The Instigator
DouggyFresh
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The unemployment situation has gotten better since Obama took presidency.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
DouggyFresh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,157 times Debate No: 22769
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

DouggyFresh

Pro

First round: acceptance, definitions.

Unemployment: percentage of unemployed poulation over 16 years of age
Situation: the circumstances concerning the unemployment rate and its pas and current trends
Better: it is desirable from an economic standpoint to have a low unemployment rate, so better means lower

Have at ye!
ConservativePolitico

Con

I accept.

Make your case.
Debate Round No. 1
DouggyFresh

Pro

This should be pretty easy. For me to win the debate, I need to prove that the trend of the unemployment numbers are better in the overall Obama administration than they were at the time Obama was signed in as 44th president of the United States of America.

The following is a screenshot of the data taken from the United States Department of Labor website, and my opponent has already seen this data, and indeed blogged about it on their own website. Since I assume this means he agrees that the source is credible and unbiased, this will be my main source. [1]





(Apologies to those who are innumerate) In math terminology, a linear function is an equation that is solvable, meaning that it only has 1 y coordinate for every x. In laymans terms, its a line that doesn't go completely vertical at any point in time. The line on the graph above can be expressed as a linear function, since there is only 1 data point for each value of x.

In popular statistics, trend estimation is the simplification of a series of data in order to more accurately interpret the data. [2] The data can be downloaded into Microsoft Excel and a scatter plot can be relatively easily made to show the data on a scatter plot. After doing this, a second order (parabolic) binomial trendline is very easily added, and the equation of that trendline can be shown on the graph with (literally) the click of a button. Below is the scatter plot, with added trendline and binomial equation, all generated from the above data, for the duration of the Obama administration (from Jan 2009 to Mar 2012). Note: the x-axis is the number of months elapsed since Obama's inauguration and the y-axis is the unemployment rate in %.



In mathematical terms, the equation y=-0.0038x^2+0.1333x+8.5186 can tell us a lot about the expected direction of things to come. As is, you can substitute a number (in months) for x and simply solve the equation to get a value for y (% unemployed).


This could help, simply by substituting in a number greater than 40 for x, you will find that the unemployment rate is likely to decline in the future, if no other variables change.

Instead of resting at this, I'm going to directly prove that the trend of the unemployment numbers are better in the overall Obama administration than they were at the time Obama was signed in as 44th president of the United States of America. To do this, I need to incorporate calculus.

In calculus (ugh...I know, don't worry I'll keep it simple) one of the more powerful applications I found is the ability to find the rate that something is changing at, or in other words what direction it is going at any given time.
[3] For this equation, I'm going to take the derivative of y to find an equation for the rate of change at any given point in the line.

y=-0.0038x^2+0.1333x+8.5186
y'=(2)(-0.0038x)+(1)(0.1333)
y'=-0.0076x+0.1333

The equation is a lot simpler, because there are no exponents. I'm going to show that when Obama came into office (hehehe) the rate of change (direction) that the unemployment rate was heading, was INCREASING. Simply enter 0 in for x, and voila! You get y=0.1333, meaning when Obama took office, the unemployment rate was increasing at the rate of 0.1333% per month (or 1.6% per year).

During March 2012, the last month we have data for, substituting 39 (the total number of months Obama has been president for) for x gives the equation
y'=(39)(-0.0038x)+(1)(0.1333)
y'=-0.1482+0.1333
y'=-0.0149

SINCE f'(0)>f'(39) (the unemployment rate was increasing more in Jan 2009 than in Mar 2012)
THEREFORE, the unemployment situation has gotten better since Obama took presidency.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.





ConservativePolitico

Con


Let me remind you that we are discussing the unemployment "situation" not merely the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate you are talking about is merely a part of the whole unemployment situation you mentioned in the resolution.

Note: sources in the comments do not count unless specifically allowed in the First Round.

I. Your Equation

Firstly, your equation is a mere guess. I could come up with an extremely similar function and say "well you know it says here that tomorrow unemployment will be 25%". So we are going to look at some numbers, hard PAST data and skip making up numbers and pretending to predict the future because frankly the economy, especially now, is extremely fickle and unpredictable.

II. Numbers

We are going to examine a few numbers to determine the state of the full unemployment situation.

i. Unemployment rate

First, let's look at the actual state of the unemployment rate without any sort of equations but simply the numbers themselves.

In January of 2009 when Obama first took office unemployment was at 7.80% [1][2] ... today unemployment is at 8.2%[1][2].

From right here just using unemployment figures without predicting the future we can say SINCE Obama took the presidency (Jan. '09 - present) the unemployment rate has gotten worse by .4%

Unemployment rates

January 2009 - 7.8%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2%
Percent change - .4% (+)

The numbers are in your own table for goodness sake!

That right there should win me the debate but I'm not going to stop there.

ii. Underemployment rate

The underemployment rate includes people who are working part time but are looking for a full time job. Since these people are unhappy with their employment this certainly contributes to the overall unemployment situation. The baseline unemployment rate doesn't include these people and therefore can be misleading.

Underemployment rates

2009 (September) - 16.8% [3]
2012 (April, 9) - 18% [4]
Percent change - 1.2% (+)

As we can see, the number of people who are part time employed but are seeking full time jobs has risen by 1.2% since Obama took office. Again, since Obama took office we see an increase in unemployment AND underemployment.

iii. People in the Labor Force

Unemployment only measures the percent of people looking for work out of the total number of workers in the labor force. The labor force is not a set number and people can choose to exit and enter the force whenever they choose simply by indicating that they are looking for a job at the time or not looking for a job.

Number of people eligible to be in the work force but choose not to be

2009 - 30,593,000 [5]
2011 - 34,343,000 [5]
Change - 3,750,000


Since 2009 nearly 4 million eligible people have dropped out of the labor force which then skews your unemployment figures.

For example:

We have a labor force of 100 workers and the unemployment rate is 10% with 10 workers being out of work
if 5 people leave the labor force because they've been unemployed for so long they've stopped looking for a job the numbers change as so

Labor force: 100 -> 95
Number unemployed: 10 -> 5
Unemployment rate: 10% -> 5.3%

As we can see there has been a significant drop in unemployment but in reality the unemployment rate truly hasn't changed because 10 people are still out of work.

This goes to show how people leaving the labor force skews the perception of unemployment and how your numbers, your view of the unemployment rate and your equation are all flawed when discussing the unemployment situation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, from the very basic figure of the unemployment rate (has risen .4% as of today from where it was when Obama took office) to the underemployment rate and the size of the work force we can see across the board that things are worse today than they were in January of 2009 when Obama took office.

I have examined many parts of the unemployment situation from the time Obama took office in January 2009 until present day using hard facts taken from credible sources and have seen everything become worse.

Unless you can prove, using past and present data (no future stuff) that the unemployment situation TODAY is better than it was in 2009 you have lost.

Thank you.
[1] http://ycharts.com...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://www.npr.org...
[4] http://ycharts.com...
[5] http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
DouggyFresh

Pro

First off, the sources posted in the comments section were because I had forgotten to put them in at the end of the round. They count, obviously. Trying to say they don't count just because they're in the comments section is petty.

Second, you need to understand that in round 1 I defined situation as the circumstances concerning the unemployment rate, and its past and current trends. And since the topic is about unemployment, which is defined very clearly in round 1, I do not need to address the under employment rate.

Con's Rebuttal

"My equation"
Con attempts to dismiss all the mathematical evidence I provided in my argument about the past and current trends of the US unemployment rate by only looking at two of the numbers that are available. If I were to construct an "extremely similar argument" I would point out:

Oct 2009: 10.0%
Mar 2012: 8.2%
Change: -1.8%

Look! I can do math too!

You see, by merely examining 2 points in a series of data, you are not getting an accurate representation of the overall trend that is available when you examine the data as a whole. Functions are able to represent a series of data points, and as I said before, that is why they are so popular in economics.

Con states that the equations used in my argument are mere guesses, although they are based on hard statistical past data from a reliable source. His statement that he could come up with an extremely similar function and get a result that would favor his argument is only relevant if he chooses to do so. At that point I would be forced to rebut that argument, using actual arguments instead of dismissing well laid premises as a mere guess.


Also, your statements concerning me predicting the future are disconcerting, because I don't believe I did any such thing. I examined the rate that the unemployment rate was/is changing at, both at the beginning of Obama's term and currently. I did not base any arguments on projected data. Your rebuttal is weak at best.

I challenge Con to put his money where his mouth is and come up with a similar function that shows that tomorrow, the unemployment rate will be 25%. However, since the debate could take place over more than a weeks time, I will give Con the benefit of coming up with "an extremely similar equation" that shows that the unemployment rate will be 25% next year, which even he would agree is significantly easier than his claim.

Rebuttals

II. Numbers (i)

In January of 2009 when Obama first took office unemployment was at 7.80% [1][2] ... today unemployment is at 8.2%[1][2].

My first problem with this statement, is that the data shown was from January 1, 2009, was actually before President Obama took office (he was inaugurated on January 20, 2009), and therefore the point is invalid on this grounds alone.

Furthermore, by looking only at two data points, Con shows a complete ignorance to the way economics works. If the topic were merely "The unemployment rate has gotten better since Obama took presidency", then that would be that and con would win. However, the difference between rate and situation is not semantics. To understand the circumstances surrounding the unemployment rate, one must also examine the in between, and also the past leading up to the present.

To emphasize, leading up to Obama's inauguration, the unemployment situation was pretty bad. In just 11 months (from Feb 2008 to Jan 2009), the country saw a 2.9% rise in the unemployment rate, from its previous average of 5.3%, taken over the previous 70 months. Since the data shown represents the 1st of every month, Bush was still President until Jan 19, 2009.

2.9%
----- X100% = 54.7%
5.3%

This shows that in Bush's last 11 months as President, the unemployment rate rose a shocking 54.7% compared to what it was throughout the previous 6 years he held office. What a way to leave the country for the next guy, huh?

So, correcting for Con's error in using data from Jan 2009, let's start in Feb 2009.

February 2009 - 8.3%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2%
Percent change - .1% (-)

Since Con argues that he should win the debate purely from
this blatant misuse of data, Con should concede the debate, or concede his argument on numbers (i).

Numbers (ii)
As previously mentioned, Con talks about underemployment in this argument, which is not part of this topic. Otherwise we should have to include numbers about racial bias in employment, and gender bias in employment, and so on and so forth. Yeah, so it's simply off topic.

Numbers (iii)
In this argument, Con addresses people who choose not to be in the work force, who do not add in the calculation of the unemployment statistics.

Enough said. They aren't part of the equation. They choose not to be. How is this relevant?

Conclusion

As my points have not been disproven to any significant degree, and I feel my points up until now have done very well at proving, using past and present data (no future stuff) that the unemployment situation TODAY is better than it was when Obama became President, I should win.

Thank you.





ConservativePolitico

Con

The Numbers: Clarified

Oct 2009: 10.0%
Mar 2012: 8.2%
Change: -1.8%

Look! I can do math too!

First, I would like to say I do not appreciate your condescending tone because you have purposely distorted what I was doing to try and make me look as though my argument was unintelligent when it was perfectly legitimate. You make it seem like I took two random points of data when that is not the case. I used the data from the time Obama took office to present which is completely relevant to the debate.

My first problem with this statement, is that the data shown was from January 1, 2009, was actually before President Obama took office (he was inaugurated on January 20, 2009), and therefore the point is invalid on this grounds alone.

Actually, according to this source [http://www.bls.gov...], the official unemployment report released by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics says the unemployment rate in January of 2009 when Obama took office was actually 7.6% (straight from the official report).

Now, my opponent says this information isn't legitimate however there is a problem with his assertion. THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR A MONTH IS CALCULATED AFTER THE MONTH IS OVER (I.E JANUARY WAS CALCULATED IN FEBURARY). This means the number(s) I provided were taken after Obama was inaugurated. Saying otherwise suggests that the unemployment rate for January is calculated in December or in the middle of the month in question. This is simply untrue and ridiculous to think so.

So far from conceding the debate (nice try) I have merely shown that Pro either is trying to get me to forfeit prematurely or that he truly doesn't understand the nature of unemployment reports.

So, if we take the official number from the BLS source I provided above knowing that the numbers were calculated AFTER Obama took office we get this calculation.

Unemployment rate January 2009 (taken in February) vs Present

January 2009 - 7.6%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2%
Percent change - .6% (+)

Or, here's another way to look at it.

January, if you want to claim my numbers are false or misleading or whatever, can be considered the LAST MONTH OF BUSH'S TERM.

So we can look at it this way.

January 2009 (Bush) ----> February 2009 (Obama)
January - 7.8% (according to your source) ----> February - 8.3% ----> + .5%
January - 7.8% ------> March 2012 - 8.2% ----> .4%

From this perspective we can see that the unemployment rate is STILL worse under Obama vs. Bush using the same numbers.

I am not using random pieces of data we are using the numbers from when Obama took office, when Bush was leaving office and compared them to unemployment today we see a negative change in employment. Simple as that. Unemployment has NOT gotten better since Obama took office.

Saying that a higher unemployment rate leads to more favorable conditions for employment is logical fallacy. And your numbers about Bush's percent change in unemployment are also misleading.

If I have say one broken bone in my body and I break another bone in my body I have increased my broken bones by 100% which sounds like a lot however, if I have 4 broken bones in my body and I break another one the percent change is merely 25% but somehow having 5 broken bones is better than 2 because the percent change was lower. This is also fallacy.

The plain and simple truth is unemployment was FAR lower under Bush (on average and in his final days) than Obama.

Unemployment Situation and Underemployment

My opponent seems to want to discuss trends and conditions that affect unemployment however when I try to mention things that affect unemployment and contribute to unemployment trends he says my data is irrelevant.

If you want to discuss the unemployment situation but you don't want to discuss things such as the size of the labor force, underemployment and changing unemployment rates what is there to discuss? When I tried to use unemployment data he got on my back and tried to discredit me so I am at a loss as what I am supposed to argue here. Everything I say is irrelevant according to him.

What my opponent has tried to do is validate his position using graphs and data while discrediting my own information. He says things like the size of the labor force and underemployment aren't part of the equation but then how else are we supposed to take a look at the entire unemployment situation as a whole? How is his information any better then?

Using this logic, like I tried to prove above but Pro decided to attempt to ignore it, I can say that if we have no one in the labor force and because of this our unemployment rate is 0% we are better off than a country with 10 million people in the labor force with an unemployment rate of 5%. The labor force size is THE BIGGEST PART of the unemployment rate which he himself defined in Round One.

My opponents arguments were scattered, disorganized and in some cases blatantly wrong.

I am not going to say I "should win" because I trust the voters will choose who they want in the end so I merely suggest that the voters read through the entire debate (including the final round) before making their decision.

Pro's biggest arguments this round were thus:

a) My information wasn't accurate or relevant
b) The percent change in unemployment under Bush is worse than under Obama
c) Trying to discredit my information pointing to trends and unemployment situation

I feel like I have adequately refuted all of my opponents points for this round.

The burden of proof rests on his shoulders so Round Four will have to be a knockout while trying to defend his points from this round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
DouggyFresh

Pro

I apologize if Con feels belittled or insulted by the way I addressed his rebuttal. It was not my intention to make them feel unintelligent, but I was pointing out the serious flaws in his interpretation of the data. Since Con feels I have been scattered and disorganized, allow me to consolidate and elaborate on the points I have presented for the consideration of the voters.

My Argument

I have shown through evaluation and analyzing the past and current data that the rate of change of the unemployment rate has decreased significantly since Obama's inauguration (Round 2, Pro). Economists rely on trend evaluation in economics and finance to interpret data that is otherwise impossible to completely understand and compare [2]. This point shows that although the absolute value of the unemployment rate may have increased (which Con has not sufficiently proven either, as I will address later) the rate that this value is changing at has gone from a positive (Obama began his term as president when the unemployment situation was worsening) to what is now a negative (meaning the unemployment rate is decreasing), thus the unemployment situation has gotten better since Obama became president.

Refutations to this argument (round 2, Con)
Con has stated these numbers were mere guesses, and has stated that he could just as easily come up with "extremely similar equations" that would actually support his case. However, after challenging Con to follow through on these suppositions, he has declined the opportunity to do so, and thus has retracted or invalidated (a word Con doesn't seem to like) this rebuttal.

Con attempts to dismiss the mathematical proof as being unnecessary, because he believes it is in his favor to analyze the data from a simpler perspective; the before and after. However, even this argument fell through after I pointed out that Obama was inaugurated more than half way through January, 2009, and the analysis of the unemployment rate should actually begin in February, since this was the first full month in which he held office. When I showed Con the corrected calculations they were actually not supportive of Con's argument at all, as I will show:

Con's calculations
January 2009 - 7.8%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2%
Percent change - .4% (+)

Corrected calculations
February 2009 - 8.3%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2%
Percent change - .1% ( - )

Con dismissed the correction as being false, and sourced a supporting document that
"the official unemployment report released by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics says the unemployment rate in January of 2009 when Obama took office was actually 7.6% (straight from the official report)". The report does not contain the phrase "Obama took office", "took Office", or even "Obama", so either Con is lying or they are distorting their source. They argue that the numbers were calculated at the end of January, however this source (http://data.bls.gov...) shows that the monthly data are for the first day of each month. I maintain that although Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2009, his first full month was February of 2009, when the unemployment rate was recorded at 8.3%.


Con's arguments
Con's first argument (i) was an actually an extended response to my main point, and has been addressed above.

Con's second argument (ii) addressed the underemployment rate which was not included in the resolution. Con argues that the underemployed should be considered, "Since these people are unhappy with their employment this certainly contributes to the overall unemployment situation. The baseline unemployment rate doesn't include these people and therefore can be misleading." The argument that people who are not happy with their current employment should be considered in the unemployment rate is not justified. Con does not provide sufficient reason to include the underemployed in the resolution of this debate, and so I maintain that this argument should not be considered as relevant to the resolution.

Con's third argument (round 2, Con, iii) argues that "nearly 4 million eligible people have dropped out of the labor force which then skews [my] unemployment figures". He shows figures of the "number of people eligible to be in the work force but choose not to be". I argued that since these people make an active decision to be unemployed, that they should not be included in the calculation of the unemployment rate, and thus this debate.

Con was unsatisfied with this, so for the purpose of humoring Con, I will address the other problems with this argument. Con proposes a situation with a population of 100 people where 10 of those are unemployed. He continues to suppose that of the 10, 5 are those who choose not to seek employment because they have given up hope of obtaining a job. This is pure supposition on Con's part, that this situation is anything close to relevant. There are many reasons that one would not wish to seek employment, such as wishing to stay home to raise a child, those who are being financially supported by a spouse, those who are financially capable of retirement but are still eligible to be in the work force, and I'm sure many other situations.

Furthermore, the country's population is continuously growing. Between 2009 and 2011, the population grew an estimated 5 million people [4][5]. Many of those in Con's figures could have been from this new population, skewing the data that Con claims is skewing the data we are both using to support our arguments (not just me).

Another twist to this declining work force is the fact that those born in the post-WWII baby boom are now voluntarily retiring and leaving the work force while they are still eligible to work. [7] IMPAHR released a study in February 2007 which states "Baby boomers, generally defined as those individuals born between 1946 and 1964, will typically become eligible for retirement and begin to retire in higher numbers over the next few years." [8] So you see, this too will skew your supposed information you are using to support the fact that our numbers are skewed.

Therefore, the reducing size of the work force is expected, and should not be considered in the resolution.

Conclusion
Con likes to tell me what my arguments are, even though I only have 1 main one, and he still has not sufficiently disproven even that one.

According to him, my arguments are
a) My information wasn't accurate or relevant
This is more of a rebuttal to your arguments, and is not meant to serve as support of the resolution.
Additionally, I never said your information wasn't accurate, only that you were misusing information in terms of incorrect months or overly simplistic representation of complex data.

b) The percent change in unemployment under Bush is worse than under Obama
This is not my argument. My argument is that the rate at which the unemployment rate is changing has gotten better than it was at the start of Obama's term. Bush was only mentioned to show the state of the unemployment situation when Obama was inaugurated.

c) Trying to discredit my information pointing to trends and unemployment situation
You have never discussed any trends of the unemployment situation. Thus far, you have only looked at two data points (however relevant they may or may not have been) and I maintain you cannot accurately represent a complex set of data without including the entirety of that data.

My points have been clearly drawn, and I thank my opponent for a well thought out and stimulating debate, and the voters for their time.


[4] http://geography.about.com...
[5] http://www.census.gov...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://unpan1.un.org...

ConservativePolitico

Con

Finishing This Up

This debate broke down into silly quibbles about schemantics and what the definition of the unemployment situtation really was so I'm going to make this short.


January 2009 - 7.8%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2% Percent change - .4% (+)


February 2009 - 8.3%
April 12, 2012 - 8.2%
Percent change - .1% ( - )

Unemployment Under the Last Days of Bush was .4% lower than today under Obama - end of story. Simple, the numbers are right there. Whichever way you spin it, we are worse off now than we were under Bush and are the same AT BEST under Obama as when he took office.

Obama has managed to "improve" the unemployment rate by a mere .1% since Feburary and has seen an average unemployment rate far higher than what it is today.

The average unemployment rate under Bush was roughly 6% - under Obama it has been roughly 9%.

While this debate may have gotten tedious I want the voters to sit down and think carefully and ask themselves if the unemployment rate today is really better than it was before Obama came in.

The unemployment situation under Obama has been abysmal.

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jake-migkillertwo 5 years ago
Jake-migkillertwo
I think there's one point here that the debaters here are not talking about, and the punditocracy and politicians are not talking about enough, and that is the possibility that, because of the length of unemployment in this most recent recession, the so-called "natural rate" of unemployment has been harmed. A unique fact about this current "recovery" is that many of the unemployed have been unemployed for 6 months or more, a non-trivial portion 9 months or even a year out of the work force.

This means that skills erode and workers become less desirable to employers, thus their wages and productivity are lower than they otherwise would have been. This means that the natural rate of unemployment, the unemployment level that the economy tends to fluctuate around, is higher because of this weak recovery, and thus the unemployment situation can easily be said to have gotten worse under this president, despite the fact that the actual number of people unemployed has declined.
Posted by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
Wow. I didn't think I would actually make anyone think I was serious. Can't you tell when someone is being facetious? The "my dad could beat up your dad" is a classic schoolyard argument where kids bypass the real issues at hand by bringing up their fathers. Yes, it is completely irrelevant. Just like talking about cancer in a debate about economics. Hahaha thanks I needed a good laugh.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
What do dads have to do with this? "I know you are but what am I." Well first, he already answered your question. Second, you do not know anything. Idiots.
Posted by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
Thanks for reading the debate. Oh and MY dad's six five five and carries TWO guns. So... THERE.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Before RFD, dougy, my dads six four four and he carries a gun everywhere.
RFD:

Con mainly relied on trends, the trends that show it's getting better. Now, to win this debate under the resolution unemoloyment must be BETTER then right when Obama stepped into office. So, the trends are worthless unless he shows unemployment is currently BELOW what it was ~3 years ago. Con showed the numbers are on his side, unemployment is still higher now tgen before, regardless of trends, therefore he wins. Also I ask if the U6 unemoloyment was used? I don't want to change tabs in risk of losing the comment. That shows unemployment as 11%, it's more accurate as it counts people who give up, the one PRO used does not. It shows no good trends btw.

And way the last part wasn't RFD, but most of that was.... CON easily won.
Posted by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
Yeah, well, my dad could beat up your dad.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
facebook like
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
so mature
Posted by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
I know you are but what am I
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
It makes more sense then your argument!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
DouggyFreshConservativePoliticoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, instead of defending his unemployment trend statistics, just attacked Pro's with moot points (January/February). Pro's presentation was better, and flowed better overall. Con misrepresented Pro's position in a slanderous way. Overall, sources were conflicting, I'll give it a tie. Pro had better structure of his arguments. Con, don't capitalize an entire assertion just emphasize it. Trends seem to be in Pro's favor with Obama starting with 8.3 unemployment. I'll give it to pro.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
DouggyFreshConservativePoliticoTied
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: Con never actually touched Pro's theoretical trend showing unemployment will drop. Furthermore, Pro actually showed the unemployment rate was lower (by .1) under Obama.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
DouggyFreshConservativePoliticoTied
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: Comments
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
DouggyFreshConservativePoliticoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con decided not to touch Pro's trend theory and diverged to before-after matters. This lost him the debate. Moreover, pro more effectively used sources through his graphical analysis based on cited statistics.