You Choose the Resolution

Thank your for your warm welcome and opening arguments. This truly is a game of devil's advocate, taking into consideration that I'm not much of an admirer of President Obama. However, there's a problem with one of my opponent's arguments. My opponent brings up "Foreign Policy", which is a topic that is completely irrelevant to this debate. The objective of this debate is the contender must prove that Obama's presidency has not been effective / or has been harmful to **America**. Meaning, that anything discussed outside of this boundary is irrelevant. Con doesn't bring up anything about the U.S. it's just him discussing the damage the foreign policy caused to the foreign world. Because of this, I refuse to bring this topic up for discussion unless con can substantiate that Obama's foreign policies have caused harm to America. ==Rebuttals== My opponent argues that the Car Allowance Rebate System (better known as "Cash for Clunkers") was proved ineffective because it failed to "stimulate the economy" and "produce more fuel-efficient vehicles". Also, it caused harm towards the environment. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that this bill has certainly been one of Obama's least successive governmental programs because it caused significant harm to the environment (this is undeniable). However, many car sales representatives and economists may argue otherwise regarding the economic and the fiscal improvement of the automotive industry. According to the data, 677,081 trades were made. Plus, $7.3 billion in car sales were made across the nation. A study conducted by the University of Michigan proved that the program helped conserve fuel. For example, in July 2009 the average mpg (miles per gallon) was 0.6, but in the same year in August it increased to 0.7 mpg (2). However, until the program's termination; the mpg has by a total of 21%(6). Car dealers have also expressed that the program brought them more customers, the National Auto Dealers Association has expressed, "Obviously[,] the program has been an immense success in stimulating automotive sales" (3). Even though it is true that most people used the money to purchase trucks (4); the statistics clearly show that it improved the automotive sales industry by selling a significant amount of cars, which generated an exceptional amount of revenue. In regards to the unemployment rate, my opponent purports the following: "Although unemployment appears to be lower, long-term unemployment is now longer than at the start of the Great Recession and is far above precedented levels". In December of 2014, the long-term unemployment rate reduced from 2.5 to 1.9%. To put this into perspective, the long-term unemployed have been reduced by 900,000 individuals (5). To mitigate the unemployment rate in general, Obama's administration has increased business start-ups by 20%, and over the course of 5 years, about 7.8 million jobs were created. In 2015, 2 million more jobs were added and long-term unemployment decreased by 614,000 in that year (6-7). Now, saying that the long-term unemployment rate is now "longer" is simply ludicrous. Undoubtedly, long-term unemployment is still an issue in the United States. But, saying that the long-term unemployment rate under Obama has risen higher than the unemployment during the Great Recession is asinine. Lastly, my opponent brings up the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "Obamacare". My opponent argues that "the law won't keep costs down and that some patients will have to change their health care plan and/or doctor". To address this, many Americans are greatly supporting this act. Some even claim that Obamacare saved their lives. For instance, a man by the name of Dean Angstadt, a lumberman who was in need of an immediate heart surgery, and thanks to this program he had enough finances to undergo such a complex surgical procedure. Another example would 27-year-old Joshua Haymore who suffered from colitis, which he nearly died from. His medicine had cost around $800, but when he signed up for Obamacare his medication was reduced to $3 per prescription. Surely, I could keep going on and on talking about the act's satisfactory patients. However, most importantly, I must point out that Obamacare was beneficial for the economy as well. The administration reports that each year over 24,000 lives are being saved because of this bill (8). However, aside from saving lives, many economists assert that Obamacare is actually very beneficial. According to economist explains that “household spending on healthcare averaged 3.9% between 2010 and 2013” and “It began to accelerate in the first half of 2014 and has averaged at about 5.2% since then.” Basically, the spending on healthcare has increased over the years. Plus, the labor has increased along with Obamacare, “Employment data also corroborates this: as shown in chart 3, the healthcare sector produced about 240,000 jobs per year between 2010 and mid-2014” (9). Sources: [1]:http://slate.me... [2]:http://bit.ly... [3]:http://usat.ly... [4]:http://bit.ly... [5]:http://bit.ly... [6]:http://bit.ly... [7]:http://www.factcheck.org... [8]:http://nym.ag... [9]: http://read.bi...