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

should obama be able to stay in office after everything he has done to the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 63465
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




after everything that Obama has done to our country such as mess with our health care and derive the less fortunet but yet we still want to let him stay since he has been in office the United States has went under more than we already were. we know have ebola on American soil and which is supposed to be illegal because ebola patients are supposed to but on a ship in the middle of the ocean or underground in a contanmint center where they are not our soil we know have it in our hostpital let that sink in for a second.... but have you ever heard of Marshall law well marshall law is were the president can call every to stay in there house and there be a cirfue do u really want Obama telling you cant leave your house cause sure don't! many people think that when Obama is in the realection that he will call war because when an president in office and they are called in war the president can not be removed so think about how many people actually want the stuff above to happen just think about your future and your children or families future.....


Many thanks to libralisthegame for starting this debate. I'll briefly discuss the resolution before addressing her case.


The resolution poses a question to the effect of whether President Obama should be allowed to stay in office "after what he has done." It implies causation to the effect of whether what he personally has done warrants him being removed from office. Choosing to impeach the president is obviously a radical step and a substantial deviation from the status quo, and therefore the burden of proof falls on Con, the instigator, to affirm that Obama should be impeached by virtue of what he has done. My goal, therefore, is to counter her arguments. To prove her point, Con must be able to demonstrate that Obama has done something worthy of impeachment--i.e., abusing his power. Moreover, she must be able to show not only that Obama has broken the law, but that this merits impeachment in a just society, unless she wants to defend the antithesis of enforcing an unjust law in a necessarily unjust society. If the law is unjust, we ought not punish someone for violating it, which is not to say that the president has done so. The onus to prove as much falls solely on Con.


(1) Con discusses a "mess with our healthcare." She does not offer any specificity, or what exactly Obama did--as the resolution keys in on Obama's actions. Without specificity or sourcing, the claim gets discarded.

(2) I'm not sure what Con means by "derive the less fortunet but yet we still want to let him stay since he has been in office the United States has went under more than we already were." The sentence is grammatically incoherent, so hopefully Con can flesh this remark out further in her next round.

(3) She mentions ebola on American soil. Note that, as Shep Smith has recently took care to note [1], the "Ebola Scare" is widely overblown, and there is no widespread epidemic of ebola in the United States. Not to mention, Con hasn't connected this to Obama's actions.

(4) Con speaks of Marshall Law, but how does this have anything to do with what Obama has already done or intends to do? This is nothing more than a fact-free emotional appeal.

(5) Con states that Obama will "call war." What does this even mean? Has he not done this yet, per the future tense? If so, how is it relevant to our resolution?

Con hasn't actually offered a coherent argument, nor come close to fulfilling her burden.

[1] See video

Debate Round No. 1


thank you so much for making this debate interesting but I would like you to know that im only 14 and the bola viruse has to do with Obama because what has he actually done to prevent/or get rid of the illness NOTHING! and the problem with the health insurance is that he just made it 10x harder for the lower class of society to be able to afford heakth care and as much I respect you opinion and that you do make since however the people can believe and have their own opinon but thank you so much for the argument/ debate


Thanks to Con for an interesting debate.


Con tries to change the goalposts by stating that "Obama did nothing to prevent/get rd of the illness." The resolution concerns actions Obama HAS taken, so even if he had done nothing, this contention is off-the-mark. Also, Con is essentially attacking Obama for not having the cure to Ebola, which is positively laughable. I don't think scientific prowess or a medical degree is a prerequisite for becoming president and holding office. Con hasn't pointed to any ill-doing on Obama's part, and as the Shep Smith video demonstrates, there is no Ebola epidemic -- a dying man who caught Ebola overseas, who was treated in a Texas hospital, passed the disease onto two healthcare workers, who are currently isolated. There is no widespread Ebola scare, nor is Obama at fault.


Con states that Obama made it ten times harder for the lower class of society to be able to afford healthcare. This claim is untrue. The ACA provides funding for states to expand their Medicaid programs to 133% of the poverty line, providing coverage for the lower class. It also provides subsidies for people of lower incomes -- and, when the employer mandate eventually is implemented, it will provide subsidies for businesses. It also eliminates lifetime caps, prevents discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions, and expands preventive-care access, all whilst decelerating healthcare costs. Con's views on this are simply unfounded.

Con has not fulfilled her burden of proof. Therefore, vote Pro. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheodoretheMan 2 years ago
Thank you pro and con for the... Interesting debate. But I will say that I liked everything about pro's arguments besides the principle. Con, I am actually 13, but believe that you should work on grammar, spelling, and sources. I commend you, though, for your love of politics.
Posted by TheodoretheMan 2 years ago
Did you know, (con) that there have been more than 100 cases of Ebola here in America? The government tries to scare us by acting like its a zombie-like breakout. It has actually easily been cured many times. This is the last time he is able to be in office, meaning he can't be president next election. Besides, President Obama is not the Power. He is a puppet. A cog in a wheel. He is contolled by others that I guarantee you havnt heard of. :( Sad world, huh?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
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: CON's criteria for impeaching President Obama essentially boiled down to two points: 1) Obama has done nothing about the Ebola virus on American soil and 2) Obama made it 10x harder for the lower class to afford healthcare. As PRO demonstrated, the Ebola virus does not pose a significant threat to the average American, so argument 1 is negated. Even if it did, to impeach a president for inaction rather than illegal action seems to be a violation of the process of impeachment. PRO has also demonstrated (albeit without a source) how the Affordable Care Act makes it easier, not harder, for the lower classes to afford healthcare. Because it was CON's burden to provide arguments for impeachment, and because PRO successfully refuted the two provided, PRO wins the debate. On a spelling and grammar note, I normally don't award these, but reading CON's case was rather difficult. CON, in the future, I recommend spellcheck.