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

My opponent went wild in his opening argument, my task to rebut them will be tough considering the space limit. To begin: I supported Barack Obama during the election and continue to support him now, and I adamantly disagree with many of my opponent's contentions. My opponents attitude concerning politics and policy is a recipe for disaster, but more importantly, my opponent makes vague, overreaching claims that are not properly defined. In addition, my opponent does not provide any source material for these overreaching claims. 1)"When anyone who opposes some policy of the Obama administration, The administration should just say no comment rather than try to explain it….The Obama administration does not need to convince anyone of anything." A1) Wrong, President Obama has to explain his policies to me and convince me, as he works for me and the American public, "no comment" does not cut it. *)Do you mean every policy by saying "some policy"? 2) "Whenever they do this they just raise more questions than they answer." A2) By the term, "this" my opponent must be referring to an explanation of some action; please provide an example supporting this contention. 3) "They control the White house and both branches of government." A3) The Obama administration controls the executive branch of government, agreed. The above quoted statement is worded poorly as my opponent must have meant, "…the White House and the other two branches of government". I see no need to attack his error as I am very interested in knowing how the Obama administration controls the judicial branch of government. I will concede the point that the Obama administration has heavy influence on the Congress, but I see no evidence they control it. My opponent proffered this statement; therefore, he must provide his own support. If Congress has voted against, or let die any proposed bill by the Obama administration, then this statement is false concerning Congressional control. 4) "They should just ramrod everything through and just let whoever complains, cry all they want." A4) Define "ramrod" and "everything", if you mean forced by the term, "ramrod" and by "everything", legislation, please explain how the executive branch forces a non-filibuster proof Senate to support White House backed legislation while ignoring those that, "cry all they want" (who are they by the way?). If my opponent thinks the Senate minority leader holds no power, he is simply mistaken. 5) "Once Gov't passes something it is there forever….Even if they make people mad it wont matter as everything they pass will be permanent and can't be undone." A5) These statements made me think the opening was satirical, as the inanity of these comments gave me pause. Please see the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and the repeal thereof in the 21st Amendment for a glaring example of how untrue this statement is in reference to our government (do I really need to give a link?). Not to leave the judicial branch out of this one, I recommend Dred Scott v. Sandford ( http://www.loc.gov... ) Yes, we overturned this one. My opponent cannot support his statement. 6) "They could pass anything they want." A6) Please see the US Constitution for a full rebuttal of this claim. 7) "Why do they bother with "bipartisanship"? It is so phony and disingenuous. There is nothing that the left or the right have in common, why should the left cave on anything? They don't have to. A7) My opponent refers seems to refer to "they" as the Obama administration while simultaneously referring to the democratic majority in Congress. He ignores sub-groups in the majority parties and independents. He does not recognize the multi-polar nature of the executive branch in relation to sub-groups in our government such as moderates, libertarians, southern democrats, liberals, neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, etc. Suggesting that Congress can be broken into two distinct groups in reference to passing legislation is erroneous. Legislation makes concessions to the varying groups and some are easier to please than others. Although the sides in a yea, and nay vote appear to be simply democrat and republican, the yea and nay does not show the quid pro quo necessary to get a block vote. In addition, compromise is not caving in, and yes the Obama administration does need all political parties as the administration does not have a "filibuster proof" Congress. 8) "The right has voted almost 100% against every piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration, there is no reason to even discuss anything with the right, they still pass everything anyway." A8) Support this statement. My opponent claims he can support his statements using the voting record, I challenge him to do so. 9) " My opponent can say there should be debate, I say why, It is a big waste of time and it is all for show to make it look like Congress works together and discusses issues and comes to compromises. But it does not. I use the voting record as evidence." A9) If my opponent can show that Congress does not come to compromises in any capacity concerning legislation and can back up his statement with legislative history showing that no bill started in either the House or the Senate changed as it went through committees, floor votes, between both houses, and the White House, back to the Senate and the House then, "I shall retire to Sussex and keep bees." This statement is false. 10) "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. 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." 10A) These statements are non sequiturs and I don't see a need to rebut them. If my opponent insists, then I need only show one government program eliminated in the last 35 years to refute the last portion. 11) "The Obama administration should use this opportunity to ramrod everything it can down the peoples throats while they have the opportunity, while they have all the votes to do it in both branches of govt…. If Obama thinks it's a good idea then he should just ramrod it through. They should just have show trail [sic] debates and let the right say what ever they want and make no rebuttals. when the right is done talking they should just vote and pass it. They don't need any Republican votes to pass any piece of legislation. 11A) As previously stated, the Obama administration cannot do what my opponent proposes, even if they wanted to do so, and these statements show a fundamental lack of understanding about the separation of powers in the US government. My opponent's position is full of false statements and assumptions based on these falsehoods. His position on the resolution can't hold as the resolution is based on some of the same falsehoods I listed. For these reasons, the pro position cannot hold.