Ron-Paul's Politics Tournament: Barack Obama

First of all, I hope that people dont judge this debate or vote-bomb because they dislike me or like 16kadams. The debate is the most important issue and if you really do think my opponent's case is better, please put a more detailed why instead of "His points were weak" or "His points were dead ends". I will first address my case and then my opponent's case.#1. First, my opponent admits tha leaving Iraq is good.Next, he claims that Barack Obama will increase spending by 6 billion dollars by 2017. However his own source doesn't say that. His source instead states that his plan "calls for spending $36 billion more on the military in 2017". His plan calls for it, it doesn't increase it. Also I say that increasing spending by $36 million isn't so bad because currently our military spending is $704 billion thanks to George W. Bush. Because this debate isn't about George W. Bush and instead is about Obama, I will just tell you quickly that George Bush spent so much money on our military that this is why our military spending is so much today. Towards your next remark, George W. Bush spent $853 billion from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to Barack Obama's $271 billion so an 1% increase in millitary spending is not a lot compared to the previous president. The military spending is increasing very little (and a tiny bit compared to Bush) and actually decreased in 2009. Obama's participitation of the "war machine" is untrue because of such little spending compared to the former president and his journey for peace. The bombing doesn't matter as much as the actual wars; Obama promoted peace by bombing and killing psycho dictator Gaddafi aand helped Libya become free. In Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing was neccessary due to George Bush starting the wars and for Yemen, we took out a few top Al-Qaeda members because of that bomb. Also, bombing isn't getting into wars and spending lots of money on them but is instead considered for reasons such as world peace. This point just upholds my 7th point about Barack Obama bringing world peace. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...;; http://www.dailykos.com...;#2: The stimulus was not a "failure" but rather a good investment in the future. Also the GDP "growing slower than ever" is much better than Bush. Bush made the GDP grow 2.1% in his 8 years!!! Also the stimulus is still taking place which means it will slowly become under 8% which is less than 0.7% away from it's goal. That makes no sense that unemployment is lowering because people aren't looking for work. What does people not looking for work have to do with unemployment?My other source in the other round.#3: Which presidential candidate including the "gay-bashing lame duck" Rick Santorum is willing to compromise? It's all about defeating the Democratic Party to them! Compromising isn't such an easy thing. Also Bush didn't really compromise until his 2nd term, Obama compromised in his 1st term. So it is a big deal because one side wants to blast the Democrats off and cut programs like education so that kids can't learn and have the rich be super-happy while the other side wants to help others and values the non-rich the most.#4: So you are saying George H.W. Bush did "many more" without any sources nor examples, gaining world peace by reducing nuclear weapons which could cause World War III is "no big deal" and any president would have done it? Please... "Nothing special. " You're 8th source is about the deal not about Bush! World peace is what many presidents would like to continue through hostile approaches instead of diplomatic treaties. The treaty "might".... "maybe not"...Notice the hesitation. It seems like a conspiracy theory from your 9th source saying it comes from the show "24" and that "the Russians wo n't follow the treaty because they want to do what they want"? Also "would" is totally wrong because your own source says it already "has" in a research in 2009. So that's invalid and your 10th source leads me to the main page of National Review so that's invalid and your 11th source has no relevance with nuclear treaties. So it doesn't hurt us, it helps the world.#5: "Dude any president would have done it, no difference. Not special." So you're saying that catching the top terrorist who killed almost 3,000 people in one day no big deal? George Bush had 7 years to catch that piece of scum and failed while Barack Obama didn't need 4 years to kill him. Also my opponent didn't mention what I said about him killing other top terrorists. Find me any President who has killed so many terrorists in 4 years. Look at my source that "works" to see the terorists he caught. Also your 12th source says that the people are divided over who gets the most credit: Obama, Bush, Clinton. It also says "Leading Republicans have publicly praised Obama for his leadership in the moment, and strong majorities of Republican voters in recent polls say they believe the president deserves credit for the mission's success." Even the Republicans know he did it. So George Bush does deserve like a little of the credit but Obama has got the majority. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...#6: My opponent forfeited this one with a classy style by basically saying that he doesn't care about personal freedom but cares only about economic security. Human rights are not important to him at all because he doesn't care about "social policies". He then quotes William Shakespeare "An overflow of good converts to bad" but doesn't give the reasons why it is bad. So it's a forfeit. #7: My opponent fails to talk about this point and instead just refers back to the stimulus. However, the stimulus is part of the economy and there is so much of the economy other than that particularly 2008 stimulus so failing to talk about it in his rebuttal round is a forfeit. #8: Refering back to his own argument about that subject is not responding to it so "forfeit".#9: Barack Obama has the 2nd most support from big banks right after Mitt Romney. You are correct that out of all 20 big banks, all twenty of them have Mitt Romney leading everyone else. Your first source in this round states how much money in all they donated to "all the candidates". Your 2nd source is somewhere in October. My source is the most recent so your outdated source is truly incorrect about it. Your 3rd source is also in October. Out of date information is not helpful. Also you never told me how he hurt them so that point is not true, and replying with money doesn't answer my points so another forfeit. http://money.cnn.com...#10: My opponent responds the argument with two things. "Source?" Asking for the source is not refuting my arguments. "He wants to do it, that =\= he did it." No idea what he's talking about. He admitted Obama wanted to change college loans and he did it. So he agrees with me which is basically a forfeit. #11: My opponent admits that Obama saved the auto-industry but later will kill 500,00 jobs. My question is 500,000 jobs more important or millions of jobs?#12: My opponent says I didn't have a good argument and I have to prove they got paid less then men. Well that's rude and on local cable it said that women employees were protesting against Walmart. There look it up. Finished. I don't have enough space for my 3 refutations as I am going into negative characters so I will post my finishing argument and "Ending Statements" in the "Comments Section". It will be soon. Thank you.