President Obama has been Directly Detrimental to our Economy and National Security

In round 3, I would like to begin by putting the controversy concerning “the burden of proof” to rest. I will implement clear logic into the elaboration; so as to show the reasoning behind the way I had constructed this debate. I will then move to examining my opponent’s argument; while doing so I will systematically discredit a list of fallacies in regards to economics and in some ways, history. The Great Controversy of Proof When I submitted this debate, I clearly established the fact that I would be arguing the premise that the policies of the Obama Administration had either a “catastrophic, poor, or neutral” affect on the economy. Throughout this portion of my argument, I will refer to these terms as the “3 criteria” from now on. In substance, these 3 criteria can be compressed into 1 single criterion. This idea is the fact that the administration’s policies have had a poor effect on the economy. My opponent understands this condensed idea, as is found evident in the following quotation, an excerpt from his response in round two: "My opponent wants to present his case against Barack Obama's performance, that is fine." -Beginner Through this statement, I conclude that my opponent understands that my 3 criteria allude to the basic, condensed premise that Barack Obama's performance has been poor. Now to explain exactly how I condense my 3 criteria into 1, poor: 1. Catastrophic is simply the extreme form of the word poor. 2. Poor is poor. 3. The third Criteria, "neutral" is directly dependent on context. In a poor context, such as Obama’s, a neutral policy leaves poor as it was. America cannot afford poor, and therefore a policy that has no affect is a poor one, because it leaves us in the poor state it found us in. In this case, doing nothing is a poor policy. I feel I have now accurately condensed my premise into 1 criterion. The 3 criteria were initially shown as a form of gratuitous elaboration, and to place emphasis on some of the drastically poor policies by labeling them "catastrophic." I have also proved that the term "neutral" works in advantage to my cause, because of the context it is used in. As a reminder, the "cause" is to work against Obama's performance, which I feel is an accurate statement that was actually made by my opponent, as cited above. Now that I have explained what I have, I ask my opponent a critical question: How do you plan to negate my premise, which you have said you would do by taking the con side, without presenting evidence to the contrary? Allow me to elaborate further: If a policy doesn't have a poor affect, and it doesn't have a neutral one, than what affect does logic require it to have? A beneficial one. It cannot just be nonexistent. The policy has to have some affect. If the affect was neutral, than it is mine to argue and works in favor of my cause. I claimed the “neutral affect” explicitly in the explanation, and I have included a complex explanation for why I did so above. The majority of my opponents argument in round two tries to explain why it was Bush's fault. While this is in fact a fallacy, and will be addressed as such, let us presume for the moment that it is valid, so to evaluate the maximum potency of his argument to his cause. If it was all Bush's fault, and everything we suffer through today is because of Bush, than at most, all this proves is that Obama has had a neutral affect. He has left us on the path he was trying to lead us off. My opponent is attempting to remove the blame from the shoulders of Obama and place it upon the back of Bush. But this does not prove a positive affect; it proves a neutral one. And a neutral affect works in my favor. Again I state to my opponent: If you wish to negate my premise, logic demands you must present evidence to the contrary, since in this context I logically claim the neutral argument in my favor. Finally, at the beginning of my opponent’s argument, the way he reiterates what I said makes it sound like I removed part of the burden I "placed upon myself" and unfairly shoved it onto his back. If you read the above, you will understand very clearly that it was another gratuitous elaboration, explaining to whoever my opponent was to be what logic required of him.Finally- "I will prove my opponent's premise to be erroneous." I feel you understand that you will need to convince me of something. You yourself used the word “prove”. Examination of My opponent’s Argument: My opponent, Beginner, has constructed a defense based around the fact that Bush is responsible for our troubles. Bush is gone. “The president’s policies now affect what it happening now.” While I was reading round two, it was evident to me that much of what my opponent was arguing was false. I will now discredit a list of fallacies found within my opponent’s round 2 arguments. List of Fallacies: “Bush Sr. did this because the economy required it. Raising taxes helped increase federal revenue and led the economy in a direction of health and regeneration.” -This is incorrect. Raising taxes will never help the economy, ever. It may help the federal government balance their budget, but this does not assist GDP growth and job creation as you have suggested. When you raise taxes, businesses have less capital to expand. If they can’t expand, they can’t hire people. It is extraordinarily simple. It helped Bush Sr. balance the budget, but it slowed economic growth. Because the economy required it? No. Because his spending required it. It obviously did not cut growth entirely, but it is not the affective way to help the economy. “Bush not only decreased the federal revenue, he increased spending so much that we dropped trillions in a matter of years.” -This is incorrect. The Bush tax cuts were in essence an investment, as all tax cuts are. Federal revenue was decreased shortly after, but what my opponent neglects to mention is that in the year 2007, the economic growth provided the federal government with its best fiscal year in American History, in terms of tax revenue. Total Revenue 2007: 2.568 Trillion dollars. “My opponent looks at the numbers and denounces the actions of the president for causing it.” -If I have not already made this clear, than I will do so once and for all right now. I blame him for not fixing it. That was his job. (Character space conservation) The quote where my opponent attempts to prove beneficial results. This is the only real point I must negate. Since economic growth has narrowed the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit by a few billion this last year, my opponent presumes we are heading the right direction. Allow me to utilize an analogy to show why we are, in fact, not. Imagine America is a car speeding to toward a 1000 foot cliff. A new driver comes into the car (we will assume for the analogy’s sake that this is physically possible); this driver does not stop the car, he only turns the car wheel a couple of inches. Obama has only turned the car wheel a couple of inches. And this is because the car wheels (the economy after hitting rock bottom with nowhere to go but up), began to turn themselves, so to speak. Are we heading in the right direction? No. We are still heading off of the cliff. Conclusion: In response to my 2 argument attack, my opponent has only attempted to refute the first argument. He made no attempt to offer rebuttal to my job creation argument, so the second half of my resolution, which argues agaisnt the president’s job policies, stands as presented. The second portion of my opponent’s argument was an attempt to show why cutting spending is difficult. It is. But its not an option. You cannot spend more than you make! Period. It’s actually quite irrelevant to argue that cutting spending is hard, it is not as if we have the choice. Weigh the odds, my friends: Make the difficult cuts, or go bankrupt because we were too spoiled to do so. If we go bankrupt, America as we know it will practically cease to exist. Cutting spending is not a choice; it is a responsibility, an absolute necessity.