should obama be able to stay in office after everything he has done to the United States
Debate Rounds (2)
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 , 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.
 See video https://www.youtube.com...
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.