You Choose the Resolution

Thank you for an excellent debate and for giving me the opportunity to do a devil's advocate debate. I have never done a devil's advocate debate and so this has been a learning experience.Pro argues from a one-dimension viewpoint of Obama, namely the economy. There is far too many issues than just the economy to weigh Obama's presidency on. To restate my central thesis: President Obama has greatly harmed America's image abroad, has had a reckless foreign policy that put America in harms way, his economic reforms has failed, and his central legacy (Obamacare) has done far more harm than good. Foreign PolicyPro drops this issue and instead opts to kritik this argument by arguing that foreign policy is irrelevant to this debate because it is about *America*. I reject this interpretation of the resolution. First and foremost, the President's first Constitutional duty is the commander of the U.S. military. The Constitution states:"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." [Article II, Section 2]. It is easy to argue that the President has little control of the economy and shouldn't be blamed/credited for the economy. However, he is directly responsible for foreign policy. Any harm that he does abroad is harm done to the country. By putting troops in harms way, abandoning our allies, increasing terrorism, and failing to hold dictators accountable for their actions harms America's image and puts America at a greater harm's way. This is my most important point. The debate is whether Obama has been an overall benefit to America, not whether or not Obama has done some decent things. The harms that he has done to our military and foreign policy vastly outweigh any benefits to the country. ObamacareMy opponent brings up a few anecdotes about Obamacare saving people's lives. What pro fails to recognize is that Obamacare has also resulted in the deaths of patients. Cancer patients, for example, have seen far higher costs. Dr. Scott G. notes:"[C]ancer patients often need the help of specialized doctors and cancer institutions that won’t make it into many of these cheapened networks. The latest cancer drugs, as well as new (off label) uses for existing medicines, will also be harder to get. Patients may not be able to see the expert doctors most likely to offer these options. New drugs are also slow to make it onto the “treatment pathways” that Obamacare plans are using as a way to narrow the menu of drugs they cover." [1] Frank Alfisi was one such cancer patient that died as a result of Medicare regulations in the ACA. His daughter tells his story here [2]: "The doctor agreed that my father should not be discharged and did need dialysis but insurance wouldn’t pay for it so he ordered a CT Scan of the abdomen hoping to find something, anything, that would allow him to admit my father. He also said that my father’s blood pressure was high, but not high enough to admit him. I continued to call the ER and was told by a male nurse that they were still doing different tests to try to find something that would allow them to admit my father.""When I told him about my father not being dialyzed because he couldn’t be admitted due to the new Medicare regulations, the doctor said to me, “You can thank Mr. Obama for this.”" Thus Obamacare has been responsible for at least one death if not many more. My opponent brings up the popularity of the law. An argumentum ad poplum is irrelevant to the debate because popularity does not mean that it is a good law. A February 2015 poll showed that only 15 per cent has seen any benefit from the ACA [3]. Furthermore, it is not true that most Americans support the law. A November 2015 poll showed that Americans disproved of the ACA 52-44 [4]. Lastly, my opponent brings up drug costs. Drug costs are higher than ever and Obamacare is to blame. It is also estimated that Obamacare will bring healthcare spending to over 3 trillion dollars. [5]EconomicsI wish to first note that my opponent has neglected to respond to my argument about food stamps/SNAP. My opponent agrees that the CARS (Cash for Clunkers) has brought forth significant harm to the environment. I will argue that any economic value of CARS is vastly outweighed by the environmental harms. It is undeniable that Global Warming is real and poses a severe threat to the United States. For example, a journal article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that climate change is responsible for longer droughts in the Middle East and in turn fueled ISIS and the Syrian revolution. [6] Similarly, the World Institute argues that Climate Change is more serious of a threat than terrorism: "....Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security. Droughts, famines, and weather-related disasters could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations, fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes. In the worst case, further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems and elevate already-rising sea levels, which could threaten the very survival of low-lying island nations, destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict. " [7] Thus because Obama's program had significant harm to the environment (a point that Pro agrees with) it has contributed to climate change and the issues that surround it. ConclusionHaving defended my constructive case, it is clear that Obama has been a net harm to the United States. His foreign policy has increased terrorism, put Americans in harms way, and refuses to hold dictators accountable for crimes against humanity. Moreover, his economic policies have caused significant environmental harm and the ACA has also done more harm than good.I now turn it over to the voters and wish my opponent the best. May the best arguments win!Sources1. http://www.forbes.com... 2. http://spectator.org... 3. http://thehill.com... 4. http://townhall.com... 5. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 6. http://www.pnas.org... 7. http://www.worldwatch.org...