The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The GOP are ignorant hypocrites for blaming gas prices on Obama

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 12 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,730 times Debate No: 23489
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (12)

 

imabench

Pro

The resolution refers to a thread made by Contra in the politics forum about how hypocritical it is for Republicans to blame gas prices in Obama, shown in this thread below,

http://www.debate.org...

I will argue that it is hypocritical for Republicans to blame rising gas prices on Obama and not give him some credit when they go down. Roy will argue that it is NOT hypocritical

4 rounds
1st round doesn't have to be acceptance only
I will not troll or use semantics
(If there's something I screwed up just comment on it and I'll fix it an resend the challenge)

Let the debate begin
RoyLatham

Con

Debate involving broad generalizations are interesting. I'm looking forward to it.

This round I will address definitions and what Pro must prove.

Definitions

The full definition of hypocrisy is:

hy·poc·ri·sy  [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Hypocrisy relates only to moral principles. We will assume for this debate that beliefs about gasoline prices are moral principles, unless Pro has something else in mind. The misuse of "hypocrisy" is typical of political hyperbole. We understand what pro is trying to say. the important thing is to understand the tolerance for hyperbole in political discourse to which Pro subscribes. It is therefore reasonable to apply the same stand of language precision to what Republican politicians. Pro has plenty of space to explain. Politicians are quoted in sound bites.

Hypocrisy relates to "pretense" is
a false allegation or justification: Therefore, the Republications must be proved to be doing something that is false. That part of the definition must be maintained to have any
meaning at all.

Establishing generalities

The debate is a generality about "Republicans to blame rising gas prices on Obama." Generalities are usually established by statistics such as polling data. I'm open to Pro presenting such data, but at the very least he will have to make a case that some Republicans did what he is claiming, and that it is characteristic of the group. For example, suppose the resolution was "White people are bigots." or "Black people are criminals." One would have to show that some number of people are bigots or criminals and, more importantly, that it is reasonable to apply the characteristic to the group.

Reasons are given for criticisms. Consider a claim, "It is hypocritical for the police to accuse A of burglary and not B." "Hypocritical" is used incorrectly, in the same way it is used wrongly in the resolution. How would we judge if the police erred in accusing A and not B? We would have to know the evidence against each. If the circumstances were essentially the same -- maybe both were caught on video at the crime scene holding bags of loot -- then we could judge.

Finally, people legitimately change their minds based on experience. Young people may believe that drugs and alcohol are good or a person, but after some bad experiences decide that they are not good for a person. that's not hypocrisy, that's re-evaluation. Hypocrisy would be to publicly condemn drinking on moral grounds while at the same time secretly being an alcoholic.

It is legitimate to blame President Obama for higher gas prices that result from his policies of revoking oil leases on federal lands, forbidding oil exploration and development, killing the Keystone pipeline, and illegal delaying drilling permits in the Gulf. Prics fluctuate for other reasons, some not under the control of the President. Oil prices rise when a hrricane strikes the Gulf. Whoever is president shouldn't be blamed for the temprary rise or the the subsequent fall. The question is what Republicans have been inconsistent on these issues, and whether inconsistensies are characteristic.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

I agree to Roy's definition of hypocrisy, but for clarification I will also give the definition of "hypocrite" from the same website Roy has used.

1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

I will be arguing that the Republicans are thus committing hypocrisy which thus makes them hypocrites.

" I'm open to Pro presenting such data, but at the very least he will have to make a case that some Republicans did what he is claiming, and that it is characteristic of the group."

I accept the burden to show that a majority of Republicans have to be hypocrites, and it is thus agreed upon that if I can prove this then it would indicate that Republicans as a whole are hypocrites.

"Finally, people legitimately change their minds based on experience. Young people may believe that drugs and alcohol are good or a person, but after some bad experiences decide that they are not good for a person. that's not hypocrisy, that's re-evaluation. Hypocrisy would be to publicly condemn drinking on moral grounds while at the same time secretly being an alcoholic."

I see what Roy is arguing here. I thus accept the burden of proof to show that if Republicans did change their minds that they did NOT do so because they re-evaluated their beliefs over time and instead have changed their minds for other less honorable reasons.

"It is legitimate to blame President Obama for higher gas prices that result from his policies...."

Im certainly not arguing that, but how much blame is to be put on him is disputed and according to the GOP, ALL of the blame rests on Obama.

"Prices fluctuate for other reasons, some not under the control of the President."

Im not arguing with that either, however I will introduce evidence showing how some Republicans do believe that Obama does have control over all factors that determine gas prices and that according to the GOP he is solely to blame for gas prices and not any other factors.

"Whoever is president shouldn't be blamed for the temporary rise or the the subsequent fall. The question is what Republicans have been inconsistent on these issues, and whether inconsistensies are characteristic."

I agree, but the GOP sing a different tune.

========================================================================================================================================================

Reasons why Republicans are being hypocritical for blaming gas prices on Obama.

1) Many of them blame gas prices ONLY on the president, as long as hes not a Republican.

Both of us agree that what determines gas prices sometimes is out of Obama's control, for example the Iranians threatening to block the Straight of Hormuz sent gas prices up in fear that future supplies may be cut off. Other reasons that determine gas prices are supply of oil available, demand and consumption of oil, taxes, inflation, etc, and there are many other factors as well that determines gas prices. However Republicans dont see it that way, and quite often go on public record that Obama is solely to blame for gas prices creeping upwards and some even claim he is INTENTIONALLY trying to raise gas prices.

Below are some of the many cases where the GOP place the gas price issue entirely on Obama's shoulders,
http://news.yahoo.com...
http://www.factcheck.org...
http://www.forbes.com...
http://dailycaller.com...
http://www.allvoices.com...

Blaming Obama alone for the rise in gas prices isnt hypocritical though, what makes it hypocritical is that when a Republican is in white house, then suddenly every Republican will blame gas prices on anything BUT the president. When gas prices were high during the Bush years the GOP didnt blame it on Bush or environmental factors, they blamed Bill Clinton and his administration for high gas prices that Bush experienced. Infact this sort of thing is seen all the time by both parties, when gas prices rise under a president, the party not in power always blames the president whereas the party in power blames anything else.

http://www.newshounds.us...
http://www.bargaineering.com...

Republicans and Democrats alike are hypocritical when they blame gas prices on presidents because it is a cheap tool for parties not in power to use against a president. Democrats did it with Bush, Republicans did it with Obama, and that makes both hypocritical, but it makes the GOP hypocritical nonetheless.

2) Many of them have shown to be hypocritical in the past over other issues, meaning it is a characteristic for Republicans to be hypocritical.

Republicans have been hypocritical over other issues besides this whole gas price blame game, and if Republicans have a history of being hypocrites then it could thus be presumed that they could be acting like hypocrites again. Take the Bin Laden ad that Obama released about how had Mitt been president he may not have carried out the operation and had a quote to prove their point. The GOP went off on him completely for "spiking the ball" and taking sole credit for killing Osama when not only did Obama give credit to everyone involved, but the GOP back in the Bush years had done the same thing to defeat Kerry in 2004 and even used Bush as the sole reason why America hasnt been attacked since....

Had a republican president been in office when Osama was killed, you could very safely bet that the GOP would have given the president 99% of the credit, because they have done stuff just like that in the past. But since a Democrat is in office, suddenly that president isnt allowed to claim any credit at all according to the GOP.

http://www.mediaite.com...

the GOP have been hypocritical before, which means that they can be hypocritical in nature.

3) A majority of Republicans do blame Obama for high gas prices.

I cant show how each and every last Republican blames Obama for high gas prices, but just about every conservative news organization and just about every important GOP member have placed blame on Obama. I have yet to find a Republican go on record saying gas prices are NOT Obama's fault, and one can assume that a majority of Republicans do blame Obama for gas prices.
(see videos)

http://video.foxnews.com...


There is a lot of videos and politicians from the right who blame Obama a lot for gas prices and dont attribute the rise in gas prices to much else, so it shows that a large majority of Republicans blame Obama for high gas prices. This shows hypocrisy though because as I said before, blaming the president for high gas prices is a common political tactic used by the party not in power as part of the game of politics during election years.

4) Republicans have had a hand themselves in driving up gas prices yet blame only Obama for gas prices

Im out of characters so I will get into this later, but Republicans have had a small hand in high gas prices and for them to blame only Obama for high gas prices when they had a hand in raising them is hypocritical.

RoyLatham

Con

The resolution is indefensible partisan nonsense. Pro has not made a prima facie case. Pro claims that Republicans are ignorant, which claims that they don't know the facts. At the same time he claims they are hypocrites, which means that theyknow the facts, but conceal their knowledge to curry public favor. Pro's principle evidence is the opinion of biased bloggers and ideologues who repeat Pro's claims without proof. All but but three of the people claimed to be "ignorant hypocrites" are not identified as Republicans. Far from being "ignorant hypocrites" critics maintain the consistent position that expectations of future supplies of oil drive prices, and that policies that that discourage future supplies therefore drive up prices.

"Ignorant" v. "hypocrite"

Pro says hypocrisy is "a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude." Okay. Republicans say that they believe policies that diminish future supplies raise oil prices, Pro must establish that saying that is just a pretense, and that Republicans really believe that policies affecting supply have no significant effect on oil prices. Pro made no arguments to support that position. Pro claims that failure to acknowledge other causes of price increases at evey opportunity is hypocrisy.

Pro must also prove that Republicans are "ignorant." Ignorant means "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:" [1. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Of what exactly is it that Pro claims Republicans are ignorant? The truth is that oil prices are affected by US policies on exploration, and Republicans know it, That's what they say so they are neither ignorant nor hypocrites. Republicans frequently add the disclaimer hat other things affects prices as well, but, big surprise, leftist bloggers don't quote that.

Pro makes few direct arguments. He asserts the resolution is true then invites me to read his list of references and figure out what the supporting arguments might be. The most direct way Pro might make his case would be to cite concurrent polls that show Republicans believe US policies on development do not affect prices, and at the same time they believe President Obama's policies do affect prices. Pro didn't attempt that. Another, less-convincing, way Pro could try to make a case is to cite prominent Republicans X, Y, and Z as saying under President Bush that US development of oil resources has no effect on oil prices, then cite X, Y, Z as saying that under President Obama that they do have an effect. No only did Pro fail to do that, he didn't even try. Pro mainly cited a bunch of left-wing loggers and ideologues who repeated Pro's unsupported claims. The quotations from critics of present policies were, with two exceptions, not identified as Republicans, and nothing was presented to show any had changed their position on the importance of production is pricing.

We cannot assume that everyone who opposes policies of reduced exploration are Republicans. You'll find a lot of Democrats in Texas, Alaska, and the Midwest who are every bit as upset as Republicans over the Obama Administrations bans n resource development.. Critics also include independents, libertarians, conservatives, Hillary-Democrats, and independents who treat issues one-by-one. Many who follow oil markets and comment are not even U.S. citizens.

The two identifiable Republicans actually quoted where Gingrich and Romney, and that was buried in Pro's random collection of hit pieces. All those Republicans said was that they thought the President's policies were increasing prices. That's not evidence of hypocrisy. that's logical.

Republicans have always claimed prices are tied to production

Pro's attempted to prove the generality the the Republicans who where alleged to be ignorant and hypocritical were typical used the claim that all Republicans are hypocrites all he time. He made that accusation without evidence of a single identifiable Republican having done so. The guy in the video Pro cited included the disclaimer that the President's policies were not the only thing that affected prices.

Pro's argument is that because he cannot find any criticism by Republicans of high oil prices under Bush, he assumes their are none. There were in fact criticism from Republicans that Bush had delayed opening off shore drilling for too long.

Newt Gingrich wrote a whole book "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." criticizing Republicans and Democrats alike for failure to do more to open up resource development. The reliably leftist Wikipedia summarized, "Also in 2008, [Gingrich's] American Solutions launched a widely noted campaign, The group began circulating an online petition calling for the government to authorize new drilling onshore and offshore in an effort to lower gas and diesel prices. The petition drew over 1,450,000 signatures. In September 2008, the group tookDrill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis, credit for helping to influence Congress' decision to lift its 25-year ban on offshore drilling."\ [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...] That was under Bush.

In 2006, Romney was as adamant about expanding resource development as he is now. Romney said, "I'm not just talking about symbolic measures. I mean that we must finally take the actual steps that will produce as much energy as we use. This could take 20 years or more. Of course we're going continue buying fuels from our friends even after that time, but we'll buy and sell." [3. http://2012.republican-candidates.org...]

However, the issue is not "president's have no responsibility for oil prices" versus "president's are always responsible for oil prices." The present issue is whether it's likely that oil prices would drop if the government pursued resource development aggressively and whether Republicans have consistently taken that position. Actually, we only need to establish if Republicans consistently believed such to be the case.

Pro's claimed evidence

I will will refer to Pro's referenced links by number in the order cited. Thus P1 is the definition of hypocrite.

P2 is blog post that cites a Republican PAC that claims Obama's anti-oil policies raise prices. the writer then falsely claims that Obama's policies are not inhibiting production. I believe Pro has granted the policies are inhibiting production.

P3 is a blog post that cites Gingrich and Romney as claiming that Obama wants higher prices. There is no evidence that either are insincere. The claims are reasonable in view of President Obama's past statement.

P4 is a blog post that cites an MSNBC interview with a guy who says that Obama's policies on production haven't affect prices very much. Nothing is relevant to our debate.

P5 quotes George Will as saying that gas prices are not a good campaign issue. That's irrelevant to our debate. He didn't address whether the claims are true.

P6 is a blog post claiming, "US Presidents do not control the price of oil and Barack Obama is no exception." We agree they do have a major influence. "Control" is a strawman.

P7 quotes a Republican Congressman in 2006 that ANWR production would have lowered oil prices. That's consistent with believing production is related to price.

P8 is a blog post asking readers if they blame Presidents for gas prices. That's irrelevant.

P9 is Jon Stewart saying Republicans would have made a big deal over kill bin Laden. What is a comedian's hypothetical supposed to prove?

P10 is a video of guy from a libertarian think tank saying Obama policies are "the key reason, not the only reason" for rising oil prices. There is no hypocriy.

Pro demands is that all criticisms of the anti-development policies be accompanied by a lengthy lecture on all the cases of price fluctuations. That's not the Republican's job. Pro's source provided scant acknowledge of the role of development bans. Each side is only oblied to present it's own case.



Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

" Pro's principle evidence is the opinion of biased bloggers and ideologues who repeat Pro's claims without proof."

If you prefer more evidence showing the hypocrisy of Republicans then help yourself,


http://veracitystew.com...
http://couriernews.suntimes.com...
http://www.dccc.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.forbes.com...

"Pro must establish that saying that is just a pretense, and that Republicans really believe that policies affecting supply have no significant effect on oil prices."

There is a difference between being ignorant and not knowing how oil prices are affected by a multitude of factors then it is to be hypocritical and be against policies that would reduce dependency on oil and make prices lower which is something Republicans advocate for. The Republican party was being ignorant for blaming only Obama for gas prices, but what makes Republicans hypocritical is that they routinely shoot down legislation that would help lower gas prices which makes them hypocritical.

So without further ado, links showing how Republicans have had their share in raising gas prices.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
^ (scroll down to #2)
http://rangel.house.gov...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...
http://fuelfix.com...
http://www.slate.com...

"The truth is that oil prices are affected by US policies on exploration, and Republicans know it. That's what they say so they are neither ignorant nor hypocrites. Republicans frequently add the disclaimer hat other things affects prices as well, but, big surprise, leftist bloggers don't quote that."

So your saying that Republicans DO say that Obama isnt responsible entirely for gas prices, but that because the media is liberally biased those statements are covered up? Why then even on Fox News or on any website controlled by a Republican congressmen do Republicans only rail against Obama for high gas prices and dont mention anything else?

"The most direct way Pro might make his case would be to cite concurrent polls that show Republicans believe US policies on development do not affect prices, and at the same time they believe President Obama's policies do affect prices"

Domestic policies DO affect prices, and Obama's policies DO affect them. Thats not the debate here. I challenged you to this debate for you to argue how Republicans are not in any way hypocritical for blaming gas prices on Obama when 1) They have been ignorant to acknowledge that gas prices can only be partially controlled by legislation and 2) Are hypocritical for blaming gas prices entirely on Obama when the Republicans have done damage to gas prices themselves and have blamed other past presidents rather then their own.

"Pro mainly cited a bunch of left-wing loggers and ideologues who repeated Pro's unsupported claims."

I didnt realize that footage from Fox News counts as a left wing blogger site...

"All those Republicans said was that they thought the President's policies were increasing prices. That's not evidence of hypocrisy. that's logical."

All those Republicans only went on record claiming that Obama is responsible for the rise in gas prices, not any other market factors or events outside of anyones control. Obama has had a hand in gas prices, but Republicans are painting it to look like only the president is responsible which is hypocriticial because 1) When Bush was president and gas prices rose, many Democrats attacked Bush, and Republicans channeled blame to other factors. Now though that Obama is president and the same thing is happening, Republicans are attacking him while Democrats are pointing the blame elsewhere. So Republicans are acting hypocritical because they are pinning gas prices solely on the presidents shoulders when under Bush a majority of them blamed everything BUT the president. And 2) Republicans have been blaming Obama for the rise in gas prices but the Republican party has had a share in driving up gas prices too which is makes it rather hypocritical for them to blame Obama for gas prices when they themselves have been against policies that would have lowered them.

"Pro's attempted to prove the generality the the Republicans who where alleged to be ignorant and hypocritical were typical used the claim that all Republicans are hypocrites all he time. He made that accusation without evidence of a single identifiable Republican having done so"

I never once said that Republicans are hypocritical all the time, I am only citing evidence from the past showing how Republicans have been hypocritical in the past which you claim must be done to show if they are being hypocritical over this issue.

"There were in fact criticism from Republicans that Bush had delayed opening off shore drilling for too long."

This argument is over whether or not Republicans placed blame on Bush for high gas prices, not for Republicans blaming Bush for delaying offshore drilling.... There are no Republicans who had blamed high gas prices on Bush prior to 2008 while he was in office unless the con can prove otherwise.

My 10 sources
1 - Definition of hypocrite, not disputed
2 - Yes I am saying that, it shows that Republicans are blaming only Obama for high gas prices if you listen closely
3 - Factcheck.org shows how Gingrich and Romney blaming Gas price rises only on Obama's policy
4 - Forbes is emphasizing how Obama, or any president for that matter, has relatively little control over gas prices compared to what Republicans say
5 - Maybe you were looking at a different link, this one is one of many interviews showing how its not completely Obamas fault that gas prices are high and for natural reasons.
6 - This link isnt about the one statement you chose to emphasize, the article explains how supply and demand hasnt dramatically shifted and that gas prices could be the result of speculation. This is more evidence showing how Republicans are going out of their way to say Obama is the only one responsible for gas prices
7 - This article from 2006 showed how when prices were high under Bush, Republicans tried to blame Clinton for it. This emphasizes how the gas prices fight is all political talk during election years and how it is hypocritical for Republicans to blame presidents for gas prices just because on the ballot they have a "D" next to their name instead of an "R"
8 - The title asks that. If you read the actual article it describes how the blame game over gas prices is an ignorant way for the party that is not in power to try to criticize the other party that is in power. This shows how both parties have been ignorant over gas prices in the past, and how this time around Republicans are the ones who find themselves being ignorant.
9 - Oy vey, this source shows how hypocritical Republicans have been in the past over a recent issue and how this is indicative of how they can be hypocritical over other issues since they are not perfect (and neither are democrats, trust me)
10 - This video came from Fox News interviewing a person who started an ad campaign meant to blame only the white house for gas prices, and then in the same 30 seconds that same person changes his stance to say that Obama is a KEY reason for gas prices while his ad campaign is saying that he is the ONLY reason gas prices are hiking.

Out of characters :P
RoyLatham

Con

Of what are Republicans claimed ignorant? … Of what hypocritical?

"Ignorant hypocrite" is no more than a curse leveled at anyone disagreeing with a fondly held position. Disagreement is neither ignorant or hypocritical, even if one disagrees strongly. I'm surprised that anyone would try to defend it as being literally correct, but it's fair for Pro try.

It is then fair for me to ask "What is it of which Republicans are ignorant?" and “What is the evidence that such ignorance characterizes Republicans?” Pro also has to prove hypocrisy. So I ask, "What is it Republicans believe, but deny believing, that makes them hypocrites?" and “What is the evidence that particular hypocrisy characterizes Republicans. Pro refuses to answer any of these questions directly.

Usually claimed generalizations are supported by data from polls, but Pro has produced none of that. Instead Pro asks me to read a list of assorted links, try to figure out what he means by “ignorant” and “hypocrisy,” and that then I should try to figure out what his argument is.

Republicans leadership has consistently blamed oil prices on development prohibitions

At the start of the debate Pro said, "It is hypocritical for Republicans to blame rising gas prices on Obama and not give him some credit when they go down." For that to be hypocrisy, Pro would have to show that Republicans believe that nothing effects oil prices but the policies set by whoever is the President. No one believes that.

Everyone knows that prices are affected by fears of supply interruption (where by Iranian blockade or Nigerian rebels), by changes in world demand due to prosperity in China and recession in Europe and America, the value of the dollar, the price of drilling equipment and supplies, and a host of other factors. The only things discussed are policies that affect prices.

It isn't that the President always gets blame or credit no matter what the reasons. Republicans have consistently blamed government obstacles to U.S. resource development as a significant cause of higher oil prices. Pro cites a Republican Congressman during the Bush Administration blaming the effects of blocked ANWR development initiated by Clinton. There is no hypocrisy in that, that's consistently blaming restrictions on development. It also shows that Republicans do not believe that oil prices are solely due to the policies of whoever is the current President.

During the Bush Administration, Newt Gingrich wrote a book about oil prices, attributing high prices on lack of development, and uniformly condemning any policy that blocked development. Gingrich said, citing Chairman of the Board of Economic Advisers Martin Feldstein, “... if we increase the amount of oil we will have in the future –which would happen if Congress limited the moratorium on off shore and oil shale drilling and made onshore drilling easier-- oil's future value will diminish, and this lowers prices today.” [p. 154] One may not agree with that theory, but it has been maintained with consistency. As long as you say what you believe, there is no hypocrisy.

Bush was criticized by drilling advocates for not doing enough, “President Bush’s response to $4/gallon gasoline was to lift presidential and Congressional moratoriums on expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, a move that many critics say came too late.” http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com...

Pro says, “There are no Republicans who had blamed high gas prices on Bush prior to 2008 while he was in office unless the con can prove otherwise.” Republicans place blame for failure to try to develop oil resources. Bush moved consistently to try to increase drilling, and was blocked by Democrats. So there is no reason for them to blame Bush. Pro supposes that Republicans were somehow obliged to find some other reason to blame Bush for high oil prices. even if Bush was advocating what they wanted. That's ridiculous.

Pro has the burden of proof, not me. He must provide evidence that Republicans really believe something other than what they say, which is that increased U.S. production will lower oil prices.

Democrats and support drilling

Pro seems to assume that anyone critical of President Obama's anti-oil policies is a Republican. That assumption is implied in citing all critics as if they were Republicans. However, it's 70% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats that are unhappy with the drilling obstacles:

“Although support for increased drilling in U.S. waters is highest among Republicans, a majority of Democrats also favor it," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fifty-six percent of Democrats favor more offshore drilling, compared to 70 percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

I gave a list of other categories of proponents of oil resource development. I challenged Pro to distinguish Republicans from non-Republicans in his collection of links, and to show that the Republicans didn't believe what they said. Pro responded with another batch of links without identifying who is supposed to have been ignorant or hypocritical about what.

I'm not going to try to fabricate Pro's case. For each link, Pro should cite the Republican, say what they are ignorant of, say what they really believe that they are falsifying, and say why it's proved.

Pro claims hypocrisy that Republicans don't attribute other causes

Pro argues that any Republican criticizing President Obama's anti-oil policies are obliged to give a full account of every factor that influences oil prices, and if Republicans do not do that, it's hypocrisy. No politician is ever obliged to present the opposition case. I've never heard President Obama argue the case for increased drilling as a factor in oil prices. So is President Obama a hypocrite too? I don't think so. Politicians operate in a debate context, meaning that they know that the other side is there making their case. Each side gets a share of the national attention, and it makes perfect sense to spend one's time on one's own case. The other side gets to make theirs.

Pro argues that Republicans fail to support Democratic policies that would bring oil prices down. Actually, it all depends. Some farm state Republicans have supported the $5.50 per gallon ethanol subsidies as a way to lower oil prices! However, whether they have or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether Republicans are ignorant and hypocritical by consistently advocating increased oil production, and for criticizing President Obama's blocking production.

Sources

Pro defends his sources as evidence that Republicans are blaming Obama for high oil prices while not attributing other factors. That's not hypocrisy. President Obama doesn't give a full account of costs either. We only should expect to hear about matters of policy.

Summary

I doubt any politician in history has ever spent much of his limited time in the national spotlight to explain the factors relevant to a policy that are not at issue. Surely none have spent time making their opponent's case. By Pro's logic, all are therefore ignorant hypocrites. While it's fun to curse politicians, that's simply unfair. In DDO debates, Pro and Con present their respective cases. They don't talk about issues not contested, and they don't use space advocating for their opponent. Debaters are not all ignorant hypocrites as Pro suggests. They just know it's a debate, and that the opposition will make their case. So do politicians.


Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

"What is the evidence that such ignorance characterizes Republicans?”

Im not here to claim that Republicans are ignorant all the time, im arguing that in this particular case that Republicans are being ignorant since they are ignoring their own facts and reasons from the past when it comes to placing blame for gas prices.

"What is it Republicans believe, but deny believing, that makes them hypocrites?"

Republicans believe Obama, the president, is the only one responsible for high gas prices, but it is hypocritical for them to believe such a thing because in the past under Bush, Republicans blamed many other things for high gas prices and Bush wasnt one of them. The Republicans under Bush believed that it wasnt Bush's fault gas prices were so high, now they believe that Obama is the only one responsible for high gas prices.

“What is the evidence that particular hypocrisy characterizes Republicans. Pro refuses to answer any of these questions directly."

Ive showed how Republicans were hypocritical over using 9/11 as leverage during an election, Ive shown how Republicans completely change opinions on issues or events mostly because the President has a "D" on his name on the ballot and not an "R", Ive even showed how they make ad campaigns attack only Obama and then when interviewed the producers in the campaign immediately concede there are other factors to blame, Hell ive even shown how Republicans fight legislation that would lower gas prices even though they preach about how they will be the ones to lower it.

"Instead Pro asks me to read a list of assorted links, try to figure out what he means by “ignorant” and “hypocrisy,” and that then I should try to figure out what his argument is."

The links were all evidence showing the actions of Republicans which can be interpreted as hypocritical in which you responded by copying maybe one obscure line in the text that doesnt even relate to the issue and then focus on questioning that line out of the entire source.

"For that to be hypocrisy, Pro would have to show that Republicans believe that nothing effects oil prices but the policies set by whoever is the President. No one believes that"

Ive shown that is EXACTLY what Republicans believe. Theyve gone on the media saying that, they have started smear campaigns that say that, and they are only doing it because Obama is a Democrat.

"There is no hypocrisy in that, that's consistently blaming restrictions on development."

Its not hypocritical for Republicans to blame restrictions on development for one reason why gas prices are so high, thats a very smart thing for them to do. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that 5 to 6 years later when those same restrictions are in often still in place, Republicans are only blaming Obama for high gas prices for political leverage in an election year and have seemed to forgotten about the very things they were opossing before which would indeed lower gas prices.

"It also shows that Republicans do not believe that oil prices are solely due to the policies of whoever is the current President."

That is only the party's position when the President is a Republican, if he is a Democrat though then suddenly high gas prices are all his fault.

"During the Bush Administration, Newt Gingrich wrote a book about oil prices, attributing high prices on lack of development, and uniformly condemning any policy that blocked development."

Yes, during the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, Gingrich went on record claiming that gas prices arent the presidents fault. 5 years later when Obama was president, Gingrich went on record saying how Obama is intentionally trying to raise gas prices to European levels, as I have shown before (heres the link again).
http://www.factcheck.org...

So Gingrich is yet another Republican who under the Bush years gave detailed reasons of why gas prices rise or fall, and when Obama became president he and just about every other Republican changed their tune to blame Obama as the main reason for why gas prices were so high...... THAT is where the hypocrisy lies

" Pro supposes that Republicans were somehow obliged to find some other reason to blame Bush for high oil prices. even if Bush was advocating what they wanted. That's ridiculous."

Back then Democrats were playing the role of hypocrites in blaming Bush alone for gas prices while Republicans defended Bush by blaming policies and other factors that were truly at fault, during the Bush years Republicans were right and Democrats were being a**holes. Republicans were not obliged to do anything and I dont think they should have done anything different. My problem lies with the fact that 6 years ago Republicans had their facts and arguments together and blamed who and what was really at fault for gas prices, and 6 years later when Obama is president the Republicans go almost out of their way to be able to blame only Obama for gas prices...

"He must provide evidence that Republicans really believe something other than what they say, which is that increased U.S. production will lower oil prices"

Thats not what we are arguing at all. Im here showing that Republicans claim that only Obama is responsible for gas prices even though in the recent past they have blamed what is truly at fault for gas prices and are now only blaming Obama because its an election year and because hes a Democrat.

"Pro seems to assume that anyone critical of President Obama's anti-oil policies is a Republican"

I have never once said that anyone critical of Obama must be a Republican, I only claimed that most Republicans are critical of Obama, I never said that Democrats arent critical of him either.

" I challenged Pro to distinguish Republicans from non-Republicans in his collection of links, and to show that the Republicans didn't believe what they said. Pro responded with another batch of links without identifying who is supposed to have been ignorant or hypocritical about what."

Character limits prevent me from doing such a thing, I gave more links to show more evidence about who is denouncing Obama so that voters can see for themselves who is blaming Obama only for gas prices. Im not going to spell it out for voters because voters arent idiots and they can see for themselves who is saying what by clicking the link and reading.

"Pro argues that any Republican criticizing President Obama's anti-oil policies are obliged to give a full account of every factor that influences oil prices, and if Republicans do not do that, it's hypocrisy"

Im not arguing that either, Republicans arent obliged to give a full account of anything when placing blame, im only showing how their previous accounts of who or what is to blame are contradictory to their latest accounts of who is to blame which would appear to be hypocritical of them.

"Politicians operate in a debate context, meaning that they know that the other side is there making their case."

Politicians only use evidence to support their own arguments and evidence that goes against their case is deliberately attacked or ignored. If anyone on DDO has ever argued a case and found polls and statistics contrary to their claims and ignored them then they are in that case hypocrites since they are ignoring evidence and raw data that shows they are wrong.

Let me sum up my case

1) Republicans under Bush blamed many things for why gas prices are so high, then when Obama became president many Republicans changed their opinions to blame only Obama for high gas prices.
2) Republicans are critical of Obama for high gas prices when Republicans fight legislation that would lower gas prices, like bills that would increase mass transit.
3) Republicans would have an entire different argument for whats to blame if Obama was a Republican
4) Republicans have been hypocritical in the past
5) Most Republicans blame openly blame only Obama for high gas prices

I thank Roy for a great debate :D
RoyLatham

Con

I appreciate Pro's efforts on this debate. It is instructive on the thinking.

"Ignorant" inherently conflicts with "hypocrisy"


Pro has the burden to prove "Republicans are ignorant hypocrites for blaming gas prices on Obama." Of what are they ignorant? Pro says, "im arguing that in this particular case that Republicans are being ignorant since they are ignoring their own facts and reasons from the past when it comes to placing blame for gas prices." "Ignorant" does not mean knowing and ignoring, it means not knowing. So of what are Republicans hypocritical? Pro says, "Republicans believe Obama, the president, is the only one responsible for high gas prices, but it is hypocritical for them to believe such a thing because in the past under Bush, Republicans blamed many other things for high gas prices and Bush wasn't one of them." That means Republicans did not forget about other factors affecting gas prices. There is an inherent unresolvable conflict between "ignorant" (not knowing) and hypocritical (knowing and posturing). Pro cannot maintain both, so the resolution fails at the outset.

Republicans consistently blame blocking drilling

In fact, Republicans are neither ignorant nor hypocrites. The know many factors affect oil prices, but it is perfectly reasonable to only press drilling policy. Recall that after Bush expanding drilling, prices fell by about half. The Obama Administration undid the Bush expansion of offshore drilling, illegally delayed Gulf deep water drilling, illegally revoked Atlantic Coast leases, cut back oil shale development, and blocked the Keystone pipeline that would lower transportation costs. That's not trivial. Republicans are making a big issue over a big issue.

Republicans blame oil prices on policies that place obstacles to domestic production. They have believed that consistently. During the Bush Administration Congressional Democrats were blamed for blocking production, and when Bush went around Congress to overcome roadblocks, some Republicans blamed Bush for not doing it sooner. They always focused on the policy. Gingrich wrote a book during the Bush years making clear he thought development was the issue, not who was president.

It's not remotely plausible that Republicans forgot that other factors affect gas prices. Democrats are there to remind Republicans and the public. What Republicans recognize is that it is pointless to complain about hurricanes or unrest in Nigeria, because those are not subject to presidential policy decisions. Pro argues that if President Obama has a bad policy that increases gas prices, Republicans are hypocrites because they could not think of a bad policy that Bush promoted that drove up gas prices. That is not a logical argument.

Evidence and Sources

References in a debate are used to support an argument, but not at the level of "read this and you'll see republicans are hypocrites." Pro needed to assert, "Mr. X a Republican said that nothing affects oil prices except the President, yet he criticized President Obama and not President Bush." followed by the link with supporting the evidence. Pro did not say what each reference was supposed to prove, and he (a) often omitted establishing the person was a Republican, (b) always omitted establishing that the person professed that only the President affects prices, and (c) omitted proof that Bush was never criticized by the person.

His case is to cite some people who are critical of President Obama's policy of obstruction of exploration and drilling. With three exceptions he does not bother to establish that the cited critics are Republicans, claiming he did not have the character count in this long winded debate to establish who is talking. In no case does he establish that the persons cited were uncritical of Bush, He offers nothing but partisan opinion that Republicans where inconsistent in what they blamed.

We are supposed to believe without proof that all critics of the policies of obstructing oil production are Republicans who believe that nothing but the President determines oil prices.

Pro did not meet the burden of proof.

The generalization is unproved

One way to prove a generalization is to present data from a poll or survey. Pro had no such data. Another way is to point to a defining document, say the Republican Party platform. Pro didn't have anything like that either. What Pro did was to call upon another unproved generalization, that all Republicans are always hypocrites. Even if it were proved that Republicans were hypocritical about some other issues, it wouldn't prove they were hypocritical about this one.

The resolution is negated.






Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HunterJM 4 years ago
HunterJM
You can blame Obama for high as prices because he has placed high taxes on Oil companies and has severely reduced drilling on federal land. His claim that he is for the middle class is ridicules he should tell that to every middle class family while they are spending a large portion of their income to pay for gas. He is more concerned about his "green jobs" like Solyndra which went bankrupt. When Obama took office gas was $1.80 now it is nearly $4.00.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
No one blames Obama for all of gas price increases. However, the US has more oil locked up in oil shale than has been pumped in all of history. Obama has forbidden development. That's a significant factor.
Posted by ConformistDave 4 years ago
ConformistDave
Blaming gas prices on any one person is ridiculous. With countries stockpiling, and the petrodollar on the world markets, you just can't make an honest generalization.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
65% of trading is by speculators. Fine, who do the speculators betting that prices will go up bu from? Is there anyone else in the market to buy from other than speculators or producers betting that prices will go down? It is not possible to have a market without a willing buyer and a seller for each transaction. the bets on prices going up are exactly balanced by the bets that prices will fall.
Posted by HunterJM 4 years ago
HunterJM
to Beginner: Yes oil companies make money as all industries do and have to do. If the president does not have control over the market then why would he him self say he does by saying he wont let them start oil companies here. The Obama administration has tried to control the market when he invested in Solyndra which went bankrupt. If oil companies were drilling more here in the US gas prices will go down. Oil companies dont want high gas prices because people wont buy as much gas. Gas prices were never near this price under the Bush administration with the exception of immediately after 9/11 and after Katrina.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
TO HUNTERJM: Speculators have been buying up oil, decreasing supply for consumers and raising gas prices to an artificial high. Here is how it works in the Point of view of seller: *Sells gas* makes money, there are buyers. *Raises prices* Buyers are still buying at much the same rate, more money earned, yay. *tentatively raises prices even higher to earn more money*: Buyers still buying, keeps raising prices, trend continues.
65% OF GAS BUYERS ARE SPECULATORS. Consumers, people who actually USE the gas, airline companies, etc. only buy up 35% of the gas.

If you know ANYTHING about economics, you'd know that when supplies are high, demand (and subsequently price) drops. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE! Speculators create an artificial demand and effectively effect a simultaneous increase in gas prices. Obama does not control the market.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
This is just the way politics works. Republicans have lost a bit more standing in my views. I believe imabench was trying to spread this sentiment by means of this site, whether he loses or not. Congratulations, you have effectively conveyed your message to this reader. Thank you.
Posted by HunterJM 4 years ago
HunterJM
gas prices were 1.89 when Obama took office. He has increased taxes on oil companies which moved them out of the country. Obama has said he wants to make it hard to start a oil company in America and would not pass the Ky stone pipeline so yes he is responsible for high gas prices
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Omg Double_R voted on my debate!

I feel so honored :D
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Let's suppose that demand from china is so great that even if the U.S. produces 20 billion barrels a year, the price doesn't drop. In that case, the US gets saves at least a trillion dollars a year by not having to import oil. Perhaps it might make another trillion selling oil to the Chinese. The US government collects about 40% of oil company profits in taxes and fees.

Once you are a petroleum exporter, you benefit from the price going up. Saudi Arabia has done just fine with that principle.

I'm willing to debate the cause of high oil prices. I now insist that any more use of the "read these links and figure out my case" approach will be an immediate concession of the debate.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted Con for two reasons. One because of the semantical argument (which I do count) which showed that one cannot be ignorant and hypocritical at the same time. The other was because The con proved the Pro was making an unprovable hasty generalization. My personal belief is because I think the use of gas prices have been used for political reasons for ages, either when the federal oil reserve is opened to drive down prices (like Obama is doing) or when a president is called out for high prices
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that Republicans could not be both ignorant and hypocrites, therefore the resolution must be negated.
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 4 years ago
Steelerman6794
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Posting anecdotes from various blogs is not comprehensive enough to support the broadly worded resolution. Posting a collection of links and expecting the audience to peruse them instead of integrating their information into the case is unreasonable (thus the loss of the conduct point). Con effectively proved that these sources neither represented most Republicans nor showed most Republicans to be "ignorant hypocrites." Objective, comprehensive studies would have better helped Pro's case.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Sourjomor and Yoda. "Con did better" is not a valid RFD.
Vote Placed by yoda878 4 years ago
yoda878
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better argument and showed some Dem feel the same way nor did pro prove the GOP as a whole are ignorant hypocrites
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Aside from a brief explanation of one link, Pro never explained who was being hypocritical or how. Instead he repeatedly used the broad term "republicans" and left Con to figure out the rest by reading his links. That’s not reasonable. Con was debating Pro, not Pros sources. Con also pointed out that it is the expectation of republicans to argue their side, that’s not being hypocritical. Pro would have needed specifics to show that this was not simply the case, which again he failed to provide.
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was debating in a narrow fashion, based mainly on strict definitions. This did not serve well to Con's case. Pro showed that prominent GOP leaders called out Obama on oil prices, but didn't call out Bush. Pro also showed that the GOP opposes various policies (such as renewable energy) to lower oil prices. Finally, Pro's case was far more lucid, though Con's was professional, it was too narrow in view. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 5 years ago
Sojourner
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to mike his case which was pointed out by Con
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I am going to counter Daytona. "I think that Pro did better" is not a comprehensive RFD, and ought to be treated as a vote bomb.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
imabenchRoyLathamTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I interpreted the resolution as the whole GOP party. An overall majority. Pro never proved 51 or more of the GOP blamed Obama for this. And he never showed the hypocritical part of it anyway. As pro failed to show 51 of the GOP was/is like this he fails to fuffill the resolution. Also he has the BOP, and never filled it. Con wins here