The Instigator
Viper-King
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

Ron-Paul's Politics Tournament: Barack Obama

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 16 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,497 times Debate No: 20665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (16)

 

Viper-King

Pro

Resolution: Barack Obama is a good President.
Forfeits = Automatic Loss.
Acceptance.
16kadams

Con

accepted

language in the picture ( F bomb, viewer discression, funny pic though): http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Viper-King

Pro

Barack Obama has done positive things in our country and is a good president. Therefore I will point out all the good things he has done.
1. From June 30, 2009 to December 18,2011, Barack Obama has withdrawn all the USA troops from Iraq which is bringing an end to one of the longest wars in US history at a time when the American Public are weary of war. This is a very positive thing after spending more than $900 billion and many casualties on and in this war. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. Obama passed the Economic Stimulus Bill Of 2008 which helped preserve jobs in education, law enforcement, and other important jobs that the states could not handle in the middle of the Recession when it was at its worse. The stimulus saved the USA from the worst of the Recession and benefited millions of people. The http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. Obama has shown he can compromise and work with the Republican Party when he agreed to extend the bush tax cuts while also extending unemployment benefits to those who were still struggling to find a job in the aftermath of the recession. He has done well as the peacemaker and I give him lots of credit! He has to face Republicans who want us to cut spending down that there are no education programs for children. He also isn't angry about it at all but instead wants the benefit of socity and has made bills that satisfy the majority of both parties.
4. He signed a new START treaty with Russia to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries by half, a great and important step in the quest for world peace and also the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
5. Obama also authorized the operations that took out the top figures of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and his replacement Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. He personally directed the killing of Osama Bin Laden. George W. Bush said his top mission was to kill Osama Bin Laden. Epic failure.

6. He has supported gay rights and repealed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell so that the gays and lesbials would have more rights (be able to talk about their gender and relationships).http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will talk even more about these issues in detail after my opponent has responded and I will even add more issues!!!! Obama is a good president because of what he has done to this country.
16kadams

Con

I will make this my arguments not rebuttal round.

C1: the debt

About 15 trillion dollars (1)
Debt before obamas office: 10 trillion (2)
Debt held by public as of today; ten trillion
Under bush: 6 (2)

Under Obama we are increasing the deficit by 1.6 trillion dollars every year, you hate bush for spending? Obama spends 3 times faster. (3) also obama is predicted to out spend Bush's 8 years by match! (4) Obama in a little over 3 years will spend more than bush in 8.

C2: the economy

2008 December unemployment: 7.3% (5)
2011 December unemployment: 8.5% (5)

Now you will point out although unemployment is higher then under bush, the rate is dropping. But you forget how it is dropping. The labor force fell by 315,000 in October, people stopped looking, once they do not look then they are not on the list. (6) so the drop is people giving up not more hiring.

Also spending on healthcare dropped 2.2 billion dollars. (7) growth of GDP is 1.8-1.2% under the 2% estimate and far below what we need for a healthy economy. The small growth may still be derailed because of the European debt crisis. (7)

C3: ObamaCare

I agree we need health reform, so do not derail this debate into we need HC reform, but I dislike this reform.

Sub point a: bad for buisness

The bill makes it harder for the small company to provide insurance. (8) It also makes it harder to hire workers. (8)

The congressional budget office says it would cost the economy 800,000 jobs. (9)

Sub point b: raises taxes

42 million Americans will have tax increases due to this bill. (10) Americans will be paying more to the IRS soon. (10) some of these taxes are in place now raising taxes on the middle class. (11)

Sub point c: cost

ObamaCares 10 year cost is 1.2 trillion dollars the CBO says! (12) the initial cost of the program is 105 billion dollars. (13) and that 105 is mandatory spending.

C4: approval

In America politicians are elected to do what we say, if he is disapproved then he is doing something wrong:

Obama job approval: 48-46 Obama disapprove leaning. (14)

He is disliked bye.

=conclusion=

On my phone wanna end now... Just vote con.

Sources:

http://www.brillig.com... (1)
http://www.savingsbonds.gov... (2)
http://www.nationalreview.com... (3)
http://www.theblaze.com... (4)
http://data.bls.gov... (5)
http://www.cbsnews.com... (6)
http://www.nytimes.com... (7)
http://blog.heritage.org... (8)
http://dailycaller.com... (9)
http://online.wsj.com... (10)
http://rpc.senate.gov... (11)
http://www.weeklystandard.com... (12)
http://www.foxnews.com... (13)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com... (14)
Debate Round No. 2
Viper-King

Pro

First, I will not be refuting my opponent's arguments because he didn't bother refuting mine but instead make more points about Obama.

8. The economy is turing for the best of the country. Barack Obama signed into law an economic plan that saved America from a depression, restored growth, and created or saved as many as 3.6 million jobs.

9. Barack Obama has signed into law landmark health insurance reform that makes insurance companies accountable, gives people and small businessess greater control of health care, and improves the quality of health care for all Americans.

10. He fought against Wall Street lobbyists to sign into law historic consumer protections and financial reforms that protect American families from unfair lending practices from credit card and mortgage companies, and work to prevent future financial crises.

11. He reformed the college loan system by ending subsidies to banks and using the money to make college more affordable. He also invested in community colleges that are providing Americans with the skills they need to succeed in today's economy.

12. He saved the American auto industry, which saved millions of American jobs and helped GM and Chrysler become profitable again while repaying taxpayers.

13. He helped women get the equal pay they deserve by signing into law the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Now there are 13 points that my opponent has not refuted while only 3 points that I promise to refute.

16kadams

Con

Refutation time:

R1: Iraq

Lol you say this is good, add leaving iraq then it's good? Sure it is, but he increased military spending:

Obamas current cuts are temporary, they will lead to increases in spending by 36 billion by 2017. (1) Also in 2011 he increased military spending by 1%. (2) also if you look at the graph (see 3 source) in 2008-10 spending militarily continues to increase. (3)

So he actually still participated in the war machine.

He also attacked many countries:

Bush bombed 2 countries, Obama 4. (4)

"bama has now unilaterally attacked more countries than Bush, notably bombing inside Pakistan, Yemen and now Libya without Congressional approval" (5)

So yes he left Iraq but messed up military.

R2: Stimulus

The stimulus was a failure, GDP grows slower than ever, and the housing market is in the slums. (6) Also the action would supposedly put unemoyment under 8% (7), did that work? No. Also I proved the unemployment is lowering because people are no longer looking for jobs.

R3: Compromise

Any president would compromise if they didn't want a lame duck. So really no shocked. Bush went liberal second term because of a democrat congress. Big deal he compromised woo hoo! Not really exciting.

R4: START

This treaty was actually not as major as the previous ones signed by George H W bush. (8) also in my opinion any president would do this as most of the modern presidents have had arms talks with Russia. This is the mode, nothing special pro.

Also the new treaty may put the US in danger:

It would lower US nukes but maybe not Russia's, it would put us at a 10-1 disadvantage. (9) The treaty would defiantly lower out defenses. (10) Also Russia cheats in most of the arms treaties we have had with them. (11)

So really it hurts us.

R5: Osama

Dude any president would have done it, no difference. Not special. Also bush got much of the evidence needed to find Osama, he deserves a little credit. (12)

R6: Gay rights

I do not care about social policies next election, the economy is the problem. Also one upside=\= good.

"An overflow of good converts to bad. "- William Shakespeare

R7: Economy

See my rebbuttal for stimulus and former arguments round.

R8: ObamaCare

See ObamaCare argument last round.

R9: Wallstreet

Much of obamas money comes from Wallstreet for his campaign. This source lists About 20. (13) fail.

"Obama even tops Romney in total donations from Bain Capital: $76,600 compared with the $34,000 that went to Romney" (14).

More Wallstreet money to Obama.

" He's raised $15.6 million from finance folks" (14)

He=Obama here.

So he hurts Wallstreet yet obama gets his money from them? Fail.

R10: College loans

1. Source?
2. He wants to do it, that =\= he did it.

R11: Saved auto industry

Temporarily. The new gas mileage regulations made by Obama are expected to kill 500,000 jobs in that industry. (15) so he did temporarily, you forget to mention this part.

R12: Equal pay.

They already got = pay. You must demonstrate that they got paid less then men before the act was passed to make a good argument.

-conclusion-

Nobama. Vote Con.

Sources:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... (1)
http://www.wsws.org... (2)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (3)
http://www.usmessageboard.com... (4)
http://www.activistpost.com... (5)
http://www.forbes.com... (6)
http://www.americanthinker.com... (7)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (8)
http://m.washingtontimes.com... (9)
http://www.nationalreview.com.../ (10)
http://republican.senate.gov... (11)
http://abcnews.go.com... (12)
http://www.opensecrets.org...(13)
http://nymag.com... (14)
http://finance.townhall.com... (15)
Debate Round No. 3
Viper-King

Pro

First of all, I hope that people dont judge this debate or vote-bomb because they dislike me or like 16kadams. The debate is the most important issue and if you really do think my opponent's case is better, please put a more detailed why instead of "His points were weak" or "His points were dead ends". I will first address my case and then my opponent's case.

#1. First, my opponent admits tha leaving Iraq is good.Next, he claims that Barack Obama will increase spending by 6 billion dollars by 2017. However his own source doesn't say that. His source instead states that his plan "calls for spending $36 billion more on the military in 2017". His plan calls for it, it doesn't increase it. Also I say that increasing spending by $36 million isn't so bad because currently our military spending is $704 billion thanks to George W. Bush. Because this debate isn't about George W. Bush and instead is about Obama, I will just tell you quickly that George Bush spent so much money on our military that this is why our military spending is so much today. Towards your next remark, George W. Bush spent $853 billion from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to Barack Obama's $271 billion so an 1% increase in millitary spending is not a lot compared to the previous president. The military spending is increasing very little (and a tiny bit compared to Bush) and actually decreased in 2009. Obama's participitation of the "war machine" is untrue because of such little spending compared to the former president and his journey for peace. The bombing doesn't matter as much as the actual wars; Obama promoted peace by bombing and killing psycho dictator Gaddafi aand helped Libya become free. In Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing was neccessary due to George Bush starting the wars and for Yemen, we took out a few top Al-Qaeda members because of that bomb. Also, bombing isn't getting into wars and spending lots of money on them but is instead considered for reasons such as world peace. This point just upholds my 7th point about Barack Obama bringing world peace. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...;; http://www.dailykos.com...;

#2: The stimulus was not a "failure" but rather a good investment in the future. Also the GDP "growing slower than ever" is much better than Bush. Bush made the GDP grow 2.1% in his 8 years!!! Also the stimulus is still taking place which means it will slowly become under 8% which is less than 0.7% away from it's goal. That makes no sense that unemployment is lowering because people aren't looking for work. What does people not looking for work have to do with unemployment?
My other source in the other round.

#3: Which presidential candidate including the "gay-bashing lame duck" Rick Santorum is willing to compromise? It's all about defeating the Democratic Party to them! Compromising isn't such an easy thing. Also Bush didn't really compromise until his 2nd term, Obama compromised in his 1st term. So it is a big deal because one side wants to blast the Democrats off and cut programs like education so that kids can't learn and have the rich be super-happy while the other side wants to help others and values the non-rich the most.

#4: So you are saying George H.W. Bush did "many more" without any sources nor examples, gaining world peace by reducing nuclear weapons which could cause World War III is "no big deal" and any president would have done it? Please... "Nothing special. " You're 8th source is about the deal not about Bush! World peace is what many presidents would like to continue through hostile approaches instead of diplomatic treaties. The treaty "might".... "maybe not"...Notice the hesitation. It seems like a conspiracy theory from your 9th source saying it comes from the show "24" and that "the Russians wo n't follow the treaty because they want to do what they want"? Also "would" is totally wrong because your own source says it already "has" in a research in 2009. So that's invalid and your 10th source leads me to the main page of National Review so that's invalid and your 11th source has no relevance with nuclear treaties. So it doesn't hurt us, it helps the world.

#5: "Dude any president would have done it, no difference. Not special." So you're saying that catching the top terrorist who killed almost 3,000 people in one day no big deal? George Bush had 7 years to catch that piece of scum and failed while Barack Obama didn't need 4 years to kill him. Also my opponent didn't mention what I said about him killing other top terrorists. Find me any President who has killed so many terrorists in 4 years. Look at my source that "works" to see the terorists he caught. Also your 12th source says that the people are divided over who gets the most credit: Obama, Bush, Clinton. It also says "Leading Republicans have publicly praised Obama for his leadership in the moment, and strong majorities of Republican voters in recent polls say they believe the president deserves credit for the mission's success." Even the Republicans know he did it. So George Bush does deserve like a little of the credit but Obama has got the majority. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...

#6: My opponent forfeited this one with a classy style by basically saying that he doesn't care about personal freedom but cares only about economic security. Human rights are not important to him at all because he doesn't care about "social policies". He then quotes William Shakespeare "An overflow of good converts to bad" but doesn't give the reasons why it is bad. So it's a forfeit.

#7: My opponent fails to talk about this point and instead just refers back to the stimulus. However, the stimulus is part of the economy and there is so much of the economy other than that particularly 2008 stimulus so failing to talk about it in his rebuttal round is a forfeit.

#8: Refering back to his own argument about that subject is not responding to it so "forfeit".

#9: Barack Obama has the 2nd most support from big banks right after Mitt Romney. You are correct that out of all 20 big banks, all twenty of them have Mitt Romney leading everyone else. Your first source in this round states how much money in all they donated to "all the candidates". Your 2nd source is somewhere in October. My source is the most recent so your outdated source is truly incorrect about it. Your 3rd source is also in October. Out of date information is not helpful. Also you never told me how he hurt them so that point is not true, and replying with money doesn't answer my points so another forfeit. http://money.cnn.com...

#10: My opponent responds the argument with two things. "Source?" Asking for the source is not refuting my arguments. "He wants to do it, that =\= he did it." No idea what he's talking about. He admitted Obama wanted to change college loans and he did it. So he agrees with me which is basically a forfeit.

#11: My opponent admits that Obama saved the auto-industry but later will kill 500,00 jobs. My question is 500,000 jobs more important or millions of jobs?

#12: My opponent says I didn't have a good argument and I have to prove they got paid less then men. Well that's rude and on local cable it said that women employees were protesting against Walmart. There look it up. Finished.

I don't have enough space for my 3 refutations as I am going into negative characters so I will post my finishing argument and "Ending Statements" in the "Comments Section". It will be soon. Thank you.
16kadams

Con

I extend arguments as my opponent has not bothered to refute my arguments, rather only defending his own. Another reason to vote con.

R1: Iraq

Actually yes leaving was good, but a major motive to leave Iraq was spending, increasing spending on something he wanted to decrease is a fail. So in all realities he left Iraq to cut military spending, yet he still will increase military spending is HIS budget stays until 2017.

Also you claim my source says nohing about Obama and spending, well it did, read the FIRST PARAGRAPH. I will quote it:

"President Obama on Thursday unveiled a Pentagon spending plan that fails to cut any major procurement programs and calls for spending $36 billion more on the military in 2017 than it will spend this year. " [1]

Also there is this:

"Obama has actually taken Bush's war machine and put it in overdrive, sending significantly more troops to fight overseas, spending more money on "defense" than even Bush, and engaging the U.S. in even more conflicts on more fronts, sometimes even ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers (i.e. breaking the law)" [2]

He is just a pro war President like his predecessor Mr. Bush. So want an anti war president? Then Obama is not your choice. How does he create world peace for the reasons above? He does not.

R2: Stimulus

You have provided no source for your information, hence I win the argument source wise.

Before refuting let me do the unemployment refutation:

You do not understand how this is counted do you? My mom is not considered. unemployed because she has no job. You are considered unemployed only if you are out of work and are looking for a job.

"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work" [3]

So if you are not looking you are not counted in the number. So since people are literally no longer looking for jobs they are no longer looking considered unemployed. Argument extended.

Also your bush argument is false, GDP grew 2.5% annually. [4] EVERY YEAR I GREW 2% NOT IN 8 YEARS! Big difference. The number of jobs created grew by 6.5% on average. (under bush) [4]

vs Obama

2011 GDP growth was 1.3%. [5] "When Bush was running for re-election in 2004, annual GDP growth was 3.5%. So far in 2011, it's been 0.4% (Q1) and 1.3% (Q2) respectively. [5]

So Obama loses GDP War.

Obama Job creation: +0.62% [6]

Obama loses here too.

Now back to the stimulus:

The CBO says it only reduced unemployment by 1% temporarily and will increase unemployment by 0.2% over the source of a few years and keep a small decline. [7] They also predict 9.3% unemployment by 2013. [8] Note this is after the stimulus.

R3: Gay bashers

Rick Santorum will not win.

Also you refuted none of what I said just pissed on Rick Santorum, So extend arguments.

R4: START

READ MY SOURCE! Dang it is not that hard, I will quote it since you cannot find my supported statements:

"its goals are actually modest compared to previous START treaties and that the treaty should not fail because of partisan disagreements." [9]

GHWB Signed a start treaty and if the new one is more modest then it implies it is less effective.

Also un-sourced arguments no rebuttal just attacked the source, extend arguments on how the treaty can be bad.

Also how is obama peace spreading if:

"Obama Ordered escalated U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan.
- Obama Ordered continued U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Pakistan.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Yemen.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Libya.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Egypt.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Iran.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Tunisia.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Yemen.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Bahrain." [10]
" [10] Obama =/= peace making.

R5: Osma

Lol Bush actually did much of the investigations, doing most of the work yo catch him. Your only arguments in this debate are Obama beats bush. Really this is a red herring that I will not refute. Also I will provid president who killed terrorists:

Bushes invasions did:

"Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" [11]

Note toppling the Taliban is 1000s captured or killed, this trumps 3 guys. You turned this into a red herring, any president would sign the papers to kill him, Bush got the Intel, then Obama signed the paper, giving Obama full credit is naive. Further more Obama hesitated into signing the papers, Panetta actually called the order. [12] So Really Obama didn't do it. Case closed point debunked.

R6: Social

Actually when the economy is down the tube fixing what makes you and I have money is more important then legalizing marriage. You have provided no strong case here anyhow.

Money and other people getting wealth > Marriage. I could care less what your view is socially right now.

R7: Economy

See my arguments in Round 2.

It proves economic growth is not happening under Obama, hence your point was debunked a while ago and you never defended it against it. See Round 2.

R8: ObamaCare

Actually referring back is fair, actually I am angry right now as you have provided no reasons for ObamaCare. Referring to arguments that crush this point is actually agood thing. Also extend the extension.

R9: Wallstreet

Note you say BIG BANKS. If you look at overall Wallstreet he is the most notorious.

Goldman Sachs gave obama: $1,013,091 in 2008. [13]

I again refer to previous arguments as I am low on room.

R10: College loans

If it is not sourced it didn't happen (that's my motto). He never actually did it he just has asked for it to be done. [14]

He NEVER DID WHAT YOU SAID, hence your point debunked.

=out of room=

My opponents last 2 refutations are un-sourced and he just uses fake numbers. He claims millions, yet doesn't source it. A Statstic like that needs to be sourced. Since my arguments where un-touched, he only defended his, he drops my case, therefore in debate the concedes my case as 100% right, therefore I win. Vote CON. Also the comments are not an extension of the debate, once i finish this the things here are well the end. Comments are not areas to add more arguments, comments would not count. So any concluding remarks will be not formal and not counted, Vote Con.

sources:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [1]
http://www.humblelibertarian.com... [2]
http://www.bls.gov... [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]
http://politicons.net... [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]
http://www.newsmax.com... [7]
http://drpinna.com... [8]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [9]
http://www.usmessageboard.com... [10]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [11]
http://socyberty.com... [12]
http://www.opensecrets.org... [13]
http://www.detroitnews.com... [14]
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
I'm glad no one else has vote bombed this debate. It was terrible on this debate. I agree with MasterKage. I am having nightmares about vote bombing similar to this on my debates.
Posted by Mr_Anon 2 years ago
Mr_Anon
Lordknukle I was counter-vote bombing Ron Paul, who gave all 7 of his point to Con, despite the fact that Pro clearly had better spelling and grammar. As it is there are two vote bombs in favor of Con, and only one in favor of Pro.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Yes hold us to the same standard, he needed to refute then.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Because I actually refuted his arguments. He could have in 2 different rounds but didn't. Also these people said I had stronger actual arguments.
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
"I decided that it was an arguments round": Standard procedure is that the con must both propose his own case as well as refute his opponent's case. Since the deviation from standard procedure was not specified in R1, it does not count. Viper-King also decided that the next round was an argument's round. Why should we not hold you to the same standards to which we are holding him?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I dropped it as I decided that was the arguments round. He never refuted mine so it's still a drop.
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
Wow. The voting for this debate is horrific. I actually think I may have nightmares about the vote bombing in this debate.
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
To the Voters: Viper-King did not drop his opponent's arguments. He pointed out that his opponent dropped his arguments in the first round and proceeded to add more arguments and defend his arguments in the next round. I see no problem with this because 16kadams also dropped Viper's arguments initially, which means that the "dropping" was a wash.
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
Also, posting 50 sources that you did not bother to read does not count as posting evidence. I am going to go through the sources later today and I will call you out for any cases of miscutting evidence.
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
"Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for using the word fail. SG easy pick. Sources is because he had more and many where .gov or credible news sites. Arguments go con for 1 reason, pro dropped all of cons case and only tried to debunk the refutations. This means: Pro conceded cons case. Cons argument left in the end 100%, as for pro I would say 60% of it stood. 100 trumps 60. Also pros defense, like the one about the auto industry was unsourced. Hence the way I vote. A side note will be put, if I may, in the comments."

16kadams, any idiot can see that you wrote this. "Sources is because he had more." This is not only the same reasoning that you use when you vote, but it also matches your style of writing. This is a clear case of multiaccounting, and even if you can prove that it is not, it is at best biased voting.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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: Successfully refuted Pro, won on Obamacare.More sources. Lol, funny trolls votebombing each other below. This is hilarious.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
Viper-King16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was really surprised by the potency of Viper-King's arguments. I award arguments to Viper based on the human rights analysis as well as the job savings weighing analysis (500,000 jobs losts versus millions of jobs saved through the stimulus package).
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 2 years ago
blackhawk1331
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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 gets the arguments for successfully for refuting all of pros arguments. Also, pro claimed that Obama withdrew all troops from Iraq. False. He left about 150 there for arms sales. Plus, we're still in other middle-eastern wars. He also claimed Obama was crucial in killing bin Laden. I'm sorry, was Obama part of Seal Team 6? No? Then what did he do that another president wouldn't have? Con gets sources because he used more sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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 could have torn into the con's arguments and make this truly a great debate, but he dropped nearly every argument made by the con in round two which was suicide for the pro. Sources go to con to, why is everyone votebombing?
Vote Placed by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
Viper-King16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for using the word fail. SG easy pick. Sources is because he had more and many where .gov or credible news sites. Arguments go con for 1 reason, pro dropped all of cons case and only tried to debunk the refutations. This means: Pro conceded cons case. Cons argument left in the end 100%, as for pro I would say 60% of it stood. 100 trumps 60. Also pros defense, like the one about the auto industry was unsourced. Hence the way I vote. A side note will be put, if I may, in the comments.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Anon. Trolls vote bombing for each other.
Vote Placed by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: The sources on both sides were bad
Vote Placed by Mr_Anon 2 years ago
Mr_Anon
Viper-King16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammar by far was better (no contesting this - don't know why anyone wouldn't give him that point). Pro seemed to be much more civil, as con used words like "lol" and "fail" to attack his opponent. Pro also seemed to do better in arguments, being able to thoroughly refute Con's points. However, I'll give Con sources as he seemed to back up most of his sources whereas Pro did not. Edit: there's been a lot of vote bombing here, so I have to give Pro sources.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
Viper-King16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON provided much stronger points/reasoning, and PRO didn't sufficiently respond to all of them...Not to mention CON used a lot of quality sources.