The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

This House believes the sky is falling.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 67237
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Dear Lee001; I challenge you to a Fact debate (a debate in which you attempt to prove something to be fact). Have fun with this resolution as it is a metaphor resolution and you can pretty much make it be whatever you want.

Round 1- Acceptance/rules/structure/comments
Round 2,3- Arguments
Round 4- Rebuttals (NO NEW ARGUMENTS)

Citations encouraged but not mandated. :)


I accept. Thank you Hiram for this debate good luck!
I will debating that since Obama took office on January 20th 2011 that he has in fact made the American Economy worse then it has ever been before. Overall, Obama is the worse president America has had.
Sources :
Debate Round No. 1


Great topic of choice!

I thought that since you were pro the system would let you post your argument first then I would be able to reply. With that said; let us start the arguments in the next round? Because I cannot give the first case. Or we can close this debate and you can challenge me and choose the Pro side to get things straightened away, either way let me know!



*The president has almost doubled our national debt in just 3.5 years, something that has never happened in American history. * We've accumulated more debt in the past 42 months than all of the previous 232 years of this republic. That's impossible to overlook.


*" President Obama introduced a healthcare bill that forces Americans to buy a service. * This he claimed was not a tax, and simply a penalty. * He continuously reaffirmed that that was the case, despite the fact that more than half the population thought the bill was in violation of the constitution. * When it came time for the court to decide whether it lived or not, the President's lawyers argued that it was legal because it was a tax and congress has the power to tax people. * Now the President is denying it again. * This is deception."

*"The President has used Executive privilege to allow his Attorney General not to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal. * He is obviously hiding something from everyone. * If he can't give up at least half of the documents, you know that something big is happening behind the scenes. "* **

**"This president is also involved in the leaking of some of our most confidential secrets. * It's certain they either came from someone high up in his cabinet that HE choose. *Regardless, he only launched an investigation after conservatives demanded he do so. * Wouldn't most people want an it to start immediately to insure that the *traitor to our government could put in jail as soon as possible and not do anymore damage."

The President has refused to work with the other party on anything. * He's always late on passing the budget because of this, among other things. * It's very possible to work with the other party, you just have to compromise on some things-Reagan did it very well. *President Obama can't just blame the Republicans every time the Feds don't act fast enough. * This is one of the prime indicators of a good president, and Mr. Obama lacks it.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro says that she will be proving (because this is a fact debate) that
1. Obama has made the American Economy worse. (aff neither defines "economy" or "worse") <---- VOTER
2. Obama is the worse president America has had. (gives nothing to compare him to) <----- VOTER

*- The resolution clearly calls for 1 of either of these two things to be proven in order for her to uphold it. In agreeing to this debate the Pro accepts 100% of the burden of proof (more on this below). In pushing 2 different statements, the pro has failed to meet the requirements of the resolution, this alone should award the neg the debate.
*- The Pro (although not meeting the resolution makes two claims to TRY and meet the resolution of "This house believes the sky is falling") still fails in establishing the framework/criteria for this debate to be judged. She has failed to link the resolution to either of her 2 claims, and has not told you how to judge it. She is merely providing "facts" and asserting a victory in the debate. There is no way for you to judge the debate based on the articulation she has made. She expects all of you judging and myself to know all of American history regarding the current and past presidents as well as be familiar with economics. This is not reasonable to expect for the debate and is impossible to debate within the parameters of the 3000 word count. There is no criteria for you to judge the debate, no "before and after" scenario has been articulated, therefore it is impossible to judge according to her "arguments", because of this the neg should win this debate.

The burden of the affirmative is to prove that "the sky is falling". What this means is that she has to convince you, the judges, as she asks you to view through a certain lens (which she doesn't) and convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that, "the sky is falling". If there is any, ANY, doubt in your mind as to the claims made by the affirmative then vote neg because she has not met the resolution. As this is an educational activity, it is not beneficial to either the aff or neg and the judges to bicker back and forth on politics and then try and say that it meets the resolution (it doesn't).

The burden of the negative is to defend the status quo (squo) or in this case refute the claim that the, "sky is falling". The neg has conceded to know everything about econ and presidents of this country therefore has lost all ground to the abusive affirmative debater. The neg understands that within the squo there are highs and lows for the economy and President. But to entertain some of the affs "arguments" here are some facts to consider.

1.Passed Health Care Reform (insured millions of Americans). <-- helped econ
2.Passed the Stimulus ($787 billion). <-- helped econ
3. Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform.<-- helped econ
4. Ended the War in Iraq.


Instead of arguing against my reasons why Obama is a bad president, he instead points out what I am doing wrong. He had not addressed any of my convictions, instead he is judging this debate for himself. He only gave me 4 answers on how the economy has been good since Obama took office but he dose not expand on these answers.
Next I will be proving his awnsers wrong.

1) Hiram says "Passed Health Care Reform (insured millions of Americans). <-- helped econ"
This is false.
*It threatens the profits of health insurance companies, making people loose jobs.

2). He next states :" Passed the Stimulus ($787 billion). <-- helped econ"
again, false
.Judged by his own standards, President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus program, which he signed into law last week, is deeply disappointing. For weeks, Obama has described the economy in grim terms. "This is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession," he said at his Feb. 9 press conference. It's "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." Given these dire warnings, you'd expect the stimulus package to focus exclusively on reviving the economy. It doesn't, and for that, Obama bears much of the blame.
The case for a huge stimulus, which I support, is that it's insurance against the possibility of a devastating downward economic spiral. Spending and confidence are tumbling worldwide. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the U.S. economy contracted at a nearly 4 percent annual rate. In Japan, the economy fell at a nearly 13 percent rate; in Europe, the rate was about 6 percent. These are gruesome declines. If the economic outlook is as bleak as Obama says (and it may be), there's no reason to dilute the upfront power of the stimulus. But that's what Obama's done.

His last two given reasons as to why, Obama helped the economy is correct. There's only 2 things that he has done that helped the economy a little bit.
Here's a list of more things that he has done that has effected American in a negative way.

1) Lack of Focus The President and his political advisors have wasted a ton of time, energy and effort on things like nationalizing our Health care system to deal with something that quite frankly doesn't really rise to the level of being a true national emergency. In the meantime they have spent
2)Playing the race card Whenever anyone tries to criticize the President or his policies one of his supporters almost always falls back on the notion that it's because of race. Despicable. What's even worse is that the President makes sure to portray himself as "above the fray" in this regard and lets his political cronies make these unfounded charges when it's painfully obvious that they would cease and desist if he told them too. No he wants it both ways, he has cronies play the race card for him and then when asked for comment he'll throw out a mild, "Well I don't see it as racism" statement long after the damage is already done.
Debate Round No. 3


Pro admonished con for not arguing the "reasons" as to why Obama is a "bad president". Before I answer I will state that the pro is a moving target, first pro says that she will prove that he has been the WORSE president and now is claiming that her position is that he is a BAD one, clearly moving her position halfway in the debate. <-- VOTER

Because the main notion in debating is to become more educated in a variety of different subject matters it is important to uphold the standard of that education. With that said, it is imperative for a debate framework to be established for a successful round (debate). Without a framework an opportunity for education to take place becomes non-exstent and all that the audience is left with is two people saying "look at all these reasons" and the other answering, "well, look at all this evidence". The impact here is that the neg has no where to turn, the pro has not established a judging criteria and leaves the neg with nothing in his arsenal to attack with because he knows not how to position his refutes. <-- VOTER

With that in mind: a very good opportunity for learning has been compromised because the pro did not uphold the resolution (notice how she dropped her arguments from WORSE to BAD and then focuses only on econ). Also, because no criteria was articulated for the round to be judged. Finally, the pro has not overcome her burden of having to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that, "the sky is falling". Pro had the right to define and establish the resolution and framework for the debate, failed to both. The Con had neither right or time to prepare and is defending the squo with his 4 citations of evidence that may not disprove what the pro has said but gives the audience reason to doubt entirely what the pro is claiming (giving the judges the reason to vote con because of this).

The pro needs to understand that her "arguments" go moot in the debate because no criteria has been set, I cannot stress this enough! She could post 100 "Arguments" and they hold no weight.

Vote for the neg because the neg is the only one upholding their burden. It may not seem fair for the neg to win out like this but their are only two sides in this debate and one must win, pick the side that played the game correctly; not the side that was abusive and did not uphold their burden.

vote neg, :)


Each argument I have brought up con has refused to address, there- fore points go to me!
Vote pro:) and thank you Hiram for this debate:)
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 1 year ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's grammar is something else, seriously, pro's points went unrefuted for the most part, pro used the most sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: THIS IS NOT A VOTE BOMB! Con had terrible grammatical skills so that point goes to Pro. Pro had used one more source than Con so that point also goes to Pro. Pro makes many valid arguments that are not refuted by Con, though I would've like to have seen evidence on several of these arguments or Pro to go into greater details on these arguments because it's one thing to say Obamacare has harmed the economy then to say Obamacare has harmed the economy by causing X, Y, and Z to occur which harmed things A, B, and C.