Obama

About welfare: All my opponent really does to negate the fact that people on welfare must be working towards a job is to say //That is partly true a good honest person would go look for a job while he is getting paid by the government. But there are many millions of poor people in America you can't assume every one is going to be honest.// but this is pointless. It has nothing to do with honesty, the law requires that you are working towards a job and the government can check where you've applied to see if you are telling the truth. My opponent has not negated this fact at all and his entire argument against welfare rests solely on people being lazy yet we have shown this is not true thus his argument is negated. On insults: You provided no evidence regarding the DVDs, merely about the former French President. Regarding the letter, the Boots and Sabers source doesn't even say Obama sent the letter, it just says his administration AND it doesn't say that they were insulted. What my opponent has done here is he powertagged his evidence saying that it says X when in fact it just says a fact. Regarding his StoptheACLU link that also never mentions that the French were offended and here we can see my opponent powertagged his evidence again which is intellectually dishonest. "Obama and the press hid the fact that he was socialist." What?? You have no credible evidence to support this at all. "About socialist countries prospering: I guess it all depends on who is the head of the socialist government." Incorrect, socialist countries are statistically better off. My opponent has not negated this and thus it flows across. "If a good man is president socialism may be good, for a while. But socialism gives a lot of power to the government. It is inevitable that we will have bad presidents." Here an unwarranted assumption is made and also my evidence regarding the benefits of socialism is ignored... Also if you look at his "evidence" it proves nothing at all. Just because he appointed people who are supposedly socialist doesn't make him one. This evidence is sh!t. You have proven nothing here and thus this point falls. "Quote from source-"The lower unemployment rate...came not only because more people found jobs, but also because 260,000 had given up looking and ceased being counted as unemployed."" What source? Also, if you are not looking for a job and still don't have one, by definition you are unemployed. I don't know what you are getting at here. Regarding my evidence: Yeah it has no warrants *sarcasm*. Here it says: "Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry" This is talking about how he saved the auto industry. I "It was my thought that my opponent disagreed on the war in Afghanistan. As he even did a debate on it. So the question is should he be able to state that as a good thing if he argues it to be a bad thing in other debates?" Stuff from my previous rounds is not fair game to use here. Regardless of whether I personally agree with the war in Afghanistan has no bearing upon this debate. My evidence stands for itself. My opponent dropped "he has promoted more efficient and cleaner cars" which does have warrants because he gave government incentives. "Has made education a national priority by putting emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, but speaking directly to school children in telling them they have to do their part." *Same site* Here is another example of warranted evidence. My opponent has no offense on my advantages. He also dropped gas prices and thus it becomes an advantage to me. Regarding debt/Obama care: Obama care is also a benefit to the underprivileged peoples. Obama care is good because 1) it stops people from taking advantage of preexisting conditions, decreased medical mistakes, advanced research, better prenative care and expanded coverage.[1] These all save human lives and human lives outweigh cost. He is saving massive amounts of lives and thus it is a good thing. You are correct regarding my argument about billions. I misread what you wrote. Overview: My opponent dropped gas prices, cleaner and more efficient cars, and his evidence regarding debt is without warrants. My opponent also has failed to negate my socialism good argument and has ignored my Obama good evidence whilst claiming it is "unreliable" but provides no evidence to back this claim up. My welfare argument stands and so does my automotive industry argument. I await his responses. "He hurts small businesses with his over taxing." Evidence? My opponent ignored my evidence saying that this is not true thus it flows across. [1] http://www.ehow.com...