The Instigator
bkrivas95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Oromagi
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should President Obama be impeached?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Oromagi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 37059
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

bkrivas95

Pro

There's no question that President Obama has made some very questionable decisions during his second term as President of the United States. I believe that there is enough evidence to at least raise the question and hold a trial regarding a possible impeachment of Mr. President. Things like the cover-up about what happened in Benghazi, the NSA snooping and spying allegations brought to light by Edward Snowden, and the uncertainty surrounding his actual faith (Claims to be a Christian, evidence points to the contrary. In fact, I believe it points to him being a Muslim) which, in the end, could hold an interior motive that the public does not know about. I believe that Obama has been successful in one thing if nothing else, and that is losing the trust of Americans like me who like to know what our government is up to. Don't say that your second term will be the most "transparent" ever and then hide stuff here and there. It's not cool and I absolutely believe that it should not be tolerated.
Oromagi

Con

I will accept the debate. By any rational and impartial examination of the available evidence, I anticipate that Pro will be unable to demonstrate that Mr. Obama is guilty of treason, bribery, or similar "high crimes." Since the House of Representatives retains the power of impeachment and the majority of that same House has declared that opposition to Mr. Obama is their first priority, we can expect that any reasonable evidence of an impeachable offense would be immediately exploited by the House. Although the absence of evidence is not proof of innocence, the burden is on Pro to demonstrate guilt of a high crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Debate Round No. 1
bkrivas95

Pro

I beg to differ. Obama is guilty of treason on the grounds that he did not send sufficient aid to Ambassador Stephens when requested. His ignorance led to the AVOIDABLE death of a US citizen and high ranking official. On top of that. have, he blamed a YouTube video that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident as the spark to the fire. That's absolute crap. Mind you he (Obama) also said in a college address "I am not a tyrant" out of the blue. Other famous quotes that were the absolute opposite of the truth include "I am not a criminal" (Richard Nixon about the Watergate scandal) and "I. Did. Not. Have sexual relations with that woman" (none other than the flawless Bill Clinton). Counter.
Oromagi

Con

Pro states:
Obama is guilty of treason on the grounds that he did not send sufficient aid to Ambassador Stephens when requested....he blamed a YouTube video that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident as the spark to the fire.

Pro replies:
Treason has the distinction of being the only crime defined by the US Constitution, against the potential use of treason accusations as political tactic. The founding fathers, it seems, were familiar with arguments like Pro's.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."[1]

Therefore, unless Pro can show that Obama provided material support, aid, or comfort to the Benghazi attackers Pro's accusations of treason have no standing under the Constitution.

The Executive Branch is called on every day to make difficult decisions about the best allocations to secure the safety of overseas personnel. In cases where security proved insufficient, the criticism that more should have been done is consistently applied. Benghazi is one example, but every President faces this challenge. Another example would be after the Beirut suicide bombers killed 241 Marines in 1983, the Dept. of Defense criticized Reagan for deploying Marines "while the USMNF was "not prepared" to deal with the terrorist threat at the time due to "lack of training, staff, organization, and support" specifically for defending against "terror threats."[2] Ford and Kissinger were criticized for their hesitancy in the evacuation of Vietnamese personnel from the U.S. Embassy during the Fall of Saigon.
The National Review estimated that some 30,000 South Vietnamese had been killed using a list of CIA informants left behind by the US embassy[3]

In spite of the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacks, the most cogent facts are that although the U.S. Embassy expected to request additional security in Benghazi, the official cable was not yet submitted on Sept 11th. CICAFRICOM Carter Ham made two separate offers of additional military forces to Ambassador Stevens in the weeks before Sept. 11th. Stevens refused both offers. [4] As Commander-in-Chief, Obama acknowledges ultimate responsibility, but it cannot be fairly said that Obama was involved at a decision-making level regarding security in Benghazi prior to Sept. 11

The Obama administration may be justly criticized for over-emphasizing the role of the "Innocence of Muslims" video in the absence of much evidence to that effect and well in advance of any official findings. Since little is known about the attackers true motives, any indications that the video played a role in motive are sheer speculation.

Nevertheless, over-emphasis is hardly treason.

Pro states:
(Obama) also said in a college address "I am not a tyrant"

Con replies:
What charges would you recommend the House bring in connection with this heinous act?

[1]. http://www.archives.gov...

[2]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

[3]
http://jim.com...

[4]
http://www.mcclatchydc.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bkrivas95

Pro

bkrivas95 forfeited this round.
Oromagi

Con

Pro forfeited

So far, we have established that Obama can't be charged with treason for Benghazi. Treason would require evidence of material aid or comfort of the terrorists, for which Pro has not offered any evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
bkrivas95

Pro

bkrivas95 forfeited this round.
Oromagi

Con

Well, while we're waiting for Pro to come up with something, let's briefly consider the merits of two accusations Pro leveled in round 1.

NSA programs

Let's agree that some NSA surveillance programs violate fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The most egregious programs began early in 2001 and were explicitly authorized by the Patriot Act soon after 9/11. Regrettably, since Obama restored FISA court oversight in 2008, no branch of government can lay claim to exculpatory ignorance.

I'm not convinced that Snowden can lay claim to revealing any new or extraordinary information. The scope of domestic of surveillance has been evident and reported on since 2005. Both Bush and Obama administrations have confirmed abuses of the program (Bush in 2007, Obama in 2009). Although public awareness has escalated this summer, and that's a positive change, the strongest charge against Obama is that he continued an ongoing program with increased oversight and congressional approval.

Secret Muslim

There is no religious test for the office of President. The Founding Fathers were clear that such a test would be offensive to the democracy they established.

I suppose most free thinking Americans who identify as adherents of one faith, nevertheless find examples of wisdom in other belief systems. So, I suppose is possible that Mr. Obama admires some aspects of Islam. Con would argue that an open mind is a virtue and not to be condemned. For Obama to be recognized as a practicing Muslim, however, he would be required to adhere to the pillars of Islam-

prayer facing Mecca 5 times each day,

fasting during Ramadan,

visiting Mecca,

giving 2.5% of income to the poor,

and most importantly, declaring that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.

Outside of charitable giving, Obama clearly does not practice these tenants and could not do so secretly.

Pro has offered accusations without evidence and when evidence is requested, forfeits.
Debate Round No. 4
bkrivas95

Pro

bkrivas95 forfeited this round.
Oromagi

Con

In brief, Pro has accused a man of a crime punishable by death (treason) and vanished before the consideration of any evidence. I for one am grateful that the consequences of Pro's behavior are limited to approbation by that most considerate and rational body of voters, our colleagues on DDO.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
I am aware that deception is generally frowned upon. What I'm not sure you've done an adequate job of is proving that it IS deception - that is, that Obama IS a tyrant.
Posted by bkrivas95 3 years ago
bkrivas95
Generally frowned upon...you know...if you're American.
Posted by Biblebelievingpatriot 3 years ago
Biblebelievingpatriot
The act of denying that which you later admit to be true is what is known among civilized society as deception, and is generally frowned upon. Its has been proven by numerous documents and testimony s during the course of the investigation that not only did obama refuse to offer support to our citizens but directly ordered the troops near by to stand down. He then watched on live feed as our embassy was over run and it was not untell our men were dead that he sent in troops to claim the bodys. He then lied about all knowledge and allowed the blaim to pass on to Hillary Clinton. That in my mind makes him not worthy to hold the position of president.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
bkrivas95, are you contending that the act of denying something is evidence of the contrary? Please explain. The best argument I can think of is that if one feels the need to deny something, it's falseness isn't already self-evident, but this doesn't seem, in my opinion, to merit presenting it as evidence.
Posted by bkrivas95 3 years ago
bkrivas95
Amen.
Posted by Biblebelievingpatriot 3 years ago
Biblebelievingpatriot
In response to oromagis comment. I would like to point out that former President Nixon resigned over allegations that his office had spied on private citizens. And though he denied it Nixon resigned so as to avoid"disgracing the sacred office.
Barack Hussein Obama not admited to spying on the whole country but has had the gall to claim it was for our benefit. As if he had the right to decide which laws to break and which of our rights to ignore. Lets not even get started on bengazhi, fast &furious, or the IRS scandals.
There is more then sufficent evidence.. im afraid you put to much faith in the GOP party members.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
bkrivas95OromagiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the clear winner here. He refuted all of Pro's arguments, and did not forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
bkrivas95OromagiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF