The unemployment situation has gotten better since Obama took presidency.

The Numbers: ClarifiedOct 2009: 10.0%Mar 2012: 8.2%Change: -1.8%Look! I can do math too!First, I would like to say I do not appreciate your condescending tone because you have purposely distorted what I was doing to try and make me look as though my argument was unintelligent when it was perfectly legitimate. You make it seem like I took two random points of data when that is not the case. I used the data from the time Obama took office to present which is completely relevant to the debate.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.Actually, according to this source [http://www.bls.gov...], the official unemployment report released by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics says the unemployment rate in January of 2009 when Obama took office was actually 7.6% (straight from the official report).Now, my opponent says this information isn't legitimate however there is a problem with his assertion. THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR A MONTH IS CALCULATED AFTER THE MONTH IS OVER (I.E JANUARY WAS CALCULATED IN FEBURARY). This means the number(s) I provided were taken after Obama was inaugurated. Saying otherwise suggests that the unemployment rate for January is calculated in December or in the middle of the month in question. This is simply untrue and ridiculous to think so. So far from conceding the debate (nice try) I have merely shown that Pro either is trying to get me to forfeit prematurely or that he truly doesn't understand the nature of unemployment reports. So, if we take the official number from the BLS source I provided above knowing that the numbers were calculated AFTER Obama took office we get this calculation. Unemployment rate January 2009 (taken in February) vs PresentJanuary 2009 - 7.6%April 12, 2012 - 8.2%Percent change - .6% (+)Or, here's another way to look at it.January, if you want to claim my numbers are false or misleading or whatever, can be considered the LAST MONTH OF BUSH'S TERM.So we can look at it this way. January 2009 (Bush) ----> February 2009 (Obama)January - 7.8% (according to your source) ----> February - 8.3% ----> + .5%January - 7.8% ------> March 2012 - 8.2% ----> .4%From this perspective we can see that the unemployment rate is STILL worse under Obama vs. Bush using the same numbers. I am not using random pieces of data we are using the numbers from when Obama took office, when Bush was leaving office and compared them to unemployment today we see a negative change in employment. Simple as that. Unemployment has NOT gotten better since Obama took office.Saying that a higher unemployment rate leads to more favorable conditions for employment is logical fallacy. And your numbers about Bush's percent change in unemployment are also misleading.If I have say one broken bone in my body and I break another bone in my body I have increased my broken bones by 100% which sounds like a lot however, if I have 4 broken bones in my body and I break another one the percent change is merely 25% but somehow having 5 broken bones is better than 2 because the percent change was lower. This is also fallacy. The plain and simple truth is unemployment was FAR lower under Bush (on average and in his final days) than Obama.Unemployment Situation and Underemployment My opponent seems to want to discuss trends and conditions that affect unemployment however when I try to mention things that affect unemployment and contribute to unemployment trends he says my data is irrelevant.If you want to discuss the unemployment situation but you don't want to discuss things such as the size of the labor force, underemployment and changing unemployment rates what is there to discuss? When I tried to use unemployment data he got on my back and tried to discredit me so I am at a loss as what I am supposed to argue here. Everything I say is irrelevant according to him.What my opponent has tried to do is validate his position using graphs and data while discrediting my own information. He says things like the size of the labor force and underemployment aren't part of the equation but then how else are we supposed to take a look at the entire unemployment situation as a whole? How is his information any better then?Using this logic, like I tried to prove above but Pro decided to attempt to ignore it, I can say that if we have no one in the labor force and because of this our unemployment rate is 0% we are better off than a country with 10 million people in the labor force with an unemployment rate of 5%. The labor force size is THE BIGGEST PART of the unemployment rate which he himself defined in Round One. My opponents arguments were scattered, disorganized and in some cases blatantly wrong.I am not going to say I "should win" because I trust the voters will choose who they want in the end so I merely suggest that the voters read through the entire debate (including the final round) before making their decision. Pro's biggest arguments this round were thus:a) My information wasn't accurate or relevantb) The percent change in unemployment under Bush is worse than under Obamac) Trying to discredit my information pointing to trends and unemployment situationI feel like I have adequately refuted all of my opponents points for this round.The burden of proof rests on his shoulders so Round Four will have to be a knockout while trying to defend his points from this round.Thank you.