The Instigator
nathanknickerbocker.9
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jzonda415
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Should Obama be impeached

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 5 votes the winner is...
jzonda415
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 36251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

agreement first round argument second
jzonda415

Pro

I accept this debate and look forward to it.
Debate Round No. 1
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

Thank you for accepting

Obama shouldn't be impeached simply because he has done nothing wrong people claim that he violated the 5th amendment by the gun law but he didn't all he said was he supported it and may have passed it but that doesn't mean he violated the right in fact he was useing his first amendment right not violating one.
jzonda415

Pro

It is a true pleasure to be debating nathanknickerbocker.9 on this great topic. I thank him for this debate and his response.

I want to first start out by defining impeachment:

Impeachment: A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)

Secondly, I want to discuss my opponent's case and offer a proper refutation. My opponent begins and uses his entire case to attack a straw man. He misrepresents my argument and talks about something not relevant to my case whatsoever. He has also not spoken about what specific "gun law" Obama supported, not provided sources or used proper grammar.

Now, onto my case. But first, let us look at America's history with impeachment so we can get some background on what qualifies a president for impeachment.

Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

America's first impeachment of a president was Andrew Johnson primarily for violating the Tenure of office Act and going against the orders of the Senate. He was not convicted by one vote.

Another impeachment nearly occurred with Richard Nixon. When Richard Nixon ordered the bugging of the Watergate hotel where the Democratic party headquarters was located, he denied any connection to it. However, several tape recordings were discovered in the White House, and these showed Nixon had been involved and had attempted to cover up the scandal.

For his obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, the House Judiciary committee recommended to convict him on these three charges. He soon after resigned from office to avoid impeachment and conviction.

The last case of impeachment to occur happened with President Bill Clinton. He was convicted on the grounds of perjury in front of a grand jury and obstruction of justice. He was not convicted (Sadly). [1].

Obstruction of Justice. Perjury. Abuse of Power. Contempt of Congress. Violating acts and orders of Congress. These are just a few of the many "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are mentioned in Article 2 section 2 of the Constitution. Thee who are guilty of these as president must be impeached by Congress.

His Royal Highness President Barack Obama is:

Guilty of Obstruction of Justice with the Benghazi cover-up. He is firstly preventing at least one would-be Benghazi whistle-blower from taking legal steps to reveal classified information in Congressional testimony [2]. He is also dispersing witnesses of the attack around the country and changing their names in an effort to hide the truth about what happened [3]. He is preventing a full investigation of the attacks on Benghazi and in turn Obstructing Justice.

Guilty of engaging in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizen with the NSA spying on Americans. He has, in violation and disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted the NSA to spy on millions of American's phone calls and emails. These actions are in clear violation of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. [4].

Guilty of treason and obstruction of justice with the Fast and Furious scandal. In Operation Fast and Furious, ATF agents purposely allowed thousands of (Over 2,500) guns to be sold to individuals that they believed would get them into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. This operation lead to the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December. Two guns that were sold during Operation Fast and Furious were found at the scene of the murder. He denies any connection to this operation, but he has used the full extent of his power to prevent anybody from finding out who authorized this operation [5]. He is guilty for obstruction of justice by preventing the and treason by possibly authorizing this operation.

Guilty of the murder of 4 American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and two others without a trial. [6] [7]. Every American citizen deserves a fair trial. President Obama denied this to these 4 Americans and ignored the Constitution.

Conclusion:

President Obama is guilty of Obstruction of Justice, violating the Constitutional rights of citizens, treason and the murder of 4 American citizens without trial. For these reasons, he should be impeached.

Vote Pro.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org... my knowledge of history.
2. http://townhall.com...
3. http://frontpagemag.com...
4. http://online.wsj.com...
5. http://www.prisonplanet.com...
6. http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

1. I did not use improper grammar and you are claiming that I used an incorrect argument when you say the same thing only you use it as a "reason why people should be impeached"

2. I'm pretty sure that we are talking about Obama's possible impeachment not what has happened in the past Andrew Johnson,Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have nothing to do with this they made mistakes but Obama has not. Plus we all know what gun law I'm speaking of you are just exploiting it so that you can look like you don't understand it so that your confused by my argument.

3. "His Royal Highness President Barack Obama" really? His royal Highness one HE IS NO KING america is a democrical republic meaning we are a democracy but we use republic ways for our government so no His royal Highness is offence to the government our forefathers built.

4. He could have done this so that there is no bloodbath have you considered that maybe just maybe he tried to prevent soldiers and civilians from raging in the streets the only reason they probably didn't is because "Hey lets just blame the government like we know every thing that goes on without considering the fact the government's job is to protect us" this supports me by simply unless the pro is a witness and all of america we don't know jack so stop acting like we do.

5. You know this how? i mean by that by how Obama is involved once again were you there did you watch this could have been dirty agents could of been a senator see its easy to just claim o some one else did it with out a throu investigation

6. Its not even worth saying it again i feel like a broken record YOU KNOW THIS HOW????????? yes there military drones but wait i thought we had generals and commanders who could call orders without the government's hand holding but no lets just blame the big guy screw justice or investigating pfft.

My argument sticks all I'm saying is that Obama has done nothing wrong someone find me proof ill shut up but let me just say a few things
1. No investigation
2. No evidence
3. Apparently everyone know exactly what happened and who is responsible.

That's all I gotta say I don't need to say vote con (minus that)
jzonda415

Pro

1. You're entire paragraph was just an entire run-on sentence with pretty much no punctuation. You also misspelled the world "using". Also, I didn't say you used an incorrect argument. I said you attacked a straw man. You're arguments for him not being impeached we're completely irrelevant to mine.

2. I used the examples of Richard Nixon's near impeachment and Andrew Johnson's and Bill Clinton's impeachment to get some background and history on this issue. These will help us determine if Obama' s mistakes are impeachable or not and they clearly are. Moreover, I don't have any idea what "gun law" you're talking about. You didn't provide a source or anything else on it. It would be like me referring to the Benghazi consulate attack as "the attack". Nevertheless, this "gun law" is still irrelevant to my case.

3. It was a joke. Sorry it was so offensive to you. However, I do think it's pretty king like of him to spend $100 million on a trip to Africa [1] and spend over $1 million for a golf weekend at a yacht club with Tiger Woods [2] but still deny tours of the White House to people because of the supposed lack of money [3]. I did it as a joke because I know he's not a king but he certainly acts like one.

4. This is not a real objection to my argument. His first point is unsound. How would a so called "Bloodbath" be prevented by the failure to release emails critical to the attack [4], tell the American people why he said the attacks were spawned by a protest (Despite the fact that the Obama administration knew it was a terrorist attack) [5] [6], preventing at least one would-be Benghazi whistle-blower from taking legal steps to reveal classified information in Congressional testimony [2 from my last round], and dispersing witnesses of the attack around the country and changing their names in an effort to hide the truth about what happened [3 from my last round]? His other part about us knowing "jack" is wrong. There are many things we know about the Benghazi attacks, as I have shown in this round and my previous round, but we want to be able to answer some residual questions not answered by the Obama administration during the Benghazi Congressional investigation. But, in the process of not answering questions, the administration has obstructed justice, and impeachable offense. My original point from round two still stands.

5. I do not know if this point is directed at Operation Fast and Furious or the NSA phone tapping. Either way, his objection of no investigation is false. There was one for Fast and Furious [7]. As for the NSA tapping, there was no investigation; however, there is plenty of evidence about it. At least enough to conclude that it wasn't a Senator or dirty agent and that Obama is partially responsible for it [8] [9].

6. If it's not worth saying, why do you say it? Sure, there are generals and commanders, but Obama still makes individual kill decisions, despite the fact that the military made an aggressive push to wrest back control over final targeting calls from the commander in chief [10]. He made the decision to kill these American citizens without trial.

Onto your final remarks:

"1. No investigation"

False. There was an investigation into the Benghazi attack [11], Obama' s drone warfare [12], Fast and Furious [7]. As for the NSA, there is enough evidence for there to be one [9].

"2. No evidence"

False. I have provided a substantial amount of evidence in my arguments.

"3. Apparently everyone know exactly what happened and who is responsible."

Rendered moot by my previous arguments.

My Arguments:

I have one more additional argument for President Obama' s impeachment. President Obama is:

Guilty of violating the War Powers Act of 1973. Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only “logistical troops” . Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization [13].

Conclusion:

My opponent has ignored most of my evidence and written if off with statements like: "It could have been this, so this is wrong". He has not provided sources at all. My evidence still stands and my points still stand. My opponent has also made, by my count, 24 spelling and grammar mistakes in his arguments. My arguments still stand.

Vote Pro.

I await my opponent's final response.

Sources:
1. http://rt.com...
2. http://www.weeklystandard.com...
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
4. http://theconservativetreehouse.com...
5. http://larouchepac.com...
6. http://www.reuters.com...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.carbonated.tv...
9. http://gizmodo.com...
10. http://www.thedailybeast.com...
11. http://en.wikipedia.org...
12. http://www.nbcnews.com...
13. http://conservativepapers.com... This source is a good one and I recommend a read. I do not support all 161 articles of impeachment they raise, but, there are some good ones in here.
Debate Round No. 3
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

nathanknickerbocker.9 forfeited this round.
jzonda415

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the final round of our debate. Conduct should be awarded to me for the forfeit. Spelling and grammar to me for Con's 26 total mistakes. Arguments to me because I have properly refuted all of Con's claims and held my case. Sources should be mine for I have provided 20 while my opponent has provided absolutely 0.

May we soon try and convict this failure of a president.

Arguments extended. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
Exactly nonamenoslogan.
Posted by nonamenoslogan 3 years ago
nonamenoslogan
It is amazing that people still do not know our government killed American citizens without due process even after Sen. Paul's filibuster. Paraphrasing him, "The only notice that a person even knows that he has been accused is the sound of helicopter blades."

Can you imagine if it was Bush still in office? Can you imagine the caterwauling? The protests? The 24 hour media coverage counting down when action will be taken? Everyone would know about this. Now though, because it is a Democrat president, even some people who at least try to stay informed don't understand it. Let me put it this way:

His administration executed American citizens without a trial. It didn't "torture," it executed; and not accused, captured foreign terrorists, but AMERICAN CITIZENS.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by sorar3 3 years ago
sorar3
nathanknickerbocker.9jzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: After playing games like Civilization V, Simcity 4, and delving into the civil war lore of Skyrim, I have finally understood what politicians do and why they do it, and I see now that sometimes people in power make decisions that are morally bad, but good in the long run. Oh and Pro is very much superior to con.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
nathanknickerbocker.9jzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Ragnar nailed it.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
nathanknickerbocker.9jzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins by a good margin here...sources,conduct,spelling and grammar,arguments...Con was too weak against our Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
nathanknickerbocker.9jzonda415Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was a Begging The Question, of "Obama did nothing wrong." By admitting to no fault even when confronted by evidence, the position was greatly weakened. Pro made a solid case, that yes included fallacies such as calling Obama His Royal Highness. CONDUCT: forfeit. S&G: I'd leave this tied, if not for bad grammar when denying bad grammar in R3. ARGUMENT: The biggest weakness to pro's case (just to give feedback), was "Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization [13]." Since we haven't actually gone through congress to declare war since WWII... However I loved the presentation of "GUILTY" repeated so many times. I've already cut up con's case, it was good enough for government work, but not good enough to beat pro on this. As pro pointed out, he had 20 sources, con had 0. Con did however make the claim of "No evidence" which was a decent joke. FINAL NOTE: He won't be impeached, but morally great argument for it!
Vote Placed by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
nathanknickerbocker.9jzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow this looks like a vote bomb. Conduct to Pro because of Con's FF. S&G to Pro. Con had no argument while Pro did. Pro used sources.