Ron-Paul's Politics Tournament: Barack Obama

I extend arguments as my opponent has not bothered to refute my arguments, rather only defending his own. Another reason to vote con. R1: Iraq Actually yes leaving was good, but a major motive to leave Iraq was spending, increasing spending on something he wanted to decrease is a fail. So in all realities he left Iraq to cut military spending, yet he still will increase military spending is HIS budget stays until 2017. Also you claim my source says nohing about Obama and spending, well it did, read the FIRST PARAGRAPH. I will quote it: "President Obama on Thursday unveiled a Pentagon spending plan that fails to cut any major procurement programs and calls for spending $36 billion more on the military in 2017 than it will spend this year. " [1] Also there is this: "Obama has actually taken Bush's war machine and put it in overdrive, sending significantly more troops to fight overseas, spending more money on "defense" than even Bush, and engaging the U.S. in even more conflicts on more fronts, sometimes even ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers (i.e. breaking the law)" [2] He is just a pro war President like his predecessor Mr. Bush. So want an anti war president? Then Obama is not your choice. How does he create world peace for the reasons above? He does not. R2: Stimulus You have provided no source for your information, hence I win the argument source wise. Before refuting let me do the unemployment refutation: You do not understand how this is counted do you? My mom is not considered. unemployed because she has no job. You are considered unemployed only if you are out of work and are looking for a job. "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work" [3] So if you are not looking you are not counted in the number. So since people are literally no longer looking for jobs they are no longer looking considered unemployed. Argument extended. Also your bush argument is false, GDP grew 2.5% annually. [4] EVERY YEAR I GREW 2% NOT IN 8 YEARS! Big difference. The number of jobs created grew by 6.5% on average. (under bush) [4] vs Obama 2011 GDP growth was 1.3%. [5] "When Bush was running for re-election in 2004, annual GDP growth was 3.5%. So far in 2011, it's been 0.4% (Q1) and 1.3% (Q2) respectively. [5] So Obama loses GDP War. Obama Job creation: +0.62% [6] Obama loses here too. Now back to the stimulus: The CBO says it only reduced unemployment by 1% temporarily and will increase unemployment by 0.2% over the source of a few years and keep a small decline. [7] They also predict 9.3% unemployment by 2013. [8] Note this is after the stimulus. R3: Gay bashers Rick Santorum will not win. Also you refuted none of what I said just pissed on Rick Santorum, So extend arguments. R4: START READ MY SOURCE! Dang it is not that hard, I will quote it since you cannot find my supported statements: "its goals are actually modest compared to previous START treaties and that the treaty should not fail because of partisan disagreements." [9] GHWB Signed a start treaty and if the new one is more modest then it implies it is less effective. Also un-sourced arguments no rebuttal just attacked the source, extend arguments on how the treaty can be bad. Also how is obama peace spreading if: "Obama Ordered escalated U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan. - Obama Ordered continued U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq. - Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Pakistan. - Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Yemen. - Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Libya. - Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Egypt. - Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Iran. - Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Tunisia. - Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Yemen. - Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Bahrain." [10] " [10] Obama =/= peace making. R5: Osma Lol Bush actually did much of the investigations, doing most of the work yo catch him. Your only arguments in this debate are Obama beats bush. Really this is a red herring that I will not refute. Also I will provid president who killed terrorists: Bushes invasions did: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" [11] Note toppling the Taliban is 1000s captured or killed, this trumps 3 guys. You turned this into a red herring, any president would sign the papers to kill him, Bush got the Intel, then Obama signed the paper, giving Obama full credit is naive. Further more Obama hesitated into signing the papers, Panetta actually called the order. [12] So Really Obama didn't do it. Case closed point debunked. R6: Social Actually when the economy is down the tube fixing what makes you and I have money is more important then legalizing marriage. You have provided no strong case here anyhow. Money and other people getting wealth > Marriage. I could care less what your view is socially right now. R7: Economy See my arguments in Round 2. It proves economic growth is not happening under Obama, hence your point was debunked a while ago and you never defended it against it. See Round 2. R8: ObamaCare Actually referring back is fair, actually I am angry right now as you have provided no reasons for ObamaCare. Referring to arguments that crush this point is actually agood thing. Also extend the extension. R9: Wallstreet Note you say BIG BANKS. If you look at overall Wallstreet he is the most notorious. Goldman Sachs gave obama: $1,013,091 in 2008. [13] I again refer to previous arguments as I am low on room. R10: College loans If it is not sourced it didn't happen (that's my motto). He never actually did it he just has asked for it to be done. [14] He NEVER DID WHAT YOU SAID, hence your point debunked. =out of room= My opponents last 2 refutations are un-sourced and he just uses fake numbers. He claims millions, yet doesn't source it. A Statstic like that needs to be sourced. Since my arguments where un-touched, he only defended his, he drops my case, therefore in debate the concedes my case as 100% right, therefore I win. Vote CON. Also the comments are not an extension of the debate, once i finish this the things here are well the end. Comments are not areas to add more arguments, comments would not count. So any concluding remarks will be not formal and not counted, Vote Con. sources: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [1] http://www.humblelibertarian.com... [2] http://www.bls.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://politicons.net... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.newsmax.com... [7] http://drpinna.com... [8] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.usmessageboard.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://socyberty.com... [12] http://www.opensecrets.org... [13] http://www.detroitnews.com... [14]