The Instigator
Alexander_The_Great
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
JacobHession
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

obama is not a socialist

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,290 times Debate No: 17027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Obama is not a socialist. If he is than America is a socialist society. People who say he is a socialist are hypocrites to the max. The Tea party is crazy.
JacobHession

Con

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for creating this debate.

Secondly I'd like to establish that Obama being a Socialist does not in fact make the United States a Socialist society. It simply determines that the personal views of President Obama are Socialist.

Third, I assume the resolution is "Obama is not a Socialist." I accept this resolution.

Now I would like to offer a few definitions:
Socialist: a supporter or advocate of socialism or any party promoting socialism ( socialist party )
-Collins English Dictionary
Not: used to negate the sentence, phrase, or word that it modifies
-Collins English Dictionary

Finally, I would like clarification as to what this statement "People who say he is a socialist are hypocrites to the max. The Tea party is crazy." has to do with the resolution.

I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Anytime, thanks for debating.

You misinterpreted what I meant by saying that if "Obama is a socialist than we are a socialist society." I'm not saying that he determines what views Americans have, just that many of the things we have in our society today should be considered socialist if he Obama is.
I can help provide a definition for socialism.
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
-Dictionary.com
"Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So first, would you give me a list of reasons why Obama would be considered socialist?

And nothing, you can disregard that statement.
JacobHession

Con

I accept the definition for Socialism that is presented by my opponent.
I also thank my opponent for clarification of the " If he is than America is a socialist society." statement.

Due to the fact that my opponent offered no contentions or attacks I will proceed to present my own case.

In order to properly debate and discuss this topic, two things must be realized.
First, many Americans do not believe in or fully understand Socialism. This causes either disapproval or fear of a Socialist. It is for this reason that no politician will admit openly that they are a Socialist.
Secondly, we must realize that the only way to properly discuss and conclude that President Obama is, in fact, a Socialist is to examine his past voting choices and his previous statements. With these two realizations in mind I will now move on to my reasoning.

Contention 1: Obama's own statements.

I would like to present various statements made by President Obama and analyze why they define him as a Socialist.

Subpoint A:
Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, said Bush's political philosophy consists of giving tax breaks and encouraging "everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement and security, your own child care, your own schools, your own private security forces, your own roads, your own levees.
"It's called the ownership society. In our past there has been another name for it; it's called social Darwinism. Every man or woman for him or herself," he said.
"We know that government can't solve all our problems, and we don't want it to.
"But we also know that there are some things we can't do on our own. There are some things we do better together.
"We have an individual responsibility but we also have a collective responsibility to each other," he said. [1]
These statements obviously define President Obama as a Socialist. He states, in a negative light, the policies of his opponent, President Bush. However these policies are the consistent with those of a true Capitalist. He then goes on to compare the Capitalist policies to Social Darwinism; a concept that is often looked down upon. Finally he goes on to state that we have collective responsibilities to each other and that there are some things that we do better as a whole people. These statements are obviously in line with Socialist values.

Subpoint B:
It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you'll play in writing the next great chapter in America's story. [2]
As the major goals of Socialism are the furthering of the community as a whole; these statements obviously display a Socialistic viewpoint. He speaks of the need for collective salvation over individual salvation; as well the need to "hitch your wagon" to something bigger than yourself. These statements obviously display a very socialistic viewpoint in President Obama.

Contention 2: Obama's health care policies.
Ronald Reagan once said, "One of the traditional methods of imposing socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project; most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it." This was during a campaign against socialized health care programs.
This applies to the health care programs of Obama. In theory, his programs will force companies to give health insurance to all people. This is blatantly Socialistic. It will lead to eventual financial loss by the insurance companies because they will have to support people that they normally wouldn't have accepted because of the increased risk. So, the health care programs of Obama will take from the wealthy (insurance companies) and give to the poor (those who can't afford health insurance). We must not look at the morality of this but instead how it adheres to the ideals of Socialism. These health care programs obviously focus on the good of the community as a whole versus the ability of Capitalism or the individual to succeed; thus making the programs socialistic.

In conclusion, it is statements and policies like these that openly display that President Obama is a Socialist. We must look to these statements and policies said and created by the president as evidence of his obvious socialistic views. I look forward to the response of my opponent.

1:http://www2.ljworld.com...
2: http://www.wfsb.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Alexander_The_Great

Pro

For Subpoint A.
"These statements obviously define President Obama as a Socialist."???
When Obama gave speech was trying to unify the country. he was saying that we should help eachother.
"There are some things we do better together"
And just because someone doesn't agree with the Policies of "a true Capitalist", does not mean one is a socialist.
" Finally he goes on to state that we have collective responsibilities to each other and that there are some things that we do better as a whole people."
It also lines up with ideals of a good person. He was simply saying he wanted to help his fellow Americans, something that Bush failed to do.

For Subpoint B.
He is not talking about 'spreading the wealth' if that's what your thinking. Hes talking about the millions of Americans who get screwed by insurance companies denying coverage. And that is the major goal of almost all societies. Furthering the community as a whole. Not just socialist societies.

For contention 2
"It will lead to eventual financial loss by the insurance companies because they will have to support people that they normally wouldn't have accepted because of the increased risk"
yeah, these guys are raking it in. There making $ by the billions.
CIGNA Corporation 4.8 Billion Revenues 800 million profit
WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS INC 800 million revenue loss 50 million
HUMANA INC 7.8 Billion profit.
So they wont lose much, but that's besides the point.

"So, the health care programs of Obama will take from the wealthy (insurance companies) and give to the poor (those who can't afford health insurance"
Don't we already have that though? Take from the wealthy and give to the poor?
Yes, we do. They're called taxes. again we pay for public transportation, police, schools and teachers, firemen, the military, we pay for nearly everything. only when health care is offered to the public is it "socialist."
Government in America, has been spreading the wealth around since the beginning.

And guess who had a higher tax rate than Obama? Regan! "Taxes were above 35% for the top marginal tax rate, they were at 50% in 1984 when president Regan got reelected, at one point it dropped to 28% in 1986 but for 6 years it was much higher than what we have now." "The 14.8% tax rate that we pay right now is the lowest its been in 60 years." It use to be 18.2% under Regan.( The young Turks) http://www.youtube.com...

So who is more of the socialist? Regan? or Obama?

if Obama is a socialist, then so is everyone who sends their child to a public, government run school. Where the Government "owns the means of production" and determines who gets what. Ignoring Teacher's unions.

Obama is not a socialist.
If he was, He would say he is. And I'm pretty sure that he is not saying he is not a socialist because he doesn't know that much about it. I'm sure he knows what it is based on the fact that he is brilliant.

Watch this clip of obama speaking
go to time 5:30
http://youtu.be...

Thanks for debating.
JacobHession

Con

My opponent has once again failed to offer anything substantial in support of his side. In the previous round he offered one short paragraph. I will now refute that paragraph. (To voters: please disregard any obvious grammatical errors in the following attack if they are quotes from my opponent's previous round.)

Obama is not a socialist.

"If he was, He would say he is."
This is an incorrect statement. As I stated in my second constructive many people don't understand or agree with Socialism. For many politicians it may be damaging to their career if they were to openly announce they were Socialists. It is because of this that Obama is not likely to announce any socialistic views.
"And I'm pretty sure that he is not saying he is not a socialist because he doesn't know that much about it."
I agree with this. However for a logical reason refer to my previous statements.
"I'm sure he knows what it is based on the fact that he is brilliant."
I also agree that Obama is intelligent. However you obviously don't have to be brilliant to understand the concept of Socialism as my opponent has a fairly decent grasp on the idea.

To begin I would like to establish a few key points that my opponent has failed to either realize or understand. The morality of either system, Capitalism or Socialism is entirely meaningless to this debate. To rely on such an idea as reference for an attack is illogical. Any attacks relying on this should be forgotten by voters. My opponent uses morality in various attacks that I will discuss later on.

Contention 1: My opponent has attempted to attack this argument by trying to turn a few of Obama's statements around to his side.

Subpoint A: My opponent has failed to realize that in the statements presented that Obama sheds a negative light on Capitalism then proceeds to insist that Socialist views are superior. If this does not make Obama a Socialist, I cannot think of what does. Furthermore, my opponent states that Obama's views also line up with the ideals of a good person. This is a pitiful argument as being a good person does not make you either a Capitalist or a Socialist.

Subpoint B: The statements made by President Obama are obviously of a socialist nature. My opponent's argument is invalid. For further reasoning simply look to my second constructive.

Contention 2: Health care

My opponent first tried to argue against this by arguing that it is okay for the government to damage the profits of the insurance companies. This is a completely Socialistic view point. It doesn't matter how much the insurance companies make; only that in a Capitalistic society it is not okay to take their profits for the purpose of spreading it to the poor.

Then he tried for a second time to argue against this contention by saying that taxes are a form of wealth spreading. This argument is entirely illogical. The services he mentioned such as public schools, transportation, the military, etc. These are services that use tax money and benefit everyone; thus making his argument invalid.

He then used a quote and tried to explain that Reagan was also a socialist. This is pointless. If Reagan was a Socialist that doesn't affect the validity of my quote or give any reason that Obama isn't a Socialist.

Finally my opponent presented a video. The video was of an interview between a particularly aggressive Bill O'Reilly and President Obama. The video shows the president refuting claims that he is redistributing wealth. He turns to a moral argument to do this. While he may not be directly redistributing wealth he is using Socialist viewpoints to guide his statements and his actions.

Finally, Voting Issues.

I would like to address any possible voters by saying that when considering which side to vote for you must first remember a few things.
1. My opponent's attacks were weak and often entirely illogical.
2. I completely refuted these attacks.
3. Most importantly, remember that my opponent offered little to no evidence or even arguments supporting his side of the debate. As we both shared a burden of proof equally this is a terrible flaw in his side of the debate.

With that I respectfully ask for a con vote.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I forgot to mention it does not matter who is President when it comes to internal affairs.The President could be a full blown out of the closet card carrying communist and it wouldn't matter. Congress makes all those decisions. The President simply endorses them or doesn't. The President can be over ridden by 2/3 majority. The only power the President yeilds is in foriegn policy. Lybia being an example, no congressional approval.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
America is a police, nanny state with token joke of democracy every four years. America quit being a Republic about 100 years ago. Try and do anything without having the Govt shoving a microscope up your a@@. I was at the play ground with my kid the other day and was laughing at the sign they put up listing all the things you "can't" do, there must have been at least 20 rules on a sign measuring 6 feet by 6 feet. The dumbest one was "No running". Kids can't run on a play ground. A police nanny state if there ever was.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't prove how Obama supported Capitalist ideas and also his unsubstantiated attack on the Tea party hurts him for conduct.
Vote Placed by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Although con refuted some of pros arguments adequately, I think pro overall proved his point efficiently.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses the conduct for an immediate and unprovoked "Tea Party is Crazy" comment. The views of the Tea Party and their veracity is irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, Jacob made an excellent argument that Pro refuted with "No it isn't" and not much more. Good job Jacob.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
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: Pro needed to make a case that Obama was in favor of capitalism, at least to some significant degree. He didn't make the case. Pro used "Regan" >> "Reagan" and neglected sources. Obama fits the model of a modern European socialist rather than the classic definition. The style is to control the economy through regulation rather than directly. t didn't come up in the debate, so it doesn't count.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Looses conduct for waiting till R3 to engage in the debate, and for making irrelevant and potentially offensive statements in R1. Pro looses argument for making many points in R3 that actually negated his own resolution as defined in R2, while any valid point that he made was refuted adequately by Con.
Vote Placed by TheFreeThinker 5 years ago
TheFreeThinker
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
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: JacobHession brought forward some very convincing arguments. Alexander argued passionately, but with little substance. I encourage both of you to read both "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from my Father". Obama's socialist core beliefs are shining in those books
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Alexander_The_GreatJacobHessionTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: This was lopsided, Con could have taken this even if they had the burden of proof, they put the instigator on the defensive immediately - nice showing. 5:1 Con.