solution. I do, however, hope my opponent doesn't mind if I address his contention entitled 'Obama's policies have worked, and a list of common misconceptions about his plan' and more specifically the citation of Adam Hartung's piece in Forbes Magazine. I feel it is important to refute it.

Lance Roberts. "Obama Outperformed Reagan? Hardly." Street Talk sponsored by STA Wealth Management. September 8, 2014.

"The BLS's measure of unemployment has become obfuscated by the rise in the number of individuals that are no longer counted as part of the labor force. As I discussed in "Why The Unemployment Rate Is Irrelevant," the measure of labor force participation is markedly different between Reagan and Obama.

During Reagan's Presidency, workers that were unemployed longer than 52-weeks were still part of the labor force. This inclusion gave a more accurate measure of the relative size of the labor force overall. However, in 1994, Clinton removed individuals from the labor force that were currently unemployed for longer than 52-weeks. This adjustment immediately improved the overall measure of unemployment by shrinking the labor force by some 500,000 individuals. Since then, the number of individuals no longer counted as part of the labor force has swelled to more than 92 million individuals, or roughly 45% of the working age population (16-54) as of the end of 2013

In other words, a large part of the drop in the U-3 unemployment rate is due to the increase in the number of individuals excluded from the workforce. In theory, if the dropout rate continued at the current pace, the unemployment could fall towards zero allowing the Federal Reserve to win the battle of unemployment, but losing the war of economic prosperity."

With 24% of "baby boomers" postponing retirement, due to an inability to retire, it is not surprising that the employment level of individuals OVER the age of 65, as a percent of the working age population 16 and over, has risen sharply in recent years."

"However, for the sake of argument, let's exclude all individuals OVER THE AGE OF 54 from the analysis so we can focus on those of working age 16-54. If the employment has indeed improved better under the Obama Administration then the level of full-time employment for the working age population should have improved markedly."

"Unfortunately, that is not the case. At the end of Reagan's administration full-time employment relative to the working age population was at 51.98% versus 47.78% for Obama currently. However, following the recession in 1981, full-time employment under Reagan surged sharply as the real economy gained traction. This has not been the case as full-time employment has remained primarily a function of population growth and little else."

"The surge in the stock market since 2009 has not been a representation of underlying economic strength but rather a direct correlation to the expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. The chart below shows the level of excess reserves of depository institutions and the S&P 500 index by President."

"As you will notice, the surge in excess bank reserves beginning in 2009 has correlated with the surge in asset prices that is a benefit that the Reagan did not have. Therefore, to judge which President had better stock market performance we must extract the effect of the Federal Reserve interventions. The next chart shows, by President, the ratio of the S&P 500 Index divided by excess reserves at depository institutions."

Lastly, there is one point that must be considered. If we are truly going to compare President Obama to Ronald Reagan, it should be on the basis of a level playing field. As shown in the chart below, President Reagan's achieved real, inflation-adjusted, economic growth of 3.88% annually on average as compared to 2.04% under President Obama."

"This outperformance was achieved despite headwinds of an average interest rate nearly 5-times that of the current administration and an inflation rate that was more than double.

When considering that President Obama has been able to achieve real economic growth of just 2.04% annually despite historically low levels of inflation and interest rates combined with massive government interventions and balance sheet expansions; it makes his overall performance even more disappointing."
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Liberal-Canadian 2 years ago
David, a situation came up and I will not be able to make the deadline. I think we should postpone this debate to some time that works better for the both of us.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
No, it doesn't bother me the least bit.
Posted by Liberal-Canadian 2 years ago
David, since this is the last round of the debate, but only the second with argumentation, would it bother you if a little bit of new evidence is introduced?
Posted by Liberal-Canadian 2 years ago
No problem David, feel free to post your case round 3, it will be up to the judges if it is held against you I presume. But I completely understand, I won't post any new arguments this round for fairness' sake.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
I apologize, but work and other obligations made it impossible to meet the deadline. I will try to submit my case in round 3 and attempt rebuttal in round 4.
Posted by Liberal-Canadian 2 years ago
there were two charts that i wanted to insert, but they did not seem to be able to go into the text. You can access them on the link in my first citation.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
This is your show so take all the time you need.
Posted by Liberal-Canadian 2 years ago
David, my first round will be posted around 8-9 Pacific Standard Time. I had some conflicts today so I couldn't get around to it.
Posted by Liberal-Canadian 2 years ago
DavidMGold, sounds good I will be posting my arguments after my classes today.
No votes have been placed for this debate.