Obama

//About welfare. the government are not going to check up on every person whose on welfare.// Says who? You have no evidence to support that and my evidence says they will... // Like I said I live in Baltimore and it is has one of the worst crime rates in America, and lots of people are on welfare.// Where is you link? You have no evidence that shows that welfare is the cause. There are much more probable alternate causes such as gangs and low socio economic conditions, not welfare. //It's not at all hard to take advantage of welfare. Even if you do apply for a job it's not hard at allto make sure you don't get it.// Yes and if you don't get it you must continue to find a job and if you don't then something is obviously wrong. //Pro say my whole argument on welfare is because of laziness. Well he clearly has ignored my statements that it gives money for drugs, and that it supports crime thus those arguments flow to my side.// You have no evidence to support this. You are making the claim that it gives money for drugs which is an extremely biased and stereotypical view. My opponent has not proven anything regarding welfare whilst obviously ignoring the fact that the government makes sure it is used for certain things. Therefore I win the welfare debate. I am sorry. I missed the video in the comments. Please forgive me. The interesting thing about this video though is that it doesn't say that the prime minister was offended. Nextly, this is not Obama's fault but the people whose job it is to check these things. (as Glenn says) And also the movies were classic American History movies. Again I am sorry that I missed the video earlier. Regarding Insults: Anyone can be insulted by anything. For example a white supremacist in England could be offended because we elected an African American but that doesn't mean we did anything bad. You have failed to give evidence that the people who were supposedly insulted actually felt offended. Seeing as this is the case my opponent's argument falls. Regarding the hiding of socialism: I could say that Obama is a Nazi but the press hid it because we wouldn't vote for him. Both claims here have the same amount of validity but the BOP is on you to prove he is a socialist which you have failed to do. //People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed that's my point.// People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed.... ........ ..... Does this make sense to anyone else? Also, there actually is no source. If you look in the speech he said this in, the only link above the quote is a new article and if you crtl-f for those exact words nothing comes up. hmmmmmm Here my opponent dropped my Socialism good argument and thus it flows through and I win this. //In other words my opponent is changes his beliefs to suite him best. He knows I support the war, so he says it's a good thing. Even though he says it's a bad thing.// I am debating on the side that Obama did a good thing. I think it's bad we killed civilians but it's good we stopped terrorists. Is that so hard to understand? I am allowed to change my opinions. //But the question is has our education system been improved by Obama. No it has not. Actually I find most pople complain about the education standard. So Obama hasn't really done much for our education. So all Obama has done is tried to raise the standard of education; which he has not done.// Evidence? None. My evidence says he emphasized education and that part has went uncontested, just the success was contested and thus my original argument flows across. //I have shown that some of my arguments on welfare have been unrefuted.// False, look at the previous rounds. Obama has taxed America but so has any other president. Let me also remind you that the purpose was to debate whether he had done MORE harm or MORE good. If I agree on one thing doesn't mean you win. //And thus it is safe to say the ability for businesses to hire people easily, has been undermined.// False. My opponent ignored my "Obama Small Business Plan evidence". //As I have shown the majority of the public (59%) do not agree with Obama care. I think it should be approved by the public before it is used.// Yet my evidence shows it's good. //Even though Obama says people won't lose their insurance, millions of people will// Evidence? None? // More taxes and less liberty.// How? Liberty is defined as "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.". This is not an oppressive restriction, much less a restriction at all and thus this argument falls. //As I showed earlier it costs $700 billion per year.// And I showed it is beneficial. You have provided no impact to this either. //Will hurt thousands of small businesses// No evidence and no impact. //The government control peoples medical treatments.// That's what medicad is already...and is that bad? No. (if the evidence is in the link from "Hotair" i have not found it. I am sorry if it's there but that is irrelevant seeing as my case still stands.) //////Overview\\\\\\\My opponent dropped gas prices, cleaner and more efficient cars, and his evidence regarding debt is without warrants. My opponent also has failed to negate my socialism good argument and has ignored my Obama good evidence whilst claiming it is "unreliable" but provides no evidence to back this claim up. My welfare argument stands and so does my automotive industry argument. Thus it strongly urge a Pro ballot. Thanks Phantom :)