Obama Began His Presidency With an Apology Tour

Occasionally semantic issues are worth detailed examination, and this was one of those times. An apology is a confession plus regretI began with the standard dictionary definition of an apology. An apology is an admission o guilt with an expression of regret. My opponent has not contested this definition, and he has not offered an alternative. Both of us provide numerous examples of admissions of guilt. I cited the President's admission that that the US was arrogant, didn't care about others, and practiced torture. My reference [2] has a list of quotations of the important admissions of guilt. Con referenced Politifact, who provided a similar list and certified they were admissions of guilt. The second part an apology is an expression of regret. We must determine, for example, if President Obama regretted torture, or whether he remained open on the issue. Politifact, Con's source, said they were apologies, but did not meet the full definition of a formal apology. I challenged Con to explain who said the apologies were formal, and he did not respond. Con said the European press did not take the speeches to include apologies, but when I challenged him to provide evidence of that claim, he had no response. He had only pointed to the text of the speech. I provided evidence that the audience in the Middle East took the speeches as apologies for past policies and promises. Con did not attempt to refute the evidence. Con said I did not provide examples of apologies. I think what my opponent is saying is that the apologies were implicit rather than explicit. President Obama said his Administration would stop torture, but he did not explicitly say he regretted previous torture. I argued that apologies can be implied, and that in the extreme an apology can be made without using words at all. Con did not contest this principle, but claimed that the President did not do that. My argument was that admissions of moral errors by a President always imply regret. That derives from immorality being inherently bad, so once acknowledged, regret is implied. Saying that we will stop torturing clearly implies torture was regrettable. Con never argued that President Obama was indifferent or unclear about arrogance, not caring for the interests of others, and torture. The implicit regret was clear to everyone, including Politifact, who only claimed the apology was not explicit. Apologies are not undone by policy changesCon argued that apologies made in the context of announcing policy changes are not apologies. I challenged Con to provide a standard definition of apology that includes a provision for it being cancelled by a subsequent statement of policy change. He would have to show that, "I'm sorry. I won't do that again. " does not have an apology in it, because it is cancelled by the policy change. This is absurd, and Con never addressed the point explicitly. Instead, he advised us to read the speeches until we found something that cancelled or overcame the apologies. He needed to make an explicit argument, not just invite us to be swayed by the prose of the speech. Con said that new Presidents often acknowledged the immorality of previous policies without apologizing for them. I invited Con to go ahead and cite examples, and he did not respond. I am not arguing that Presidents should never apologize. In fact, immoral acts should always be acknowledged and regretted. We are not arguing in this debate whether President Obama's apologies were justified. Perhaps the President is correct in his characterization of the US as an arrogant, uncaring, practitioner of torture. If so, apologies are appropriate. If not, apologies are inappropriate, What's at issue is whether the president acknowledges errors in past policies and regretted them. He clear did, and that provided the impetus for his new policies. I acknowledge that there was a lot in the speeches besides the apologies. He criticized Europeans and terrorists, That part of the speeches was not news. Those criticisms were not what caused his approval in European in Arab countries to soar. The news was and is acknowledgement of US immorality. It was apology tour, and news was the apologies. Con argued that the phrase apology tour originated with opponents, and that somehow invalidated the phrase. The original is irrelevant. It stuck because it fits. Debate issuesCon's own source admitted there were apologies, arguing only that weren't formal. Con never responded. That alone loses the arguments. I cited a half dozen or more of my opponents dropped arguments. That was fatal to his case. In the last round, Con pointed to the comments for an extension of his arguments. That a conduct violation, because the character limits are site rules. It is also pointless, as anyone who wanted to read the speeches could follow links. The resolution is affirmed.