the Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else

My opponent also had opportunity to conclude his argument and chose not to in his final round. My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof in this debate. The burden falls equally on the pro and con and I have met my burden quite well. The pro position claims because the Obama administration can enact all policies unhindered, it should do so to ensure a non-democratic party administration cannot control the executive branch again (the last added in the final argument). The best my opponent offers to support this position is budget reconciliation supported by an op-ed from a republican Senator. Once presented with solid resources rebutting this claim, my opponent dismisses the sources as legal mumbo jumbo. My opponent did not show how the Obama administration can enact the sweeping policies necessary to dismiss the minority party wholesale and establish a totalitarian regime ensuring continued democratic control. A review his argument will confirm this fact. I met my burden by showing, with reputable sources, that my opponent supported his position based on erroneous, and unfortunately common, misconceptions concerning the separation of powers within the three branches and between them. I showed the steps necessary to ensure a policy as presented by my opponent will negate the "should" aspect even if the administration was capable; I showed they were not. The con position met the burden. Who had better conduct? The pro position conducted itself very poorly. Pro accused the con position of naivety concerning the practices and procedures of the US Government without demonstrating any support other than conspiratorial blather. When rebutted, the Pro position dismissed the Con arguments as legal mumbo jumbo. The con position insinuated the pro argument lacked basic knowledge concerning the US government and supported this position with first year political science texts. Con showed pro was ,in fact, ignorant of many aspects of the government, but the pro's arguments serve well in this respect, without any help from others. The pro position did not stay on topic and ventured into areas completely unrelated to the debate, presenting what can only be called an ideological rant as opposed to a logical argument. The con position attempted to stay on topic but addressed some of the off topic material briefly. Con wanted to show the absurdity of the off topic arguments so as to remove them from the debate and focus the pro position to the topic at hand. The Con position failed in this endeavor, but this failure is surpassed by Pro's conduct. The pro position accused the con of intellectual dishonesty all the while dismissing the solid source material presented by the con position and all attempts to show that pro needs to be more familiar with the subject matter. The con position has no need to accuse pro of intellectual dishonesty, as pro proves this himself. I ask that without any contentions from the con position would voters agree that pro was intellectually honest? I do not think so. Who had better spelling and grammar? The con position made several mistakes in this respect due to cut and paste mistakes, but pro presented his material in a stream of consciousness diatribe full of run-on sentences and a lack of paragraph breaks when new thoughts were presented. The con position's grammar was not perfect, but was better than pro's. Who made more convincing arguments? The pro position relied on several logic fallacies previously stated in con's arguments, including: non-sequiturs, moving the goal posts, quote mining and the Gish Gallop, "characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly". Examples: Non-sequiturs: 1)"And gov't is way to big now that spending will never be decreased it will just get bigger and bigger and there is nothing either side can do about it. So it makes sense to force as many pieces of legislation as they can through congress while they can and stop trying to convince people they are good ideas. " *The government is too big, spending will never decrease; therefore, the Obama administration should pass what they can through. The conclusion does not follow the premise. 2)"Who cares whether the people think they are good ideas as a whole…. No gov't program has ever been eliminated in the last 35 years, they have only grown exponentially. " *The government should not concern itself with good ideas as no program has been eliminated. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Moving the goal posts: 1) "The speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has yet allowed a single Republican bill to the floor to be voted on. " [I replied with one] ‘"The Ronald Regan Centennial Commission' Are you kidding! You are using this as an example! " Quote mining: 1) "I shall now Quote Nancy Pelosi word for word:" "We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. . .. They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress. " *Where did this come from, and in what context? My opponent never provided the answer. Gish Gallop: 1) the entire second round serves as a perfect example and one I will use in the future as an example to others. Who used the most reliable sources? My opponent misquoted an op-ed and poorly supported his reason. He suggested I attacked the phrase "ram it down your throat". I welcome all voters to view the quote he used, assigned with quotation marks to insinuate a direct quote, and find it in that article. His transgression is much more than he is admitting. In addition, my opponent manages to cite one court case that was irrelevant to the issue, an op-ed piece, and a blog about the San Fran police force. I quoted from rules committee reports, academic texts, actual legislation, and the US Constitution. The con position wins this hands down.