The unemployment situation has gotten better since Obama took presidency.

First off, the sources posted in the comments section were because I had forgotten to put them in at the end of the round. They count, obviously. Trying to say they don't count just because they're in the comments section is petty.Second, you need to understand that in round 1 I defined situation as the circumstances concerning the unemployment rate, and its past and current trends. And since the topic is about unemployment, which is defined very clearly in round 1, I do not need to address the under employment rate.Con's Rebuttal"My equation"Con attempts to dismiss all the mathematical evidence I provided in my argument about the past and current trends of the US unemployment rate by only looking at two of the numbers that are available. If I were to construct an "extremely similar argument" I would point out:Oct 2009: 10.0%Mar 2012: 8.2%Change: -1.8%Look! I can do math too!You see, by merely examining 2 points in a series of data, you are not getting an accurate representation of the overall trend that is available when you examine the data as a whole. Functions are able to represent a series of data points, and as I said before, that is why they are so popular in economics.Con states that the equations used in my argument are mere guesses, although they are based on hard statistical past data from a reliable source. His statement that he could come up with an extremely similar function and get a result that would favor his argument is only relevant if he chooses to do so. At that point I would be forced to rebut that argument, using actual arguments instead of dismissing well laid premises as a mere guess.Also, your statements concerning me predicting the future are disconcerting, because I don't believe I did any such thing. I examined the rate that the unemployment rate was/is changing at, both at the beginning of Obama's term and currently. I did not base any arguments on projected data. Your rebuttal is weak at best.I challenge Con to put his money where his mouth is and come up with a similar function that shows that tomorrow, the unemployment rate will be 25%. However, since the debate could take place over more than a weeks time, I will give Con the benefit of coming up with "an extremely similar equation" that shows that the unemployment rate will be 25% next year, which even he would agree is significantly easier than his claim.RebuttalsII. Numbers (i)In January of 2009 when Obama first took office unemployment was at 7.80% [1][2] ... today unemployment is at 8.2%[1][2].My first problem with this statement, is that the data shown was from January 1, 2009, was actually before President Obama took office (he was inaugurated on January 20, 2009), and therefore the point is invalid on this grounds alone.Furthermore, by looking only at two data points, Con shows a complete ignorance to the way economics works. If the topic were merely "The unemployment rate has gotten better since Obama took presidency", then that would be that and con would win. However, the difference between rate and situation is not semantics. To understand the circumstances surrounding the unemployment rate, one must also examine the in between, and also the past leading up to the present.To emphasize, leading up to Obama's inauguration, the unemployment situation was pretty bad. In just 11 months (from Feb 2008 to Jan 2009), the country saw a 2.9% rise in the unemployment rate, from its previous average of 5.3%, taken over the previous 70 months. Since the data shown represents the 1st of every month, Bush was still President until Jan 19, 2009.2.9%----- X100% = 54.7%5.3%This shows that in Bush's last 11 months as President, the unemployment rate rose a shocking 54.7% compared to what it was throughout the previous 6 years he held office. What a way to leave the country for the next guy, huh?So, correcting for Con's error in using data from Jan 2009, let's start in Feb 2009.February 2009 - 8.3%April 12, 2012 - 8.2%Percent change - .1% (-)Since Con argues that he should win the debate purely from this blatant misuse of data, Con should concede the debate, or concede his argument on numbers (i).Numbers (ii)As previously mentioned, Con talks about underemployment in this argument, which is not part of this topic. Otherwise we should have to include numbers about racial bias in employment, and gender bias in employment, and so on and so forth. Yeah, so it's simply off topic.Numbers (iii)In this argument, Con addresses people who choose not to be in the work force, who do not add in the calculation of the unemployment statistics. Enough said. They aren't part of the equation. They choose not to be. How is this relevant?ConclusionAs my points have not been disproven to any significant degree, and I feel my points up until now have done very well at proving, using past and present data (no future stuff) that the unemployment situation TODAY is better than it was when Obama became President, I should win.Thank you.