President Obama Will Take a More Internationally Interventionist Stance During His Last Tenure

First, I would like to apologize for my failure to provide sufficient entertainment. I would have included graphics, but perhaps this will suffice? I was out of chocolate chips, but luckily I had a bar laying around. | V ______________________ |__|__| Hershies _|__| |__|__|Chocolate_|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| In all seriousness, I'm not trying to write a novel. I tried to make my points (dull though they may be), as conversational as possible. So, in short, I'm sorry that you didn't think this debate more entertaining that chocolate chips (though they are fairly amazing.) All flippancy aside, let's move onto the final rebuttals. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's address the attacks made on the debate itself. To quote, "Not that opinions don't count, but they're not wholly valid in a debate." The argument here is going to be that while this would typically be the case (for example, had the resolution been "Has placing stop signs in Cuba led to nuclear war?" I would be in a hole), this is a fairly opinionated debate. I will be more than happy to tell you how Obama's last term works out, simply lend me a time machine and we'll be good to go! Frankly, we do NOT know what's going to happen. The purpose of this debate has been to look at past evidence (something both sides have done) and come to a conclusion based on those actions. So, while we can look at hard evidence of what has happened, we can only use reasoning and judgement to come to a conclusion. Next let's examine the argument, "...Maybe the reason he finally starts sending military forces is to, in essence, cool down the rage of republicans and be able to say something the next time somebody asks him about his rather soft military stance, not because it is right." In other words, you are saying that the only ones to criticize Obama are the republicans? Honestly, my case may perhaps be boring, but must you really ignore my entire second point, which addresses just that? To offer a brief recap, essentially, it simply provides the opinions of world leaders such as the prime minister of Japan and the president of China which are that, "Obama is weak-willed, and uninspiring." It's an extremely harsh statement, fanning that fire under our presidents behind to move more internationally. If we don't want to look to world leaders, we can look to the countries asking for aid. Crimea immediately springs to mind. Do we have a clear action there? No, and people are suffering for it, and because these people are suffering, well, no one's happy about that. Clearly, we see, republicans are NOT the only ones to call for a more definitive action. Finally, let's look at your argument that "The leopard doesn't change his shorts" in your final paragraph. This is a paraphrasing, of course, but the argument remains the same. The only thing I have to say here is that things have changed in the country. You cannot simply say that people don't change, and leave it at that. Once again, you ignore sections of my case, in this case -ha, ha, ha- it's my third point which shows that our president is indeed starting a move towards more internationally interventionist methods. Are we at the stage that we would like to be yet? No. However, his recent actions do show a (albeit somewhat unwilling) change in his stance. Bringing it all together again, we see that all the arguments made against my case have already been addressed in my constructive. We see that our president is starting to move (once again, a bit unwillingly), to a more interventionist stance. We find that this pressure to a new stance comes not just from the republicans, but also from the democrats, those guys in between, and frankly from the whole word. Once more, we see that this pressure is what is forcing him into a new stance as opposed to the almost isolationist one he held before (one could almost say that he's breaking the habit). Finally, we find that this IS a highly opinionated debate that can only be won through logic and reasoning, something that the pro has done throughout the debate, maintaining reasoning, keeping logic in flow, and holding his case together strong. The con has provided a fair argument, however, we must look to the pro for a truly reasoned argument. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for a good (if brief) debate, Moss. Though I am jealous for your having chocolate chips, I still wish you the best of luck in future debates, and look forward to your final rebuttal! Over to you!