So far, the Obama presidency has NOT been beneficial to the United States.

This debate has essentially lasted 2 rounds. 2 rounds, to debate an entire administration and everything in it. 2 wars, the stimulus, the bailout, foreign policy, pollution, racism, and everything else that come with a President in 6,000 words or less. My opponent did not respond to my first round argument till the last round, and as a general rule of thumb I personally feel it's not right to take advantage of that. Take that for what you will. Now on to the debate! "The Bush presidency is irrelevant. What Bush did does not effect what Obama can do. My opponent makes it seem like Obama is a man of the people advocating for 100% transparent government, he is not. Before the passage of the Economic Stimulus plan in February, Obama said that the American people would be able to get on the White House website and track every single cent. If you visit "" you will find this to be not true. " You might of missed something, but he followed through with this and you can access it at . http://www.recovery.gov.... Your point is in dead water. Obama has improved transparency in the government meaning a better and more honest government. "By giving these failing corporations more money we are delaying the inevitable. These corporations needed bailout money because they were not profitable. When this recession ends these bailed-out corporations will be at a disadvantage and will continue to lag. Why? Because once they actually start making money they have to start paying back debts they owe to the government. Because of this they will fail and jobs will be lost. " It's not so much they were not profitable as they made some bad investments. You even go on to say that they'll start making money again and contradict your own argument. These financial institutions were too big to fail. If they fail so does the rest of the American economy. While it shouldn't have happened in the first place, this is not something you can say is Obama's fault, he had to act knowing that without the bailout the entire world economy could crumble. As I have mentioned before the alternative is much worse. You also failed to respond to my evidence citing strong support for the bailout by economists. We can debate the bailout at a very amateur level, but somehow I am more willing to trust economists rather then a 14 year old boy from Mississippi. "What have corporations done with the bailout money? They have spent it on bonuses and corporate getaways. This is a perfect example of why to not give big business taxpayer money. Here are a few examples: A) AIG sending executives on a quail hunting trip. B) Banks using bail-out money to buy other banks" You fail to cite any evidence supporting these claims. "This is how the stimulus worked. A bill was introduced into Congress, congressmen and women from all over the country were allowed to put provisions the bill that would stimulate economies in their districts. Like the construction of a new school, or an education program, or something else. Not a bad idea, except there was two problems. 1) It was way too expensive, it shouldn't have been a spending free for all, the President should have set a spending limit of between 300 and 500 billion dollars. " "3) Why Spend that much money. Tax cuts would be more proficient. ." A spending limit of 300 and 500 billion dollars? Why would this be beneficial? Once again you fail to support your claim with evidence; as Pro you do have the burden of proof. "America hasn't been a racist country since the 1960s, Obama wasn't elected because he was black, but rather because he was a SENSIBLE candidate. There are as many racists now after the election than there were before the election, maybe more. " Obama is great because he represents the progress we have made in race relations in this country. To say racism hasn't existed since the 1960's is a well misinformed comment. Drawing just from recent news, I urge to reconsider your statement. Black campers were discriminated at a pool in which members of the pool said "What are all these black kids doing here? " and then removed their kids from the pool. Even after the issue blew-up they continued to defend their action admitting point-blank racism "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion . . . and the atmosphere of the club. " One mother even pulled her kid out of the water over fear that the black child would hurt her white kid. . http://tinyurl.com... While we are not done dealing with race in this country Obama clearly marks a step forward. A black president would not have been elected 30, even 20 years ago. "he is believed to be weak. I'd much rather have a president who stuck up for my country than one who "Was popular amongst world leaders". He has in no way taken tough-enough stands against Iran, North Korea, or Russia. " He's weak? Say's who? To say he hasn't taken tough stands is a flat-out lie. He commended the violence in Iran by saying he was "'appalled and outraged' by protesters' deaths" he clearly said human right violations were taking place. . http://tinyurl.com... "1) First my opponent has stated no reason for why we should leave the Iraq War, he needs to provide one. 2) What is a timetable. A plan. A timetable is a plan. He may not carry out these plans. Just like that plan of putting the spending on the white house website. .good plans don't amount to much unless followed by decisive action. " I could write a whole book on why we need to leave the Iraq War. I will point out some highlights and provide a link to more info 1. The human cost of war is unacceptable 2. The U. S. occupation is a catalyst for violence. 3. Iraqis want the United States to leave now. Point 2 is void. . http://tinyurl.com... My opponent has dropped the national debt point and not responded to my first round ? 's surrounding employment. Obama hasn't even been in the WH a year and has already done so much; he is a hard worker.