The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

the Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,603 times Debate No: 8230
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

sadolite

Pro

When anyone who opposes some policy of the Obama administration, The administration should just say no comment rather than try to explain it. Whenever they do this they just raise more questions than they answer. The Obama administration does not need to convince anyone of anything. They control the White house and both branches of government. They should just ramrod everything through and just let whoever complains, cry all they want. Once Gov't passes something it is there forever. They could pass anything they want. Why do they bother with "bipartisanship"? It is so phony and disingenuous. There is nothing that the left or the right have in common, why should the left cave on anything? They don't have to. They should just pass every single piece of legislation they want passed and be done with. The right has voted almost 100% against every piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration, there is no reason to even discuss anything with the right, they still pass everything anyway. My opponent can say there should be debate, I say why, It is a big waste of time and it is all for show to make it look like Congress works together and discusses issues and comes to compromises. But it does not. I use the voting record as evidence. The Obama administration should use this opportunity to ramrod everything it can down the peoples throats while they have the opportunity, while they have all the votes to do it in both branches of govt. Even if they make people mad it wont matter as everything they pass will be permanent and can't be undone. No gov't program has ever been eliminated in the last 35 years, they have only grown exponentially. And gov't is way to big now that spending will never be decreased it will just get bigger and bigger and there is nothing either side can do about it. So it makes sense to force as many pieces of legislation as they can through congress while they can and stop trying to convince people they are good ideas. Who cares whether the people think they are good ideas as a whole. If Obama thinks it's a good idea then he should just ramrod it through. They should just have show trail debates and let the right say what ever they want and make no rebuttals. when the right is done talking they should just vote and pass it. They don't need any Republican votes to pass any piece of legislation. If there are a few Dems who might say no they can just grease and bribe them into voting their way. That's how it's always been done why stop now.
sherlockmethod

Con

My opponent went wild in his opening argument, my task to rebut them will be tough considering the space limit. To begin:
I supported Barack Obama during the election and continue to support him now, and I adamantly disagree with many of my opponent's contentions.

My opponents attitude concerning politics and policy is a recipe for disaster, but more importantly, my opponent makes vague, overreaching claims that are not properly defined. In addition, my opponent does not provide any source material for these overreaching claims.

1)"When anyone who opposes some policy of the Obama administration, The administration should just say no comment rather than try to explain it….The Obama administration does not need to convince anyone of anything."

A1) Wrong, President Obama has to explain his policies to me and convince me, as he works for me and the American public, "no comment" does not cut it.
*)Do you mean every policy by saying "some policy"?

2) "Whenever they do this they just raise more questions than they answer."

A2) By the term, "this" my opponent must be referring to an explanation of some action; please provide an example supporting this contention.

3) "They control the White house and both branches of government."

A3) The Obama administration controls the executive branch of government, agreed. The above quoted statement is worded poorly as my opponent must have meant, "…the White House and the other two branches of government". I see no need to attack his error as I am very interested in knowing how the Obama administration controls the judicial branch of government. I will concede the point that the Obama administration has heavy influence on the Congress, but I see no evidence they control it. My opponent proffered this statement; therefore, he must provide his own support. If Congress has voted against, or let die any proposed bill by the Obama administration, then this statement is false concerning Congressional control.

4) "They should just ramrod everything through and just let whoever complains, cry all they want."

A4) Define "ramrod" and "everything", if you mean forced by the term, "ramrod" and by "everything", legislation, please explain how the executive branch forces a non-filibuster proof Senate to support White House backed legislation while ignoring those that, "cry all they want" (who are they by the way?). If my opponent thinks the Senate minority leader holds no power, he is simply mistaken.

5) "Once Gov't passes something it is there forever….Even if they make people mad it wont matter as everything they pass will be permanent and can't be undone."

A5) These statements made me think the opening was satirical, as the inanity of these comments gave me pause. Please see the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and the repeal thereof in the 21st Amendment for a glaring example of how untrue this statement is in reference to our government (do I really need to give a link?). Not to leave the judicial branch out of this one, I recommend Dred Scott v. Sandford ( http://www.loc.gov... ) Yes, we overturned this one. My opponent cannot support his statement.

6) "They could pass anything they want."

A6) Please see the US Constitution for a full rebuttal of this claim.

7) "Why do they bother with "bipartisanship"? It is so phony and disingenuous. There is nothing that the left or the right have in common, why should the left cave on anything? They don't have to.

A7) My opponent refers seems to refer to "they" as the Obama administration while simultaneously referring to the democratic majority in Congress. He ignores sub-groups in the majority parties and independents. He does not recognize the multi-polar nature of the executive branch in relation to sub-groups in our government such as moderates, libertarians, southern democrats, liberals, neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, etc. Suggesting that Congress can be broken into two distinct groups in reference to passing legislation is erroneous. Legislation makes concessions to the varying groups and some are easier to please than others. Although the sides in a yea, and nay vote appear to be simply democrat and republican, the yea and nay does not show the quid pro quo necessary to get a block vote. In addition, compromise is not caving in, and yes the Obama administration does need all political parties as the administration does not have a "filibuster proof" Congress.

8) "The right has voted almost 100% against every piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration, there is no reason to even discuss anything with the right, they still pass everything anyway."

A8) Support this statement. My opponent claims he can support his statements using the voting record, I challenge him to do so.

9) " My opponent can say there should be debate, I say why, It is a big waste of time and it is all for show to make it look like Congress works together and discusses issues and comes to compromises. But it does not. I use the voting record as evidence."

A9) If my opponent can show that Congress does not come to compromises in any capacity concerning legislation and can back up his statement with legislative history showing that no bill started in either the House or the Senate changed as it went through committees, floor votes, between both houses, and the White House, back to the Senate and the House then, "I shall retire to Sussex and keep bees." This statement is false.

10) "And gov't is way to big now that spending will never be decreased it will just get bigger and bigger and there is nothing either side can do about it. So it makes sense to force as many pieces of legislation as they can through congress while they can and stop trying to convince people they are good ideas. Who cares whether the people think they are good ideas as a whole….No gov't program has ever been eliminated in the last 35 years, they have only grown exponentially."

10A) These statements are non sequiturs and I don't see a need to rebut them. If my opponent insists, then I need only show one government program eliminated in the last 35 years to refute the last portion.

11) "The Obama administration should use this opportunity to ramrod everything it can down the peoples throats while they have the opportunity, while they have all the votes to do it in both branches of govt…. If Obama thinks it's a good idea then he should just ramrod it through. They should just have show trail [sic] debates and let the right say what ever they want and make no rebuttals. when the right is done talking they should just vote and pass it. They don't need any Republican votes to pass any piece of legislation.

11A) As previously stated, the Obama administration cannot do what my opponent proposes, even if they wanted to do so, and these statements show a fundamental lack of understanding about the separation of powers in the US government.

My opponent's position is full of false statements and assumptions based on these falsehoods. His position on the resolution can't hold as the resolution is based on some of the same falsehoods I listed. For these reasons, the pro position cannot hold.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

A1) Wrong, President Obama has to explain his policies to me and convince me, as he works for me and the American public, "no comment" does not cut it. My opponent is naive to think that the Govt works for him and cares what he thinks about anything. Only 7% of registered voters polled were for ant type of bailouts But the gov't did exactly the opposite which is proof that it does not care what you think. One would think that if 93% of registered voters polled were against a bailout it would have not even made it to congress for a vote if they were representing the voters.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

"*)Do you mean every policy by saying "some policy " Yes any policy it does not matter

"A2) By the term, "this" my opponent must be referring to an explanation of some action; please provide an example supporting this contention."

Ah how about health care reform, Does anyone even have a clue as to what they are going to do. There is no logical intellectual argument that you can make by saying gov't is going to provide free medical care if you want it and then say, if you want to keep your existing private health care you can. Then expect the private sector to compete with something that people only think is free, but of course it will be paid for by me the tax payer in addition to paying for my own private health care. It is absurd. They say you will be able to keep your own doctors under gov't health care. This is totally and completely misleading. They have to participate in gov't funded health care system in order to keep them. Any Doctor with half a brain would never participate in gov't run health care. They will dictate what he can charge, dictate what procedures or treatments he can make and still hang the noose of malpractice over his head. I defy my opponent to explain Obama's health care plans other than to say the gov't will pay for everything. The govt pays for nothing, the 50% of the people who actually pay taxes pays for everything.

"I am very interested in knowing how the Obama administration controls the judicial branch of government"

Fiscal policy The judicial branch of gov't has little or nothing to do with what gets passed through Congress fiscally. Anything that gets passed is only challenged by the Judicial branch after it has passed. Congress has yet to be challenged by the judicial branch for anything that congress has passed fiscally and never will regardless of who is in power.

Source: In 1936, the Court construed the Spending Power Clause as giving Congress broad power to spend for the general welfare (United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477). According to the Butler decision, under the Spending Power Clause Congress was not limited to spending money to carry out the direct grants of legislative power found elsewhere in the Constitution; rather, it could tax and spend for what it determined to be the general welfare of the country. Because Congress has discretion to determine what is the general welfare, no court since Butler has ever invalidated a federal spending program on the ground that the general welfare of the country was not being promoted.

Also "budget reconciliation can be used as a filibuster proof way of ramming any spending policy they want through congress. They will use this to shove gov't health care down your throat whether you like it or not"

http://online.wsj.com...

Foreign policy: That is the power of the Executive branch The Administration can do what ever it feels is right. No other branch of Gov't can dictate to the President as to how he talks to other countries or treats them. Obama can wage war without Congressional approval for 45 days.

Social policy: The speaker of the house determines what bills will be brought to the floor for a vote. The speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has yet allowed a single Republican bill to the floor to be voted on. I shall now Quote Nancy Pelosi word for word:

"We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. ... They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress."

As you can see, it is not what the "people" think it is what the current Congress thinks. And if any bill that does not tow the line of the current Administration and Congress it will never be considered for a vote.

So you see any social policy if any will be what Nancy Pelosi thinks. You can go ahead and stick your head in the sand and think this women represents the people of America. One only look at the police Dept of the people she represents in California to see what will be brought before congress as far as social issues go.

I am going to be called a bigot and and all sorts of other names for this post but it is just to funny and is a perfect representation of Nancy Pelosi and how far out of touch she is with the rest of America and how she will determine which social policies will make it to the floor for a vote in order to promote her personal agendas.

http://www.theospark.net...

"He ignores sub-groups in the majority parties and independents"

"Of course I ignore them they are out numbered and irrelevant"

"Legislation makes concessions to the varying groups " To those who don't speak gov't policy wonk, this is another way of saying "bribe with pork in the bill"

"The administration does not have a "filibuster proof" Congress." It does if it wants to with all fiscal legislation. I refer you back to "Budget Reconciliation"

"Support this statement. My opponent claims he can support his statements using the voting record, I challenge him to do so." Can anyone say 817 billion dollar stimulus package loaded with everything from free ketchup to the study of why pigs smell. 0 republicans voted for this bill and any bills they did vote for were just turn coats who want to get re elected like Arlin specter.

"A9) If my opponent can show that Congress does not come to compromises in any capacity concerning legislation and can back up his statement with legislative history showing that no bill started in either the House or the Senate changed as it went through committees, floor votes, between both houses, and the White House, back to the Senate and the House " Again I refer you back to "policy wonk speak" "Bribe other congressmen with pork to get their vote"

"I need only show one government program eliminated in the last 35 years to refute the last portion.

Yes indeed please show us "one"

"Obama administration cannot do what my opponent proposes"

I have shown that it can be done in almost all cases and what tactics it can use to get it done.

I believe I have successfully responded to all my opponents rebuttals and have proven that it is possible for the Obama administration to ramrod what ever it wants through congress using the tactics I have out lined above.

Oh and vote con it's a "sodolite" debate
sherlockmethod

Con

My opponent has ventured far a field from the resolution and has gone into a rhetoric filled diatribe. I will try to get this debate in line. He gave me a Gish Gallup here so I don't have the space to rebut all his claims.

1) My first round showed my opponent's fundamental lack of understanding of the US Government, separation of powers, and the multi polar arrangement of the separate branches, within and between, the US Government . I showed that the pro position could not hold due to this misunderstanding. Please note, my opponent did not rebut, nor defend, his comments listed in my argument as 5 and 6 and confronted as A5 and A6, respectfully. These comments show my opponent is basing his pro position on misconceptions. In addition, my opponent supported this statement claiming that no federal program has been eliminated in 35 years, and contends that I can't name one. This has nothing to do with our debate, but President Clinton, 1993, canceled the Superconducting Super Collider. The project was cancelled after 2 billion was spent on it. Remember, I only need one. Here is fun story about it. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com...

2)My opponent offers a weak argument as to the ability of the Obama administration to force all policies despite opponents' misgivings or disagreement. I will address this argument and rebut it properly. I need to add at this point, I base my contention on the administrations inability to carry out such an agenda, but do not step into the hypothetical realm of should they if they could. The reason is, simply, creating an executive branch capable of such actions would require policies and processes that remove the powers granted to the judicial and legislative branches such as judicial review, impeachment, the ability override a veto, the ability of Congress to form caucuses, etc. Removal of all these checks creates a totalitarian branch of government. Since the Constitution forbids such a government and this is the type needed to enact such an agenda as proposed by my opponent, then the Obama administration should not attempt to reach this position as it violates the very foundations of the Constitution and federalism as a whole. The US would cease to exist as a republic; such action is tyrannical.

3) Through both rounds my opponent claims the Obama administration can force all policies and because they can, they should. Since my opponent offers nothing more, voters need to be aware that even if my opponent shows the Obama administration can enact this agenda, he must still show why it should do. So far, he has not done so.

4) Opponent: "My opponent is naive to think that the Govt works for him and cares what he thinks about anything. Only 7% of registered voters polled were for ant type of bailouts But the gov't did exactly the opposite which is proof that it does not care what you think. One would think that if 93% of registered voters polled were against a bailout it would have not even made it to congress for a vote if they were representing the voters."

A4) My naivety aside, my opponent should familiarize himself with some basic understanding of why officials vote or enact legislation and policies. This is political science 101. Three views permeate this topic:
1)Representational view
2)Organizational view
3)Attitudinal View
(for a rough overview, I recommend a freshman level government text, for example American Government by James Q. Wilson, serves well. )

My opponent dismisses the first view so I will address that one for now. This view, representational, "is based on the reasonable assumption that members want to get reelected, and therefore they vote to please their constituents." (Wilson p206) The voters can show support by removing these officials from office. We will see if their disagreement is strong enough in the mid term elections. I do not doubt the other views have sway, but to dismiss the representational view out of hand is an error. 5) I asked my opponent whether he meant every policy when he claim some policy. He agreed that he means every policy. He then cites, oddly enough, an op-ed by a Republican Senator sub titled: Ramming a bill through Congress is not in the public interest. Keep in mind this is in direct opposition to my opponent's position! The Title: "National Heath Care with 51 votes" provides a hypothetical where the Obama Administration forces a policy through using budget reconciliation, but the quote "budget reconciliation can be used as a filibuster proof way of ramming any spending policy they want through congress. They will use this to shove gov't health care down your throat whether you like it or not." does not appear in the article linked. How does my opponent justify using quotation marks implying a direct quote that does not exist? If the quote is there, I do not see it, I will let the voters decide if misquoting an op-ed from a Republican Senator is considered proper source material.

Budget Reconciliation is not as far reaching as Senator Sununu says. Yes it is filibuster proof, but he leaves out the portion containing this clause:

There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase (emphasis mine), or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order. The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote.
http://www.rules.house.gov...

If three-fifths is 51 votes then I stand corrected, and my source is from the rules committee, not an op-ed. All the commentators and pundits are ignoring the Byrd rule. Here is a great paper on the subject. http://budget.house.gov...
Also not an op-ed. Even if the Obama administration could do this with a health care bill, the provisions of the Budget Reconciliation do not all legislation to pass this way. My opponents best argument fails due to his use of "every policy"

6) My opponent seems to misunderstand the difference between quid pro quo and bribery. Any compromise is greasing with pork and bribery, in his eyes, so any example I provide will be reduced to this nonsense. If my opponent is aware of any bribes given to congressmen, then I recommend he contact the FBI. He claims sub groups and committees are irrelevant, ignores caucuses as powerless (see the Congressional Black Caucus for a glaring example rebutting this premise.) I do not have the space to list all the committees and the breakdown of each.

7) Foreign policy: my opponent is wrong. Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, punish piracies, felonies on the high seas, and crimes against the law of nations, declare war, and ratify treaties. The President can't "do what he wants". See the US Constitution.

8)Social policy: my opponent is wrong. The rules committee decides which bills go to the floor and although it is a tool for the speaker, the rules committee can be bypassed. As for your comment concerning Pelosi blocking every bill by a Republican:
http://thomas.loc.gov...
I need only show one to rebut this claim.

I am out of room. My opponent has only shown his lack of understanding of the US Government and has used misquoted op-ed's to support them. He cannot maintain his basic claims in light of the sources I listed.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

How have I strayed from the topic? If one could and had the means to pass any any and or all legislation through congress virtually unchallenged, why not? If it is all done in a manner that appears legal what's wrong with it. You may think it wrong personally, so what, you are just one person and are meaningless to the gov't. One must be intellectually honest in order to understand what goes on in Govt. My opponent approaches this debate and all of gov't and all of it's laws rules and regulations purely from the most "by the book mentality" The Constitution and any other legal document isn't worth the paper it is written on unless it is enforced or interpreted correctly. This is called being intellectually honest. For example my opponent is being intellectually dishonest by saying Congress does not bribe each other for votes in order to get bills passed. If one was to be intellectually honest with ones self one would have to ask why almost every bill that passes through congress has things attached to it that have absolutely nothing to do with the title of the bill. My opponent would have you believe this is a "concession" We can stray from the title of this debate by arguing over whether or not I can provide an example of a bill with something attached to it that has nothing to do with why the administration shouldn't try to pass every single piece of legislation it can by manipulating the Congress and the Constitution. They are doing it now as we speak. This Administration fired a sitting CEO of a privately held company "GM" with out the approval or consent or even so much as a vote from the stockholders. The gov't loans money to private companies all the time. But this does not give the Gov't the right to decide who will run the company or what people will be paid. The Gov't is picking winners and losers with it's bailout and it is doing it by manipulating the Constitution and no one is challenging it. A gov't grant, a student loan, or anything that gov't loans money for should be able to dictate what you do with the money. A loan is a loan, GM all the banking institutions you name it these are all loans according to the Obama administration. The precedent has been set. If you barrow money from the gov't it can tell you how to spend it it can tell you who can work at your company and tell you what you can or can't manufacture or sell and how much you can pay your employees. My opponent can go ahead and site some legal mumbo jumbo about how the gov;t cant do this but if one is going to be intellectually honest in this debate you must concede that the Administration is doing just these things, in real time, right now, right before your eyes. My opponents only intellectually honest rebuttal as to why the Obama Administration should try to defend their policies to anyone is that he thinks it is wrong and illegal. None of that is stopping them from taking over banks and auto industries. None of that is stopping them from regulating pay and firing employees from privately held companies. If they can do these things and not be challenged why explain anything they do to anyone. They don't have to. Just because you say it's wrong or site legal mumbo jumbo they can't? I think not. The administration has the votes and the power to do this. The Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else.

Rebuttals: " This has nothing to do with our debate, but President Clinton, 1993, canceled the Superconducting Super Collider."

I concede to this statement. But you have been duped royally by your gov;t in believing that it quit spending money on this research. They just moved it out of the country and called it something else. It's called the "hadron super collider" The United States contributed approximately $531 million to the development and construction of components for the LHC (with the US Department of Energy shelling out $450 million and the National Science Foundation kicking in the remaining $81 million). Being true to intellectual honesty you must concede the LHC is identical to the SSC and our gov't has never stopped spending money to build a super collider. It says it has on paper but it hasn't in the real world I call reality. One could go even further and say it squandered 2 billion dollars of the tax payers money. But I guess that was done for the "general welfare" of the country. All of the Gov't officials involved in this 3 billion dollar scam on the American tax payer should all be in prison.

http://www.neatorama.com...

"I need to add at this point, I base my contention on the administrations inability to carry out such an agenda, but do not step into the hypothetical realm of should they if they could."

This is not "hypothetical" they are doing the things I have said. They can do it and they should if they want to keep power for many years into the future. Social spending programs are the key to a permanent Socialist Liberal Democratic power structure. The single most important piece of legislation the Obama administration should focus on is amnesty for all illegal aliens. If they pass this one bill that will get them an automatic 12 to 20 million votes and that number will sour even higher as all those people start bringing all of their relatives over. the vast majority of all these people will live off the gov't in one way or another. They will not vote for someone who says they will cut their gov't welfare check. This act alone would snuff out any possibility of a conservative Republican being elected for at least 30 years. My opponent can say give me proof that the vast majority would live off gov't. I refer you to intellectual honesty on that one.

"Since the Constitution forbids such a government" Legal documents aren't worth the paper they are written on unless someone enforces it or challenges it. And yes that includes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans
small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

I put this quote because what used to be Unconstitutional Social programs or any other myriad of policies are now Constitutional. My opponent is being intellectually dishonest if he believes the Constitution and all of it's words can prevent the American gov't from becoming a tyrannical gov't. It's all in interpretation and who interprets it. You can make the US a full blown communist country and still have the Constitution say it's Constitutional.

"3) Through both rounds my opponent claims the Obama administration can force all policies and because they can, they should. Since my opponent offers nothing more, voters need to be aware that even if my opponent shows the Obama administration can enact this agenda, he must still show why it should do."

The Obama Administration should do this to ensure that not another democratic presidential candidate ever loses another presidential election and marginalize all other possible contenders to advance the socialist liberal ideology unimpeded.

My opponent is not being intellectually honest about congress using the 51 vote method to pass Gov't health as my link states. Instead he asks me to show where it says "ram it down your throat" He can not dismiss this link based on that. It says what it says. "51 votes"

"The Byrd rule" Some one has to challenge it or enforce it for it to mean anything.

" quid pro quo and bribery" The two are easily distinguishable. A bill with irrelevant attachments are bribes.

"The Ronald Regan Centennial Commission" Are you kidding! You are using this as an example!

"7) Foreign policy: my opponent is wrong. " I concede, but in retrospect it has nothing to do with the debate title.
sherlockmethod

Con

I will not present new arguments but will show my opponent's failure in this debate and point out specific logic fallacies in his argument, solidifying my win. My opponent had opportunities to address each point I make so he cannot claim my closing presents new arguments. My opponent also had opportunity to conclude his argument and chose not to in his final round.

My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof in this debate. The burden falls equally on the pro and con and I have met my burden quite well. The pro position claims because the Obama administration can enact all policies unhindered, it should do so to ensure a non-democratic party administration cannot control the executive branch again (the last added in the final argument). The best my opponent offers to support this position is budget reconciliation supported by an op-ed from a republican Senator. Once presented with solid resources rebutting this claim, my opponent dismisses the sources as legal mumbo jumbo. My opponent did not show how the Obama administration can enact the sweeping policies necessary to dismiss the minority party wholesale and establish a totalitarian regime ensuring continued democratic control. A review his argument will confirm this fact.

I met my burden by showing, with reputable sources, that my opponent supported his position based on erroneous, and unfortunately common, misconceptions concerning the separation of powers within the three branches and between them. I showed the steps necessary to ensure a policy as presented by my opponent will negate the "should" aspect even if the administration was capable; I showed they were not. The con position met the burden.

Who had better conduct?
The pro position conducted itself very poorly. Pro accused the con position of naivety concerning the practices and procedures of the US Government without demonstrating any support other than conspiratorial blather. When rebutted, the Pro position dismissed the Con arguments as legal mumbo jumbo.

The con position insinuated the pro argument lacked basic knowledge concerning the US government and supported this position with first year political science texts. Con showed pro was ,in fact, ignorant of many aspects of the government, but the pro's arguments serve well in this respect, without any help from others.

The pro position did not stay on topic and ventured into areas completely unrelated to the debate, presenting what can only be called an ideological rant as opposed to a logical argument.

The con position attempted to stay on topic but addressed some of the off topic material briefly. Con wanted to show the absurdity of the off topic arguments so as to remove them from the debate and focus the pro position to the topic at hand. The Con position failed in this endeavor, but this failure is surpassed by Pro's conduct.

The pro position accused the con of intellectual dishonesty all the while dismissing the solid source material presented by the con position and all attempts to show that pro needs to be more familiar with the subject matter.

The con position has no need to accuse pro of intellectual dishonesty, as pro proves this himself. I ask that without any contentions from the con position would voters agree that pro was intellectually honest? I do not think so.

Who had better spelling and grammar?
The con position made several mistakes in this respect due to cut and paste mistakes, but pro presented his material in a stream of consciousness diatribe full of run-on sentences and a lack of paragraph breaks when new thoughts were presented. The con position's grammar was not perfect, but was better than pro's.

Who made more convincing arguments?

The pro position relied on several logic fallacies previously stated in con's arguments, including: non-sequiturs, moving the goal posts, quote mining and the Gish Gallop, "characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly". Examples:

Non-sequiturs:

1)"And gov't is way to big now that spending will never be decreased it will just get bigger and bigger and there is nothing either side can do about it. So it makes sense to force as many pieces of legislation as they can through congress while they can and stop trying to convince people they are good ideas."

*The government is too big, spending will never decrease; therefore, the Obama administration should pass what they can through. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

2)"Who cares whether the people think they are good ideas as a whole….No gov't program has ever been eliminated in the last 35 years, they have only grown exponentially."

*The government should not concern itself with good ideas as no program has been eliminated. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

Moving the goal posts:

1) "The speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has yet allowed a single Republican bill to the floor to be voted on."

[I replied with one]

‘"The Ronald Regan Centennial Commission' Are you kidding! You are using this as an example!"

Quote mining:

1) "I shall now Quote Nancy Pelosi word for word:"

"We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. ... They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress."

*Where did this come from, and in what context? My opponent never provided the answer.

Gish Gallop:

1) the entire second round serves as a perfect example and one I will use in the future as an example to others.

Who used the most reliable sources?

My opponent misquoted an op-ed and poorly supported his reason. He suggested I attacked the phrase "ram it down your throat". I welcome all voters to view the quote he used, assigned with quotation marks to insinuate a direct quote, and find it in that article. His transgression is much more than he is admitting. In addition, my opponent manages to cite one court case that was irrelevant to the issue, an op-ed piece, and a blog about the San Fran police force.

I quoted from rules committee reports, academic texts, actual legislation, and the US Constitution. The con position wins this hands down.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee after they vote. I.E. add the entire healthcare bill, done deal. What's the problem It's all perfectly leagal and lagit. And you thought I didn't understand govt.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Now Senator Harry Reid is smart, he knows how to get govt run health care passed without debate. What you do is this. You go ahead and take a bill that has already passed and just rempve all the relevant legislation to the bill and replace it with a govt health care legislation . Heres how it will work.

Under the procedure, the substance of House Resolution 1586 would be removed and replaced with the entire Senate health care package.

The maneuver would initially require the support of 60 senators to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1586 (i.e., end debate on the congressional procedure and move forward).

If Reid wins 60 votes, then debate begins on his health care package. Reid could then decide to block all amendments and attempt to get a vote on the entire package.

However, a senator could filibuster the final vote, requiring another 60-vote majority to move forward. But if Reid decides to allow any amendments, each amendment could be filibustered, requiring a 60-vote majority to move to a final vote on each of them. An amendment that has the support of more than 50 but less than 60 senators could end up stopping the bill if neither side backs down. But if Reid is able to structure the debate so that all 60 senators who caucus with the Democrats stick with the party on cloture votes, he can pass the bill and send it to back to the House--where it originated as an entirely different bill in substance.

If the House were to then vote on the bill as passed by the Senate without amending it, it could be sent directly to the president for his signature without going through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in each chamber.

Brilliant simply brilliant No debate no fuss no muss healthcare is passed.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Ya I'm a simpleton, I am explaining to Democrats how to pass legislation. Take the stimulus bill for instance. It passed right away, they didn't debate it or talk about it or let anyone read it. And wahala it is now law without so much as a fuss on anyone's part. They have strayed from this strategy and look what has happened. They can't pass anything that they allow to be read or debated. Tell me I am wrong. Like I don't know passing legislation without debate is wrong. I am being facetious. But the strategy is real they have used it and it works every time they use it.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Your comments below serve as a fine example as to why simpletons like you cannot grasp the nature of our government. Thank you sadolite for being a solid point to show others how ignorant one can be be, yet still speak so much.
"If you worry the world thinks you a fool, don't open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Do all of you who are liberals still think Obama should still keep talking? He just raises more questions than he answers. The more he tries to explain anything he proposes the worse it gets and the harder it gets for him and the Democratic party to pass any legislation. They should just ram rod everything through with the 51 vote nuclear option during the night and on weekends when no one is paying attention and just be done with it. They don't need any Republican votes, they don't even need the votes of the few Dem's in their own party that oppose any legislation they may put forward. Once something passes through congress it's there for ever, who cares if the Dem's loose in 2010. They have all their entitlement spending passed and it will all become part of the new base line for all future FY budgets and they can increase and increase them every year. It seems when liberals have all the cards in their favor without any opposition to stop them they will screw that up to. Stupid Dems, they could have it all but they have that achilles heel, Vanity, always worried about what other people will think. I personally would have more respect for the Democratic party if it ramrodded everything through, it would show decisiveness and leadership on their part. They just look like chickens with their heads cut off now. I can assure you if the Republicans take control in 2010 and get the same opportunity the Dems have now, they wont hesitate for one minute to repeal everything the Dems passed in the last 2 years.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
The Obama administration now has 22 "CZARS" these people answer only to the President and make policy without ever having to inform congress and all policy they make goes un challenged. Like I said someone has to challenge a policy if it is to be deemed unconstitutional or against the law. Look at the Chrysler Gm bankruptcy. The bond holders are first in line to recoup loss in bankruptcy law but The Obama administration put the union first the stock holders second and the bond holders last. This is against the law. this ids the first time in the entire history of this country this has ever happened!. Was the Obama administration challenged. No. A precident has been set. All financial contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. The legal profession is derelict and worthless.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
You fail to address the content. It is as though you have said nothing. The source is irrelevant.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Only in the Stalin administration were government policies not defended under the notion that government knows best.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
"Anything that contradicts or supports my position will be unacceptable to you."

Wrong, my arguments contradicted your position and I find them very acceptable.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Anything that contradicts or supports my position will be unacceptable to you. The point is, you can't prove it to be untrue so you attack the source rather than the content. Typical on this site.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
sadolitesherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by lordjosh 7 years ago
lordjosh
sadolitesherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
sadolitesherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by bored 8 years ago
bored
sadolitesherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
sadolitesherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadolitesherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70